minute now. there you see the briefing room. obviously mr. carney not out there just yet. we'll watch for just a moment and if he doesn't get started we'll bring you something from "washington journal."

>> as you can see jay carney hasn't begun the briefing yet. we are still waiting for more reporters to come in. while we do a discussion from this morning's journal about pending. host: for more on congress' budget battle, we are joined by american democratic congressman john delane yism as you return to work today on capitol hill, how do you see this budget impasse playing out? do you think there's room for a compromise here? guest: i think there is.

i think this has been fairly predictable in terms of how it's playing out. what's going on in the senate starting yesterday and today is delaying things. we have to see how long that will play out. most people thought that the continuing resolution will come back to the house, stripped of the provisions that defund the affordable care act, then that will be taken up by the house. so it's really a question when the house gets it back. i think that's what most people on each side believe. host: we had congressman rob woodall of georgia, republican on, just before you. want to read you a little bit what he said. government shutdowns are the only time the president comes to capitol hill to talk to members. he said this crisis is, quote, the kind of theater you have to go through in order to make a deal. would you agree? guest: listen, forcing functions are useful in life. this budget crisis has been a forcing function in the debt ceilings have been used as forcing functions. i don't think this is the only time the president has come to kwlill chill. as we all know because it's been covered in fair detail in the

media, the president has had lots of meetings and dinners with members of the senate and house members across the last year i think in anticipation of this. i don't think that's a completely true statement. i will say that the government seems to need forcing functions more than it should. there ought to be more collaboration. we ought to work together to solve the big problems of the day as opposed to crises. host: you talk about collaboration. here's a cree cent piece from the frederick news post from your district. host: what are you doing to play that role in this current gate debate? guest: one of the background of that comment was that i have a very large scale infrastructure financing proposal that now has 25 democrats and 25 republicans on it, which is unusual to have

large-scale economic legislation that's been bipartisan. and the group that i have put together on that bill, we have been talking about different ideas as to how to bridge the gap here. what i have tried to do whether it's among freshmen democratic members or some of my colleagues on the other side who i have worked together on this particular piece of legislation, we have started to develop some views as to how a compromise could be crafted here. i do think there's things we need to do as part of dealing with these crises we are dealing with. not defunding the government -- not funding the government, as we look to debt ceiling negotiations, i do think there are things to be considered as part of raising the debt ceiling. host: we are talking with maryland democratic congressman john delaney. he'll be with us for the next 40 minutes or sow. we'll take your comments and questions. we'll also take some calls from students on the c-span bus in this segment, the c-span bus is visiting delaware state university in dover, delaware. and we will bring in some of

those students, they are communications and political science students in this segment. but our phone lines are opened. the numbers are democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans, 202-585-3881. ndependents, 202-585-3882. we'll be taking your calls in this segment. congressman, you talk about working on a compromise deal. do you have plans to meet with your republican colleagues, any republican colleagues this week amid what's going on on capitol hill right now? >> i do. there's a few in particular i have been working with. we have been outlining some of the ideas that could frame kind of some of the key elements for what a compromise could be. it involves raising the debt ceiling, it involves beginning the process of some smart entitlement reform. it involves putting money back in on certain areas from the see quester cuts, not -- sequester cuts, not refunding or replenishing the sequester cuts. there are specific components we have developed that we think

would be smart, short-term and long-term policy for the pol -- country we have worked on. host: as a democratic freshman class president, that's your position with the freshman class, do you have thoughts how leadership has handled these negotiations so far or what's led to this current showdown on capitol hill? guest: i think in general there should have been more conversations between the leadership of both parties on the hill and the president. so in general i come to this debate somewhat critical of the lack of dialogue that has gone on. you hear reported quite frequently in the media that they are not talking. they are not having meeting. i don't understand that when i hear those things. when you consider the significance of the situation, the gravity and implications this has to the average american, the fact they are not doing everything possible to meet as frequently as possible, i am somewhat critical of that view. having said that, again, i think the way this is playing out this week, i think it's been fairly predictable. i think most people thought the

path the house took they would take. i think we all know what the senate is going to do. it's a question how quickly it comes back to the house and we can act on the c.r. before the government shuts down. as we all know this starts again. i think what's distressing me the most is we are not having significant discussions around the debt ceiling. because i do think we all know how the funding of government, continuing resolution will play out. the next big obstacle is the debt ceiling. host: republicans have proposed a debt prioritization effort when it comes to the debt ceiling. you have been critical of that? guest: i wrote an editorial about this in the "washington post" a few months ago. the problem with that, good credit, in other words an entity that most people believe has the ability to repay its bills, never prioritizes its debt. so if you look at the strongest corporations in the world, they never prioritize their debt because no one ever questions that any of their debts could be repaid. whereas weaker companies oftentimes prioritize their debt because that's the only way they can borrow money.

i think it's foolish to put the united states, which is the greatest credit, the strongest credit in the wormed, in a position where it's presenting its debt in a prioritized basis. that's an acknowledgement at some level we think our debts are not valid and payable. i think that's a misguided policy. think about it in the context of the private sector, no strong private sector company would ever voluntarily consider doing something like this. the only one that is do it are the ones forced to do it. the fact it was proposed in the congress that we do this kind of on a voluntary basis i think reflects a lot -- significant lack of understanding of the way capital markets work and is bad policy. host: we are talking to congressman john delaney, democrat from maryland, maryland's sixth district. john delaney beat former congressman roscoe bartlett, a republican, who held that seat for 20 years. john delaney is joining us in the studio. we are taking your calls on this issue. we'll go first to robert from

marion, louisiana, on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. how you guys doing this morning. host: good. you are on with congressman delaney. caller: thank you. how you doing this morning, congressman? guest: i'm doing well, thank you. caller: i have been sitting here listening to this debate about the obamacare and everybody getting these polls up saying the american public don't want it. how are they going to put the polls up say we don't want it and we haven't had a chance to experience it yet? only thing that get me all the bickering and name-calling and everybody's arguing, just like kids, why don't they just let the bill go through? it's already law. why don't they just stop fussing about and just get people a chance a taste of what they want. the people in congress, all of them have insurance. good insurance. and poor american people, i'm

disabled, we need health care just as well as they do. they make a lot of money, but they won't put it up for a discussion. host: congressman delaney. guest: it's a really good question and good insight. there has been a lot of polling data about whether the affordable care act or obamacare, as referred to, is popular. i tend to agree. it's a little bit of nonsense because until we implement the act we are not going to know how people feel about it. the other thng i find surprising a lot of people say it's ruining the economy, which again i find to be kind of a strange statement because it has not been implemented. the only numbers that we actually have as it relates to the affordable care act is that health care costs are declining, or the rate of growth of health care costs is actually declining on a relative basis, which is an incredibly positive fact. the people i talk to in the health care industry believe that part of these trends is related to the implementation of the affordable care act.

i think we'll actually early data to suggest this piece of legislation can be very important and very significant in terms of managing the most significant financial number we have as a country, which is health care costs. i tend to agree with you we should be implementing the bill. this is a significant piece of legislation. it affects 1/6 of the u.s. economy, because health care is 1/6 of the u.s. economy. it's not perfect. as i have said many, many times, this is an imperfect piece of legislation, which again shouldn't be a surprise. it was created in a political process. what we should be doing as members of congress is we should be letting the bill be implemented, allowing it to be rolled out, making sure people enroll in the plan so we can actually see how it works. then we should roll up our sleeves and we should be committed to fixing problems that we see as the kind of new framework unfolds, which there will inevitably be problems. to think as a country we didn't have to do something on a comprehensive basis to deal with the critical issue of health care, kind of a quality and bend

the health care costs, is a misguided assumption. the affordable care act is an important step forward for this contry. there will likely be problems associated with t it seems to me we should roll it out. >> we'll break away from this recorded portion of "washington journal." you can see it online at c-span.org. live house to white house spokesman jay carney stepping to the podium. >> to those of you with us in new york i hope you enjoyed the trip. that trip was obviously eventful. the president gave a major speech at the united nations general assembly, and he had a, we felt, a very good useful and informative discussion with former president clinton at the glynton global nishtifment i wanted to make -- clinton global initiative. i wanted to make an announcement before i took your questions and draw your attention to the fact that a new report has been released today by the department of health and human services

showing that the affordable care act will deliver on its promise to make health insurance more affordable and accessible for americans. in state after state competition and transparency are driving a new set of affordable options for consumers in the new marketplaces, just as the law was designed to do. premiums nationwide will also be around 16% lower than originally expected. with about 95% of eligible uninsured americans living in states with lower than expected premiums, and that's before taking into account financial assistance. on average consumers will have a choice of 53 health plans, and about one in four of these insurance companies are newly offering plans in the individual market. which is a sign of healthy competition. to give you a sense of what this really means for families who will be shopping for health insurance in the marketplaces, i have these examples. a family of four in north carolina with an income of

$50,000 could pay $74 per month for the lowest cost bronze plan after tax credits. a family of four in indiana with the same income, $50,000, could pay $46 per month. again for the lowest cost, bronze plan, after tax credits. and a family of four in texas with an income of $50,000, could pay just $57 per month. so an income of $50,000 could pay just $57 per month for the lowest cost, bronze plan, after tax credits. overall nearly six in 10 uninsured americans will pay $100 or less per month for health coverage. you can check out the map of premiums by state at white house.gov/acamap. in less than a week the new marketplaces will be opened for business and from october to march, 2014, americans, more americans will be able to check

out their choices, their options for affordable health insurance at healthcare.gov and find health plans that fit their lives and budgets. it's worth noting here in the capital of the nation and national press some of their coverage of this news, which is why we have this graphic here behind me today, indianapolis business journal, analysis, obamacare exchanges will push anthems' premiums lower. "pittsburgh post-gazette," exchanges to provide dozens of health care options for pittsburghers. "dallas morning news," obamacare premiums projected to be lower than expected. "houston chronicle," "houston chronicle," texans to have array of insurance options. appleton post cressent, exchange rates decline with expanded choices. "miami herald," u.s. colon, obamacare cost below forecast.

"the detroit news," michigan health exchange has plenty of choices. palm beach post, local obamacare rates beat forecast. as i mentioned at the top, president clinton, president obama, had an excellent discussion yesterday which i hope all of you were able to catch about the affordable care act, about health care in general, both in the nation and around the world. and it is worth noting as we learn this news about premiums across the country and how they are coming in lower than expected, that very soon americans who did not have the option of affordable health insurance will have it available to them. what is important to remember about the families that i just talked about, the families of four earning $50,000, and who will now have access to health care for their families for low premiums, did not have access at

all before. they could not afford it. that is the design and promise of the affordable care act. and it's taking shape before our eyes. julie. >> thank you. president rouhani was still speaking last night so we didn't get real reaction to his speech. i'm wondering if the president saw anything in his address that signaled that there may be actual substance behind some of the friendly overtures in terms of concessions on the nuclear impasse. >> what we heard from president rouhani reflects what we have been hearing, and that is an nterest in making progress towards resolving this very serious problem that iran has over its nuclear weapons program. and that is why as we have been

aying for a while now, including in new york at the united nations, we are very interested in testing the assertions about that interest on behalf of the iranians in resolving this conflict, diplomatically. ever since he took office the president has said he is willing to engage directly with the iranians in an effort to resolve this issue. and it is that willingness that has helped make clear that the onus is on iran to demonstrate that it is serious about complying with its international obligations. that willingness then candidate obama expressed and new president obama repeated is what helped forge the consensus internationally that led to the most comprehensive sanctions regime that has ever been implemented. that in turn, as i think

president rouhani made clear, and others have made clear, has had a dramatic impact on the ranian economy and that is why iran is interested in our view, having discussions about resolving this conflict. and that is encouraging. but actions are what matter. and substantive negotiations over iran's nuclear program will be the test, will provide the test of whether or not iran is serious about resolving the international community's concerns, and we are engaged in that process. as you know secretary kerry will be with his iranian counterpart in the p-5 plus one this week. that's the beginning of what we hope will be progress towards resolving this problem. >> obama didn't leave his two days in new york with any

greater clarity on what kind of substance may be behind this, is that what you're saying? >> i would say that we have been and continue to this week explore the level of seriousness , and we are doing that through all the avenues available to us that will be very much part of the discussions that secretary kerry has, and it is part of the communications that we have had, including the communications that the president had in his i think of letters, and , at what happened in new york again, demonstrates two things. one president obama has always opened to itly sitting down and talking to the iranian leadership. provided that the iranian

leadership is serious about trying to resolve these problems with the international community over its nuclear weapons program. and that became, think -- i think, quite apparent again in recent days. so the iranians have to decide most importantly through substantive negotiations whether or not they want to truly resolve this. and through resolution of it, through a verifiable, confirmable agreement to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions, iran can then rejoin the international community and its isolation, enjoy relief from the sanctions regime, but those are matters of substantive negotiations and the processes in place and has been in place through the p-5 plus one, and we'll continue to test this -- these assertions and see if this opportunity is real, because the

window, as we have been saying for some time now, even predating the elections in iran, that is open to resolve this diplomatically, but it will not be opened indefinitely. we would agree with those who say there is a need to assess and act on this opportunity with hayes -- haste. >> i wonder if there is any white house reaction to ted cruz's hours of arguing against obamacare overnight, and now the process on the c.r. looks like it's going back to the house, if there are any plans for the president to talk with leadership to ensure that a deal can be reached by monday? >> as i indicated earlier in the week, the president will, i'm sure, be discussing it these budget issues with the leadership. i don't have a specific meeting to preview for you. as you know he's held

discussions with speaker boehner as well as others in the past about this, and about our position, his position on these issues. one, that congress has to act to ensure that we don't -- they don't shut down the government. that it would be irresponsible o not fund the essential functions of the government at an ideological peak. that we can continue to negotiate over a broader budget deal in a responsible way, and to do that we need to make sure a continuing resolution is passed that allows the government to stay open and for the president to continue to show in his presentations to congress, that he is and has always been serious about trying to find common ground when it comes to making the right choices in how we fund our

government and investing in our economy to ensure our kids get educated and our roads and bridges get built, and that we reduce our deficit further in a balanced and fairway. -- fair way. that's one. two, the other position we obviously hold and will not waiver from is that the responsibility of congress to pay the bills of the united states, bills that congress has incurred, is not subject to negotiation. everybody agrees, all the leaders and i think most of the rank-and-file agree that the debt ceiling must be raised. so you have this unique situation in washington where everybody agrees on this single thing, so congress ought to just raise it. and don't forget, they did it not that long ago. you might forget because there was no drama and no delay and there was no threat of default, just at the end of last year and

beginning of this year. so the idea that this could be should be a situation where default is on the table and threatened and all the ramifications of that take place, all the harm that does to our economy is somehow the norm, we just reject. we cannot allow that to happen. we have since congress raised the debt ceiling last time without drama delain, this economy has created more than a million jobs. since kronk without drama and without delay raised the debt ceiling, that means republicans in congress, not just democrats, we have seen remarkable strides in the recovery in our housing market. we have seen continued economic growth. so if they were able to do it just a few months ago, i see no reason why they shouldn't do it now. it's the responsible thing to do if the goal here that we all share is to allow the economy to

continue to grow and create jobs. >> did the president catch any of the 21 hours-plus of the speech by senator cruz? >> i don't believe so. >> does the white house have any reaction to the speech? did you watch it? parts of it? >> i did not. i certainly read about it. i would simply say that a family will have exas available to it the option of purchasing affordable health , a ance for $57 per month family of four with an income of $50,000 after receiving tax credits will have that option. that is a good thing. this family doesn't have insurance now. cannot afford insurance under

current conditions. something ality is that we are seeing now in state after state after state. quality affordable health insurance is something that ever family of four making $50,000 and struggling to get by deserves. that's what the president believes. so certainly we oppose any fforts to it engage in a political battle of the past to try to achieve some sort of ideological victory in a way that doesn't -- not only shuts down the government, but then if successful would deprive these very families of health insurance that they need. and we obviously have a difference of opinion. >> since the conversations that were read on friday to the president and speaker boehner

and leader pelosi, has dennis or any other white house officials had conversations with people in congress or their staff about -- >> certainly. we are fairly consistent communication with congress at different levels. here at the white house, i don't have any specific conversations to read out. i think chief of staff is going up to the hill at some point to talk with democrats, but that -- those conversations will continue, as i said, in answer to julie's questions. i don't have any meeting or conversation involving the president to review at this time. as i think we have seen of late, there's a lot of activity going on that reflects enormous divisions within the republican party that a hard for us to influence. our focus is, of course, on the need to make wise decisions, to ensure that the government does not shut down, and especially to

ensure that the united states does not default for the first time in its history. >> if there is no resolution on those two issues, will the president still travel to asia as he plans to? >> i have no scheduling updates. the plan is on the books and we intend to go. yes. >> do you think -- it's one thing not to engage speaker boehner when it comes to the possibility of the government shutdown, but when you are looking at reaching the debt ceiling, aren't you forced to negotiate? aren't you forced to engage? >> here's the thing. i say a couple things about that. i don't have the quotes in front of me, but i know you-all remember it was the speaker of the house who said, declared publicly he would never negotiate with the president again. seemed a little extreme. he has of course since then, the president has had conversations with him and enjoyed them as he always does. there is no negotiating over congress' responsibility to

ensure we do not default. we saw what happened when that path was traveled in 2011, and the result was terrible. even the flirtation with default, when it became apparent there were actually members of congress in the republican party who were willing to default, as a matter of ideological purity, and who were willing to inflict that harm on the economy and on middle class families, the economy reacted badly. markets reacted badly. and people suffered. and that was -- >> you knew their perspective on that and still negotiated. >> that's the point i'm making is that this cannot and should not be a matter of negotiation. we can and should debate our differences and negotiate and reach compromises over our budget priorities, absolutely. but we cannot have the american economy and global economy and american middle class held hostage to an insistence by a

faction of congress, especially in one house, that it achieve its political objectives that it had thot been able-to-chief otherwise at the ballot box or when the legislative process played out three years ago, or in front of the supreme court when the supreme court declared that the affordable care act was constitutional. it's just incredibly irresponsible. think about -- the irony of ironies is when we talk about the debt ceiling, the one proposition on the table the republicans have suggested is that they would threaten default over a provision that would delay implementation of the affordable care act. if that were carried out, it would add significantly to the deficit. so the charade that -- what we have seen this whole time about these negotiations that the principal preoccupation of the republican party and matters in

congress is the need to further reduce our deficit and not be irresponsible in our spending, they now put forward a proposition, proposal that is wrong on so many fronts, but would raise and increase the deficit along with it. >> it seems hard to believe that the president would be prepared to breach the debt ceiling without having engaged house republicans -- >> he doesn't breach the debt ceiling. congress has the power of the pursestrings. that is the power -- that is a power proudly -- >> without having engaged them. to get to the point where there is a default and the president hasn't stepped in to engage them. >> again, let's be clear, the president has been and continues to be willing to negotiate with republicans over our budget priorities and how to make the right choices and make compromises along the way to make sure that we grow our economy, we create jobs for the middle class, and we bring down our deficit further in the

middle and out years. has always been willing to do that. we have been through a process this year where at the insistence of the republicans, as part of the last budget deal, the senate led by democrats, passed a budget. that's what the republicans insisted had to be done. we had to follow regular order. you covered the hill, right? you have heard that cry. democrats re fuse to cover -- follow regular order. they refused to pass a budget. the senate passed a budget. that's what the republicans wanted. the house passed its budget, the ryan budget, 2.0, and what happens then in regular order is that conferees are appointed and the two houses try to reach an agreement. compromise. republicans in the house were so opposed to the idea of compromise, the idea of negotiation, the idea of finding common ground, that to this day they have refused to appoint conferees in a process they themselves said was essential. the president has demonstrated

again and again his willingness to be reasonable and find common ground. he will continue to do that. when it comes to the debt ceiling, everybody says we ought to raise it, we can't default, would be wildly irresponsible, so we ought to -- congress should just raise it. one side is saying, we'll let the economy default unless we get what we want, which is essentially defunding or delaying of obamacare. i think it's pretty clear, and a lot of republicans seem to agree with this, that that is a wholly irresponsible position to take. john? >> jay, is the president disappointed that president rouhani turned down the offer to meet him at the united nations? >> the president is not. he was opened to the possibility of informal encounter with president rouhani and remains open to that, as he has broadly speaking since he took office. he president believes that the

most important issues when it comes to iran's relationship with the rest of the international community, including the united states, are ones that need to be resolved through negotiations over substantive matters around the -- iran's nuclear weapons program. i think that we should not overinterpret the fact that the iranians decided against having an encounter, and that it was too complicated. in terms of assigning meaning to that about the potential for progress in negotiations. the potential for that progress exists and we are going to test it through the avenues available to us. >> why does the white house think rouhani said no to the meeting or encounter?

it >> i say two things, one obviously -- i'll say first that i'm not going to devil into an aal -- delve into an analysis of iranian politics because that's not the issue for us. the issue is how serious is the new government as well as the supreme leader about resolving this significant problem it has with the international community. two, i would simply say that as i mentioned earlier, that the most important thing here is whether or not we can make progress on the substantive talks. the president was opened to an nformal encounter, but even if something like that had happened, that is less significant than whether or not the iranians demonstrate a seriousness of purpose when it comes to making progress on --

in negotiation that is have been available to them now for many years. and their failure to be serious about it for so many years has led to the most comprehensive and punishing sanctions regime in history. and it is because that unity and the international community exists, which in turn exists because of the president's leadership on this issue, that iran is now suggesting it's willing to resolve the problem. >> said you want to have real actions not just words. what specifically are those actions you are looking for now? >> i would refer you to the state department about how this will unfold or would unfold if we make progress, but it is our policy that iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. it is the international ommunity's position that embodied in the various resolutions of the united nations security council and

elsewhere, that iran needs to give up its nuclear weapons program in a way that is verifiable. and that's our position. and obviously there are steps along the way and that's for secretary kerry and others to work out. >> as you well know iran says it has no nuclear weapons program. the president also said as other iranian presidents have said, enrichment of uranium is a fum right -- fundamental right of the nation of iran. does the white house disagree with that? >> i think you heard the president say in his speech that access to nuclear energy is certainly something that is fair for iran to have. the spefpks of the negotiation are things that are going to be work out through the p-5 plus one process. >> the white house has not drawn a line on the issue of enrichment? >> i point to you what the president has said and what we have said in the past. >> one last question on this,

it's clear the iranians are looking for relief from sanctions. they want the sanctions -- they want to leave quickly. how quickly or realistically could you see some lifting of u.s. sanctions? >> that depends enthrire on the iranians. -- entirely on the iranians. this is about verifiable actions that need to be taken to relieve the international community's concerns about iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. >> the window you said is not going to be opened indefinitely? what does that mean? what kind of timeline are we talking about? are we talking about something has to unfold over the next few months? >> i won't give a time line to it. i think we have made clear in the past about our assessments of where iran is in its program,

what our capabilities are in terms of being able to be aware of so-called breakout move, and i would refer you to sort of substantive briefings that others have given on that and even i have, but it's been a while. so the point is that this is not an indefinite period of time. the threat of a nuclear arms race in the region is a huge problem for the region, for our allies, for the united states, for the world, and the iranian nuclear weapons program is central as a problem that needs to be resolved to avoid that nuclear arms race. >> i just want to give you a chance to respond to a couple comments made a little bit ago by the foreign ministers of united nations when asked what the iranian goal was as the p-5 plus one conversation was, he said, to jump-start negotiations with a view of reaching an

agreement within the shortest span. the they have the political readiness and will for serious negotiations and we are hoping that the opposite side has this will as well. >> we certainly have the will. we demonstrated it for many years now. in the past, no. and i think that the comments that you just read to me, and i have not seen them, but i -- they are in keeping with some of what we have heard and seen, demonstrate certainly a different rhetorical approach to this problem that this new government is taking. and i think as we have said, that is absolutely worth exploring and testing so that we can discover, we the united states and our allies, can discover whether or not they are serious and whether or not we can resolve this conflict diplomatically. you heard the president say in his speech to the general assembly, this is a significant opportunity that ought to be

explored and it would certainly be to the benefit of the world and to the benefit of the iranian people to resolve this diplomatically. that's what we are undertaking to try to do, but we do it understanding the history here and with the clear assertion that actions here are what tter and that process that allows for verifiable -- the verifiable decision by iran to foresake its nuclear weapons program is essential. >> using the foreign minister's words, reaching an agreement with the shortest span, that entirely depends on how many concessions the iranians are prepared to make? >> this is a negotiation, and it's a negotiation that involves other nations, part of the p-5 plus one, plus germany, and i will leave it to the negotiators, including secretary kerry and others who will be working on this to give assessments of where we are and

what that negotiation looks like, but the end result has to be that the international mmunity, the p-5 plus one is confident that iran has given up its nuclear weapons program. >> the president described economic sanctions carried out under the u.n. authority as a violent crime and inhumane crime against ordinary iranians. what's the white house reaction to that? >> the fact president rouhani spoke about the impact of the sanctions demonstrates the impact of the sanctions. we made clear when we solicited the consensus that we achieved on this matter that the onus was on iran because we were willing -- back up a little bit. prior to president obama taking office, the international community was divided and some people believe that our intransigence, our the united states intransigence on this issue, our refusal to engage

with the iranians on this issue, was part of the problem. whether you believe that to be true or not, there was that view that divided the international community. president obama, taking a position as a candidate that was somewhat controversial and reasserting it as president including it in his inaugural address took it a different approach. his willingness to engage in the iranians made clear the problem was the iranians. build the ed us to most comprehensive sanctions regime in history with considerable international consensus, a consensus that did not exist before. so that when the iranian president speaks about the impact of the sanctions, i think he is -- it reflects something we have been saying, which is these sanctions are real, they represent the will of the

international community and the seriousness that the international community takes the problem posed by an iran potentially possessing nuclear weapons. >> the language you noted is more conspilltory in the past. is this a worry assertion from the identify rainies that u.s. sanctions are a crime and punishing ordinary iranians and that itself could be a problem? >> i don't see that as -- i think we would acknowledge that the sanctions have had an impact on the iranian economy. and the sanctions are a direct -- iran's ran yeas refusal heretofore about their concerns about the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. all of this, i don't mean to make it sound easy, this can all be resolved if iran takes a different approach. the united states and its other partners on the p-5 plus one are willing to engage as they have always been and we will see

whether or not the kind of progress that you -- that apparently the foreign minister suggested was possible is possible. >> one last thing, you have a very careful construction about the president not negotiating on the debt ceiling. the president will not negotiate over congress' responsibility to pay its bills. does that also not leave open the possibility that if congress says, mr. president, we are going to raise the debt ceiling, we'd like to discuss with you methods of achieving that, meaning not if but how, does that open a window for negotiations? >> no. not in the sense that -- not attempting to be nuanced at all on this. we will not negotiate over congress' responsibility to raise the debt ceiling. congress must -- >> we would like to include some other things in t we'd like to talk to you about it. >> no, because that's what they have been saying all along. and saying we want to achieve a political agenda item, and if

you don't give it to us we'll tank the american economy and make the american people suffer, the president's not going to accept that proposition. he's just not. will not negotiate over congress' responsibility to pay the bills that congress racked up. the irony of this discussion and it's nobody's fault, in this room, that it is widely misunderstood that raising the debt ceiling does not add a dime to the deficit. does not represent a single nickel in spending. raising the debt ceiling is just authorizing congress to write the checks for bills that it's already racked up, that have already added to the deficit or not if they are programs that have been paid for like the affordable care act, for example, but this is about just being responsible stewards of

the american economy. >> the history of the many times the debt ceiling has been raised, but you also must concede in that history already there are complex interactions with congress and chief executives where other things have been added into the mix as a part of the process. >> are you trying to rewrite not just that history or start new history? >> we discussed this the other day, what is an incontrovertible fact is roughly 40 times since president reagan took office the debt ceiling has been raised. only once, only once was default everyone in the air and that was in 2011. >> take default off the table. say we are going to raise it, we have other items we are talking about in which you can put some things and we can put some things and it can be a negotiation. that's not possible. >> because in the alternative is we are not going to raise it, that's what they are saying, then the answer has know. if the congress -- if republican leaders in congress or rank-and-file members in congress want to pursue efforts,

legislatively, to dismantle, disrupt, and ultimately defeat obamacare, they can. and they have. but they failed. it's because they failed they are now trying to attach this to the full faith and credit of the united states which is a wildly irresponsible thing to do. we can talk about how we fund our priorities and how we responsibly reduce the deficit, and we will. but congress cannot for the sake of the american people put the threat of default on the table. ed. >> how are you? >> great. >> first on kenya, mike rogers, the house intelligence chairman, who has sometimes been supportive of the president on syria for example, is being critical now about in the wake of the terror attack in kenya he's concerned that he believes some of your counter terror policies have changed in that the administration is using drones less because of the

criticism of the dronepolcy. how do you react to that criticism? has the administration been pulling back from using drones in a way that is potentially allowing extremists to move forward with attacks like kenya? >> i would say a couple things. one i would point you to the president's speech on this matter and then make clear we have worked with our partners very aggressively when it comes al-shabab, the organization responsible for the attacks, or believe are responsible in kenya, and we'll continue to do that. the united states and kenya have a strong relationship and historic partnership, and we are providing law enforcement assistance to the government of kenya, and we continue to the struggle e in against al qaeda and its affiliates, including an

organization like al-shabab. >> on the health care report you put out, i'm curious why it is framed by h.h.s. as people are ing to be paying lower premiums than were projected. why are you not comparing premiums of what people are paying today to what they will pay next year and the year after under the president's law? you're saying american families looking at how this will cost them, i'm paying $100 a month right now, i might be paying $50 or $150 next year. you're saying instead this report presents it as, you're going to be paying less than what was projected. that's a washington thing. why is not apples to apples? >> there have been numerous reports. >> this report today. you're saying 95% of americans are going to pay less. >> tell me when you want to ask the quen and not argue. >> don't go off on previous reports. this report today. >> there were numerous projections about what these

exchanges, which by the way, did not exist before including the multitude of plans that will now be available to consumers that did not -- were not in place before. obviously this is not an apples to apples. it's an apple full of worms compared to an apple that's fresh and delicious. seriously, you're talking about situations where some families in some states have one option, and it was unaffordable. and now they have multiple options on average, 50-some odd plans to choose from, and report that's released today demonstrates that these plans are affordable and there will be plans available to families who could not buy insurance, that their insurance, even though they are working families doing everything they can to get by, their insurance was the emergency room. so they don't have anything to compare it to. but i can guarantee you the cost

that they will pay for their premiums and the cost of their health care will be -- not infinitely, but considerably less than the cost of american taxpayer to those families using the emergency room. >> why does the "wall street journal" have a different report today that says nashville, tennessee, 27-year-old male, nonsmoker, could pay $41 now for a bare-bones policy but pay $114. for the lowest cost bronze option under the president's health care plan. somebody in philadelphia, they rise up from $73 today per month premium, to $195 a month. that apple not so nice? >> look, i don't know -- >> "wall street journal." pretty credible. >> i'm simply about to say i didn't read all the examples in there, and every specific example is not the same. overwhelmingly premiums are coming i could see that

republicans might want to refute this overwhelming evidence, even though some state republican governors are acknowledging it, but it's there. when you go on, maybe not you, but when people avail themselves of the opportunity to enroll in these marketplaces, and click through and see the options available to them that were not available, and available to them because of the subsidies ba they are lower income at extremely affordable costs, i think they'll find it a very good thing indeed. and what is remarkable about this whole process is that republicans who oppose obamacare have been trying now for years to repeal it. or go after it in a variety of manners. we are now at a point where enrollment is about to begin, and i think that part of the

fear that you see, the intensity of the political agitation is that they know that when 27-year-olds in a lot of the parts of the country who -- they are now thanks to obamacare only just left their parents' health plans, a benefit of the affordable care act that's already there, a lot of those 27-year-olds would have gone out on the individual insurance market and said there is no way i can afford what's out there. the choices are too few and expensive. i know maybe you can cite an example of one place where that may not have been true, but it's overwhelmingly the case. it's an established fact the individual insurance market has been unaffordable in many ways. >> you're talking about enrollment. will jay carney enroll in this? will white house enroll in obamacare? >> you if you -- >> start with you. >> if i -- >> are you going to enroll? >> if i in a future life don't

have employer -- >> premiums are so great. >> does everybody here agree that we can ask questions and answer them, if you want -- you're not even letting me answer the question. >> go ahead and answer it. >> i'm not quite sure what you're -- >> would you enroll? >> absolutely. absolutely. if i did not have employer provided health insurance, like i'm sure you do unless there's something about fox i don't know, then i would absolutely enroll. it would be more affordable because of it. and i think you'll see that around the country. but the whole purpose, again, the facts often either ignored critics, acterized by is that if you have insurance provided by your employer, that you like, nothing changes. for you. but if you change jobs or if you

get laid off, and you then take a job, start your own business, or take a job where you're not given insurance by your employer, you will now have, once the marketplaces are in effect, options that were never available before at affordable prices, and that's the point. and the irony of this argument that republicans are making is that pretty soon they are going to be making an argument what they want to do without an alternative is take benefits away from the american people. benefits that help them live better lives and healthier lives. yes, >> define success if you can over the course of the next six-month enrollment period, the white house would view success of how many millions people sign up? right now there's 55 million in the individual marketplace or 40 million uninsured. success in the first six months is what? >>p i don't know that i have that sifplgt somebody might. our health care experts might have a target figure. i think h.h.s. has put out information about what they are

looking at in terms of how many people they are expecting to enroll. but i don't have that available to me right now. >> if i can, one of the criticisms has been recently some of the premiums would be largely lower because insurers are offering plans with limited networks of health providers. what's the rebuttal? >> this was a rather remarkable story, glad you asked. the people that story talked about don't have insurance. how could -- no question, the bronze plan, lower cost plans, are going to be more limited in the services they provide and the benefits they provide than better, higher cost plans, silver, gold, platinum, whatever, that may be true and often true in an employer-based health insurance. for those families who do not have insurance and cannot afford insurance currently, to have available to them an option that they can afford, that would

provide insurance coverage that they do not have, how could that be described as anything but a good thing? so there's no question that affordable health care plans, the less expensive ones, are going to be more limited in their benefits. but they all meet minimum standards, and all beat the stuffering out of the alternative which is the old insurance. which is just using emergency rooms around your city or county hoping to deal with your child's -- >> we are going slip away from the last few months of mr. carney's briefing to take you live now to the floor of the u.s. house. can you watch the rest of the white house briefing on our website, c-span.org. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the remaining days of the fiscal year wind down, forget not your people. there are many differences plaguing our nation's discourse . please send wisdom upon the leaders serving in government and good will among all the

principals in current negotiations. we thank you for the services of so many who work every day in this building, whose labor provides the lubrication for the very public actions of the members of this assembly. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests

for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, in less than one week, funding for the federal government is set to expire, which would result in devastating government shutdown. on friday, house republicans passed a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the government's doors open so the services are not interrupted, our national security will remain intact and our families ill be not affected by the health care law. the president's threat to veto the legislation that we cannot rely on the commander in chief to negotiate. sadly, last week he ordered his administration to prepare to a government shutdown, proving his unwilling to help stop this crisis. now is the time for the senate to act. house republicans remain optimistic that senate leadership will find a solution

to prevent the president's government shutdown. i appreciate the courage of senator ted cruz to educate the american people on the consequences of big government, reducing freedom. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from arizona is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the united states fish and wildlife service recently published notice of two proposed rules. the first is to delist the gray wolf and list the mexican wolf as endangered. the second is to consider expansion of the geographic boundary of the mexican wolf experimental population area, arizona and in new mexico, as well as modification of the 10-j rule for managing the experimental mexican wolf

population. mrs. kirkpatrick: most of the area in consideration is in arizona's first district, which i represent. the service has not scheduled a hearing of these proposed rules in arizona where folks live and work on these multiple use rural areas. it is imperative that the service hold hearings in arizona close to the areas that are most affected by these proposals and there be adequate time to analyze and submit comments. it is equally imperative that the service continue to work with as a partner and cooperating agency, the arizona game and fish department. this is the boots on the ground state agency that the service has depended on the most in managing the mexican wolf program. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north carolina s recognized for one minute.

mr. holding: what consumers will find in terms of health plans and costs will be a far cry than what was promised by this administration. the american people are tired of obamacare's broken promises. president obama said if you like your plan you can keep your plan, but that just isn't the case. it is touted as a job creator but instead caused employees to lose hours and made small businesses drop coverage for employees and question whether they can continue to hire. mr. speaker, with the mentality of we have to pass it to find out what's in it, this administration forced a 2,000-page bill into law. this doesn't even account for the already tens of thousands of pages of regulations folks are having to go and navigate through. it's clear from reports dealing increased costs and taxes to the polls showing that the majority of americans do not want this, that obamacare must be repealed, reformed or

delayed. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to discuss the need for a bipartisan solution to our nation's immigration challenges. mr. kilmer: this past saturday, i spoke at a naturalization ceremony in tacoma, washington, where 72 men and women from all corners of our world took their oath of allegiance to our nation. i saw the joy on the faces of these new americans, our brothers and sisters, including several military members who risk their lives to protect our nation before they themselves have the right -- had the right to citizenship. today marked the 65th anniversary to the day of my grandmother and my mother's immigration to the united states from holland. the occasion served to remind me that we are a stronger

nation because of our nation's diversity and the experiences that people bring here. we are indeed a nation of immigrants, but we're also a nation of laws, and it's time to modernize those laws in a way that allows us to further secure our borders and create a feasible solution for the 11 million undocumented people here in the united states. improving our legal immigration system will ensure american workers receive the benefits of competing on an equal ground. it will reduce exploitation and give undocumented workers and their families a path toward achieving opportunity. i hope we can cross party lines and pass a meaningful comprehensive immigration reform bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. rise to speak on behalf of north carolinaians who can't afford to be worse off under obamacare. today, single north carolinaans

in their 20's can pay as little as $35 for health insurance. under obamacare, they'll pay $183 for a bronze plan. in direct contradiction to the president's promise of savings, health care costs for a family of four may even increase $7,000. where is the affordability in that? americans aren't interested in the administration's p.r. they're concerned with whether they'll have to spend more on january 1 than they are spending today. the answer to that question is sadly yes for many in my state under obamacare. obamacare's going to hit too many north carolina families right in the wallet. it should be repealed and replaced with our american health care reform act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands seek recognition? ristie kerr --

mrs. christensen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady seek unanimous consent? mrs. christensen: yes, mr. speaker. in six days the health exchanges will be open for enrollment and many will have access to affordable health care for the first time. the black caucus had a town hall to accurately inform our constituents on how to enroll and who their nave gators or their certified enrollment assistants are. everywhere we went we found people hungry with the information we shared, including how the law had already helped thousands of people in their area. the young people who stayed on their parent's insurance, the many medicare beneficiaries who are able to get preventive services and wellness visits without a co-pay. the many people who got significant rebates from their insurance companies and how much each medicare beneficiary saved in prescription drug costs. and they were very angry about the misinformation that continues to be spread about the affordable care act. we democrats are proud of the work we did with president obama to create this law and to

make wellness a possibility for many who for far too long have been left out of the health care system. october 1 signals a brand new day for them and for our country and we should celebrate it and do everything we can to make sure everyone in our districts enjoy its benefits. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker. once again, the president is trying to mislead and hide the truth from the congress and the american people. the department of health and leased a report on the pricing of health plans on the federal exchanges. a perfect example of bureaucratic double speak. rates were 16% under their projections. well, that sounds great. but what were their projections? does that mean the rates will increase or decrease? they went to trouble avoid answering that question. some digging by "forbes" found

the truth. 40-year-olds, it is increased. the biggest problem however isn't the rate increase. with only five days left until complementation, the administration is unwilling or incapable of answering even basic questions. the data they released was only partial data samples. it's time for the department of health and human services stop playing games, stop hiding the truth and it's time to give the american people the full truth about what the president's takeover of health care really means. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: there being no further requests for one-minute speeches, pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 5:00

advanced the bill to fund the government after october 1. that includes a provision that blocks any funding for the

health care law. senate democratic leader harry reid says he'll offer an amendment this week that strips out the language defunding the health care law with the goal of sending a clean continuing resolution back to the house later this week. and the senate live always right now and anytime on c-span2. coming up this evening, democrat terry mcauliffe and ken cuccinelli square off in the second governor's debate. this one will be moderated by msnbc chief white house correspondent chuck todd and our coverage will get under way at 7:00 eastern on c-span3. national security agency director general keith alexander today warned that cybersecurity threats can't be addressed without tackling media leaks. speaking at this year's cybersecurity summit here in washington, director alexander said the media needs to get the facts out and report correctly on the n.s.a.'s surveillance programs. this is just about an hour.

>> good morning. i'd like to have your attention, please. good morning and welcome to the fourth annual cybersecurity summit. thank you so very much for coming. it is my honor to welcome you today. i'm tom billington, the producer of today's summit and the c.e.o. billington cybersecurity. for those of you not familiar with our company, since our founding in 2010, our mission has been to provide serious, independent, nonclassified and high-level forums with world-class experts on cybersecurity. i think we could not have a stronger, more knowledgeable expert than general alexander to opus as with our key note today. we have along with him nearly 30 other distinguished speakers whom are here throughout the day and i want to thank very, very much each of those

speakers for gathering here today. let me provide five quick logistical announcements before introducing general alexander. first, this conference is on the record and will be recorded with two exceptions. the first exception is the cyberinformation sharing panel which will be held later this morning which will following chatham house rule. and our last panel, new breed, the cyberinnovation panel, which will be off the record. in all cases, the conference is nonclassified. second, just so you know, c-span will be filming three of our keynotes today. general alexander, dr. patrick gallagher, and michael daniel, our luncheon keynote. third, a quick disclaimer that the president -- talks and presentations, obviously for information purposes and represent their views rather than ours, the company. fourth, we have great and full

day planned for you. hence, we'll be adhering tightly to our schedule. as you can see from our conference programs that you have in front of you, it's a packed day and it's a great series of presenters, but to keep today on track, we'll be taking questions today from you on note cards. you see note cards in the middle of your table. during the talk, if you could please write the questions down on your cards, we will pick them up when the q&a period begins. so thank you for your help in that regard. fifth, at the conclusion of the last morning keynote by debbie plunkett at is 1:50, we'll ask to take a half-hour break to allow the national press club to set the room for lunch. finally, we added a reception, so we hope you'll stay throughout the day and join us at the reception from 5:30 to 6:30. as you know, this has been a

most active year in cybersecurity. and the list of pressing topics, i could spend a good deal of the day discussing. you know them better than i, and you represent some of the true leaders in this field and we hope that you will be throughout the day be interactive and engaging through your questions by note cards. but the topics range from obviously mobile byod to cloud threats to information sharing to big data. and our speakers will address many of these topics and more. so without further ado, then, let's move to our opening keynote. for those now joining us on c-span, and i want to welcome and introduce general keith alexander, our opening keynote, at billington cybersecurity's fourth annual cybersecurity summit. general keith alexander, as you

know, is currently commander u.s. cybercommand, director of the national security agency and chief of the central security service. he's the n.s.a.'s longest -serving director, having held the position since 2005. in 2010, he became commander of u.s. cybercommand and earned his fourth star. i'm so appreciative that he's taken this time out of his extremely busy schedule to speak to our audience here and to our c-span audience watching with us. so general alexander, i turn the podium to you with many thanks for agreeing to add your important perspectives to this open dialogue during a time of immense challenges in the cybersecurity field that we're trying to address today to help secure our nation. so general alexander, i'll turn the podium to you and thank you again for being with us. [applause]

>> i have a full hour speech set up. thank you for that warm introduction and thanks for the invitation here. and so i did have dental surgery. it's not that i started chewing tobacco. and denny's wondering what's going on. ed, it is good to see you here. ed tibble, an old friend. i use the old loosely. we worked together a long time ago, probably 30 years ago, for general fom weinstein, one of our men -- tom weinstein, one of our mentors. you know, i never wanted to stay in the military. i thought i'd get out after five years and tom weinstein talked me into staying in. you probably said you maybe stayed six months too long. you know, the discussion that we have today is on

bersecurity, but i think upfront i have to talk about media leaks, not because i want to, not because i went and had dental surgery to compare the discussion of media leaks to root canals and having your jaw lifted up, but if we're going to have a serious discussion on cybersecurity, we first have to address media leaks. and we have to get some of the facts out on the table. and i think the first thing that we have to have on the table is our mission is to defend this country and our civil liberties and privacy. n.s.a. and cyber command, that's our mission, and we can't do it without your help and without the tools our nation needs. and so what i want to first do is talk to you about that. i think it's important that we put that on the table and they

get -- that we get people to talk about the facts, not to inflame it, not to sensationalize it, but to discuss those facts. because the future of this nation depends on our ability to protect us from terrorist attacks and cyberincidents. those are the two things that can really impact this country, and they both significantly operate on the same network. so i want to step back. what i'm going to do is walk through some of that with you or about the next 2 1/2 hours. and then i'm going to shift over to cybersecurity. but i do have that ask there and that ask is upfront. we need your help. we need to get these facts out. we need our nation to

understand why we need these ools and what those tools mean to civil liberty and privacy and what they mean to defend in this country. everyone in this room can remember 9/11, the impact it had on our country. almost 3,000 people killed by terrorist events in new york, pennsylvania and here in washington. we remember how those firemen tried to save lives and they themselves were killed and what i most remember and what i think really remember is the military saying, we'll take it, we'll defend this country and they did. and i'm proud of that.

i think it's -- look at what ave petraeus, stan mcchrystal, mccraven, ray odierno, marty dempsey, look at what our nation has given to protect this country. they went into iraq, they went into afghanistan and, you know, a lot of lives from our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were lost. in 2005, denny, see some of the folks here, they're from n.s.a. we said we can help. we will help. we will provide the intelligence our troops need to survive and win and we put those folks forward. over 6,000 n.s.a. employees

went into iraq and afghanistan. dave petraeus and some -- in some of his memoirs said, that turned iraq around. it shifted it to our favor. and put it where it needed to be. 2 criptolkses have lost their lives in iraq and afghanistan. they are the heroes, not the media leaker. they're the one that picked that flag up from the folks in new york and did what our nation needed them to do. but they did more. it's almost like a -- that's a joke. they did more. e understand our job is to defend this country. it's a noble mission.

i look at the folks that do this every day and say, these are great americans. and what they've done is they can see what the terrorists are trying to do coming into this country, and what we would blame for as an intelligence community is not connecting the dots because the f.b.i. had one set of data, c.i.a., n.s.a. and the other intelligence agencies another. and we were blamed for not connecting the dots. so we said we need the ability to connect the dots and we came up with a couple of programs. business record fisa is the key one to connect the dots. it's the one that is most talked about so that's the one that we need to focus on here today. what is that all about? how do we connect the dots with this? what is it?

it's been sensationalized and inflamedn reporting that we're to americans' phone calls and reading their emails. that's flat wrong. under fisa we would have to have an individualized warrant o do that, period. our job is foreign intelligence. what we do need is the call detail records that we get in 215. we need those to connect the dots from what n.s.a. can see overseas to get to what the f.b.i. can see here in the states. those call detail records include the to, the from, the duration and the date, time of the call. there is no content.

there is no names. just the numbers. that's it. that's all we ask for. that's what the courts gave us. dge egan wrote a great 29-page opinion on it. you ought to read that. what do we do with that? when n.s.a. has insides that the terrorist is trying to do something inside this country and we can come up with a reasonable, articulateable suspicion that they're related to al qaeda-related groups, we can then take that number, open up this lock box that has all this data in it and look into it. in 2012, less than 300 numbers were looked at. that's it.

that's what we need to connect the dots. i will tell you, although i can't go into detail, it provides us the speed and agility in crises, like the boston marathon and the threats this summer. and so what's hyped up in a lot of the reporting is that we're listening to your phone calls, we're reading your emails. that's not true. you know, edmond burke has this great saying, all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. we can't do anything if we don't know the threat is there. we have to know about the threat. we have to connect the dots. we live in a great country. we really do. we are blessed.

we really are. in the last week, over 950 ople were killed in kenya, syria, iraq, yemen and afghanistan by terrorists. one week. and we are discussing more esoteric things here. why? because we've stopped the terrorist attacks here. we've been fortunate. and it's not been luck. it's our military that's out there and it's the intelligence community that's back there. it's n.s.a., c.i.a., d.i.a. and f.b.i. working together with our military and our state and local law enforcement. they keep us safe. they can't do it without tools.

so we're going to have a debate in this country. do we give up those tools? i'm concerned that we'll make the wrong decision because the facts aren't on the table. you have to help us get the facts out. so one of those sets of facts is, well, what about those compliance incidents? what is a compliance incidence and what do you mean? what are you guys doing? it sound to me like you're out of control. i get this a lot. there are two sets of authorities that we operate under. overseas we call it executive order 12333. over the last decade, we have had 12 willful violations in that area where people,

normally sitting overseas, have sed the cryptologic system inappropriately. all 12 people were held accountable. most of them opted to retire or resigned. two were given article 15's, reduce in grade and lost half a month's pay for two month. you want to know the interesting part? most of it was against foreign nationals. not against american people. but they did something wrong and we held them accountable. we did the right thing. and so it's interesting for our allies to understand that this system that we have and that we share with our allies, if we make a mistake, whether it's against a u.s. person or a foreign person, we hold

ourselves accountable and we report it. i'll tell you something else. n.s.a. is the best technical agency in the world, bar none. now, i know many of you are saying, well, what about the leaker? yep. we trusted him and he betrayed that trust. was an i.t. administrator responsible for moving data to a common website and he stole some of that data. betrayed him and he that trust. that won't happen again. we'll fix that. but that doesn't make him a hero, stealing our data, going to china, going to russia and doing what he's done to this

country because i'll tell you the people that learn from this are the ones that will hurt this nation and will hurt our people. they'll learn from it. and the tools that were so effective over the past decade will not be as effective in the future. 76 e's also a report of 2,7 incidents. and so if you think about those, what does n.s.a. do with those incidents and why is that important and why do we need to discuss that? well, we're a technical agency where the internet and the networks that we operate on are always changing. and our job is to ensure that we comply with the law, and if we make a mistake, we self-report. we call those incidents or violations. some people immediately jump that to privacy violations.

that is wrong. in that 76 incidents 20,065 are telephones that came into the united states that were not authorized to collect in the united states. the department of justice and the courts don't call that a violation, but n.s.a. tracks that, an endeavor to always do better to get out in front of some of these. that leaves 7,011 over a year, the majority of those are foreign. so of the 2,776, about 5% are on u.s. persons, and those are considered like typing in a number. many of you now hopefully pass words on your computer and how

often do you type in the wrong one and have to coit again? every one of those would be a violation. and here's the key for our privacy in this area. if we do make a mistake, we report it. any data that's collected is purged and we have to prove that to the court. we self-report to the d.n.a., to d.o.d., to the department of justice, to congress and to the courts in every case. we don't step back and some of those, as you've read, and you see from the court's opinions, are ones that would make you say, wow, i really would not like to have this one get out, but we will do the right thing in every case.

and that's what we've done. what that means for you and the american people is that you are guaranteed that we will do everything we can to protect your civil liberties, your privacy and to defend this country. that's our job and that's what we do. as i look out on all this and i think about what's gone on over the last three-plus months, we've had a lot of discussion but very little has been nested in those facts. congress is back in session, this is going to pick up, the american people have to weigh in and have to help us get the tools we need to defend this

country and protect our civil liberties and privacy. what i can tell you is that we're trying to be more transparent. it's hard for an agency that for the last 60 years has been invisible and now we need to be transparent. but i will tell you when you look at what n.s.a. has done r this country, has done for our armed forces, they are the noble people. they have earned your respect. they're the ones that every weekend for the last eight years, the c.t. folks have been in working for this country. every weekend for eight years since i've been there. think about that. hours a day, seven days a

week, they're there to defend us. they need the tools to do it. you have to help us get there. so those are my thoughts on the media leaks. not that i feel strongly about that, i would tell you another thing. i need to address two other portions of this. for many of you in industry, this is a compelled relationship from the courts to industry to provide the data that we need. industry isn't driving up the n.s.a., dumping off u.s. person or foreign person data to us. what they're doing is they're providing what the courts have directed them to provide. which is ironically the same information that other countries demand of same

industry in a compelled law enforcement venue. our industry folks have taken a beating on this. and it's wrong. they're only doing what our nation has asked them. what other nations have needed from them and what we have done together. we talked about 54 terrorist events that have been stopped. 13 in the united states, 41 overseas. 25 in europe. it would not have been possible without that capability. and so industry has done what we've asked them to do. they've saved lives here and abroad. and our allies have benefited from that. many people have asked me, how

has this impacted your relationship with allies? here's what i get. keep working with us. the intelligence you give us to defend our country is what we really need. that's the fact. that's what i get. they say, we see a lot of stuff political out there. please don't stop. we need your help. and you know what, we need heir help too. so in all this there's a couple things i'd put on the table. used that he had monday burke comment -- i used that edmond burke comment. you know, a couple of things i'm really proud of. . is country stood up on syria hat's the right thing to do.

1,400 people were killed in a chemical attack or more and we stood up. and now there's discussions on getting rid of those. it would not have happened without this nation standing up. in the partnership with our allies, it's also important, and we need to and one of the things that director of national intelligence and the white house and others have asked us to look at is options that we could put on the table of how we will work with our allies in the future. and i think that's important. so i had to start with the media leaks if we were going to have a serious talk on cybersecurity. so let's shift to cybersecurity. you know, when you look at what's going on, it's the same network, the same technical skills and debbie plunkett will be here after me and she told me to hype this. has this helped, debbie? you know, it is an honor and

privilege to work with great people like debbie who runs information assurance director for the past five or six years. absolutely superb. they're the ones who if you look back in our history in s.i.g. and created sally, our encryption capabilities, that were not broken by the enemy, while we broke enigma and broke the codes. they do it for our country and they do an absolute superb job. thanks for what you're doing and the entire information assurance work force does every day. i know your talk will pick up everything i missed and answer every question that i fail to answer. good luck with that. [laughter] . so cybersecurity -- same

networks, same technical skills same legal framework, a lot going on. two things that can hurt us -- terrorism and cyber. and cyber is the easiest one to get at us. look at what's happened within the past year. over 300 distributed denial of service attacks on wall street. we saw destructive attacks in saudia f 2012 against aramco and saw attacks against south korea. and what that says to me is this is going to pick up, it's going to get worse. and we have to get a number of things done to protect this country. i want to talk about five different areas that n.s.a. and

cyber command are working together that i think are important to our country and the top priorities -- i want to start out with trained and ready force. you know, the most important thing we can do is train our people, the best in the world. that's what the american people expect of our military and of our intelligence community. and that's what we're doing. why? in this area, technical skills really matter. they really do. so we're engaged in a multiyear effort with the services to train our forces, and they've trained approximately 1/3 of the force in 2013. they'll do about 1/3 in 2014 and 1/3 in 2015. a huge step forward. and the service chiefs have stood up and pushed those

forces forward despite sequestration and despite all the battles that are going on in the pentagon, they've stood up and they've all agreed that this is a threat that we have to address as a military for the good of our nation. we have teams that are fully operational now, that with working side by side with n.s.a. to defend this country. we've also activated a cyber mission force headquarters. this is the one that would react to an attack on the country or attack on the defense department. and we will ensure that we have the best force anywhere in the world. i'll tell you that we're also conducting exercises such as cyberguard and cyberflag that includes the combatant commands, the guard and the reserve and interagency

participation to develop tactics, the techniques and rocedures, the working relationships needed to defend the nation and conducting operations in cyberspace. cyber command provides sign you are support elements to every combatant command today. we're refining our operational concepts and our command and control. and i think in doing that, that second part, coming up with the operational concepts in the command and control is absolutely vital for the future. how does a force like this operate? how does n.s.a. and cyber command work with f.b.i. and with d.h.s.? great partnerships. i'll just a callout to both f.b.i., tfs and i think nist will be here later, pat gallagher.

absolutely superb partners. it takes a time to do this. our job is to defend the nation. f.b.i. is the one inside the country defending it. d.h.s. is setting the standards along with nist. one of the things that we have to fix, especially in the defense department. i'm not sure, debbie, if you're going to talk about this but hopefully i won't steal your thunder, we need a defensible architecture. the legacy architecture that we have today has a number of problems with it. we have 15,000 enclaves. it is almost impossible to see what's going on in every one of those enclaves. think of this as all these tables in this room and you want to know what somebody's writing in their notes and they're 10 tables over, there's

no way for you to do that. i mean, that's a good thing probably. but there's no way to see attacks coming in. if they get to one table, everybody else is open. our architecture needs to be redefined, and i think that cloud architecture that's been pushed forward for the joint information environment and the intel communities, i.t. environment, is where our nation needs to be. a thin, virtual cloud environment. and it offers some great capabilities for the future. first, in patching. think about patching these tables if we were just pass card around and everybody started to patch and you did what was said on the cards how long it would take to distribute those cards amongst all these tables. then think about 15,000 enclaves trying to patch their

networks at network speed. by a series of system administrators that work for enclave, what is the probability that somebody will make a mistake? one. it's 100%. or that they'll be too long and the adversary will find that vulnerability and penetrate the system? so the way we're set up today . not where we need to be in the thin virtual cloud you could essentially fix the entire network within a few minutes. you could push that out, do all the patching, all the vulnerabilities, scanning and everything you need in a few minutes. could be done centrally and you could remove the humans from the loop in that and put where they need to be in protecting the networks. but there's other things you

could do in this as well. having a thin virtual architecture, each system is a system that we see being scanned by an adversary, we can break that down and put it in a new place. you can jump networks, you can jump databases and you can jump your actual own system and make it very difficult for adversaries to exploit. so we need to impto that defensible architect -- go to that defensible architecture. i think that's something vitally important to our country. shared situational awareness is another thing that we need to do. we need to address. what do i mean by shared situational awareness? you know, that's something that's interesting. if you were to ask somebody to describe the recent exploit or attack into your network, ask

the i.t. people to draw you a .icture say, show me what that looks like, because i just want to understand what happened. and so they'll talk about the domain controls. it's almost like a pilot. they say, ok, it was like this and then this happened and they got and bad things. and we were had and it's bad. it's going to take weeks, months, years to get them out. how does it look? now, let me -- think about another thing. right after that say, well, how are we going to fix it? draw me a picture of that with all these enclaves. if it's infected all the tables here, how are you going to systematically repair that and get the adversary out?

it's a big problem. and if you can't see it and you can't get the humans to understand it, how do you get them all on the same sheet of music to accomplish those goals? that's very, very difficult. and if you widen it and say, so where is the adversary coming from and how are they getting into this country, what cyber command's role, what's n.s.a.'s role and how do we see it, how do our adversaries see it? and the answer is nobody sees it today. we don't have the shared situational awareness that we need. and this is going to be a key capability for the future. so we're developing a common operational picture. i think that is absolutely important for our nation. and for our defense department, for cyber command, for n.s.a. we're sharing it with d.h.s.,

with f.b.i., with c.i.a., with all the combatant commands and with -- combat and commands and with all of our allies. and i think it's a great way to go in the future. i spent a lot of time on media leaks upfront, and i did that for a couple of reasons. and one of those. in cybersecurity, we need to ork with industry. we absolutely need to work with industry. industry owns and operates 85% to 90%-plus of our networks. so here's the issue that we have on the table. who's responsible for defending the country from attack and who attacks back? and you know, one of the options that we could put on the table is we say, well, let industry do that. and let me explain the problem you get into as soon as you do that.

let's say bank one is being attacked and they fire back from the point from where they think the attack is coming from and they wipe out that capability. oops. that was just a network, the adversary was using in a neutral country and they took it out. sorry. but that's what they would see from their end. and what that would create is a problem in physical space where that country is now mad at us for doing something and we have problems. so what you quickly get to is this is a responsibility of our -- nment to defending defend the country. it's the president and the secretary, their responsibility to tell us when and what we should do. we provide the options. but we have to work with industry because we can't see it. you know, this gets right back

o that edmond burke comment. if we can't see it, we can't respond to it. and the attacks on wall street, what we can do is tell you how they went down and how bad they were, but if we can't work with industry, if we can't share information with them, we won't be able to stop it. and we have to do that at network speed. we have to share what we know about those threats, and they have to tell us what they see and this is where the internet service providers are critical to this. not just here but with our allies and others. we have to come together and figure out how to do that, but i'll tell you it takes industry. and so if you think about the problems with the media leaks and the issues that we have

there, we have to resolve that because industry is critical to defending our country in cybersecurity and the partnership is critical. and that congress is working their way. i'll tell you, you know, the senate select committee on intelligence chaired by senator feinstein and senator chambliss, the co-chair, and the house foreign select committee on intelligence chaired by congressman mike gers and vice chaired by congressman dutch ruppersburger are superb to work with on both sides of this. they stood up on the media leaks when it wasn't popular to do it, and they're pushing for cyber legislation and trying to resolve the things that industry thinks they need and what our government needs for us to work together. but we're going to have to do both. this is going to be critical for our country. and so what i would say, as we

look at what's going on with media leaks and what's happened to industry, as a consequence of that, we need to fix this. and history has done the right thing. they're doing what our nation has asked them and now we need industry to work with us in cyberlegislation. and i think our allies are a key part of it. you know, these networks go all the way around the world. most of the cables coming from the atlantic come from the united kingdom. about 2/3 of them. makes pretty good sense that if the united kingdom could clean that part, we protect this part, we have the basis of an alliance. france, denmark and spain are the other drops of those things coming from the atlantic. we ought to figure out how to partner with them in this area,

and we're working with them. final he, i want to talk about authorities. on the media leaks, i gave you a couple of issues we need. we need the tools to protect this country. and in cybersecurity, we need authorities as well. necessary authorities do exist within our executive branch for most of this and we have worked with our interagency partners to define clear roles and responsibilities and that's tween f.b.i., d.h.s. and cyber command and i think we have these clear lines. but what we need to do is we need to work with congress on additional legislation regarding cybersecurity and our private industry, and that specifically is how we will share information and how we will provide protection to them. those are the key issues that

have to come out of this. we also have to clarify the rules of engagement, what is expected of us. this is a difficult topic. you know, we don't want n.s.a. and cyber command doing something irresponsible. on the other hand, we don't want n.s.a. and cyber command waiting for the authorities while wall street is taken down in cyber. so we have a dilemma. how do we work that? and i'll tell you that the folks at u.s. cyber command with n.s.s.a. is working with the defense department -- n.s.a. is working with the defense department and look at how we'll actually do this. and it closely follows what we you would expect us to do if this were a missile attack on our country. how do we go to those authorities? how do we set up the conference calls? how do we go to the secretary of defense and the president and get the authorities that we

need and give them the options in and we're working our -- options? and we're working our way through that, and i think the government has done a great job moving that forward. there's going to be more that we'll need and that's the legislation. you know, i think to sum up on the cybersecurity side, no single public or private entity has all the required knowledge, resources, authorities or capabilities. we have to work together. . we have to work together and i think we have to do that between government and industry and with our allies. and we have to address these ssues as a team. so, i want to -- i'm going to stop, i know the clock is counting down here. i want to just address a couple things to summarize where we are. we talk about a team. this is a great country that we have. it really is.

look at, you know, i have 15 grandchildren. and we were talking about that with bill and the folks here. you know, and one of the 1-year-old got an ipad, she was almost 2, but to show you that girls are getting faster than the boys here. she grabbed one of the ipads, she could grab that ipad, go to a netflix thing and pull up the cartoon. and she can't hardly talk but she can do that on the ipad. it's amazing. look at where these children will be in the future and the capabilities. look at what industry has done n this area. it is absolutely superb. it would not have been possible if we didn't have the military and the intelligence community rotecting this nation. 950 people were killed over the last week and look at our

country. look at what we enjoy. and it's not by accident. it's by a lot of hard work, people behind the scenes that are doing what our nation expects them to do. they do it because it's the right thing. they do it as part of a team. that military and intelligence team that defends this country, it is the greatest honor and privilege i have ever had to serve with them. because they're doing what the country needs them to do. it is phenomenal to see some of these young folks come in, know they have stopped a terrorist attack and they can't tell anybody. other than us. and you know what they say? that's good enough. we save lives and people over there will never know that they

were at risk. we got to partner with the f.b.i., the greatest law enforcement agency in the world, and they stopped something and american people will never know how bad it could have been. think about what happened in 2009. the new york city subway. both of those authorities were used to help stop that. those people are now in prison. team america did it. great partnership, just what you would expect. now, here's the deal. we need tools to do that. both in the media side and our counterterrorism and in our cybersecurity. we can't do that without your help. that's what our nation needs. that's my ask of you.

you are the american people. you know, there's a lot of people out there screaming and yelling. we're not listening to their phone calls, we're not reading their email. we're defending this country. we'll do it right. we'll hold ourselves accountable. we'll reorp -- report every incident. but we need tools to protect this nation. if you take those away, think about the last week and what will happen in the future. my concern is if you think it's bad now, we get some of those things that happened in nairobi in this country and we have a whole different ballgame. and we will have failed. the only thing for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. and good men can't act without intelligence. we need that information.

and we need your help in doing that. so, with that let me open it up o questions. those are things to gain information. >> thank you very much. if i could please ask you to address your questions on cards and please raise your hand. we will pick up the notecards and please, please do address them and i just would like to make a quick announcement. as the questions arise, if i might. just want to thank those who made today's event possible. the lunch sponsor, our diamond sponsors, r.s.a., rating on, guidance software, hewlett-packard, general dynamics, and others. our exhibiters, information security solutions, net i.q.,

air patrol and ieee. and we also have our media sponsors, homeland security day, cfsi and set aside alert and thank you for allowing me that opportunity to thank those who made today's event possible. questions, please do raise your hands. and i would welcome them. do you have one here? >> so before we get the questions you might have thought i was a little emotional on the media leaks part. actually i went in for dental surgery and it's just the pain. i really did have the dental surgery. but i do feel strongly about this country and what we ought to be doing for it. >> and it's very good do and thank you for all you're doing to secure our country. we're honored. first question regards the area of spear fishing. spear fishing poses a threat and with cybersecurity awareness starting in a week, what advice

would you give executives in the room to mitigate the spear fischer threat? >> what's pernicious? just kidding. i'd keep those pernicions out of here. spear fishing. most of this is somebody's got your credentials, right? you've got to come up with a way of defending on the perimeter, understand how the spear fishing is going to get in. this is where they've put something in an email and they send it to you. if you get an email and you click on the attachment and it's saying, hey, i've got $1 million for you and you click on it. there ought to be something that jumps up on your screep that says you're an idiot for doing that. [laughter] now, here's what, you know, just to show you the sense of humor our folks have. they do that on mine, every time i click on that, they stop it and just put on there, you're an idiot, don't do that. but you'd be surprised at how often that works.

now, the interesting part is it's not always, hey, i've got $1 million, would you just reach out and i'll help and i'll share it with you. often times it will be things like medical care. a change in the medical care program for your agency or your company. and they send it and it looks very real because they've done the research. and so you do have to be careful of what you click on. because once that happens, the payload or the capability that the adversaries created has dropped down on your system and once that happens they're in. so you've got to have a way of protecting your system. part of that is by setting up in your defenses and not letting attachments through or sterilizing those detachments and many of the antivirus communities already do that and they provide great capability. next question. no more? oh, good. where ve a question on

the small business community -- for those small businesses that represent the innovation and much of the innovation and the growth in our economy, and -- but those companies often don't have the resources of a large company. what would you suggest to small businesses, particularly in our c-span audience who might be listening today? >> well, that's a great question. i can remember this with bill akins. i gave him the set of cards, he was one of my bosses once and he would always grab the notecards and say, i don't need to read them ahead of time, i'll read them on the stage. on the third page i wrote out, you're on your own. so he reads the first two pages, he gets to the third one, it goes, you're on your own, he looks up and goes, now what? for small businesses, you're not

on your own. i think there are some great . pabilities in fact, i know debby's going to hit on part of this. one of the great things that these agencies and other governments working together, with the information insurance directorate, has come up with, the sand institute on the top 20 things you should do to protect your networks. version 4.1, is that right? version 4.1 of the sands institute has the top 20 things that you should do to protect your network. f you do that, your network go going to be pretty darn secure. it's going to be tough for someone to get to. if you're a small business, that's all publicly available information. i would just reach out, get that. if you're i.t. people -- your i.t. people, your information intelligent noling people, don't understand that, they can reach out to players. there are great folks at sands institute. there's great folks at d. shmplet and n.s.a.'s information insurance. we have a public website on

that. you can grab that from that website. it's all free. and it's created by -- just follow that. if you do the top five you hit most of the key issues that we have. and i don't know, are you going to cover some of that, debby? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you. question regards the information haring area. what is the -- regarding information sharing -- what rules of engagement do you find are necessary in that? >> well, let me talk about information sharing and i'll expand on your question a little bit. what do we need to do between government and industry to share information? and what's the kind of information that we're talking about sharing? we're not talking about sharing our privacy information.

we're talking about sharing vulnerabilities and threat information. so it has nothing to do with civil liberties and private and -- privacy and everything to do with protecting our systems. so think about the great companies like mcafee, is a man tech and others that have all these antivirus capabilities. all this malware that they've detected. well, the government has some too. we have a few good people, more than a few, that have great technical skills, that know classified information about what our adversaries could do to this country. how do we share that classified information with industry? so here's my thought, here's our thoughts on that. if you look at the networks of this nation, they ride over the internet and the internet service providers are the ones that provide the basic help for

this country. so, they're the key point of defense. at&t, verizon, sprint, l-3, centurylink, those are the companies that own and operate the underlying networks of this nation. so how do we share with them and they help protect? what's the relationship there? and the interest, we've got to share it with them and other companies and to to lengthly -- potentially other countries and and provide that information that says, when i see this, i'm going to tell n.s.a., cybercommand, d.h.s. and f.b.i. we got a problem and do it at network speed. so they can react. they can also call out and say, we need help here, or i see this new interesting thing, piece of malwear over here, and share that. in the information sharing environment, they -- we need the authority for them to share with us and for us to share with them .

parts often times can be classified so we need a way of protecting it. and when we give them something to protect the networks, and we make a mistake, they shouldn't be held liable for it so we need the liability protection. so we need that way of information sharing for the country. next question. >> we have two questions regarding the cloud. the first one is, how do you balance the advantages of centralized architecture such as cloud computing with the risk of having all of your security eggs, as the question says, in one basket? >> that's a great question. and there's a couple of issues that we need to put out here on the cloud vs. the legacy architecture. there is an assumption that having all your stuff diversified in 15,000 enclaves is more defensible but that's

just the opposite. in this case, i'm not talking about putting everything in one bank, but the cloud is in itself a distributed architecture that we would expect. now, there are some things that we need for this country to defend ourselves in cyber. to defend you in cyber. everybody in this room has either an iphone, an android or some mobile device on them today. what does that communicate with and how do we protect it? think about that. that's step one. where's the cloud in this? and what can we do in the cloud that ensures the protection of mobile environment and the cloud environment? and there are things that we can do in the cloud that we can't in our legacy architecture. specifically we can encrypt data sets, we can come up with ways of acknowledging who you are,

having a secure set of encryption that sees where we are today. we can identify when actors are trying to steal data in realtime. media leaks would have been stopped by that capability. these are great attributes. and you can encrypt it. so when somebody steals it, all they get is encrypted ones and zeros. this is a great thing forward where we need to go. and there's going to be a lot that's going to go on in this area. i think it's the future and it's something that we have to embrace and figure out how we match that cloud environment with the mobile environment. because that's where we're all going to be operating. and i think what's coming out of there is exciting and good for our country. and as part of that future architecture that the defense department and the intel community are doing it and i'll tell you one thing, n.s.a. has developed a secure cloud called cumulog.

i'm not selling it, it's free. you can get it yourself. it's openware. and it's got a security layer and a real-time tipping and queuing capability and it's free. >> thank you very much. i know you're under a tight schedule so i'll limit it to two more questions. the first regards what specific actions can and will meet -- will most likely be taken to avoid future media leaks? i know you've mentioned and i might elaborate the systems administrators and particularly the two opinion person rule and the obstacle that might be posed by removal of the media. so if you could just take a shot at that question. >> well, there's a number of things and you hit a couple of those right there. first, a removal of -- removable media. two-person rule on this. system administrators need

removeble media to boot systems and stuff. so we have to now put in a two-person and a have implemented a two-person rule, even for system administrators. but there's more that goes on here. when you red-team it you say, well, if you fix the removable media, all they need to do is go into the server room and take a disk. so you need to put a two-person rule on the server room, so we've done that. there's a lot that's going to have to be done. because one person has betrayed our trust and confidence. that's the right thing to do, let's go fix that. our technology direct rate have done a -- direct rate have done a phenomenal job -- directorate have done a phenomenal job in securing our network and we shared that across the intelligence community and the defense department and with other agencies. and i think those are steps to the future. and they've created some new tools. to watch what people do on the network, to ensure that nobody

does what this leaker did again. and i think that's great work and again that's all going to be shared with our partners out there. >> thank you. the last question regards our critical infrastructure. to protect our country's most critical infrastructure from destructive cyberattacks, what authority do you feel u.s. cybercom, the n.s.a. and/or the private sector needs that they might not have now? >> i think the most important thing that we need is we need the ability to share information with industry. right now we can't see what's hitting industry. we have no realtime tipping and queuing capability between industry and the government. and i don't say that that has to come uniquely to cybercommand and the n.s.a. i agree that if we do this in a transparent process, send it to the government all at once, h.s., f.b.i., n.s.a. and

cybercommand, that way everybody will know we're doing the right thing, it's transparent, and we get that information at network speed. f.b.i. can look at it to see if it's law enforcement, criminal-related. n.s.a. can look at it to see if there's a foreign nexus and cybercommand can look at it and say, what do i have to do to defend the country given this information? but you have to know the information. and right now what happens is the attack goes on and we're brought in after the fact. i can guarantee you, 100% of the time, we cannot stop an attack after the fact. those are quoteble quotes. [laughter] ok, so after all we're going to do is forensics. we can come in and say, it was really bad, and you can agree with us and say, yeah, it was really bad. you're probably going to have to do your whole network.

yep. it's going to be a long time. yep. it's going to cost a lot of money. wish we had something up front to stop this. maybe information sharing. so that legislation that we're pushing for is absolutely important for our country. so, just to summarize if i could, thanks for taking the time to listen. there's the one ask i have of all of you and that's help us get the tools that we need to defend this country and protect our civil liberties and privacy. we'll do our part, we'll hold ourselves accountable. we'll protect civil liberties and privacy and we'll defend this nation and we will do it right. thank you, folks. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> we're honored that you joined us today and thank you very much for all you're doing to secure our country and i think the standing ovation speaks for itself. so thank you again, sir. > thank you. >> i'd like to now ask our next panel to come to the stage. they'll address a good segue on the area of critical infrastructure. he stage is yours. >> and the house back at 5:00 eastern this afternoon with four bills on their agenda. as they wait for senate action on a continuing resolution that would fund the federal government past september 30. the house leadership warning there may be a weekend session depending on what happens in the senate. we're planning to bring you live coverage coming up in about 10 minutes or so of nancy pelosi.

she'll be speaking along with other democrats about the path forward in dealing with the debt limit deadline. we are scheduled to bring you that live at 3:30 eastern and when it gets starteded, we'll have it for you. over on the senate, the senate in a bipartisan vote advancing a bill to fund the government after october 1. here's our reuters describing what happens. the u.s. senate began on wednesday advancing a bill to keep the government operating beyond september 30, when funding for this fiscal year runs out. as it cleared a procedural hurdle that some republicans had erected. roiders goes on to say the -- reuters goesen to say the senate unanimously agreed to limit early debate on the measure in the hope of passing a bill by this weekend. but battles over the legislation were expected to continue in both the senate and the house of representatives. and of course the senate always live over on c-span2. yoming up this evening, demeter -- democrat and republican squaring off in governor's

debate. this will be moderated by nbc's chief white house correspondent and our live coverage gets under way at 7:00 eastern on c-span3. a bit he will earlier we toke -- a bit earlier we spoke to a capitol hill reporter to get a preview. >> thanks for joining us this morning. >> good to be here. >> what are we looking for at this debate tonight? what are the key issues that are going to be mr. play between the two candidates in that debate? guest: i think what everybody is looking for is whether the republican can do anything to make up lost ground. the polls have him behind. that is a different situation from last spring when he was ahead in a lot of polls. but "the washington post" had a poll this week with him eight points behind in a three-way race. there's a libertarian running as well. and five points behind if it's

just a head-to-head race. so, the sort of over the summer, big advertising campaign by the democrats, by their candidate, was successful it seems in pushing a lot of voters to view cuccinelli as basically too far to the right, especially on social issues, especially on women's issues. and this is a big opportunity to -- for him to try to turn things around. so -- host: one of the interesting things can came out that have "the washington post" poll that you talked about was the tone of this race. one of the questions you asked was, do you have -- does the candidate have a high personal, moral and ethical standard and we can see both -- for both, that negative opinion has shot up dramatically since may 13 to now. 35% say that cuccinelli does not

have a high personal, moral and ethical standard and 30% say mcauliffe does not. talk about the tone of this race. guest: the tone has been very negative. both candidates have spent a lot of time and money trying to paint the other one as ethically hallenged. cuccinelli is very far on the conservative side. he's a very popular leader of the tea party and of the religious right. and plus he got tarred a little bit, not a whole lot, but a little bit by this big scandal in the richmond that has enveloped the republican governor over gifts from a businessman. and so terry mcauliffe and the democrats have been hitting him on that. but mcauliffe has never held elective office.

he's mainly known for having been a chairman of the democratic national committee under bill clinton and having raised a lot of money, millions and millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, for the clintons. especially. and for the democratic party. and he's got some questionable business dealings or at least suspicion business dealers in his past. most notably in the present. an electric car company that he started off has not really produced very much. in the way of jobs or cars. and it's currently under federal investigation for possibly having violated rules over giving visas to -- getting visas for investors. now, he is not personally being targeted but he was the founder and chairman of the company and of course the republicans have been making a big deal about that. so, both of these guys have been

lnerable to attack on ethics complaints and that has hurt the tone of the campaign. plus, you know, neither one of them has really a record that he wants to stand on. i mean, cuccinelli is -- his record is very popular with the tea party and with the religious right. but he needs to get some people in the middle, even -- not just independents but moderate republicans to support him. and his record isn't very conducive to that. and then as i mentioned, mcauliffe has never held elective office. host: we'll be looking for all those issues tonight. that's the date. thank you so much for joining us this morning for a quick preview of it. guest: my pleasure. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] fdic north dakota >> and we'll have tonight's debate for you live on c-span 3 at 7:00 eastern. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

take you now to capitol hill. we're going to wait a moment before we -- >> originally in the 1840's, this was two houses. they were joined together. the downstairs was used as retail space. the upstairs was use the -- was the home of the bowling. this is the birth room of edith bowling wilson. this was the bedroom of her parents. she was the seventh of 11 children born to the bowlings. she was one of over 20 family members that lived upstairs in the bowling home. this is the back sleeping porch. this is where edith would gather with her family, where they would enjoy evenings together. edith's parents sent her to washington, d.c., to keep her away from this older gentleman who was wishing to court her. there she met and married her first husband, norman, and it really changed her life. >> watch our program on the two wives of president woodrow wilson at our website,

c-span.org/firstladies or see it saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and we continue our series live on monday with first lady harting. c-span online archives will redefine social studies education in america. thanks, the c-span video archives and clipping capability are treasures. >> go to c-span.org and go to the video library to watch the newest video, go down to the most recent tab. click on what you want to watch and press play. you can also search the video library for a specific topic or key word or you can find a person. just type in their name, hit search, and go to people. go to their bio page and scroll down to their appearances and you can also share what you're watching and make a clip. use the set buttons or handle tools. add a title and description, and then click share and send it by

email, facebook, twitter or google plus. the c-span video library, searchable, easy and free, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. >> now here we are on capitol hill waiting for democratic leader of the house, nancy pelosi, to come out and speak with reporters. she's scheduled to be accompanied by some other house democrats. you can see reporters in the room. and we expect this to get under way very shortly.

>> so we're waiting for leader pelosi to come out here in front of these reporters. we expect her to speak about the debt ceiling and the continuing resolution to fund the government. white house press secretary jay carney was asked a question or two about the debt creaming today. let's show you some of his briefing while we wait. >> it's one thing not to engage speaker boehner when talking about the possibility of a government shut down, but when you're talking about the debt ceiling, aren't you forced to negotiate and engage? >> here's the thing. i'll say a couple things about that. i don't have the quotes in front of me but i know you all remember that it was speaker of the house who said, declared publicly that he would never negotiate with the president

again. seemed a little extreme. he has of course since then, the president has had conversations with him and enjoyed them as he always does. there is no negotiating over congress' responsibility to ensure that we do not default. we saw what happened when that path was traveled in 2011. and the result was terrible. even the flirtation with default. when it became apparent that there were actually members of congress in the republican party who were willing to default as a matter of ideological purity and who were willing to inflict that harm on the economy and on middle class families, the economy reacted badly. markets reacted badly. and people suffered. >> you knew their perspective on that and still negotiated. >> that's the point i'm making. is that this cannot and should

not be a matter of negotiation. we can and should debate our differences. but we cannot have the american economy and the global economy and the american middle class held hostage to an instistence by a faction of congress, especially in one house, that it achieve its political objectives, that it had not been able to achieve otherwise. through -- at the ballot box or when the legislative process played out. or in front of the supreme court when the supreme court declared that the affordable care act was constitutional. it's just incredibly irresponsible. they would threaten default over

a provision that would delay implementation of the affordable care act. and if that were carried out, it would add significantly to the deficit. so this charade that, you know, the charade, what we have seen this whole time about these negotiations that the principle preoccupation of the republican party in these matters in congress is the need to further reduce our deficit and not be irresponsible in our spending, they now put forward a proposition, a proposal, that is wrong on so many fronts. but it would raise and increase the deficit along with it. >> it seems hard to believe that the president would be prepared to breach the debt ceiling without having engaged house republicans on shoot. >> congress has the power of the purse strings. that is the power proudly -- >> without having engaged them. to get to the point where there's a default and the president hasn't stepped in to engage them. i mean, that's -- >> again, let's be clear. the president has been and

continues to be willing to negotiate with republicans over our budget priorities and how to make the right choices and make compromises along the way, to make sure that we grow our economy, we create our jobs in the middle class and we bring down our deficit further, in the middle, and out years. has always been willing to do that. week of been through a process this year where, at the instistence of the republicans as part of the last budget deal, the senate, led by democrats, passed a budget. that's what the republicans insisted had to be done. we had to follow regular order. you covered the hill. right? you've heard that cry. the democrats refused to cover -- to follow regular order, they refused to pass a budget. so senate passed a budget. that's what the republicans wanted. the house passed its budget, the whatbudget, know, 2.0, and happens then in regular order is that conferees are appointed and the two houses try to reach an

agreement. a compromise. republicans in the house were so opposed to the idea of compromise, the idea of negotiation, the idea of finding common ground, that to this day they have refused to appoint conferees in a process that they themselves said was essential. so, the president has demonstrated again and again his willingness to be reasonable and find common ground and he will continue to do that. when it comes to the debt ceiling, everybody says we ought to raise it, we can't default, it would be wildly irresponsible. so we ought to -- then congress should just raise it. one side is saying, we'll let the economy default unless we get what we want, which is essentially defunding or delaying of obamacare. i think it's pretty clear and a lot of republicans seem to agree with this that that is a wholly irresponsible position to take. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] fdic north dakota >> jay carney there a -- [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> jay carney there a bit earlier this afternoon. the house back in this afternoon about 90 minutes or so from now, 5:00. they're in for four bills and then we're told that house republicans may consider some legislation later this week that would tie a one-year increase in the debt limit with the one-year delay of the health care law. that ceiling expected to be reached on october 17, according to treasury secretary lu and of course our live coverage of the house always here on c-span. let's wait, we expect leader pelosi rather shortly.

>> as we continue to wait for the house democrats to come out, let's show you some of this morning's "washington journal." more of our discussions on the budget matters. host: welcome back. congressman, thank you for joining us. we have five days left until the potential government shutdown. is there room to reconcile between the house and senate? guest: there absolutely is. we did what we can could -- what we do could do last week in terms of moving the bill forward. you have to think about how we got here. we've been working on appropriations bill it's all summer long. september 30 is that deadline. but the senate has yet to pass even a single appropriations bill. we went and i had -- ahead and

passed everything in one big package last week. now it's up to the senate to move something forward. i think it's incredibly likely. this isn't a town of wreckless people. this is a town of folks who are trying to get things done. it's not always easy to get something done. and you don't always get everything that you want. i think what we have to understand is that the american people are counting on us. we did what we could in the house to make sure the government doesn't shut down. i have no reason to believe the senate isn't going to follow that same responsible path. host: would you be open to any other different version other than the proposals that are out there right now as we're looking at how to solve this problem? guest: i'm an open-minded properson. i have principles i can't compromise on but i'm always looking for consensus. the problem with the question is that we passed appropriations bills individually. small bills, targeted bills, and we've seen absolutely nothing back from the senate. i just need to see something back. it's tough to start that negotiation until the senate puts at least something up on the board.

host: yesterday we heard senate in a majority leader harry reid propose an alternate measure to deal with this fiscal issue. let's take a look at that now. >> the best way to stop lurching, lurching on this crisis to the next crisis is to get back into funding our government the way the founding fathers set it up. through the appropriations process. i've discussed at great length ith chairman mccluskey and murray about whether there's any possibility of funding the government. they believe there is. they've had conversations with some of their republican colleagues, so they believe that a funding measure that runs through november 15 will provide a greater opportunity for appropriation bills to pass the senate. and i agree with them. so the amendment that i file in the next day or so will prevent

a shutdown through november 15. so the only thing we're going to change appears at this stage on this c.r. we got from the house is the date. the rest will take -- we'll take out. we'll take all the rest of the stuff. host: that was senate majority leader harry reid. your response to that proposal. guest: i believe that folks want to take senator reid seriously, about the appropriations process. and its importance. but again that's a fella who has complete control of the united states senate, and has failed to pass even one appropriations bill. we're supposed to pass 12 every year. that's work that's supposed to be done in may and june and july. and he hasn't even passed one. am i glad that he's -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> good afternoon. today it is a pleasure to join my colleagues, our distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer, or

distinguished assistant leader, mr. clyburn, and our champion on this issue of a clean debt ceiling, congressman peter welch. who for years has demonstrated great leadership in lifting the debt ceiling. with a clean bill. indeed, to get nearly every democrat to sign this letter in a matter of days is quite a remarkable accomplishment. mr. hoyer has led the charge to address our economic and fiscal challenges in a balanced way for his whole time in congress. andssistant leader mr. clyburn has been a champion for consumers who are very definitely affected. the consumers in our great middle class who are greatly affected by a default on the lifting of the debt ceilinging. honoring the full faith and credit of the united states of america.

the republican agenda keeps going from bad to worse. the republicans keep threatening a government shutdown in order to put insurance companies back in charge of america's health care. now republicans continue to hold the full faith and credit of the united states government hostage to their radical agenda. this morning treasury secretary lu as you know made it clear that the debt limit will be reached on october 17. as he wrote in his letter, if we have insufficient cash on hand, it would be impossible for the united states of america to meet all of its obligations for the first time in our history. for the first time in our history. refusing to raise the debt limit poses a cataclysmic danger, some say worse than cataclysmic, danger to the stability of our markets and the economic security of our middle class. again, we've talked about this

before. about for the american people, the results would be disastrous in this respect. every day americans would be paying higher interest rates on credit cards, mortgage payments, car payments, student loans and for small businesses, higher interest rates on their business loans. i ask you to raise your hand, i was very pleased last week that some of you did, who has a 401-k. this could jeopardize americans' 401-k accounts, pensions and other retirement plans. your 401-k in jeopardy because of radical right-wing agenda that the republicans are putting forward. even talk of the default in august of 2011 led to a downgrade. just even discussion of it. slowed economic growth, impacted the markets and caused consumer

confidence to plummet. chairman bernanke, a government shutdown, perhaps even more, so a failure to raise the debt limit, he talked about both, could have very serious consequences for the financial markets and for the economy. democrats know that americans cannot afford another republican manufactured crisis. that's why we're standing together to support a clean increase in our debt limit, so americans can -- america can pay its bills and avoid another debilitating crisis to our economy. it's time for republicans to abandon their wreckless agenda and for democrats and republicans to come together to work together to pursue the responsible course, to raise the debt ceiling, to end the sequester, to create jobs, grow the economy and strengthen the middle class. my colleagues here have all been champions in that regard and i'm pleased to yield to our champion

on getting this letter, i mean, you have no idea how difficult it is over a weekend to get so many signatures. even when we're in session. and so i salute mr. welch for his leadership, for his commitment to fiscal soundness in our country and for his -- the respect he commands in our caucus. because they support him in this letter. mr. welch. >> thank you very much. delighted to be here with our leaders, pelosi, hoyer and clyburn. 186 democrats, 186 members of the democratic caucus, agree with president obama and president ronald reagan that america pays its bills. and it was president reagan who said in 19834 that the debt ceiling should -- 1983 that the debt ceiling should not be used as a political football. raising the debt ceiling is about one thing and one thing only. honoring obligations incurred by

previous congresses. democratic and republican. it's not about authorizing a penny of new spending. so the question of the day is, are the republicans really serious, are they really serious about defaulting on america's debt for the first time in america's history? if they are, it's really time for them to get real. if they are, it's time for them to sober up. and if they are, their strategy will fail. because the financial markets will pistol whip the republican conference into doing then what they should be doing now and that is pay america's bills. thank you. and i yield to mr. hoyer. >> thank you very much, congressman welch, for your leadership and tenacity on this issue. peter welch has been raising this, his voice, and the voice of others for years now. on behalf of fiscal

responsibility. taking your country hostage and damaging your country should not be an option. that is what's being done by our republican colleagues. any attempt to hold our debt limit hostage would be wreckless. those of us who signed representative welch's let railroad committed to a clean -- letter are committed to a clean debt limit extension to forestall another downgrade of our credit. that is not an easy vote. because it will be mischaracterized as incurring additional debt. as mr. welch so correctly pointed out, a debt limit extinction is for that debt which -- extension is for that debt which we have already incurred. it was shame whfl republicans brought us to -- shameful when the republicans brought us to the brink in 2011, leading to the only downgrade of america's

credit in history. where standard & poors downgraded us one point. the bill republicans propose to put on the floor this week is nothing but a wish list of unrelated and partisan policies they know won't go anywhere. as a result, they are taking their country's credit hostage. to their own small agenda. to provide certainty to our markets, we should act now rather than wait until october 17. now, the republicans apparently may do that this week. but they ought to do a clean debt limit extension. and we ought to stop demagoguing one another. t is for policies the congress and congress have -- and the president have adopted. we shouldn't be playing political games with our debt, risking revere and economic

consequences. bernanke put it bluntly and i quote, this is september 18, just a few days ago, a failure to raise the debt limit could have very serious consequences to the financial markets and for the economy. now, one could shrug off him as not partisan. as overly concerned. but moody's analyst steven hess wrote yesterday on 9/24, the u.s. treasury bond is the benchmark of the world's financial markets. to default on that would create a global financial problem. could you say, well, he's just a bond rater or something of that nature. but let me call your attention to this quote. former bush director of the office of management budget and chairman of the gingrich-led congress' budget committee says this, quote, markets will react,

there will be repercussions that our economy right now doesn't need and doesn't deserve. he went on to say, it would be a dangerous and damaging process to pursue. so we urge our republican colleagues to act responsibly. to put country above party. to end their partisan games and threaten our nation's fiscal health. and which will have real-world repercussions to our economy. the letter that mr. welch has ows the her he can president's statement that congress must act for -- echoes america's statement that congress must act to pay america's bills. i thank congressman welch for his leadership on this issue and we're standing with him today to send a strong message that we must prevent a catastrophic default. and i now yield to the assistant leader of the democratic caucus and the house, my good friend

from south carolina, mr. jim clyburn. >> thank you very much, mr. hoyer, leader pelosi, mr. welch. thank you so much for your leadership on this issue that is so very, very important to the men and women, especially that work -- the working men and women in this great country of ours. i think that all of us recall at back in 2011, when we had tremendous brinksmanship taking place, by the other party, some significant things started to happen. consumer confidence plummeted. d in response to their shenanigans, businesses stopped hiring. sort of a me led to

self-fulfilling prophecy. now, we can talk all we want about what may or may not happen. but everybody that i've talked to on this and everybody that i've listened to tell me that what should have happened is that mortgage rates -- that what is sure to happen is that mortgage rates are going to skyrocket. not just mortgages, but student loans and the rate on student loans will skyrocket. but when i think about all the things that could happen and what we read about this, i often just revert to my own experiences. and i was thinking last night bout some of my early lessons.

now, i remember being in the third grade. and i remember spelling bees. but aside from those spelling bees, the thing that i remember more than anything else is my dad telling me that what has made this country great and what makes this country run is credit. of all you do, son, he would tell me, you keep your credit clean. he would drill that into us all the time. and i think about those fundamental lessons and i remember like i remember the spelling bees, that one phrase of my dad who because of the laws in south carolina was not allowed to go to high school and nish college after i was

around a teenager. he used to say that, he used to use the phrase all the time, full faith and credit of the united states of america. he thought that that was so important. and there is nothing, no matter how we may dress it up, there's nothing any more fundamentally important to this country great of ours than us maintaining the good faith and credit of the united states of america. and that is what is being jeopardized by these shenanigans by the other side. and with that i'll yield back to our great leader. >> i thank my colleagues, mr. welch, for his leadership, and over the years, and over the weekend in amassing such a strong statement of support for lifting the debt limit in a clean way. mr. hoyer, for talking about what the ramifications are globally, and mr. clyburn as to

what it means to individual americans. it is really important for us to just put this aside and again never question the full faith and credit. because it's about confidence. t's about confidence for our economy. it's about how jobs are created and how consumers spend and again how people buy our bonds, countries buy our bonds or institutions, relate to the federal government. and this is placing it all on doubt and why? any questions? yes, sir. >> how much of an increase are you actually looking for? $1 billion or $2 billion or trillion, i mean, or are you trying to get this issue settled for the rest of the obama administration, maybe after, something like $5 trillion increase? how much of an increase in the debt limit are you asking for? you asked for a clean increase but is there a dollar amount associated with that? >> i don't have a dollar amount but i think that the republicans, and dry with them on this, are looking to get this

through the next election. so whatever dollar amount gets to you maybe january of 2015. and the reason for that is, frankly, mr. boehner recognizes the irresponsibility of this action and doesn't want to take his party through it a second time in an election year. as he did not the last time, as recall, in 2011, in which he proposed doing the same thing. i think that's -- i think that would be an agreed opinion-upon objective. -- agreed-upon objective. >> several of you cited 2011. does this feel similar, worse, betser? are you more optimistic this time? i mean, i know all these struggles, but how does that compare to the fight you went through two years ago? >> mr. welch? >> it's worse. that was the first time congress went from grandstanding on debt creeling to actual confrontation. -- ceiling to actual confrontation. in this congress we've had leadership that's led congress into dysfunction and we're about

to take a step into disintegration. this year, what you're see something people who actually believe that it's a legitimate tactic, to blow up the country in order to achieve a goal which is to get oba r ocare. and it's reminiscent of another statement that somebody made in a different context. we'll blow up the country in order to save it. i mean, this is just wild and wreckless. there's no legitimate rationale for any member of congress to destroy or jeopardize, as jim clyburn said, the full faith and credit of this country, that has such consequences to students, to homeowners, to businesses, in order to, quote, get their way. especially when the way they want to get has been decided by the american people in the last presidential election, it was decided by the supreme court and it was decided by a congress. so, this is pretty wild behavior on the part of the republican conference. >> how problematic would it be

for -- in general, for the president, were the party out of power and demand reform and -- [inaudible] and for your part, would you commit to not doing -- [inaudible] >> let me just speak to that issue in a broader sense. because five years ago last week five years ago last week, all of us here were faced with a vote that was a very, very serious one, that was about passing the tarp bill. a republican was in the white house, his policies produced a meltdown of financial markets, it increased the deficit enormously and they came to us at the 11th -- 12th hour, really, and said, help. and we as democrats went out there and said, time is of the essence. we must work in a bipartisan way in order to save our

country from what was coming. we were already in deep recession, going over a serious financial institutions meltdown and all that would come of that, really close to a depression. at night when we were all gathered there, chairman berman key said, if we don't act immediately, we will not have an economy by monday system of we stepped up to the plate for this republican president. it wasn't a vote our members wanted to take. viewed to them as bailing out the banks. we saw it as saving our economy. it's one that has still left a bitter mouth in the -- taste in the mouths of the american people because they thought we build out wall street and nobody bailed out main street is that an accurate perception? it's what we hear. nevertheless, at that moment of truth, the democrats were there to support the initiative, we

improved it, of the republican president to bail out his problem, created by his economic policies, because it was important for our country. and we all -- it was -- >> 142 the first time, 170 the next time. >> and the republicans never still -- >> 85 and 95. >> never reached the 100 they promised on day one. this is a different thing. that was an emergency at the predictable from the policies in place but the republicans at the time who did not believe -- they made adam smith look like a piker. they did not believe in any discipline, any supervision, any regulation. that's how we got to where we were. when the walls came tumbling down they didn't believe in intervention.

i give them credit, they were true to who they are and they do not believe in a public role. so we were there to save the day, save the country. what we're talking about here, in my view, to get to your point, we shouldn't even be doing this. the full faith and credit of the united states of america is an established fact. i think the 14th amendment covered it. the president and i have a disagreement in that regard, i guess. i would never have taken that off the table but yes, i would be willing to say, don't mess with the debt limit. don't mess with the debt limit. whatever luxury you want to be afforded to make your point, get attention, because it's center stage, that's a luxury we can't afford system of yes, i would say yes to that. and by the way, to go back to that five years ago when the chairman said what he said, it was interesting to me because i always think of it and how

close we were to the brink and how secret they kept it from the rest of us, but i couldn't help but think of it last year during the presidential election, when the republicans were saying are you better off than you were four years ago? they had the nerve to say, are you better off than you were four years ago, when four years ago almost to the day that they were speaking, we weren't going to have an economy by monday. so let's understand what balance we really need in terms of the public-private partnership to make our country row. >> i want to make a point, at the meeting there were 15, 16, 17 of us around speak epelosi's table. the speaker. was

everybody including ben bernanke a republican appointee, said we need action. every leader, the republican leadership of the house, the republican leadership in the senate was at that table, the democratic leadership of both the house and senate. every leader said that's what we need to do so stabilize our country and to save our people from a depression, we will do it. there's an analogy. we delivered on our side of the aisle. we had 142 votes. i went over to mr. blunt and said, roy, you've only got 65 on the board, that's 07, we cannot pass it. i said we would give them 120. we put 142 democrats on the board to support bush's policy, because we thought it was right for the country. and we went to our members and got the votes.

the difference was, those leaders who said they were for the president's proposal could not deliver. to that extent there's an analogy to today. >> can i -- mr. hoyer can handle this, or ms. pelosi. >> we can handle any question you have. >> two years ago you might remember the republicans staged a vote on a clean debt limit increase to nonstrait it was impossible to pass. you noted they have yet to schedule a comparable vote now. why do you imagine that is, mr. hoyer? >> because i think there are at least 30 responsible republicans and i think that's the sadness of it. enge they're a majority of responsible people in the house of representatives. unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, i think not only have they taken the government hostage in their c.r., not only have they taken

the credit of the united states hostage, but unfortunately, a minority of the republican conference has held hostage the responsible and reasonable members of their conference. that is why i think we're in this position. i think -- i'm not too sure it's as clear as the way steny expressed those numbers, if you recall, the 142 with 65 did not get us to 218 and we had to come back later. this was after we all agreed that we would put up 120 and they would put up 100. and their 100 turned out to be 65. then we had to go back to our members and ask our members to step up even further. we got 30 more members,

democrats, to come on board to pass that bill. >> the following friday. >> yes. now i think down in south carolina we always say, you can best tell what a person will do by looking at what he or she has done. i think you can best tell what democrats will do when we have to do what's necessary for the country by looking at the record. and the record is very clear, that every time we have been asked by any president, whether it's our party or the other party, we have stepped up to do what is necessary to keep this ountry moving forward. we stand ready to do the same today. unfortunately, if your theory is you've got to have a majority of the majority in

order to move an agenda, that is a problem that we are facing today. >> and i remind that they did not have the majority for sandy aid 90 days after it was supposed to be passed, they only had, what, fewer than 40 votes for sandy aid, the overwhelming majority of the republicans voted against the violence against women act. there's an easy way for this come to to the floor that is not breaking any practice that has been in place. >> can i just add -- >> get to the microphone. >> you asked me for my speculation. i'm the majority -- if i'm the majority leader and i think to myself, we're fwoning to put something on the flooring almost all the democrats will vote for responsibility and almost all of my guys will vote against responsibility, i am very he re-luck tant to put a responsible piece of legislation on the floor because it will focus the

american people on the -- on the lack of responsibility in the majority party. >> let me just say what full faith and credit means. when people brenger that money to the bank, the bank uses the money for whatever purposes, but it is insured by the full faith and credit of the united states of america. that's part of what makes our system run. on the other hand, when people buy our bonds, they are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the united states of america. so think in your own experience, not the full faith and credit of the fdic deposits is in question, they're not, but you have confidence to put your money in the bank because of the full faith and credit of the united states of america. if that isn't there for bonds, people won't buy our bonds. this is going to be

cataclysmic. under one scenarios the republicans have, it's pay china fers. pay china first is what is in the c.r. pay china fers. pay the debt, whatever the debt we owe china first. all these things come together in a way that really is not responsible. it's beneath the dignity of the responsibility that we have as members of congress and the obligation that we have to find common ground to get the job done and not afford, for the gentleman's question, not afford ourselveses the luxury of perhaps defaulting. people can make whatever scrambles they want to make to showcase their issues but not with the seriousness of taking down the full faith and credit of the united states of america. this is very serious. >> i was out in the field a few days ago, reporting on this issue, the debt limit, talking to americans, i encountered one gentleman who said he thought the debt limit should be raised but he was put off by the president refusing to negotiate.

do you think the democrats risk looking bullheaded by that stance from the white house? could that be offputting for americans wanting to see the white house come together with congress? >> i think the president has negotiated and negotiated and negotiated. so when he says that, he is really saying, we've taken it to a point where there's no use to talk anymore, we just have to act. that's how i see that. i can understand why that gentleman might get that impression but if there's ever a president, whether we're talking about the continuing resolution, and my colleagues know this, or you're talking about the c.r., he has in every ay tried to build bipartisan consensus. i don't think he advertises that enough. but i'm happy to do that for him. he has a bigger bully pulpit than i do, but i do think, getting back to the gentleman's question, that none of us should be negotiating on the

debt ceiling. it should just be listed. when it comes to the c.r., the president has negotiated. in fact, we met with him six months ago to give him our view, remember that march meeting with the president? and he said, i hear what you're saying, i think you know what my -- how i approach all of this, but i want some months to try to get a bipartisan agreement and obviously that has not come. but this president, this is a president who has been so bipartisan and that is a quality that the american people like. but even he has reached the end of the line when it comes to mr. clyburn's words, the shenanigans the other side is putting up. again, what they're proposing is unworthy of the task before us and the responsibility of that -- and and the responsibility that we have. thank you all very much. bye-bye.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> treasury secretary said october 17 -- set october 17 as the day when the treasury will only have $30 billion in cash on hand he said without adecisional borrowing authority the country will be far short of expenditures on certain days which can be as high as $60 billion he said if that happens it would be impossible for the taos meet all its only gailingses for the first time in history -- its obligations for the first time in history. republicans plan to tie the increase in the debt ceiling to a broad republican wish list, including delaying the health care law for a year. the house is expected back in in about 45 minutes from now at 5:00 eastern. they'll debate four bills, including one dealing with the

national helium reserve. this evening, debate between the candidates between -- the candidates for virginia's next governor. republican attorney general ken cuccinell and democratic candidate terry mcauliffe debate in fairfax, virginia, moderated by nbc's chuck todd live coverage will begin at k p.m. eastern on c-span3. the senate vote unanimously to pass house legislation to defund the health care law and fund the government through december 15. this sets the stage for the amendment to remove the language that defunds the health care law. this after senator ted cruz spoke for more than 21 hours on the floor. when the senator finished his remarks, other senators came to the floor, including senator john mccain.

>> madam president, i will not take too much time on the floor but i would like to make sure that my colleagues understand that there are many of us opposed to obamacare, as it's called, the affordable care act, and the opposition that we mounted in 2009. it's a matter of record that the senate, to start with, the senate finance committee considered the affordable care act over several weeks and approved the bill october 13 of 2009. at that time, member os they have finance committee submitted 564 amendmented, 135 amendments were considered, 79 roll call votes taken, 41 amendments adopted, then the

senate health, education, labor, pensions committee approved the affordable care act. by 13-10. after a month-long debate, 500 amendments were considered. more than 160 republican amendments were accepted. and then it came to the floor of the senate. the affordable care act was on the floor for 25 straight days including weekends. between thanksgiving and christmas of 2009. 506 amendments were filed, 228 of which were republican, 34 roll call votes were held. most roll call votes resulted in party line votes. including a motion which i had to commit the bill to the finance committee for rewrite. the final passage of the bill because of our insistence in exercising every reasonable

parliamentary procedure we could, took place on christmas eve of 2009. much to the discomfort of many of my colleagues. but we fought as hard as we could in a fair and honest man and we lost. and we lost, one of the reasons is because we were in the minority. and democracies almost always the majority governs and passes legislation. but i couldn't -- i was extremely proud of the effort that we on this side of the aisle made to attempt to defeat what we thought was a measure that was not good for america. and it was an interesting debate. and i think an educational one. we had a lot of -- i see my friend from illinois here on several occasions he and i had basically debates on the floor of the senate which of course i won every one.

but the fact is, the fact is, that this legislation was hard fought, it was a legislative process, i didn't like the end of it but i'm proud of the effort that we made and frankly, the other side of the aisle allowed that debate to take place. and again, we fenally finished at december 24 of 2009 7:05 a.m. so to somehow allege that many of us are not -- or haven't fought hard enough, i think does not comport with the actual action that took place on the floor of the senate. now, many of those who are in opposition right now were not here at the time and did not take part in that debate. respect that.

but i'd like to remind them that the record is very clear of one of the most hard-fought, fair, in my view, debates that's taken place on the floor of the senate in the time i've been here. then i i remind my colleagues that in the 2012 election, obamacare, as it's called, and i'll be more polite, the a.c.a., was a subject of -- that was a major issue in the campaign. i campaigned all over america for two months everywhere i could and in every single campaign rally, i said, and we have to repeal and replace obamacare. well the people spoke. they spoke, much to my dismay, but they spoke. and they re-elected the president of the united states. now that doesn't mean that we give up our efforts to try to

replace and repair obamacare. but it does mean that elections have consequences. and those elections were clear in a significant majority that the majority of the american people supported the president of the united states and renewed his stewardship of this country. i don't like it. it was not something that i wanted the outcome to be, but i think all of us should respect the outcome of leches which reflects the will of the people. so we just went through a long, many-hour -- i can't call it a filibuster because a filibuster is intended to delay passage of legislation. there was no doubt that there was a time certain that time on the floor would have to expire.

so i guess the kindest depiction i can say is, it was extended oratory that took place for many hours on the floor of the senate. which is the right of the -- any senator to do, i respect that right an obviously the longevity of the discussion was something that was certainly admirable. but during the course of that discussion conducted by my , iend from texas, he said quote, if you go back to the 1940's, nazi germany, look, we saw in britain neville chamberlain who told the british people accept the nazis, yes they're dominate the continent of europe but that's not our problem, let's appease them. why? because it can't be tone, we can't possibly stand against

them, and then he went on to say, esuspect those same pundits who say defunding medicare or ba macare, can't be done, it had been in the 1940's, we would have been listening to them, they would have been saying, you cannot defeat the germans. i resoundingly reject that allegation that allegation in my view does a great disservice a great diser is vess for those brave americans and those who stood up and said what's happening in europe cannot stand, when the ship was turned back and the pabblings on that ship were sent directly to the gas chim behrs, when czechoslovakia fell and the slaughter conned, there were many who raised their voices and then there were those who nt to war because of the

barbaric and great sthret threatt to civilization and everything we stand for. amongst them were my father and grandfather. i do not agree with that comparison. i think it's wrong. and i think it's a disservice to those who stood up and shouted at the top of their lungs that we cannot appease that we must act. and we did act. and it's a diser is vess to those who did act. now i spoke to senator cruz about my dissatisfaction about his use of this language and he said he only intended it to be applied to pundits and not to members of the senate. i find that a difference without a distinction. i find that something that i think i had to respond to.

i do not begrudge senator cruz or any other senator who wants to come and talk as long as they want to, as long as they can, depending on the rules of the senate, but i do disagree strongly to allege that there are people today who are like those who prior to world war ii didn't stand up and oppose the atrocities that were taking place in europe. because i have an open and honest disagreement with the move s of not agreeing to forward with legislation which i agree with, which was passed through the house of representatives and comparing who those who appeased, were the appeasers, as senator , it's an bed them

inappropriate place for debate on the floor of the united states senate. i thank my colleagues. >> madam president. >> the senator from illinois. >> would you be kind enough to tell us the state of time remaining? >> there are 15 minutes remaining to the majority. no time remains for the inority. >> senator schumer is going to come to the floor shortly, as soon as he arrives i'll yield to him but i would just like to say in response to senator mccain, senator mccain, his father, his grandfather, and his son, i'm sure as well as other family members, have made an ex-trordnary contribution to this country and i know the

pride he's taken. i'm proud to count him as a friend and fellow colleague in the yeats senate. and yes, we have debated and i think at least to a draw on several occasions and i respect him very much even when we disagree. i know that he -- his statements were heart felt, we started in congress with senator reid, senator mccain and i together in the house in 1982. and i hope that his statement is taken for face value, that we respect very much all those who have stood up and fought for america and though we may have many differences politically on the floor on issues, we'll never question those who have risked and given their lives in defense of this great nation. madam president, at the risk of taking more time than i should, i do want to say a word, though, that at the conclusion of this debate, we will have an important vote here on the floor of the senate.

it's a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed. and basically, what it says is this -- shall we proceed to consider the bill that was sent to us by the house of representatives? the bill that was sent to us is not one i agree with. i hope we can change it. but i certainly believe it would be a serious mistake for us not to give the of votes necessary to -- to give the 60 votes necessary to proceed on this bill that would literally bring us to a point where the government faces a shutdown. i don't want that to ocur. whatever -- occur. whatever one might have as a position, i hope we have a resound, bipartisan vote to proceed to the debate. 30 hours after that, we'll vote on the motion to proceed and talk about bringing this bill to a close. senator reid made it clear he wants to move this through as quickly as possible in an orderly fashion so everyone has a chance to state their

positions on the important issues before us. what i feel about it is very basic. first, we have responsibility to fund this government. one of my assignments here as chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, it's an awesome assignment. almost 60% of all the domestic discretionary spending of the united states government goes through this one subcommittee. it funds our department of defense and our intelligence agencies and any failure or any reduction or delay we have in bringing this matter forward can jeopardize their important activities, securing the safety of our nation. i see that my colleague, senator schumer, has returned. i yield the floor. >> thank you. first, i thank my colleague from illinois. >> the senator from new york. >> thank you, madam president. i thank my colleague from illinois for his courtesy. i thank the senator from arizona for his outstanding remarks as usual. now, for 21 hours, madam

president, we've heard the senator from texas hold forth. what has he accomplished? he's alienated many of his own colleagues. he has taken 21rs unnecessarily, although he's entitled to speak when he wants because a vote would have occurred with whether he said 10,000 words, one word , or no words. as leader reid said it was it's not a filibuster. but most of all, he's shown the american people what he is willing to do. we all know the senator from texas as very -- has very strong views about obamacare. fair enough. that's why we have a senate. there's a time and a place to debate. but he, in his view that he is right and everyone else is wrong, is willing not only to hold forth on the senate floor in a meaningless exercise, but more importantly, urge his

colleagues to hold the american people hostage until everyone agrees with his view. he wants to hold the cancer patient hostage who won't get n.i.h. treatments if the government shuts down. he wants to throw the construction worker out of work who is doing a job that is federally funded. and won't be funded if the government shuts down. he wants to tell the recipients of social security that they may not get their checks if there aren't enough people at the center to send those checks and make sure they get to the right place. because he wants to shut the government down. the senator from texas has passionate views. fair enough. but when the senator from texas thinks he is so right that he can trample on the rights not

only of his own colleagues here who are in a bit of a tizzy about what he has done, but far more importantly, on the needs of the american people something is wrong. you know, madam president new york this country, we have always eschewed ideologues, people who are so sure they are right that they don't listen to anyone else, they don't care about anyone else, and they don't care the damage they cause as they pursue their goal. that seems to be what the senator from texas is doing. and i was apalled last night when he tried to make the analogy to world war ii and hitler as somebody who lost relatives in the holocaust, to compare the two was absurd. i know my colleague from arizona mentioned that as well. i was also surprised that he

used the book, "green eggs and ham" as he read to his daughters because anyone who knows that book knows that the moral of that book is try something before you condemn it you might actually like it. the main character in "green eggs and ham" resisted eating green eggs and ham. maybe if he were a senator he'd speak on the floor for 21 hours. but then when he tasted green eggs and ham, he actually liked them. maybe, senator cruz, as the president's health care bill goes into effect, you may actually find that you and your constituents actually like it. so the bottom line, madam president, is very simple. there's a time and a place, as the scriptures say, we will certainly debate in the 2014 elections obamacare. i would note that we did in the 2012 elections and not a single

democrat who voted for obamacare in this senate lost. every single person who was up for office, had voted for obamacare, and was not defeated even though that issue was used against them other and over again. we're going to have that election again in 2014. phone, we welcome it. by the way, senator, we welcome it in 2016 as well. you want to have a debate on the floor of the senate about obamacare? fine. ust don't, don't hold, not j this body, because your exercise was meaningless. don't hold the american people hostage. simply because you're so sure you are right and everyone else is wrong. don't hold the social security recipient hostage. don't hold the road worker hostage. don't hold the person who

depends on inspectors who inspect our food or patrol our borders hostage. debate obamacare all you want but please don't threat ton shut down the government because you can't get your way. i yield the floor. >> the senators speaking today after senator ted cruz pulled an all-nighter on the senate floor, talking for more than 21 hours last night about defunding the health care law. the senate today voted 100-0 to advance the house bill that would defund the health care law an keep the government operating through mid december. the senate has up to 30 hours of debate before a vote is expected to remove the health care language from the funding bill. at the white house briefing today, spokesman jay carney answered a couple of we -- a couple of questions about that. >> good afternoon, everyone. it is so good to be with you

today. for those of you who were with us in new york, hope you enjoyed the trip. the trip was eventful, the president gave a major speech at the united nations general assembly and had, we felt, a very good and useful and informative discussion with former president clinton at the clinton global nearbytive. i wanted to make an announcement before i took -- take your questions and draw your attention to the fact that a new report has been released today by the department of health and human services showing that the affordable kear act will deliver on its promise to make health insurance more affordable and accessible for americans. in state after state, competition and transparency are driving a new set of affordable options for consumers in the new mark places just as the law was designed to do.

premiums nationwide will also be around 16% lower than originally expected. with about 95% of eligible uninsured americans living in states with lower than expected premiums. and that's before taking into account financial assistance. on arch, consumers will have a choice of 53 health plans and about one in four of these insurance companies are newly offering plans in the vedge market, which is a sign of healthy competition. to give you a sense of what this realy means for families who will be shopping for health insurance in the marketplaces, i have these examples. a family of four in north carolina with an income of $50,000, could pay $74 per month for the lowest cost bronze plan after tax credits. a family of four in indiana with the same income, $50,000, could pay $46 per month. again, for the lowest cost,

bronze plan, after tax credits. and the family of four in texas, with an income of 50,000, could pay just $57 per month. an income of $50,000 could pay just $57 per month for the lowest cost bronze plan after tax credits. overall, nearly six in 10 uninsured americans will pay $100 or less per month for health coverage. you can check out the map of remiums by state at at whitehouse.gov/map. soob the exchanges will be open for business and more americans will be able to check out their choices, their options, at health care.gov and fiend health plans that fit their lives and budgets. it's worth noting here in the capital of the nation and of the national press, some of the

coverage of this news which is why we have this graphic here behind me today. indianapolis business tissue "indianapolis business journal," analysis, obamacare will push anthem's premiums lower. ittsburgh fwa seth," obamacare to provide dozens of options. "houston chronicle," texans to have a -- to have array of insurance options. lower on post-crescent", cost health care. "palm beach post," local obamacare rates beat forecast. as i mentioned at the top, president clinton, president obama had an excellent discussion yesterday which i hope all of you were table

catch about the affordable care act, about health care in general, both in the nation and around the world and it is worth noting as we learn this news about premiums across the country and how they're coming in lower than expected that very soon, americans who did not have the option of affordable health insurance will have it available to them. what is important to remember about the families that i just talked about, the families of four earning $50,000 who will now have access to health care for their families for low premiums, did not have access before at all. they could not afford it. and that is the design and promise of the affordable care act. and it's taking shape before ur eyes. >> the president was speaking

when they did background briefings, i wonder if the resident saw anything in the r uhanny's address that -- about the nuclear overtures. frm him is eard what we've been hearing, an interest in making progress toward resolving this very serious problem that iran has. over its nuclear weapons program. and that is why as we've been saying for a while now, including in new york at the united nations, we're very interested in testing the assertions about that interest on behalf of the iranians in resolving this conflict. diplomatically. ever since he took office the

president said he's willing to engage directly with the iranians. in an effort to resolve this issue. and it is that willingness that has helped make clear that the onus is on iran to demonstrate that it is serious about complying with its international obligations. that willingness that then-candidate obama expressed and new president obama repeated is what helps forge the consensus, internationally, that led to the most comprehensive sanctions rejet stream that's ever been implemented. that in turn, as i think president -- as i think president rihanni made cleefer has had a dramatic impact on the ianian -- iranian economy and that's why iran is interested in our view having discussions about resolving this conflict.

and that is encouraging. but actions are what matter. substantive negotiations over iran's nuclear program will be the test, will provide the test of whether or not iran is serious about resolving the international community's concerns and we are engaged in that process. as you know, secretary kerry will be with his iranian counterparts in the p-5 plus one process this week. that's beginning of what we hope will be progress toward solving this problem. >> you said obama didn't believe his two days in new york with -- didn't leave his two days in new york with any greater clarity on what kind of substance is behind this? is that what you're saying? >> ill say we have been and continue to this week explore the level of seriousness and we are doing that through all the

avenues available to us. that will be very much part of the discussions that secretary kerry has and it is part of the communications that we have had including the communications that the president had in his exchange of letters and i think that what happened in new york, again, demonstrates two things. one, president obama has always sitting icitly open to down and talking to the iranian leadership. provided that the iranian leadership is serious about trying to resolve these problems with the international community over its nuclear weapons program. >> that became, i think, quite apparent again in recent days. o the iranians have to decide.

most importantly through substantive negotiations, whether or not they want to truly resolve this. and through resolution of it, through a verifyable, confirmable agreement to give up etc. nuclear weapons ambitions, iran can then rejoin the international community and its -- end its isolation, enjoy relief from the sanctions. but those are matters of substantive negotiations and that -- and the process is in place and has been in place continue to test these and assertions and see if this opportunity is real because the window, as we have been saying for someim now, even predating the elections in iran is open to resolve this diplomatically but it will not be open indefinitely. and you know, we would agree with those who say that there a need to assess and act on

this opportunity with haste. >> i'm wondering if there's any white house reaction to ted cruz's hours of arguing against obamacare overnight and now that the process on the c.r. looks like it's almost inevitably going back to the house, are there plans for the president to talk with leadership to ensure a deal can be reached by monday? >> as i indicated earlier in the week, the president, you know, will, i'm sure, be discussing these budget issues with the leadership, i don't have a specific meeting to preview for you. he's met with speaker boehner and others about this, about his position, our position on these issues that congress has to act to ensure they don't shut down the government. that it would be irresponsible

to not fund the essential functions of the government out of ideological pique. that we can continue to negotiate other a broader budget deal in a responsible way and to do that we need to make sure that the continuing resolutions pass that allows the government to stay open and for the president to continue to show in his presentations to congress that he is and has always been serious about finding common ground when it comes to making the right choices in how we found our government and investing in our economy to ensure our kids get educated and our roads and bridges get built and that we reduce our deficit further in a balanced and fair way. so that is one. two, the other position we obviously hold, and will not waiver from, is that the

responsibility of congress to pay the bills of the united states, build -- bills the congress has incurred, is not a subject for negotiation. everybody agrees. all the leaders and i think most of the rank and file, agree that the debt ceiling must be raised. so you have this unique situation in washington where everybody agrees on this single thing, so congress ought to just raise it. and don't forget they did it not that long ago. you might forget because there was no drama and no delay and no threat of default. just at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. so the idea that this could be where d be a situation default son the table and threatened and all the ramifications of that take place, all the harm that does to our economy is somehow the

norm, we just reject. we cannot allow that to happen. we have -- since congress raised the debt ceiling last time without drama and without delay, this economy has created more than a million jobs. since congress without drama and without delay raised the debt ceiling, that means republicans in congress, not just democrats, we've seen remarkable strides in the recovery in our housing market. we've seen continued economic growth. so if they were able to do it just a few months ago, i see no reason why they shouldn't do it now. it's the responsible thing to do if the goal here that we all shear is to allow the economy to grow and create jobs. >> did the president catch any of the 21 hours-plus of the speech by senator cruz? >> i don't believe so. >> does he have any reaction to the speech? did you watch it? >> i did not.

i read about it. would simply say that a will of four in texas ave available to it the option of purchasing affordable health insurance for $57 per month. a family of four with an income $50,000 after receiving tax credits, will have that option. that is a good thing. this family doesn't have insurance now. cannot afford insurance. under current conditions. and that reality is something that we're seeing now in state after state after state. quality, affordable health insurance is something that every family of four making

$50,000 and struggling to get by deserves. that's what the president believes. so certainly, we oppose any forts to engage in a political battle with the past to achieve some sort of ideological victory in a way that doesn't tissue not only shuts down the government but then if successful would deprive these very families of health insurance that they need. and we obviously have a difference of opinion. >> the conversations read out on friday between the president and speaker boehner and leader pelosi, have any other white house officials had conversations with people in congress or their staff? >> certainly we are in, you know, farly consistent communication with congress at different levels here at the white house.

i don't have any specific conversations to read out. enge the chief of staff is going up to the hill at some point to talk with democrats but that -- those conversations will continue, as i said in answer to julie's question, i don't have any meeting or conversation involving the president to preview at this point. as enge we've seen of late, there's a lot of activity going on that reflects enormous divisions within the republican party that are hard for us to influence. our focus is of course on the need to make wise decisions to ensure that the government does not shut down and especially to ensure that the yeats does not default for the first time in its history. >> will the president still travel asia as he said? >> i have no scheduling updates, the plan son the booblings and we intend to go. >> do you think you -- it's one

thing not to engage speaker boehner when it comes to the possibility of a government shutdown but when you're looking at reaching the debt ceiling, aren't you forced to negotiate? aren't you forced to engage? >> here's the thing. i'll say a couple of things about that. i don't have the quotes in front of me who i know you remember the speaker of the house said he would never negotiate with the president again. that seems extreme. sense then the president has had conversations with him and enjoys them as he always does. there is no negotiating over congress' responsibility to ensure we do not default. we saw what happened when that path was traveled in 2011 and the result was terrible. even the flirtation with default. when it became apparent there were members of congress in the republican party who were willing to default as a matter

of ideological purity and who were willing to inflict that harm on the economy and middle class families, the economy reacted badly. markets reacted badly. and people suffered. and that was -- >> but they can still negotiate. >> that's the point i'm making is that this cannot and should not be a matter of negotiation. we can and should debate our differences and negotiate and reach compromises over our budget priorities, absolutely. but we cannot have the american economy and the global economy and the american middle class held hostage to an insistence by a faction of congress, especially in one house, that it achieve its political objectives that it has not been able to achieve otherwise through -- at the ballot box or when the legislative process played out three years ago.

or in front of the supreme court when the supreme court declared that the affordable care act was constitutional. it's just incredibly irresponsible. think about tissue and the easterny of ironies is when we talk about the debt ceil, the one prop session on the table as republicans suggested is that they would threaten default over a provision that would delay implementation of the affordable care act. and if that were carried out it would add significantly to the deficit. so this charade, you know, what we have seen this whole time out ending the the principal preoccupation of republicans is to reduce our deficit hand reduce spending they put forward a proposition a proposal, that's wrong on so many fronts but would raise the deficit along with it. >> it seems hard to believe the president would be prepeared to breach the debt ceiling without

having engaged -- >> he doesn't breach the debt ceiling. congress has the pow ore of the purse strings. >> but it seems unlikely -- >> that is a power proudly -- >> without having engaged them. to get to the point where there's a default and the president hasn't stepped in to engage them. >> again, let's be clear. the president has been and continues to be willing to negotiate with republicans over our budget priorities and how to make the right choices and make compromises along the way to make sure that we grow our economy, we create jobs for the middle class and we breng down our deficit further in the middle and out years. has always been willing to do that. we've been through a process this year where at the insistence of the republicans as far as the last -- as part of the last budget deal the senate, pass -- led by democrats, passed a budget. that's what the republicans insisted had to be done, we had

to follow regular order. you cover the hill, you've senates refuse to follow regular order. the senate passed the budget. so what happens then in regular order conferees are appointed and the two houses try to reach an agreement. a compromise. republicans in the house were so opposed to the idea of compromise, the idea of negotiations, the idea of finding common ground that to this day they have refused to appoint conferees in a process they themselves said was essential. so the president has been demon -- has demonstrated again and again his willingness to be reasonable and find common ground and he'll continue to do that. everybody says we ought to raise the debt ceiling. we can't default. would be wildly irresponsible system of we taught -- congress should just raise it. one side is say, we'll let the

economy default unless we get what we want which is essentially defunding or delaying of obamacare. enge it's pretty clear and a lot of republicans seem to agree with this, that that is a wholly irresponsible position to take. john? >> is the president disappointed that president rihani turned down the offer to meet him? >> the president is not. he was open to the possibility of informal encounter with the president and remains open to that as he has broadly speaking since he took office. the resident believes that most important issues when it comes to iran's relationship with the rest of the international community including the united states are ones that need to be resolved through negotiations over substantive matters around

iran's nuclear weapons program. o i think that we should not over interpret the fact that the iranians decided against having an encounter and that it was too complicated in terms of assigning meaning to that about the potential for progress in negotiations. we will -- the potential if and we progress exists are going to test it through the avenues available to us. >> why does the white house think the president said no to the meeting or encount ore whatever you want to call it? two hink that outside -- things. one obviously, i'll say first, i'm not going to delve into an analysis of iranian poll techs. because that's not the issue for us. the issue is how serious is the new government as well as the

supreme leader about resolving this significant problem it has with the international community? two, i would simply say that as i mentioned earlier that the most important thing here is whether or not we can make progress on the substantive talks. the president was open to an formal encounter but even if something like that had happened -- >> you can see all of the white house briefing at c-span.org. we go live to the house, coming back in to debate four bills, including one dealing with the national helium reserve. ction u 20. record votes will be postponed. questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek