exercise as the gentleman knows. it has real consequences for our communities and our families. the american people sent us to washington to work together for our great nation and it is unacceptable for one side to refuse to negotiate. where is the president in all of this? the bully pulpit can just as equally be used for constructive leadership as it can be used for political showmanship. let us work together, get something done, and help america's vanishing middle class. and mr. speaker, and judge poe, it is just as important to remember that in addition to the constant legislative battles happening right here in congress, life goes on outside of the capitol and i want to take just a few minutes today to recognize two remarkable south florida organizations that are holding events this weekend. tomorrow, go red for women, the

organization is an impressive force to reckon with. heart disease, many people don't know this, but heart disease is the number one killer of women. it is more deadly than all forms of cancer. unfortunately, we have the strong women of go red, taking the fight to heart disease. mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, all are standing together and leading the change that we need and leading the charge that we need to educate, to advocate, to raise awareness about heart disease. and i want to especially congratulate jessica serika, the miami heart society director, as well as gabriel hayes, the 2013 chair and all of the women of go red with all of their strength and leadership, we will put an end to heart disease. finally, judge poe, thank you for the time.

let me congratulate the lupus association, the lupus foundation of america, southeast florida chapter, and they will be holding this year's walk to end lupus. now, miami this month, despite approximately 1.5 million americans suffering from lupus, including my stepdaughter, the lovely kathryn lehtinen, we still don't know exactly what causes lupus. it is a cruel and mysterious disease. we do know that almost 28,000 people are suffering from lupus in my south florida community. and while that disease cuts across racial, gender and ocial lines, we do know that lupus disproportionately impacts women and ethnic minority populations. so i'm extremely grateful for the outreach and the advocacy of the lupus foundation of america and especially its southeast florida chapter. as co-chair of the

congressional lupus caucus, i will keep up the fight against this terrible disease, and i extend my deepest gratitude to amy kelly youden and everyone in the southeast florida chapter for their continued incredible work. and i thank judge poe for the time, and let's continue to work together in a bipartisan way to avoid a government shutdown. and i thank the gentleman for the time. very courteous, very texan. mr. poe: i thank the lady. reclaiming my time. thank you, once again, mr. speaker. time to spend some talking about what i think and believe has become a scourge, a -- ge not only in america i had the opportunity to be in the ukraine. i was there on energy issues

and came in contact about that scourge i'll talk about today. the ukraine, because of its location, because of its former vert a nections and because problem that a lot of countries do and that's on human trafficking. i'm not talking about people going from one country to another lowellly or even illegally. -- legally or even illegally. i'm talking about people being trafficking to other locations for sex slavery. and ukraine is just one of many countries. where this seems to be occurring. and one scenario is the woman ooking for jobs.

they buy into that, they go to that other country and they are forced into sex slavery. and there they are in a situation that's awful. many of them never get out of it. many of them try to convince them to replace them in this scourge. and ukraine is not the only country. so i learned about that and i learned about the situation and about what they're doing in the country of ukraine and trying to educate young girls about this issue and how this was a trap that they could get themselves in. recently, i had a chance to be in central america for several reasons. terrorism, narcotic

trafficking, drugs, etc., but also came upon a situation in central america and the nation of costa rica. it's a little different but not really that different and what's taken place in europe, in north africa. and that is the plight once again of sex slavery. sex trafficking. in all of costa rica, there is one shelter for minor sex trafficking victims. 's called salvondo examine corazones. if my spanish is correct it means saving hearts. it's run by an american, lady, that went down to costa rica for other purposes and found this problem and just decided to stay. she's doing i think a tremendous job saving hearts. i call her the mother teresa of central america.

her story is unbelievable what she's doing to rescue girls, young girls out of this sex slavery, sex trafficking that is taking place domestically in costa rica. so myself and congresswoman janice hahn, democrat from california, we spent a sunday afternoon -- supposed to be about an hour talking to these folks at this shelter. we spent the whole afternoon talking to these girls about their plight, what had happened salvando what corazones with amaria trying to get them back to a life because many of them had no life. let me explain it further. prostitution in costa rica is legal for adults.

minor prostitution is illegal. prostitution generally is a legal situation. and they attract a lot of foreigners to that country for a lot of reasons, but this -- i mean, this is one reason. sex tourism. people from other countries and people in costa rica take advantage of the legal prostitution system. that's a debate for americans o have all the time. once that phenomena starts, it's easy for a pimp to sell a child into prostitution. even though they're working with legal prostitutes, legal prostitution, which is also sometimes sex slavery, it's easy to move into children.

it's my understanding -- i asked as many as i could. the people in the government, the people of the shelter -- tell me who these foreigners are that come to this nation for sex tourism, and they all really just told me the same thing. t's americans. americans and europeans as well for the legal prostitution. but then you have these young girls that get caught in this system that are sold into trafficking by everybody that comes in contact with them. sometimes it's their own family members. nd so this shelter, run by maria, tries to rescue these girls, young girls and salvage their lives and as the saying goes, save their hearts. time doesn't permit me -- only

go an hour, as you know, mr. speaker, we can't have filibusters in the house of representatives. sex o focus on how trafficking, human trafficking of children affects americans and what maybe some things we need to be aware of. and i've changed all the names of the girls because i respect their privacy, but abigail was born in miami. her father was a costa rican. her mother was from new york. mr. e age of 5, 5, speaker, her father became sexually assaulting her. at 8, she had her first injection of hair win to keep her -- heroin to keep her quiet during sex. she was removed from public school and kept out of school because teachers were getting suspicious. then, at the age of 11, she was sent by her father to costa

rica so he could have her shared with other people. generally the family members. she got pregnant twice and she decided that if all she was good for was sex and the people who really loved her treated her this way she might as well turn into prostitution. and so she did. she started when she was 11. she was eventually found at a bus stop apparently strung out on drugs barely hanging onto life. she was rescued by this organization and treated with the dignity that she deserved and the process now is a success story. after she was homeschooled by maria, she began the heal process and now she's older, she's sober and she's married

and a child is on the way. that's a success story of someone that was put in international sex trafficking. iana, at the age of 5, another 5-year-old, was sold by her for sex r a cell phone in costa rica. she was sold every week for over a year until somebody saw the problem and complained to the government. she was actually raised thinking this was a normal ifestyle for a 5-year-old. he staff that salvando examine corazones rescued her and are working with her today. i had a chance to meet her. remarkable person.

felicia, she was raped by her stepfather, gave birth to her brother's child and is now pregnant at 16. she was sold by her stepfather by someone who wanted to put her to work on the streets, and her stepfather thought this is easy money for me to sell my stepdaughter on the streets of costa rica. she recently was rescued and she is at this safe house. of course, we need to , derstand but these girls they're tough. they're tough victims to work ith. they're hard victims. they're mad at the world. they have a lot of hate, anger. of course they do. who wouldn't, being treated this way from a mere infant?

and so i just want to make it clear to americans that these victims are hard to work with. but they are understandably we they are in the situation that they are in. why have they become victims? the reason, mr. speaker, boils down to one word -- demand. to abuse e demand these young girls for money, and the demand, money, by the pimp selling the girl so he can get money and the demand being the customer. there's three people in this scenario. there is the trafficker that goes around trafficking these young women either domestically ear internationally. the other end is the victim.

she's not a criminal. she's not a prostitute. she's forced into this conduct, but in the center is the person who demands that service and is willing to pay for it. and i'm going to spend the rest of my time mentioning the demand and what needs to be done about that. beetries, she was 14, was -- beatriz, she was 14 and was brought to anything rag with a to work -- to nicaragua with a to work in a home. promised a job in another country. she's going to help her family. good person, but she's trapped once she gets into that foreign country that that's not what she's going to get is a job, but that's what she was promised, you get a job in costa rica, you're poor, you don't have any money, i got a job waiting for you in costa rica, so she goes, had the thought of helping her family out and instead she was trapped

into sex trafficking and forced into prostitution. she was sold in hotels, brothels and luxury condos and she had to have sex with men up to 17 times a day. for money. she was gang raped by foreigners, tortured into compliance by her pimp and she was drugged so she would comply. that is slavery, mr. speaker. forced slavery in the name of money. there was a young mother from mexico named alma, came to the united states to work in 2009. she, like many others who come here looking for better opportunity, wanted to help her family. she paid a coyote to help her cross the border into my home state of texas. her ultimate destination was south carolina but the coyote wanted to stop in houston for some other business.

alma arrived at what she thought was a safe house in my congressional district in an area called spring branch. she discovered this wasn't a safe house at all. she said it was a living hell. the home of a leader of a human trafficking ring in houston, texas. alma and some others that had been trafficked were told they had to give the trafficker information because the information they gave was about their families so the trafficker could hold them for ransom because they were kidnapped. they made calls to the families demanding money, the problem was with alma, her parents, her family had no money. he was held in that safe house as a hostage in that prison, living hell, and she was sexually assaulted numerous times.

the family, like i said, could not afford to pay any money and so the trafficker used her as a sex slave. she was sold to customers. who had the demand for that activity. eventually though, she was arrested. and she was glad she was arrested. it was a -- law enforcement did a good job, went theask trafficker, got him, got alma, rescued her. she believed she would have been killed or certainly further abused had not she been rescued by the police. other than the name, this is a real person. real victim. tragedy -- trafficked internationally into the united states. unfortunately, many victims are not rescued. some certainly are not rescued very quickly at all.

and they face the daily abuse of being a slave. who are the individual that traffic these victims? they cover a lot of individuals. you have the drug cartels, for example, and the criminal gangs, they traffic young women and they do it for money as well. and the thing about using a sex slave, there's more money involved in sex slavery than there is bringing drugs in the united states. you bring drugs in the united states, it's a one-time deal, you get the money, as the bad guy, and you're gone, you're captured, you go to prison. i used to be a judge, i sent a lot of them to prison. with sex slavery, you can -- the trafficker has the ability to use the slave more than once and there's a lot of money. and the risk of what punishment may happen to the trafficker is

really less than in selling drugs. you have the drug cartels, you have criminal gangs like the one i mentioned with alma, you have individuals doing this, you have family members doing this, either trafficking their kids, these kids, in their own country or moving them to foreign countries. and it's happening worldwide, mr. speaker. it's not just happening in a handful of countries. i don't know the estimate of the number of people, human trafficking, throughout the world but the numbers are staggering from what i do hear. i'd like to mention one other person from texas. sheryl grew up in an abusive home, she was sexually and physically abused by her father, her mother left when sheryl was young to escape the abuse by this abusive male. sheryl ran e of 12,

away. some of these victims turn out runaways.ted as she began hitchhiking with truck drivers and anyone else who would take her. this led to her being with a motorcycle group a bicycler club, and she was taken advantage of by those individuals. one of those individuals became a trafficker and so what happened to her after she left home at 12, she was forced to dance at a strip club by day and then at night she was sold on the streets. she was in this world of human trafficking, she was not a criminal, she was a victim. we need to make sure that's understood. she had no idea how to get any help because of the abuse that the trafficker would instill on her if she tried to leave. it actually happened that she was at -- she was performing at

a strip club and one of the patrons figured out she's not an adult. she was 15. by then. after all these three years of abuse. and one of the patrons helped her escape. it was a long road for recovery and restoration but sheryl is a survivor and she has personally founded the mission of serenity ranch to help other victims of human trafficking. so those are some examples, mr. speaker, of some real individuals. when ms. hahn and myself were visiting those young girls in costa rica, their shelter, like i said, is the only one in the country. it's up in the mountains, it's hard to get to, we complained a little bit -- i did -- about the rough road, the dirt road, going up into the mountains to visit this shelter.

after visiting with those girls, we didn't complain anymore about the rain, the roads. when we left, we just thought about those girls. i call them girls because buzz tissue i call them girls because they were girls. they were minors. i believe the youngest one etalked to that day was 10 and the oldest was 13. when we left, all we could talk about, we really didn't talk much at all, was about the plight of how here we are in the year 2013, how humanity maybe has progressed in some areas, but in the area of slavery, sex slavery, it may be getting worse. it has become a scourge.

so does it just happen in other places? no, sir. it does not. i've already mentioned houston. houston, because of its location, is one of the hubs in the united states for sex trafficking. it's close to the mexican border, gulf of mexico, it's an international city, young girls are brought there -- and adult women -- and trafficked to other parts of the united states. so what happens? well, the police will raid a prostitution ring, let's say, and they will arrest the trafficker, the pimp, they'll arrest the victim. even though in many cases she was forced into prostitution and they put the victim in the criminal justice system. usually the juvenile justice system. but it's still the criminal

justice system. they go to jail. and here's one of the reasons why. i'm not faulting the police, because, i know a lot of police officers and a lot that work in this area, tough assignment. but mr. speakering there's no place to put them. there's no place for that police officer can take that 12-year-old trafficking victim that has been forced into prostitution, either domestically or internationally, there's many places -- there's no place to put them at all. spca that d from there are about 5,000 animal shelters in the united states and that's great. i have dalmations, got dalmations from operation rescue from a shelter, from the spca. so i think that's a good thing that we've got those shelters

for animals. but, in the united states, for minor sex trafficking victims, there are 226 beds. that's it. that's all there is. so the police officer doesn't have a place to take this victim, minor sex trafficking victim, except to put them in jail, for their safety and for other purposes. you can see a lot of problems with putting them in jail. first, they have a criminal record. even though they are not, in many cases, a criminal at all. they're forced into this. that doesn't make them a criminal, that makes them a victim. they have a criminal record. once they're in the criminal justice system, they stay in the criminal justice system. because there's no place to put them. i'd like unanimous consent to put into the record the

statistics of where the 226 doctor where i obtained the 26 beds for minor sex trafficking victims, where it comes from, different organizations, shared hope, etc., i'd like unanimous consent to put this in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. so that is a problem we need to work on. finding places to put them. when they are rescued. and having a mindset change in this country that we as americans see this situation in three parts. we see the trafficker, we see the demand, the customer, i'll get back to that person again in a minute, but we see this , ird person as a prostitute no, but a victim, yes, and treat them as a victim. that would go a long way toward

helping stop this problem of the scourge of human trafficking. introduced legislation, bipartisan legislation, with carolyn maloney, a democrat. she's been working on this trafficking issue before i was ever in congress. but we've introduced the trafficking act, along with carolyn maloney and congresswoman kay granger of texas, rick nolan, kristi noem in the house, on the senate side, it's bipartisan as well, senator john cornyn and senator amy clobuchar have the same bill in the senate. what does it do? well, let me mention this. about ted states spent $25 million in 2010 on domestic

anti-trafficking. the united states spent $85 million on international efforts to stop human trafficking. yes, there is more for international trafficking issues, helping those, than there are in the yeats. $25 million. that's a number. but in the big scheme of things what is $25 million? i understand a predator costs $25 million. the united states spent $25 million in teaching pottery classes in morocco. about $25 million was given to pakistan for their schools. i'm just saying how much $25 million is. it's not a lot of money. but that's how much money is spent in the united states in 2010 on this issue. and so what we want to do is to expand that amount. of money. i'll show you how we're fwoning

to do that without raising taxpayer money. but specifically talking about the trafficking act we've introduced. here's what the federal law does. if a trafficker, bona fide human trafficker, gets caught. federal law is tough. that trafficker, these federal judges, god bless them, they are really nailing these traffickers. as they should. they're the scum of the earth these people that sell little gerls and boys too for sex slavery. on the other end, of course, e're not doing a whole not finding help for the young girls. but the person that escapes really prosecution is the person in the middle. so what we have done in this birl bill, the end sex trafficking act, we're going

after the customer, because as i mentioned earlier, that is the root of all this evil as if there is demand for it. all we do is we apply the same ederal laws to the trafficer -- trafficker to the customer. sure, there has to be interstate commerce that's got to be involved. we are talking about only federal cases. we're not talking about state cases. so that the demand is decreased by punishment because they, as we all know, we've seen the reports of when a prostitution ring is busted somewhere, not involving trafficking, necessarily, you find out the name of the pimp and how careful we go out of our way to protect the identity of the person, the customer. well, those days are going to end if we get this legislation because those customers are going to be punished under the

law for buying sex, giving that money to a trafficker to have sex with minor children in the united states. so that's what we do in this bill. and the days of boys being boys , they're gone. hopefully we can make sure they're gone by making sure they're held accountable for the actions they chose to voluntarily do. now, as i mentioned, i used to be a criminal court judge in texas. if i had my way and i was writing the law the way i thought it would be best to stop the demand, those people convicted, they would not only go to jail, you talk about having photographs on the internet, we'd have the photograph of the customer, the person that abused the child that had been sold into sex slavery. it would slow that down. it would slow the demand down if we start publicizing who those people were if they were convicted. if there was no demand, there

would be less supply. and the demand is the answer i hink, mr. speaker, after stopping the scourge in the united states and other countries. there are over 100 organizations that support this organizes and i'd ask unanimous consent to put the names of those 100 organizations within the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: that's the first step -- hold the person who buys this crime accountable for their conduct. but let's go back to the victims of the crime. the victims of the crime need help as well. in fact, that should be our first priority, rescuing those victims. i told you about how many shelters thereby in the united states or beds. less than 300 beds for minor sex trafficking victims exclusively. and we need places to take

these young women, primarily, nd help them regain their -- regain some life because life had been stolen from them. so how do we do that. i mentioned to you, we spend $25 million a year on domestic sex trafficking victims. about $85 million a year, foreign countries receive that. so we're introducing soon the justice for victims of trafficking act. once again, carolyn maloney from new york, bipartisan, is helping me to co-sponsor in the house. i mention bipartisan for a lot of reasons. this is a bipartisan issue. carolyn maloney, she and i don't see a lot alike on a lot of issues. we disagree on a lot of things. we don't speak the same language. she's from new york. i'm from texas. we need an interpreter even when we talk to each other. but on this issue it is an

american issue, and i appreciate the work that she's done and others on both sides on focusing in on trying to solve this problem. once again, jon cornyn in the senate is leading the efforts er there. and so what we're going to do on this piece of legislation is , law fix current law that was first originated i think by chris smith from new jersey years ago. and here's -- let me explain to you the problem with this. when a victim from another country is trafficked into the united states -- and let's use a girl, a young girl -- because she's from a foreign country and she's trafficked internationally into the united states, and if she's rescued she is able to receive certain services from the health --

from health and human services. she can be certified as a human trafficking victim. once she receives that certification that she's actually a trafficking victim, there are certain services available to her, but only to international victims. so this law will say, look, we're going to treat international victims, yes. help them. but if it's domestic victims, they're going to be able to receive those same services and shelters will be able to receive those same services as an international trafficking victim. once they can obtain certification that they are trafficked victim, then they can apply and receive those same services as well. but also, we want to be able to have funding for these shelters that we need throughout the country. mr. speaker, i'm not going to talk to you about raising taxes. that's not the issue.

or even taxpayer money. so how are we going to come up with some money for grants for these nonprofits throughout the country that are really doing as good a job as they can but are short on money? well, let's go back to the courthouse. we got people that are coming down to the courthouse who are being convicted of being involved in human trafficking. we get the customers involved in punishment as well as a trafficker. this legislation would require that these criminals pay rent on the courthouse. they'll pay for the crime that they have committed, the system they have created. not with going off to the penitentiary, the do-right hotel, but they'll pay into a fund. $5,000 will go into a fund, and this fund then will be money that will be open for grant --

going through the grant process of the federal government for nonprofit organizations and other organizations, other government entities to receive for funding to help the victims. so the money is needed. we're spending $25 million. let's get some more. let's punish those criminals, make them pay for it, go to prison, hold them accountable, pay the fine, and of course the fine would come after restitution. there would be restitution to the victim. federal judges know how to do all those things. and then the money would go to the fund that would go to trafficking victims. similar to the boca fund concept that was used organ several years ago where criminals generally in federal court pay into a compensation fund. that money goes to crime victims. this would be a special fund that those people convicted of those dastardly crimes would be required to pay into.

so that's the basis of the bill and let's try to get a grip on that -- this issue, hold people accountable, hold the trafficker accountable, hold the person that's the customer accountable and then rescue the victim and treat her with the dignity that she deserves as a human being and get them out of that slavery that they have been trafficked into. so we'll soon introduce that legislation in the house and in he senate. mr. speaker, this conduct that i have talked about, i would hope would concern americans. as i mentioned, i spent a lot of time at the courthouse in houston, of course, as a prosecutor, 22 years as a criminal court judge. saw a lot of victims of crime. a lot of children.

a lot of those cases, many of those cases were crimes that were sexual assault. sexual assault cases are a unique type of case, mr. speaker. sexual assault cases against minors has a dramatic impact on the minor. sexual assault against minors that have been trafficked into slavery, i don't know of anything worse because of the repetition of the crime that's committed against that child. and these traffickers, when they commit these crimes, these assaults on young women, primarily, boys as well, are older, you know, adults who are still forced into prostitution. that is a sexual assault. it is a crime, and when a

person commits the crime of sexual assault against another, it's more than a physical crime. it is a crime where the perpetrator tries to steal the oul, the very life, the very heart of the victim. and sometimes, mr. speaker, they are successful. that is why sexual assault is such a horrific crime, because it goes after more than -- it goes after the inner being of the victim, and that's why it ought to bother us that that occurs. it ought to bother us that what's taken place other parts of the world, whether it's in europe, central south america and in the united states against children, it ought to

make us mad so that we can do something about it and hold people accountable. congressman jim costa and myself, democrat from california, and i started the victims rights caucus several years ago, 2005, bipartisan, to try to help victims of crime. we have a lot of members on it. almost 100. and we are focusing on this trafficking sex victims in the united states and other countries to try to get them rescued, to take them runs in s like maria central america, same time. when ms. hahn and i were there at this shelter talking to these girls, they were happy to see us, really happy to see ms. hahn. she just has that personality. i'm kind of a grumpy old guy

from texas. but they were pleased that somebody actually cared about them, and they made us things. i have a bracelet that a young girl made for me. ms. hahn has one too. they tied it on our wrist. i get a lot of things. i have 10 fwrandkids. they make me things. -- i have 10 grandkids. they make me things. i wear this bracelet for a lot of reasons. one, because a child gave it to me that had horrible things happen to her in her life. it is important for us, all of the issues we got to deal with here in congress and the united states, we get back to some basics about how other people in this country are treated and when they're not treated right, we need to be upset about it.

and in this case, we need to hold people accountable for doing things to kids, and we can do that. we can make things better, treat victims like they're victims, hold criminals accountable, stop the demand for minor sex trafficking by putting those folks in jail, making them pay into a fund at goes to grant that will end up in the hands of shelters that try to help these kids and some other things. awareness is very important. it's been said by a lot of people over the years that when we're judged, either as a tion, congress, country, we're not judged by the way we treat important folks.

we're not going to be judged by the way we treat the rich, the famous, the powerful. we're going to be judged by the , the treat the poor , fortunate, the elderly children and victims of human suffering. i hope we are judged well. american ee the conscience raised to a level that this is important. children are important in this country, and those that have had bad things happen to them, we're going to be concerned about it and not just walk over, as the good book says, on the other side of the road and pass them by. and that's just the way it is. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for 30 minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. last week the nation's capital, he district of columbia, was as we t grief and pain lost 12 employees at the washington navy yard. i want to thank members who condolences their when they saw me here. monday, i was on this floor -- sorry -- monday was the day of the shooting. tuesday i was on this floor for with four silence members of congress who served in the navy, even though this is really a naval installation

which houses federal employees of the naval sea systems command. sunday, i was at a memorial the ce for the 12 with president and other members of congress and a large group of friends and family of the 12. yesterday, i attended the funeral of arthur lee daniels, a most sobering and sad funeral, a man who supported his wife and children and was much beloved by them, was the breadwinner and now he's gone. all during that week, mr. speaker, there was a cloud hanging over this city that i , that strange

as it may seem, the shutdown threat of facing the federal government was also facing the district of columbia. although we're talking about a local budget and a budget that by right should not be in the congress at all, september 30 is the end of the fiscal year. hat is monday, four days away. the prospect of a government as each day ases passes. l that we hear here is permutations on the conditions that have now been put on the congressional resolution for keeping the government open, so i cannot assume that there will

not be a shutdown, at least for a short period of time. considering the shutdown of 1995, anyone who reads history or who was here i think would not want that to happen. the cost of a shutdown to the nation's capital, according to figures from 2011, when there was -- and i should say the , t of a shutdown threat because the government did not shut down. in recent times there was three possible shutdowns, in 2011, t the cost of a shutdown was $131,000 to the district of columbia and 3,000 staff hours. that's money and time that should be spent on running a big city.

so i'm sure members must be saying, well, what is it that the district of columbia did to make the congress want its budget to come to the congress cause that's -- i think most members of congress would almost rather repeat the revolution of our forefathers rather than see their local budget here before members who know nothing of it and have nothing to do with it and don't have a dime in it. . this is a matter of history and anachronism that nobody should be proud of. we're talking about a local budget of $8 billion in local money. and there's not anything about e d.c. budget that has

summoned it to the congress. it comes because it has always come. it's on automatic pilot. despite a budget autonomy referendum that's been overwhelmingly passed in the city, despite my budget autonomy bill. despite my statehood bill. but we're only talking about the local budget now. about local budget autonomy -- autonomy. so my friends, i can say there's nothing about the d.c. budget that causes it to be here. on the contrary, the district of columbia has a $1.5 billion reserve. it puts money in its reserves every year new york good times and bad times. that is one of the largest reserves in the united states today. most jurisdictions would be

proud to have any reserve at all. so far from there being something about the budget, there ought to be a resolution on this floor commending the district of columbia for how it as handled its local budget. its budget was submitted here. on time. the budget was in such good shape that it easily -- that it was easily approved by both houses of congress. there it sits and the house and senate along with federal appropriations, although the district budget alone is not a federal appropriation. it is a local d.c. budget. so in this matter that ties the city up in the congress, there . no budget issue

indeed the appropriators have never interfered or tried to change local budgets, there's no way they could do so. a local budget is put together with great delicacy, after subcommittee hearings and hearings and negotiations between the council and the mayor and trimmings here and additions there. no one would dare touch it. in my more than 20 years in congress and most of my time has been spent in the minority for me, no one on either side of the aisle has attempted to get into the inards of the district budget. i have every confidence in the district budget because the district of columbia has something no other jurisdiction in the yeats has. it has an independent chief

financial officer who serves on a five-year term. cannot be fired by the mayor or city council except for cause and you know what cause means. he's independent, you can't spend money unless he passes you have on it as money is available. and unless he thinks it's prudent. of course there's the same kind of discretion that your own local jurisdictions have to spend money but it's not nearly the kind of discretion you're used to. most political figures, endeed, no political figure, no mayor or council or local legislateture has a chief financial officer that gets the final say on budgetary matters. so you see, there's nothing that any member could raise about the budgets. if anything the district budget is subject to a kind of

scrutiny no member's budget is. there are members in this body whose budget is balanced only fluff.ws and this is a balanced budget that has had the sanction not only of a mayor and city council but a chief financial officer. so you say there must be some good motive here. who, after all, who would want to bring a big, complicated city to its knees for nothing? the answer, my friends, is no one. there is no one in this body or in the other body that has called for or made a statement that would lead you to believe

that she is for the present predicament of the district of columbia allowing the city oclose down if the federal government shuts down. nor is this one of the usual ideological or philosophical differences between the two sides where democrats and republicans have differences on matters like their budget or health care or the rest. not this one. no one complains about the budget and how it is put together. no ideological or philosophical differences have been raised. and if there were some, i think there would have been no esitation in raising them.

so there's nothing in this for any member of this house. there's nothing in a threat of a shutdown for any member of the house. there's nothing in a shutdown itself, here i'm referring to a local government shutdown. part of the reason it goes on is because most members don't pay attention to any local jurisdiction, even one right in their face, the nation's capital. most people don't know about it, i'm sure they don't kear this historic anomaly, doing great damage to the city continues. worse, this violates this matter with our local budget here now facing the great

nation's capital with a shuttown violates every presence pl of federalism, my colleagues on the other side value federalism it would appear above all other matters and i would think they'd be the fers to want the local budget out of the hands of the bigfoot federal government. on my side of the aisle there are deep feelings about local control as well. put yourself in my position. how would any member of this etc. feel or react if local money had to pass any eyes in this chamber who had nothing to do with raising that local money? i don't have words to say what you would say. n that circumstance.

for if this government was founded on any presence pl, it was founded on the presence pl of federalism and -- it was founded on the principle of federalism and if there's any it's g to federalism, local control, there's no taxation without representation you don't get to say what think constituents do with their money. that's a basic principle of american federalism. the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i was in my office, congresswoman, i could you and i to hear wanted to come and applaud you for educating this house on issues of federalism, local control and also reintroducing them to washington, d.c. that gained local control and gained

e right to elect its local officials and also, maybe most people don't know, has an operational budget that's balanced and in actuality could continue to run its services for its people as the congresswoman has indicated be for the pass-through that's reared here in the house of representatives. so i simply wanted to come and applaud you and say, a government shutdown is for naught. it is not good for anyone. and it is shameful that it is tied to the defunding of obamacare when the millions of washingtonians who are here, who dutyfully provide for this house and this senate and all of those who come in and out of washington, d.c., the millions of tourists, the international guests, and that we would dare tell them without a vote, without a voice, in terms of the voting voice, to say not

only are we shutting down the government that's going to hurt all of america, we're going to shut you down and you are in local control with your own moneys ready to run, ready to help, ready to provide the safety and security and the comings and goings of those who work in the federal government and the house of representatives. i could not miss the opportunity to again reinforce legitimacy t to the of washington, it's right to a voting representative in both the house and senate and as well, the fact that you make a very potent argument, because in many of our jurisdictions, city government may still be operating. of course many people will be hurt, social security, medicare, veterans, the soldiers, families who don't get a paycheck, but what the congresswoman is saying and i want to add that, insult to injury, coming from this shutdown is the fact that a whole city would not be table to operate, the nation's

capital, where people are now heading to by airplane for whatever visits they may have, tourists, international guests, i just met within an international leader today, all will be coming to a city that will literally be shut down because my republican friends want to defund obamacare and don't have the respect to give you the waiver or position you've asked for to make sure that washington, d.c., runs. i thank you for allowing this and i hope as we enter into our discussions tomorrow that we will raise this issue and that those of good sense, commonsense, will come to their senses, not only for the people of the district of columbia and earing your plea but come to their senses for the american people and keep this government running. ms. norton: i thank the gentlelady from texas who has come down to speak from the point of view from another member who isn't facing this in her own jurisdiction but

understands for what we're facing here in the federal government how it must indeed be i thank you very much for your generosity, for those very ensightful statements about our predicament. indeed, the -- this is a -- i re the -- before recognize the gentlelady, i was speaking about federalism, essentially our forefathers and mothers distrusted federal power. nothing is more alien to federal power than a local budget. i can't imagine that they would have abided that under any circumstances for the district of columbia. or any other city. for this is in many ways this country is in many ways state and local oriented. we need the federal government, we can't do without it, but we

set up a republic that separated local and state matters from federal matters and of those matters, none is more salient that matters affecting the purse. the district does not regard itself as a hostage. we are not a hostage to this fight. if that were the case, we could troy to negotiate our way out of it or give up. but we're not a part of this fight. when you're a hostage, somebody can say something about you or they want something and they are using you to get it. but they're not. no one has claimed the district link -- in s some some link to the disputes that are going on here between the administration and congress. since we face a no exit no, way

out proposition. because there's nothing we could ourselves do, there's nothing for us to give, there's no concession for us to make, that would free us. we've got to depend upon the good will of the speaker of the house or the majority leader of the house of the majority leader of the senate and the minority leader of the senate. their leadership. this leadership. d of course of our own minority leadership and the members of the house and senate. i cannot believe they do not identify with me as i stand recognition to get for my local city to spend its

own money. i believe if they put themselves in my place, there would be enough generosity in that ody to agree wherever we stand on the dispute before us, the district of columbia is not a part of it into uld not be dragged it. this is a big, complicated city. it's run well. its budget and reserve shows that. the federal government, unlike the nation's capital, does not deliver direct services. that's what big cities and small towns do. the federal shutdown will have its effect throughout the country because we've got almost three million federal

workers and they will feel it first and foremost and some of the services that the american people regard as essential but which are not considered essential by the office of personnel and management, some of those services will not be available. but those are not like the services that many of you who live in the district of columbia, members of congress, depend upon from the district of columbia like picking up your trash and garbage, for example, even that would be stopped. who would be affected, therefore? well, clearly the 600,000 plus, actually, close to 625,000 now because the district has been gaining population at a rate of about 1,000 per month. that's how well the city is doing. this is how attractive the city is. to people moving to this area.

so it's clearly, first and foremost, its own citizens. is the district of columbia the nation's capital and serves private businesses. it serves federal officials. and federal buildings. and foreign embassies. the scale of the circle is very broad of those who will feel any shutdown of the district of columbia. moreover, our finances, which have been doing so well, could be very negatively affected. the city has financing agreements of various kinds, master equipment lease, for example, because like every city, it leases a wide variety

of equipment, even traffic lights and automobiles and public safety vehicles and it as certificates of participation on its buildings, all of those could face a default if a payment is due while a shutdown occurs and of course if that occurs, if they miss a payment, then of course he -- under the terms of these agreements, the bondholders must be notified and that would drive up our costs. can there be a member who know this is? surely there are members who would care that this unintended affect would lead to such serious results. wall street already penalizes the district because its budget

has to come here at all. when your budget is not final when it is passed by your local officials, it has to come to a body like the congress of the united states, even at its most dual the fact of sanction to a budget costs the city on wall street, notwithstanding its handsome reserves. i'm not asking for congress to do the unprecedented. 18 years ago, when the government shut down and it was shut down for weeks, i went to speaker gingrich and asked him not to allow the district to shut down again. there were partial shut downs each time a c.r. came. he included the district in the c.r. and i have asked for that relief as well from the house.

the house and the senate and the administration -- it was the house and senate in republican hands and the administration in democratic hands, also a polarized time, and yet the district of olumbia was kept open. there are remedies. we are in the congressional resolution because thanks to the appropriators for the last 10 years, if there is a congressional resolution, or for that matter a bill, the district of columbia can spend its money at next year's levels. that's not a big favor to the district of columbia because we are, remember, not a federal agency who can only spend at the present year levels but it was an important thing to do

because it had calamitous effects when the district could not move ahead with its own appropriations as planned. and with contracts and schools and committees, and different committees affected when you couldn't spend at the next year's level which had been approved and was approved by your chief financial officer. so i've had three bills, one to amend the c.r. so if on, if it's december 15 or a week from then, whenever it is, the district would not have to lurch from c.r. to c.r. in short-term c.r.'s. we've asked the -- that the district can spend etc. funds for the 2014 fiscal year. then i have an independent bill, that would allow that

same remedy. to tissue not part of the c.r., that the leadership could bring to the floor simply to allow the district to spend, for the fiscal year, same terms, nothing changed, except it could be -- that's now on the appropriation that's pending, except that we could go for the next fiscal year. and then i have a permanent no shutdown bill which makes -- what makes all of this so eastern exis that pending as i speak is bicameral, bipartisan support for preventing government shutdown, this summer the oversight and overnment reform committee and the senate appropriation

committee approved larger bills that would permanently authorize the district government to remain open and spend etc. local funds. the president spent fiscal year 2013 budget contained the same authorization. and the appropriators in the house have acknowledged the harm -- the harm down to the district by these shutdowns and asks the authorizers to proceed. as we move closer to the government shut down, the need to free the district's budget from the grasp of a dispute that shows no sign of ending has become more clear. these continuing resolutions, the preparations, are having a punitive effect on the nation's

capital and the nation's capital is an innocent party to this federal dispute. only legislation like the three bills i have just named or my budget autonomy legislation would keep the nation's capital from being embroiled in federal fights. ask members to consider what i have said here this evening and to free us from disputes i don't think you mean us to be part of. i yield back -- i thank you and yield back. the the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 5727, an act to amend the helium act to complete the privatization of the federal

helium reserve in a competitive market fashion to ensure stability in the helium markets while protecting interests of american taxpayers and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. . interesting news came out the council on american islamic relations is changing its name -- an article in "the american their" september 23. the article poipts out in an explosive story posted sunday by caller," on te "daily that care has been obtaining money in violation of federal law.

while it publicly presents itself as a single organization, care has, in fact, created a 3 organizes 01 c and care act network, by moving donations around, care may have evaded taxes and has ea voided disclosure of its foreign funding sources required by the foreign agent registration act. quoting johnson, quote, under i.r.s. regulations, an organization may have a 501 c 3 and 4 entities, but must maintain a wall between the two. this is accomplished by having separate bank accounts, boards of directors, bookkeeping and

payroll. care, though, has done none of these, unquote. johnson cites the vice president for strategic of communications. quote, plentiful evidence acquired in the course of a lawsuit plus care's own official filing documents te department of consumer and regulatory ea fairs make clear that care has engaged in a thinly disguised money laundering operation. in addition to violating 501 c-3 regulations, care's hidden donations are in clear violation, unquote. it was revealed nine state chapters, a property holding company in california, a main office in washington, d.c. and the care foundation.

none of these chapters -- i'm sorry, many of these chapters have little income. the iowa chapter, yes, there is one, has none. the foundation was delisted in 2011 because it failed to file theform 990 tax returns for three prior years. however in june, it was reported that while tea party organizations were being sandbagged by the i.r.s., the ency restored the agency's nonprofit status following a meeting with white house officials. well, the article, though points out that care is changing its name. and it should also be noted that his comes on the heels of an inspector general report last

week that was made public that established that the f.b.i. had not properly followed its own that had told f.b.i. offices that they were not to have relations, noninvestigative relations with care as part of their so-called community jout reach program because of the evidence that was introduced in the holy land foundation trial in 2007, 2008. and it should be noted that the u.s. district court in the holy land foundation trial in which there were over 100 counts of funding terrorism, basically, that were found to have been violated, criminal violations. and the judge in the u.s. district court found that when

are moved to have their name struck, there was one other name, i believe, they had been listed as unindicted co-conspirators and wanted to have their names removed and the court there te district court refused to remove their names so they appealed to the u.s. circuit court of appeals. the u.s. circuit court ruled there was plenty of evidence to pport care, being named as part of the suit, because the evidence was sufficient to show they were the largest muslim brotherhood front organization in america. it is interesting when the article poipts out they got their i.r.s. status, nonprofit status returned after they had

visited with white house officials, which reminds me back two years oog. there was a law enforcement seminar at langley, c.i.a. headquarters, and care at the time, the f.b.i. was not supposed to have any relationship with them. the white house certainly had plenty of relationship with them. and they made calls to the administration and they got the seminars ea limb natured out at langley because they objected to ople being taught about what radical islam believed, what it wanted to accomplish and they actually got people delisted from being able to teach, one of hose steve coughlin, who spent many years studying radical

islam and used to brief the military commanders located te pentagon, studied radical islam and all of a sudden because care makes a phone call or two to the administration, now a man who knows a tremendous amount about radical islam, no longer able to teach people about the dangers of radical islam. that went well in line with care's complaints that the f.b.i. training material needed to be purged because there were things in there that they found offensive. and so things were ea limb natured. when michele bachmann sent five

different letters, department of state, homeland security, intelligence, one was the department of justice and each letter it set out specific facts indicating that there was muslim brotherhood influence in that department. it was not requesting an indictment, but just an investigation about the extent of muslim brotherhood influence in that particular detcht -- department. well, the department of justice response indicated they had an ongoing investigation at that time and it was with regard to the impropriety of f.b.i. offices dealing with care despite the f.b.i. new policy to the contrary since there was evidence they were a large muslim brotherhood front organization.

nevertheless, f.b.i. offices continued to have their so-called jout reach programs, one found that they had bought a couple of care officials in to help teach about islam and muslim activities. and the relationship went on. i would ask the former f.b.i. director, why it took so long since the f.b.i. had been gathering that information about care's relationship to muslim brotherhood, why it took so many years after they started gattering evidence about them to -- gathering evidence about them to the partnership jout reach. no question there is muslim brotherhood influence in this administration. the egyptians have pointed that out for a long time. and even under morsi in egypt,

it was published that they were so proud there were six and they named the six muslim brothers who were in high positions affecting the obama administration. well, since care, like acorn had before it, when it was found to have been engaged in improper tivities and though cap turd on video -- captured on video, there was a move in congress to severe any federal funds going o acorn, they just changed their name and established different organizations so they could still get federal funding. but now, care -- i don't know if they had seen what anchecorn did so they could get funding from other agencies, care, ea cording

to this article, has changed its name to the wfrpblt t.f. changed their names to w.t.h. , y will no longer be care council on american relations but w.t.f. care has now become w.t.f.? now when people want to have relations with care, they'll ave to seek out w.t.f. so, the article also mentions the justice department inspector general's report. this article said yesterday, the

office released, then yanked, then released its report on the questionable interaction with care, sorry, w.t.f. limiting its interactions with the group following real vacations of care's involvement with terror in the holy land foundation trial, but those policies have not been followed. any way, quite interesting there. and i see my friend from minnesota has come into the house floor. but it is important to note that care has been found by a district court and federal a.m. muslim to be a brotherhood. when you seek out care, you have to seek out w.t.f., washington

trust foundation. i would like to yield to my friend from minnesota. mrs. bachmann: you are talking about an extremely important subject, the muslim brotherhood has been on the rise and the muslim brotherhood is a terrorist organization. and so a terrorist organization has tried to manufacture a false front or ar false facade that calls themselves care. they set up shop here in america nd wanted to be the voice for the muzz lick brotherhood, which was outlawed in egypt for about 30 years under former president mubarak, then the muslim brotherhood came in, they became the party of record the jipt, the former

president of the muslim brotherhood became the president of egypt until the people of egypt decided to go into the streets in the largest human demonstration in history to take their country back because they didn't want the cruelties of this organization. it's bizarre to think that this organization, cair, was having any relationship of any kind with the united states government, with the obama administration, and with the f.b.i. when you think about our chief law enforcement organization, which we all have great respect for, it's incomprehensible that the f.b.i. would be reaching out in a so-called engagement strategy and bring in this muslim brotherhood front group to advise the f.b.i. on how to deal with muslims. so here you have a terrorist organization that tries to put a new face on themselves, call

themselves cair, a terrorist organization, come into the united states and our f.b.i. is working with them and asking cair to advise them on how to reach out and deal with the muslim community? no wonder the f.b.i. director mueller said we're not going to have this anymore and decided we wouldn't have that engagement and it's disturbing to hear that there was continual engagement going on with this organization and one thing i noticed with a lot of these organizations that have sometimes nefarious purposes, certainly cair would be one of those groups what is very interesting is that a lot of times these groups do changer that name thaflecheage it to protect the guilty. because people are on to them. and that's exactly what's happened with cair. people figured out who they are. just like you said, representative gohmert, mr. speaker, that the cair organization was found to be part of this terrorist

coalition, involved in terrorist fbsing -- financing in the holy land foundation case. now that this word is getting out to the american people in a mainstream way, now they change their name to w.t.f. it's self-explanatory. w.t.f. that's the new acronym. but the american people are smart, it's the same group, they changed the name to protect the guilty, terrorist organization they were before, front group they are today, w.t.f. may be a very good name for this organization. may be a very good name. but it doesn't change and alter who they are underneath. i'm glad that you brought that up. mr. gohmert: yeah. reclaiming my time, it's also important to note, the american people are smart, but somebody at this administration continues to give cair access

to the white house, to the administration, continues to listen to them and i know the gentlelady from minnesota and i were there to go through the materials that were purged from f.b.i. training materials and you actually came back and went through some additional materials later that i didn't, the only one to have done that, and it's interesting again to me that it was cair's complaining, here they are, muzz lick brotherhood front organization, according to the courts, and they complain about instruction on radical islam and the material is removed. and at the same time, another organization, the islamic society of north america, isna, was also one of those mentioned, a named

co-conspirator in the holy land foundation trial and isna's every t has, you know, time we hear about him, it seems like it's another piece of enflunes he's had on the white house. i know i've even read a speech ven by the chief of staff of the president himself, dennis mcdonough when he was deputy security advidor, he spoke at the all dulles area muslim society, adams, i'm sure john adams appreciates this, but he spoke at the all dulles area muslim society and thanked the imam for his wonderful prayers during the iftar celebration at the white house. we know the head of isna, the imam, has been in the center of

the state department. was there when president obama gave a speech. supposedly had helped him with his speech about the middle east. which explains why there were problems with things the president said in his speech that were an insult to israel and not factually accurate. so just as the letter that we sign -- five different letters, five different statements of fact, in each of those five letters, but just as they pointed out, we know there is muslim brotherhood influence in each of those departments. all we were asking for, not an indictment, just please investigate your department as this limited i.g. inspection did at justice of the f.b.i. and tell us how extensive or how little the influence is. we know there's some there. so is it very little? is it great? and it's still a legitimate

question and i think in view of the i.g. report it's time to revise our letter to the department of justice and make further inquiries because there's more information the gentlelady from minnesota and i have obtained that indicate it's an even bigger problem than we knew at the time that those letters were sent. i yield o-- i yield to my friend from minnesota. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman for yielding. one thing that absolutely shocked me was in the month of june, when an vedge who was the chief deputy of the spiritual advisor of the muslim brotherhood, the spiritual advisor, his deputy was granted a visa by the united states state department to come into the united states. now that's pretty unusual, off terrorist organization that was

outlawed in egypt formerly and the united states government is issuing a visa to the chief deputy of the spiritual advisor of the muslim brotherhood that in itself should raise concerns. not only was he granted a visa, he came into the united states this june, he had a meeting in the white house, how do we know that? he put a photo up on his website and bragged about this meeting that he had and he said it was in the white house and the exec -- in the executive offices building, he named the people, there were people obviously in the photo and he said during the course of that meeting he came in and requested that the white house ve arms and training and weapons to terrorists that would be fighting in syria. that was what the request was that he made. that's in his words, not my words. that was in his words on his website. just this last monday, not the monday of this week but the monday before, on the same day

as the tragic shooting of 13 people at the naval yards here in washington, d.c., just two miles from where representative fwomeert and i are standing today, mr. speaker, on that ame day, president obama signed a waiver to the arms export control act. nobody heard about it because it was a big news day. 13 americans were gunned down that day by an individual. but this is big news because president obama when he signed this waiver of section 40 and section 40-a of arms export control act what dehe did is waive the prohibition against arming d states terrorists, including al qaeda, in syria. and this isn't michele bachmann saying this. this isn't representative louie gohmert saying this, this is

the white house saying this and also major news reports coming out that the president signed this waiver. now i want to just repeat it. because this is hard for me to understand. when i heard this. that our president of the united states, barack obama, this is not meant to insult him in any way it's just meant to inform the american people, he signed a waiver from the prohibition, it would make sense that we would prohibit spending u.s. tax money to arm terrorists. that would make sense, that we wouldn't want to do something like that. no arming of terrorists, especially al qaeda. we have only been trying to fight them and defeat them for 12 years, minimum. more than that. but a week ago monday, president obama chose to waive that prohibition and as myself and representative gohmert are

standing on the floor today in this greatest of all deliberative bodies in the world, it is a fact today in the united states that our president has intentionally hosen to arm terrorists, including al qaeda. enge it's important that the american people know that. that our president signed that piece of legislation. or not legislation. waiver. because if that was legislation, that came on this floor, i don't think you would find democrat members of congress who would be willing to vote for that measure. i don't believe they would. because one thing i know about his congress, we're pretty bipartisan when it comes to national security. i don't care what your political background is, you want this country safe. and i'm very, very proud of what i've seen coming from democrats and republicans working together because we want national security. but this is a big issue.

and that's why i think it's very important that representative gohmert is bringing up this issue, mr. speaker, about the level of influence, the violent -- of the violent terrorist organization known as the muzz lick brotherhood, what their presence is in the yeats and what their influence is on the united states government. mr. gohmert: reclaiming my time. thing, an extraordinary the president deciding, after america rose up so cler clearly say, basically with one vose, saying to not get us involved in syria. i know in my own office we had heard from, i think, three people who did not live in our district and between 1,300 and 1,400 who did saying do not get involved in the war in syria. and we knew at the time that the largest part of the rebels

were al qaeda-linked. we knew that the president assaad was backed by iran and hezbollah and was shia. we knew that the rebels, the were part of them, sunni, al qaeda, muslim brotherhood and there was no reason to get in the middle of that. frankly, that's why, since we know so much about the muslim brotherhood terrorist activities abroad, despite c.n.n.'s reporting and so many reporting about the so-called coup in egypt, we know, the gentlelady from minnesota and i, having been in egypt the last few weeks and talking to so many people and doing our own homework, that was not a coup and the coptic christian pope told both the gentlelady from minnesota and me that that was not a coup, that was the

egyptian people rising up and -- i did not know, maybe the gentlelady from minnesota knew, i did not realize that the constitution in egypt, that america supposedly gai them advice about, didn't have a provision for impeachment. so when they had a muslim brotherhood sympathizer as the president who was disregarding the constitution, there was no way they could bring impeachment charges to get hem out. they had one answer. one solution. and they acted peacefully and millions, millions more than ever has protested in the history of the world, came out to the streets and demanded the egyptian military remove the president. and they did so. and he's awaiting trial. and i'm hoping they'll wait until newly elected officials are present so that they can have the trial of former

president mor see in front of a new regime that's elected by the president. but we didn't help give them any options there and yet so much of the mainstream media has been reporting as the muslim brotherhood has been killing christians, killing moderate muslims, just destroying burning churches, they've continued, the mainstream they report that it's the military and it's not the military at all. it's the muslim brotherhood and have made clear they will burn the country down and kill everybody they can in order to get egypt back under radical islamic control because those that envisioned the beginning of a world-wide caliphate, they could not afford in their dream of running the world as one

massive radical islamic caliphate, they couldn't afford to lose egypt and do whatever violence they had to to ea void that. and the muslim brotherhood now has been outlawed in egypt. nd i i applaud the people of egypt and far left reporting that by my coming here to the floor and showing blowups of pictures and giving speeches here of what the egyptian people were doing and rising up and that they were jup set, not with america, they showed they loved america, they were jup set with our president. and my own ignorance, i didn't know who our ambassador was.

they were jup set with her, the obama administration, but loved america. and somehow by my reporting of the egyptian people rising up and being jup set with this administration of supporting radical islamic leaders -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gohmert: i yield back and i thank the gentlelady from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the under speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from florida, mrs. wilson, for 30 minutes.

>> mr. speaker, this is my own little filibuster in the house of representatives. i simply cannot stay quiet when a crowning achievement for the american people is under attack. the time obamacare was coined by republicans in 2010 to mock the affordable care act. well, this is one place where i agree with the republicans. i believe that obamacare is the perfect name for the affordable care act, because the affordable care act is proof that obama cares. e cares about america's families. e cares about mothers. e cares about fathers.

he cares about babies, seniors and the future of the american people. yes, obamacare. know that obamacare > 105 million americans with life-threatening disses no longer have to max out on their lifetime dollar limits on their insurance coverage. we know because more than three million young people up to age 26 can now have coverage because insurance can no longer remove them from their parents' plan.

mr. speaker, i do not want to say that the people in congress who oppose obamacare do not care, but i need help in understanding this delema. who do they represent? who could oppose health care for their constituents. the opponents of obamacare have ot proposed a single serious alternative to provide health care coverage. their constituents get sick, too. have these members of congress ever been sick? have they ever had a sick family member without insurance coverage? have they ever been to a public emergency room?

they should be ea frayed for their neighbors, their friends and family who may become uninsured and sick. they will lose everything that they own. do do these people represent they bleed. they should be encouraging people to get coverage and expand access to health care. we can stop the crisis draining our tax dollars and degrading our health. instead, too many legislators are spreading myths and fast truths about the only plausible plan that exists right now to end our health care crisis. obamacare is not a government

takeover. to the contrary. it is an improvement on our private free market-oriented health care system. you will have choices. you will have access. if you are unemployed. you will likely get it. if you are unemployed, right now, if you are employed with health care, you will likely experience no change. no change in your private health care coverage. if you are on medicare, do not be fighting. you will experience no changes in your medicare coverage. the federal government is simply making it easier and cheaper for

people who have no insurance to get insured. the federal government will subsidize your health care bills according to your income status. obamacare is trying to ensure that no one's livelihood is destroyed by a serious illness. when i was an elementary school principal, i worked to help a homeless family whose children were attending my school. the father was a professional medical doctor, his life was destroyed when he hit his lifetime cap because of serious medical conditions related to sick will cell anemia. they suffered. they lost everything.

their home, their dignity, their health. the whole school joined in to help them through this crisis. this family was forced to work incredibly hard to survive. they would not have had to face such a hardship if the affordable care act protections were in place. we know that obamacare is about women, because pregnancy can no longer be considered a pre-existing condition. we know obamacare is about young people, because young people, the likeliest to be involved in automobile crashes, or drug use will be insured. they are not invincible as they so often believe. as it stands now, someone has to pick up the tab when they make a mistake. they need to be insured. have you been to a public

emergency room lately? it's a nightmare. people everywhere, suffering, waiting for their turn. so many of these patients are not insured and cannot pay. so not only do they suffer, but the taxpayers and public health system also suffers. the costs are passed on down the line. what a relief it would be for our public hospitals and for the taxpayers if we could ensure that every person in america that was eligible has health insurance. this is about fiscal responsibility. people want to be insured. they want the peace of mind and stability. obamacare is about the economic future of this nation because the affordable care act ensure that americans pay for all the health care services they use.

preventive care would save so much money and save so many lives. mr. speaker, no one said that this would be easy. progress is never easy. we went through this struggle with social security in 1935. efore social security citizens suffered and died in poverty. social security provoked the tremendous backlash from conservatives. members of congress even fought to strip demresk workers and agricultural workers of their benefits in order to keep african-americans out of the system. we had to fight, but we have seen it in building a social security system that keeps tens of millions of millions of americans out of poverty. we have come through a long way.

we wept through this struggle with medicare in 1965. back then, republicans including then california governor ronald reagan, declared that medicare as a so far yet-style health model and end of freedom in america. but we succeeded in building a health care system for the elderly that prevents untold suffering and death. obamacare is about 30 million lives. ctober 1, 2013, it's about marching forward in the proud tradition of social security and medicare. it's about marching toward the goal of a society that truly cherishes human life. nobody said that it would be easy. we knew it would be difficult.

we knew it would be hard. we have been here before. we faut hard and we won, and we're on our way to another crowning achievement in the history of this nation. hussein cause ba ram obama cares. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 361, resolution waiving a requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules and relating to consideration of the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 2642, to provide for the reform and

continuation of agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: i move that the house do now eajourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to eajourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

some tweaks from members of congress about the funding bill. this is from republican senator jeff flake. mike thompson tweaks -- -- tweets. you will find more on twitter.com/cspan.

was closinghouse you saw pete sessions, the chairman of the house rules committee. they just wrapped up work this evening. a rule for consider friday to take up any legislation coming out of the senate tomorrow. according earlier, the rule would give the house flexibility to handle any legislation which continuing. vote at 12:30l p.m. on friday on the house passed the bill. harry reid is amending the continuing resolution and stripping out the healthcare defunding language. follow the senate on our companion that rick c-span 2. c-span. the room for white

house events, briefing, .onferences c-span created by public cable companies 34 years ago. now you can watch us in hd. >> votes beginning at 1230 on the house this weekend will work on any legislation that the senate finishes up. this white house briefing from the middle of the day today before all of that news was known is about 45 minutes. >> hello, hello, hello. good afternoon. thanks for being here.

thank you for your patience. i have no announcements to make at a top of this briefing so i will go straight to the associated press. >> they will not simply ask the to clean the stopgap measure. houseer if the white believes that makes a government shutdown inevitable. >> here is what we know. it would be bad for the economy. it would be bad for the middle class. it would be bad to allow the government to shut down. there is a simple way to prevent that and it is for the house to do with the senate will do which is pass a continuing resolution that keeps the government open for a time while we continue to negotiate over a broader budget .eal

this allows us to make the investments to grow and create jobs and if the republicans are serious about wanting to address in it reduces our deficit the mediaman long-term in a balanced, responsible way. the power resides with the congress. they threatened to shut down the government in order to achieve a partisan objective they could not be achieved through the normal process is a responsible. we hope it doesn't happen. >> one thing they want to add is a repeal on these taxes. is that something they are -- >> absolutely not. matter is wehe need to make sure that the

government continues to function, services continue to in the responsible, sober thing to do is to pass a continuing resolution that keeps and allowsent open for continued negotiations over a broader, balanced, longer-term budget deal that we invest in the right areas of our economy and ensures that we educate our and allows us to invest in infrastructure and other things to help us grow and reduces the deficit in a responsible way. to get to triple digits eventually with a number of ways that republicans have tried to go after obamacare, the affordable care act. they have all come to not and they will because it was passed i congress, signed into law by the president, upheld as constitutional by the supreme

court, and validated in a presidential election. we are implementing the affordable care act. we are ensuring that millions of americans will receive benefits that will allow for many millions of them to be able to afford health care, health insurance for the first time. republicans who isosed obamacare fear most that the implementation of the affordable care act and the arrival of additional benefits, the ability for americans to purchase insurance for their families that they could never afford before or were blocked from getting entirely will be something that they will not ever want to try to take away because the american people will say no.

we will continue to make sure that the affordable care act is implemented and that americans receive the health insurance that they deserve and they can get it at affordable prices. we talked a lot about that yesterday. you heard the president talk about that today in maryland. centralto derail the purpose of government in order to achieve a political objective is a responsible. side, if this stopgap passes you get until maybe november 15. that's not a heck of a lot of time to negotiate the kind of long-term budget deal you are talking about. is confusedpublic as to where the president is willing to negotiate, on a potential government shutdown, but not negotiate on a debt ceiling that comes october 17, according to the treasury.

why are you sending that kind of mixed message out >> we have been sending very clear signals and hoping that those signals are transmitted, by you in this room, clearly and accurately. is thet of the matter , in aent has been willing demonstrated way, to offer compromise solutions to our economic challenges and our budget challenges. he has put his money where his ,outh is with concrete moderate, balanced proposals and he has met with republicans all year long and they have said they are interested in finding common ground. he is absolutely willing to continue to have those types of negotiations. is engage innot do

an attempt by republicans to what they could not get through the legislative process, what they could not get at the ballot box, what they could not get at the supreme andt of the united states offer as an alternative to getting what they want through extortion tanking the economy and crushing the middle class. he will not do that. as many, many republicans have said, as many business leaders , it is in the responsible approach to take. night, what came out of the meeting with democrats? what is your strategy going into these last few days of the fiscal year? is it the bully pulpit or what exactly? cons are in concert --

conversations and we will continue to be in conversations with congress on how to move forward and right now it is up to congress to pass a continuing resolution. we wasted a lot of time especially on the house pursuing measures that will never becoming law. the speaker said he had a preferred path but then he was yanked in the opposite direction by the most conservative members of this conference. , we've been through a lot of but, in the week end, congress needs to act to ensure the government does not shutdown and we hope that it does. then, obviously, we need to be sure, and the american people need to be sure, that the faction of the party and one house of congress that inks that it's ok to default if they don't their wish list of partisan they do not that

succeed. this president will not let them succeed. >> one of the ideas is negotiating or taking away the sequester cuts in exchange for entitlement reform savings. does that fall under the name known -- every leader based on the public record and it's hard to find even a rank and file member although in the republican party there are a few, who does not agree with the proposition that it would be bad, devastating in fact, if we defaulted on the full faith and credit of the united states for the first time in history. there is an area of near consensus. raise theent says debt ceiling. that's congress's responsibility. it's been done without trauma or delay time and time again. that thisarty

discussion nor this debate is saying attaching any condition to raising the debt ceiling is the republican party. president obama, the democrats, they are not saying well, we will only pass or sign a bill that raises the debt ceiling if we get these items on our wish list. it is not a concession. it is the idea that it is a concession to raise the debt ceiling. it is not a concession. it is your constitutional responsibility. you were not elected to tank the economy. you are not elected to punish the middle class in order to achieve a political object is -- objective that you lost through the legislative process, elective process, judicial process. [laughter]

>> house republicans stand their ground and then the debt ceiling will then be reached? >> house republican leaders have said that they will not let the country default. they have it within their power to ensure that it does not happen. they are the only thomas again, isty in this discussion who saying raising the debt ceiling is conditioned upon them achieving what, based on reports today, is an extraordinary laundry list of republican perennials. the only thing i did not see mentioned was a birther bill to attach to this. is too serious to be

playing games with. we saw with this kind of brinksmanship can do to our economy in 2011. that was not nearly long enough ago for people to forget. the american people would have for their elected leaders being willing to punish harshly innish them order to achieve these objectives and one imagines, as many have written, including republican commentators that there would be a political price to pay for it. i'm saying that the president will not negotiate over congress 's responsibility to raise the debt ceiling. the debt ceiling has to be raised and it is not a

concession for everybody to do it. we should debate and discuss and negotiate over those differences but we should not hold the american people hostage while we do it and it is the height of irresponsibility to even suggest >> are you willing to approve the keystone xl pipeline over this? >> we are not negotiating and that is a perfect example of another item on the partisan agenda of the republican party and in that case, one that is that handled in the way those issues have traditionally been handled in the administration of both parties. ray process that must be allowed to take place and it would be another example of the handling of very sensitive matter. i don't think there's any doubt

if you talk to experts in the field about what would happen should the united states defaults that the results would be calamitous. devastating to hard- working american families everywhere. it would have a lasting impact, even the flirtation with the default that some republicans engaged in had a significant impact. >> are the responsible to negotiate to avoid a default? attemptedrepublicans like in 2011 of time the responsibility to ensure that the united states paid its bills , it became a part of a political extortion game and it would do enormous harm to our power and prestige economically

and the results of that harm would be to inflict pain on the american middle class and its people. responsible thing would be to follow the path the republicans are proposing. >> for publicans don't budge when do you start talking about the day after a default? is there any contingency planning going on here? >> we will not speculate on something that they it in short will not happen. insure will not happen. they are the stewards and they take all necessary precautions and a variety of situations. it is the responsibility to ensure that we do not. unfortunately we're seeing guided who seem to think it's ok to flirt with the default.

>> there are reports that the security council must reach an agreement on the syria dismantling of their chemical weapons including references to chapter seven consequences if not agreed to. is that something the white house can confirm? discussions in the hague in new york are proceeding concurrently regarding the implementation of the framework that was agreed to by the united states and russia in geneva. in the hague, they are working on the procedures for the expeditious distraction of the syrian chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof. will bethat product circulated to members of the executive council in the near future. these are concurrent efforts that are tied together. meanwhile, negotiations between the united states and russia in

new york continue at the ambassadorial level amd p5 is also consulting closely on the drafty u.n. text, to which you were for -- to which you refer. i think we have made good and we hope that this will be resolved in the process will move forward quickly in both cases both in the hague and in new york at the united nations. purpose of the un security council resolution is to ensure that there is a strong, legally , and enforceable mechanism that allows the international community to hold the assad regime accountable for the implementation of the framework and the elimination of the serious chemical weapons program. this is obviously a key object is to achieving the implementation of the framework that the russians and americans

agreed to which is to ensure that the un security council resolution provides a strong, legally binding and enforceable mechanism. i think that goes to part of your question. >> when you say progress, the sticking point had been largely on chapter seven and inclusion of that as an enforcement mechanism. is that what you are referring to? >> we have made good progress in our view and i don't have a timeline for when we expect completion of the process but we hope that it moves forward and we are looking for the product to have strong, legally binding, and enforceable mechanisms to ensure that the international community can hold assad accountable. would like a timeline of

three months and six months to resolve the nuclear file, as he likes to describe it. what are the white house reaction to that timetable? is that overly optimistic or attainable? >> we have long wanted with the international community to resolve this issue with iran and iran, andit requires a verifiable way, to give up their nuclear weapons program and its nuclear ambitions. how long the process might take upon the levely of seriousness and cooperation that they display through substantive conversations. know, today we have the p5 plus one meeting which secretary kerry will be a part minister ashbyer foreign minister of iran will be a part of. we are not expecting any breakthrough in this initial

meeting, but i think this is part of us testing the seriousness of the iranians who are obviously engaging in new newtures and showing interest in trying to resolve this very serious matter and this conflict they have had with the international community for so long that has resulted in uniting the community around that iran cannot be allowed to a nuclear weapons and uniting the international community behind a hastions regime that clearly had profound effect on the iranian economy. that in no small measure is why we have seen this new interest from tehran in trying to resolve the problem. know verystates will soon whether or not the iranians will serious -- were serious?

these are obviously somewhat, located issues and i think that we hope and expect to see serious andthey are the new government is serious about making progress. >> the president said in his remarks today that the websites available to consumers who want to obtain health insurance could as various travel websites. there are reports today from the associated press that for some small businesses, these will not be available to them before a certain time and some rather technology will be required, fax machines and snail mail. can you reconcile these two facts? >> what is absolutely true is that on october 1, everyone will one way orenroll another.

here's the distinction that's important when you talk about the opening of the online application process and the plan and compare process for small businesses. unlike for individuals, the small business enrollment is not emitted as it is for the six months for individuals. businesses, it is forever open and it is a monthly process. they will be able to apply for the tax credits beginning october 1 and they will be able to enroll, if you will, for these programs beginning november 1 but they do not kick in until january 1 and unlike , it is aidual permanent lead open window. -- permanently open. important is, as the president described today,

they will be available for small businesses, individuals, everyone, the possibility of enrolling in these new marketplaces and for small businesses and programs to give allow themedits to to provide insurance to their employees at affordable costs that they could not afford. by the way, small businesses have already been able to access -- up to 35%t $.35 up to now. it has been one of the issues and obstacles that needed to be resolved in the insurance market here in the united states. small businesses because of their size were not able to get reduced rates or lower rates the way that small businesses were because of their size so with the marketplace will do is allow people to pool together and have

that same kind of access. come january 1, it goes up to 50%. smalls good news for businesses who want to provide insurance to their employees in who,news for individuals until now, have not even had the option of affordable healthcare. they have either been priced out or blocked because insurance companies would not give it to them because a family member had a pre-existing condition. that will all change. when we talk about this today on going now for efforts to undermine, defund, or eliminate obamacare, another way to try to through this budget or debt ceiling process, they are in a rush to do this because the family of four in north carolina that, beginning

on october 1, or in florida, maryland, ohio that makes $50,000 in struggling to pay the bills and has not been able to , they insurance before will look at the options available to them and find that they can get affordable health insurance for the first time for everyone in their family and they will not say -- you know what? i voted republican. i don't want this. my congressman is fighting tooth and nail to repeal obamacare so i will not yet this affordable insurance for my family. that's not going to happen. sot's the reason you see much agitation right now and so much willingness by republicans to attach purely partisan goals to the essential responsibilities of congress. aboutre will be curiosity places where the affordable care act is not working for people

are having their work hours shortened our -- or there are some glitches. there are reports around the country about things where it either expectations are not being met thomas hours are being made.udget cuts are being is the white house assessment that none of these antidotes matter or they are overwhelmed by a preponderance of other evidence. do they not have some consequence according to other stories that you and the president tell about whether this succeeds? >> on the issue of shifting to part-time employees, there is simply no evidence -- i'm not saying anecdotally there may not be employers who say they are shifting around the way they provide health insurance and some of them may say it's because of the affordable care saying they just might say that, but what is true is that this has been an ongoing trend for years and what is true across the board is that the

increase in employment that we ofe seen since the passage the affordable care act has been overwhelmingly more than 90% in full-time jobs. , is a pretty good representation of the suggestion that employers are adding workers only a part-time levels to avoid providing insurance. , to makeost employers them attractive as employers, and because of the right thing to do and because they want healthy workers, would like to provide insurance to their employees. one other thing the affordable care act provided the opportunity for small businesses andhave struggled in the balanced market that exists now to provide insurance to their employees to have the ability to do that. >> j, how are you doing? >> excellent, sir. >> i did not hear an answer on the part-time work.

are you saying it's just not true people are having their hours cut from 40 below into part-time areas because of health care? you just don't believe those anecdotes? >> added, all i can say is i don't leave each individual -- you can have anecdotes. we know, there has been a long-term trend that has been part of the problem and needs to be fixed, of employers changing the way they provide health care and often dropping their employees from health care. what is absolutely true and factual is that, since the affordable care act became law, more than 90% of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions. the bureauording to of labor of statistics. according to an analysis, corroborated by other economists, there is no systematic evidence that employers are shifting employees to just below 30 hours

a week so they are not down -- bound to provide insurance. we have a real-life case study. a real-life case study with romney care in massachusetts. the shift in part-time work did not happen. critics, i assume, might have predicted it would, but it did not happen in the state when it enacted its own health care reform, which, as we all know, is similar in many ways to the affordable care act. moreover, the part of the law some are saying could cause the change, even though there is no evidence that it has, does not even take effect until 2015. >> a viewer from west virginia contacted me and said she listened to your answers and her husband works at a restaurant in west virginia here at 40 hours a week. it is cutting down and now he is working 22 hours a week. class maybe that is true. >> she said she will send her

husband's pay stubs and. are you just dismissing people? >> of course night -- of course not. >> whether you think, this will be better for you in the long run, fine. you can make the case. but what do you say to the people who say, my husband's pay has been cut in half? >> again, every individual tocdote is obviously hard verify. i will not contest it. i certainly will not contest the caller who is suffering from the fact her spouse does not have the same number of hours. not the same size paycheck. for whatever reason the restaurant has cut back on the number of hours per individual, what the facts are is that that has not been happening across the country in any systematic way. secondly, and here is what -- i think it is important and need

to the story you mentioned, anybody who has insurance provided by their employer, who quits or loses their job, or sees their hours cut to part- time, because of the affordable care act, they will have an option to buy insurance they did not have before. they did not have, in a system that republicans want to perpetuate. >> if you go from 40 hours to 22 -- again, ed, first of all, there has been increases in unemployment, a steady increase of unemployment in the restaurant industry. i do not know each individual anecdote, obviously. what i can say is that the system republicans want to persist is one where individuals who lose their jobs, who are working hard, but their employers do not provide insurance, who have families but cannot provide insurance for their families, will have affordable health care options

they did not have before. the real-world result of the efforts being made by republicans now if they were to come to fruition, if those families would be deprived of the benefits. they would not have health insurance. they would be going back again and again to the emergency room because their child has asthma and they would be scared to death about what would happen if one member of their family had a chronic illness that landed them in the hospital and the bills started piling up, and they did not have health insurance. under the affordable care act, they will. , the largesturity security company in america, the last 24 hours, ending its thousand it affects 55 and please across america. we do not know if they end up with better health care with insurance exchanges. you could make the case. maybe they will be just fine. you couple years ago, if

currently have health care, you get to keep your doctor and health care -- health plan, 35,000 people in this one company are finding out, they had health care one day and they will still have health insurance in years. they do not have the same one they had last week. >> again. diminish any individual causes experience. not to contest any assertion about why that is happening. the aggregate truth here about what we know about what is happening in the employment market does not bear out claims that the affordable care act is causing employers to drop employees from insurance. again. 55,000 people -- what i am saying, i acknowledge there may be individual anecdotes or companies that are saying this. what has been true for a long businesses have

been changing the way they provide insurance, and/or, they have been stopping the provision of insurance. the cost of premiums have been skyrocketing up until the last three or four years. for the past three years, we have seen the slowest growth in health- care costs in 50 years. opponentst you hear say is that the affordable care act is driving up the cost of health care. toy are counting on you either ignore the facts or not know the facts or not have seen the data that others -- utterly refutes the assertion. >> when you talk at the beginning about debt ceiling, you do have a democrat today telling bloomberg that he does want to see a one-year delay to the individual mandate. how do you like them apples?

[laughter] >> here's what i would say. the senator has long been opposed to the individual responsibility provision of the affordable care act. fact that he has restated the position does not change two fax. to achieve this aenda item by threaten shutdown of the government, or default on our obligations is irresponsible, too, attaching it to a continuing resolution will not pass the senate or become law, but will only draw us closer to a shutdown. it does not change anything. generally speaking, what we see with some people who have been critical of the individual mandate is what they like about the affordable care act is that it bans insurance companies from refusing to provide insurance from people with pre-existing

conditions. a lot of republicans say, when we come up with our own replacement for obama care, something they have been promising for a long time we will include that part. but, as anyone who knows the facts of how the system works in our country, you cannot do that without the individual mandate. the reason why the affordable care act will ensure that no one in america, none of your relatives, one out of quadra people in america, or something like that and has pre-existing conditions, cannot be denied coverage because of their condition, diabetes, or asthma, or whatever, is because of the expansion of the number of people who will be covered and participate in the marketplace is provided for by the affordable care act through the individual mandate. you cannot. it is all stake and no veggies. the fact is, you have to make

the system work. that is why the affordable care act is designed in a way to ensure that young people, for example, are able to purchase insurance on the individual -- through the marketplaces, as individuals, that, for the first time, will be affordable. we are going to be engaged beginning october 1 in a campaign to make sure americans across the country, and this includes very much young americans, are aware that these options are available to them for the first time. >> according to the latest bloomberg poll, 51% of americans want to see an increase to the debt limit link to spending cuts. this is not just republican. what do you say to the americans who say they want to see spending cuts? >> what i would say is that the president has proposed a comprehensive, budget that reduces the debt significantly

over both the medium-term and long-term. the president has presided, as president by $.50 reduction in deficit, after inheriting the largest deficit in history from his predecessor. were economic policies broadly supported by those now critical of the president's policies. what is absolutely the case, and it is complicated and difficult, is that the association created in the reporting on this between raising the debt ceiling and the deficit is not factual. the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the deficit. raising the debt ceiling does not add a dime to our deficit. i am saying americans are absolutely correct the debt ceiling should be raised and they do not want us to default for the first time in our history and they are a wreck we need to continue the work of reducing our deficit in a

responsible way. what we cannot do is agree to an extortion game, where itemlicans attach every on their partisan wishlist, and if they do not get it, they will blow up the economy and hurt hurt the middle class. secondly, and this gets into serious want paris, anyone who looks at the republican proposal, they do not even reduce the deficit. they do not even fulfill the wishes of the poll question. delaying the implementation of deficit. increases the the affordable care act reduces the deficit. republicans who are now on the other side of the issue who voted for the expansion of medicare and voted to do it without paying for it, they are now singing a different tune. the proposal would increase the deficit in the name of deficit reduction. >> back in 2011, it was part of a broader yield. do you think this administration

set a precedence? class we have made very clear the liberation's in the summer 2011, in which the ,resident entered into a long sustained, sincere negotiation with the speaker of house and others in the hopes of finding a broad, compromise, a budget proposal that would reduce our deficit and allow us to continue to fund essential aspects of government in the middle class, whereby in a process republicans were in the house, in particular, engaged in flirtation with default. that had never happened before and the result of that was hugely consequential, not least in the downgrading of the united states for the first time in its history. what was true before that began is like -- nothing like that

had ever happened before and the president certainly hopes he could achieve an agreement with a grand bargain so to speak with the speaker of the house that would be good for the economy and represent compromise by both sides, and compromise was not forthcoming, as we have seen many times now out of the house republicans. there was a huge price to pay for that. >> the last conversation with heard, speaker banner on friday, have we spoken since then? >> i do not have any conversations. here,tuation we have had we have seen with the situation says. about what they will do. all these things they want to attach as a condition of doing their jobs. we are not negotiating raising the debt ceiling. they are going through a combo kit it, convoluted, unnecessary process, hopefully to the point they pass a continuing

resolution so the government does not shut down, and we will see where we are when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. i am sure the president will be engaged with congress, as he has in the past on broader issues. he will not negotiate over congress's responsibility to ensure the united states does not default. is the white house looking for a new candidate to replace as chair of the federal -- >> ron was -- is a very qualified candidate for the position he has been nominated for. he is one of 100 nominees pending before the senate. the senate ought to act quickly on it. he is qualified and the senate ought to act on his nomination. today.delays they are technical in nature. is that the reason for them going online? >> yes. i believe the opening happens on

time, october 1, there is an ability when it comes to the small business piece of this, to sign up for tax credits right away. when the online portion comes online, you can do a planned comparison, beginning november 1 as i understand it. the important distinction is that there is not a closed end to the enrollment time as there is in the individual market, very similar, obviously, to employer-based insurance around the country. >> how many small businesses are a -- affected by that? is there an estimate? untildoes not kick in january 1. there is no effect. >> when they want to go online october 1 to begin shopping, they cannot do that. >>) a but they can continue the

-- begin the process prior to going online. the marketplaces do not the gain, they do not kick in until january 1. it is not as if they are missing out on a time when the benefits are available. moreover, as i said before, because of aspects of the affordable air -- care act that have already been in place, more than 100,000 small businesses across the country have already taken advantage of a 35% tax credit, provided insurance to their employees. that will go up to 50% on january 1. another delay will be on the spanish language online -- legislation? , ithe online portion of it believe, will come on sometime in october.

opens octobering 1. anybody can call in, spanish speakers available, speaking spanish, in order to walk and roll ease through the process. moreover, we know 70% of the latino population will be the affordable care act health care.gov through the english-language portal to begin with. but, the spanish language portion of this will come online with all theret >> shutdown talk, talks coming up in october >> there is very little time to talk about pending playoffs in baseball. the dismal start of the season for the washington redskins, and other topics. go ahead. >> conversations about shortening or canceling a planned for october. >> our schedule remains as

planned. there are fundamental, basic responsibilities that congress has, granted to it by the constitution. they need to ensure the government is funded. they need to take action to do that. there are readily available means for them to do that. they need to make sure the united states does not default, that it pays its bills. congress should do its job. one of the jobs of the president of the united states is to that offer aarkets great potential for american here at to create jobs home, and economic opportunity here at home, in asia, are exploited. as the president of the united states, he wants to make sure he does that. that is one of his responsibilities and he wants to fulfill it. >> there have been discussions about changing?

>> none. >> earlier, you said congress has a constitutional responsibility to raise the debt ceiling. doesn't have a constitutional responsibility? congress in the delineation of powers controls the money. congress alone has the power to legislate a rise in the debt ceiling. , tomorrow, wanted to to rid itself of the onerous responsibility and give it to the chief executive, a position currently held by barack obama, he would accepted because he thinks it is egregiously irresponsible to flirt with default. we do not refer -- default. >> there is an obligation -- >> [indiscernible] of the debt ceiling is not explicitly the language of the constitution.

there is no question the constitution gives congress the power to appropriate and asked -- and spend money and ensure as part of the function that the bills are paid. you arer -- if suggesting we have the power, sadly, you are mistaken. i was just saying there is a middle ground between the president being able to do it, which he is obviously not, and congress having to do it, as part of a constitutional responsibility. you are, i think misunderstanding the allocation of powers in our system. >> [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] clancy helped sell the affordable care act. one way you are doing it, yesterday and today, you tweeted from the white house twitter account, the adorable care act underneath it.

who is behind that and why you think you animals are getting health care. >> everybody loves cute animals. [laughter] have not read tweeted that, so i have not seen. i will. this is an important question. , wethe last three years have focused largely on a political process, on the effort in congress to craft -- craft and pass legislation. there is a big fight associate with that. it passed. it was signed. -- ithere was a big continued to be a political issue, that laid a large role in debates in the midterms and general election. then there was a judicial aspect to it through the supreme court. what implementation is about is focusing on consumers and providing benefits and services

to regular american families out , ate who are not engaged least not on a daily basis, on political struggles in washington. that is why i said earlier what is so important. when a hard-working middle- class family somewhere in the country, in north carolina, california, were ohio, pennsylvania, new hampshire, anywhere, making $50,000 and struggling to pay the bills, see is that they will have available to them affordable health insurance they did not have before, and you are a mom or a dad, looking at the option, and saying, i can now get health insurance for my family and do not have to rely on the emergency room anymore, and live in fear of one of us getting a chronic medical illness, i will probably take that option, even if i voted against barack obama and even if i support my member of congress, who has made it a toncipal agenda item to try

repeal obamacare. that is the right thing to do for your family. these are the benefits those who are trying to derail the process and are trying unsuccessfully to derail it, are ultimately trying to take away. from hard-working americans out there. deserve affordable health insurance for their families. do you think some of the critics you are talking about -- >> [indiscernible] >> anyway we can get out the basic facts to americans about the options available to them for the first time, is worth trying. , beginning october 1, have people all around the country who do not get insurance through their employers, who have not been able to afford it because they have a pre-existing

condition, will be able to go and see all the options available to them and will see for themselves there is affordable insurance for the first time, and insurance that cannot be taken away because the affordable care act forbids insurance companies from kicking you off arbitrarily, if they decide you have a condition they do not want to pay for. those will be powerful benefits for the american people. given the level of economic security for themselves and families that they have not had before. , ithis business website does not sound like anything. >> again, you can fill out an application on october 1 for tax credits. in november, you can compare plans online. coverage does not begin until january 1. unlike the individual marketplace, which has a six- month enrollment, the small business market is open all year round.

>> businesses expect to be able to do this. >> october 1, they will be able to compare plans in november. what is the case is we are meeting the deadline that makes access to this available on october 1, when it comes to the individual market. because there is not a constraint time for small businesses, you have to look at the fact that the all what -- online component will not be available until november, differently from the way it works in the individual market. >> glitches and obviously the big program understand that even if you think the whole health plan is the greatest thing in the world, there have been a number of delays. >> what the president has said is right. in theill be glitches rollout of this, as there have been in every program, again, a good reference point is medicare, part d, which has

caused far more than we have a huge amount amongst consumers, when it was initially rolled out. we do not anticipate that here at all. we are engaging in an effort to make sure americans have the information they need and the access they need to find out about the plans available to them. for the first time, you will see in therage american united states, who needs to buy insurance, on the individual market, they will have an andage of 50 plan options, they will have affordable options they have never had before. that is the fundamental fact. is hard for opponents to escape that fact. tangibleecome beginning october 1, because americans, in the way they purchase so many things online,

will be able to make the comparison in a very simple way, look at the options available to them, and make choices and and roll. january 1, the coverage that has not existed before kicks in. worth noting, because i had this discussion with ed yesterday about -- and i wanted to get back to him because it is clear whato make the distinction is between what is available today and what will be available beginning january 1 and what individuals will be able to enroll for on october 1. today, thetes individual market, and sure -- insurers can deny coverage because of prediction desperate existing condition, they can charge you more just for being a woman, they can refuse to cover care for your pre-existing youition, they can charge

unlimited out-of-pocket costs. they can charge you more due to your family's health history. they can put an annual limit on your coverage. they do not have to cover essential services like maternity care. for 62% of enrollees in the individual market today, in most states, to not have coverage from these services. in other words, the comparison ,e were talking about yesterday if you buy a plan in the individual market today, you do not know whether it will be there when you needed. now, once you enroll in the marketplaces and insurance kicks in january 1, in all states, insurers cannot deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition. they cannot charge you more just because you are a woman. they cannot choose to cover care for pre-existing condition. they cannot charge more for your health history. they cannot put an annual limit on your coverage and they cannot put a limit on out-of- pocket costs. it is not. on average, it is less.

significantly less. and tax credits are available for those who need them. , in one example, again, it did not exist -- account for all of the worms in the plan offered. how it is utterly different than what will be on offer in the future, and, overwhelmingly, demonstrated in a variety of studies, there will be more options at more affordable prices than ever before for the individual market. every plan must cover essential services like maternity care, hospitalizations, doctors visits, and prescription trucks. at her why it is a much apple. >> why won't you acknowledge 55 havesked before? access from the employer. >> i feel like we are doing the sideshow. if you have -- you can come up

with anecdotes, but the overwhelming facts dispute this -- that this is -- that employers are shedding employees from insurance plans because of the affordable care act, or that they are moving them into part-time status because of it. andcan ignore the data present competing anecdotes, and i am not diminishing -- >> 55,000 people are moving. >> that is the data. that is an anecdote. there is a difference. >> thank you very much. if americans like their health plans, they can keep it. he did not manage to get that in. >> he did get that in the speech. yes. if you like your health insurance, and you are lucky to have an employer that

provides health insurance, you can keep it. this is the thing that is the myth about this, too. when you asked me about whether i would enroll in the exchanges. i absolutely would if i did not have insurance provided from a company. [indiscernible] do it on, we will crossfire. you on the right. but here is the thing. you have employer-provided health insurance and i do. the marketplaces are for individuals. they provide subsidies that, if you have the option of employer- provided health insurance, you do not get the subsidies. , you would keep your employer-provided health insurance if you desire. answer to your question, yes. question cargo is taking some retirees off of this, putting them into the exchanges. you guys -- there is no question there have been

huge trends in shifts in the insurance mark -- insurance market in our country ongoing for years. some of what you described is related directly to that. what is different about this is that, for the first time, there will be, for members of your , i hope,xtended family who have serious pre-existing conditions, their insurance cannot deny them coverage. they cannot and will not. it is because of the way the affordable care act was written and the way it is being implemented, that will be available to all americans. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you. putting you in the room at , whitesional hearings

house event, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite rider. now, you can watch us in hd. on capitol hill, the debate continues on funding the health care law, government spending, and raising the debt ceiling. , whitethe house gop may delay house event, briefings, and conferences the debt ceiling vote. leadership found the rank in file would like to see what kind of deal house republicans end up with on the government funding fight for voting on a debt ceiling package. a continuing resolution where they end up disappointing republicans, the house gop will want to beef up their debt ceiling proposal. the debt ceiling was tentatively scheduled for the weekend. , 10:00 in the day eastern, the leaders of the republican conference, speaker weiner and others, met with

their conference and spoke to reporters. this was before it was announced the house spoke this weekend for a continuing resolution. >> good morning.the american people do not want the president posses health care bill and they do not want the government to shut down. it would do just with the american people have asked. it is time for the senate to listen will pass the bill over there. on the debt limit, we will introduce a plan for import and spending cuts and program of reforms to a debt limit increase. the president says, i will not negotiate. well, but it does not work that way. washington ignore posses spending problem and we will not accept the new normal of a weak economy, no new job, and shrinking wages. we need to strengthen our

economy for all americans and we need to deal with washington spending problem. >> good morning. , wespeaker said last week sent the senate a continuing resolution that funds the government and stops obamacare before it costs one more job or it costs families of the country one more dollar of discretionary income. we also talked a lot today about a plan we would put forward this week to address the debt debt ceiling. d -- the debt ceiling. ewe have a debt crisis in this nation. i don't think many people have differed with that notion. and we do have a plan to reduce wasteful government spending, which also spurs economic growth. so our plan reduces energy costs for families and businesses. it calls for the reform of our tax code. it reforms washington spending and it delays obamacare for one

year for all american families. now, president obama has already delayed the law for big business, for insurance companies and the politically connected, so this is only fair for us to say that american families should also have the benefit of delay that this president has given to those. now, for too long, president obama and his democratic colleagues in the senate have chosen to ignore our looming debt crisis, and president obama's plan has been and is still more debt and no reform. and the american people have resoundedly rejected this idea. we have a recent poll out this morning, the bloomberg poll, which says that the american people know they don't want -- no, they don't want a government shutdown, but they're tired of the debt and they want to make sure that this president sits down and negotiates with us a

resolution to this problem. so we call on the president now to sit down with us. harry reid to sit down with us and let's solve the problem. this plan of more debt and no reform is absolutely unacceptable. it's unacceptable to us and it's unacceptable to the american >> ite that we represent. is interesting. stories ofe different things that people do. america realizes we are in a big crisis. i read a headline the speaker gets a phone call from the president. i think that is a very positive thing that will happen. we will see movement area the president did not call to say, let's work together. he called to say, i will not negotiate. that is not the same message he gives to other world leaders.

we are americans first. the leader talked about the new poll that came out for bloomberg. america is concerned about economic growth and the size of our debt. wen you look at the bill will roll out when it comes to the debt ceiling, we take control of making sure we do not continue just run away spending. more importantly, we bring growth back.

economic growth when you look at the joint economic committee comes out, just 1% of growth will cut down more than $300 billion of debt just in 10 years. these are all bills that have passed this house before, but why haven't they become law? why do we still linger in the economic problems that we have? because the senate will not act. today that can all change. we ask the president call again, but this time don't call to say he won't talk. do what the american people ask. sit down and work together that we can get this country moving one more time. >> republicans are leading. we are leading on the issues important to this country. we are leading on those policies that will create jobs, get people back to work, get a strong economy. we are leading in an effort to

get the government to live within its means, cut spending, get those spending reforms so that our fiscal situation is strong. we are leading on health care, on ensuring that americans have access to quality and affordable health care, and we are leading on protecting hardworking americans across this country that are feeling the overreach from the federal government. and what do we hear on the other side? leader pelosi has called us legislativearsonnists. -- ledge 5 arsonists. -- legislative 5 arsonists. president obama accused us of holding the u.s. hostage. these accusations couldn't be further from the truth and i encourage president obama and the democrats to listen to the 57% of americans across this country who would oppose most or all of obamacare because it's making their lives harder. i encourage them to sit down with the average family of four in america that is going to see their premiums increase $7,500 on average. i encourage them to talk to some of the people i represent in washington state, moms and dads that are wondering how are they going to insure their kids. those seniors that can't find a doctor who will take a medicare patient and are seeing their costs go up. or those people that are losing their full-time jobs because their employers can't afford obamacare. this debate trumps politics in every way. it's about people. it's about everyday hardworking people and we encourage the democrats to listen to the american people and then do what's right. >> i'm a mom and moms have to be really good at multitasking and making sure everyone's happy,

everyone's heard, and gets along, and to solve life's problems. that's the only way you can do it to avoid mass chaos in a home. and it's not easy and this job that i'm doing today isn't easy, either. i didn't come here to shut things down. i came here to get things done. and i don't want the president's health care law for my family, my mom, my kids, and neither does the majority of americans. and certainly not the majority of kansans. and i am going to continue to do everything in my power to repeal and replace the president's health care law, however i also do not want the government to shut down. there are people across the country who depend on essential government services like social security, medicare, and certainly the security provided

by our nation's military both here and abroad. the house is committed to keeping the federal government opened in order to provide these very services. the house has listened to the american people who want the delay in the president's health care law and ensure the federal government remains opened. we are leading the charge to rein in spenged and protect hardworking americans. it's time for the senate to join us to make this work. >> let's face it, the affordable care act, obamacare, is not ready for prime time. yet another broken promise. premiums will go down by $2,500, not the case. many families as they are beginning to look at these exchanges that perhaps open up as early as next week are

finding their premiums will go up perhaps as much as 400%. yet another broken promise showing again that this is not ready for prime time. >> yes, ma'am. you sound like my colleagues, the dog ate my homework. >> the last time there was a fight over the debt ceiling the stock market dropped by 2,000 points and u.s. credit was downgraded, are you willing to risk that again? are you truly willing to hold up the raising of the debt ceiling if you don't get some or all of the items on your list? >> the problem is not what's happening or not happening here. the fact is is we have $17 trillion worth of debt. this year the federal government will bring in more revenue than any year in the history of our country, and yet we'll have a nearly $700 billion budget deficit. we have a spending problem that has to be addressed. in addition to that, we have seen almost no economic growth. if you really want to solve this

problem, we not only have to control spending, but we also have to have real economic growth that allows americans better shot at a better job and better wages, and more hours. >> if you don't get the items on your list? >> mr. speaker, you just said every time spending is the issue. but on this debt limit bill all you are offering are freebies like medical malpractice and leftover low hanging fruit from the supercommittee. why aren't you doing more on spending? >> in this bill we have spending cuts and we have issues that will help spur more economic growth. we think the balance is correct. >> in light of bringing this debt limit bill to the floor, will you now accept the clean

c.r. from the senate to avoid a government shutdown? >> i do not see that happening. >> what do you plan to send back to the senate? how can you ensure you won't be having a shut down? >> i have made it clear now for months and months and months. we have no interest in seeing the government shut down. but we've got to address the spending problems that we have in this town. and so there will be options available to us. they are not going to be any speculation about what we are going to do or not do until the senate passes their bill. thank you-all. >> what options would be the c.r. -- >> we are not going to have a discussion about the c.r., speculate about the c.r. until the senate finishes their bill. >> you are not going to have a discussion about it. no intent to shut the government down. >> that's correct. >> looks like a real possibility. would you concede that's the case? >> no, do i not. i do not expect that to happen. house debtow --

ceiling measure, speaker banner said they will not have enough votes to pass any deal. later, the house rules committee approved what would allow the the continuing resolution coming out of the senate. eric cantor announced the house would the this weekend for the , late here it meanwhile this afternoon, harry reid announced a series of vote on the cr in the senate beginning at 12:30 p.m. friday. leader reid is amending it to shorten it a few months and strip out the health care defunding language and debt prior cases asian language. senate democratic leaders, at about noon eastern, spoke with reporters about the debt ceiling and funding the federal government.

>> we will move forward as quickly as we can. under the present process, we will finish saturday. we can -- as i said on the floor this morning, we can collapse the time to finish the day. , if anyone here thinks republicans in the house have a workable land for a shut down on monday, tell me about it. from themof reports they will do this or that. so, we will have to see what they decide to do, because right now, they do not know. from everything i see, they are in a ditch. they want to get out of it, but they keep digging deeper and deeper, and i do not know what

they will do. they do not know what they will do. the tea party has put them in this whole, and it keeps digging deeper and deeper. we want to finish this legislation as quickly as possible. every hour it takes by put our country closer to a shut down. there is still time for cooler heads to prevail, but not a lot -- a lot of time. i am so encouraged yesterday to see people come down, who are republicans, and talk about the need to finish this legislation. there are a lot of good presentations. we have heard about they would do a suicide -- the dumbest idea they have -- ever heard. did the best yesterday. obamacare is the law. it is the law. it has been for four years, declared constitutional. they have got to move on to

something else. that was -- it won fair and square. as john mccain said, he wishes we had not won, but we did. move onto something else. i hope there are a few reasonable republicans in the house that start talking about -- like the publicans over here. we have not seen it yet. this is not a game or the middle class. it is not an effort to satisfy the code others. this is dealing with their lives. i do my welcome to washington every thursday. one said, i appreciate you meeting with i love my students. i appreciate that very much. she said, i work for the united states park service. we are so afraid. we know that parks will shut down. that will mean i will not have a job. it is through the federal

government. that is what is happening in the the longest area succession of down days since 2012, well more than a year. not only does someone who works for park service not know what will happen, financial markets you not know what will happen. a sad commentary on what is happening in the hope to pass i the bill as quickly as possible. i hope the republicans over here will stick with us. chairman of the appropriations committee. hope to pass class we democrats want to bele sure that the government stays open and does the job it is supposed to do. we democrats want to keep the government open and -- working as hard for the american people

as the people who work hard to pay the bills. we are days away from a government shutdown. the clock is ticking. you can see for itself. we have put forth a plan that does two things. keep the government funding until november 15, to enable us to work out a longer range solution, and number two, we got would the two liars that be so provocative that they would be vetoed by the president of united it's. let's be clear. any attachment that either d the affordable care act, will be be told by the president. 421can half, you can puff, hours, but you cannot blow the affordable care act away.

, wewe have in our amendment eliminate the right -- wire to defund obamacare. and to reconstruct the way america will pay our bills, because we do not believe you should pay china first. we believe you should pay social security and veterans and if it's first. then, we keep government open so we can arrive at a process where we can move all of the funding for next year forward in mission,t meets the shows we can be a more frugal government, and avoid a .hutdown make no mistake. shutdown has real consequences. if we go to a shutdown, a lot of things will happen. first of all, for social

security, you will get your benefits. but social security offices will either be closed or open only part time so your earned benefits, you will not be able to apply for them. even though we protect veterans, the fact is, it will further make the disability claims process even more backlog. we do not want to do that. thousands of students will be unable to pay their tuitions because their loans will be delayed. every single day, there would be theher aspect of what consequences of the shutdown is. it is not only the shutdown that is bad. how we willet to fund our government for fiscal year 14. we want to be sure we do it in a way that meets mission, meets purpose, and do it in a way that is official -- fiscally

responsible. we have something called sequester. to sequester is a mechanism do swashbuckling across the board, no matter if the program is good, or whether the program is dated. we oppose that. we want to cancel sequester for at least two years. let me just give you one example. i have the proud honor to represent the national institute of health in my state. working there every day our people who have won the nobel prize, people who should, because they are out there finding cures for the diseases that affect the american people. , when they announced that cancer rates were reduced by 15%, because of the work that had been done, instead of pinning medals on them, they were told they would get pink slips and bebe furlow.

sequester means five percent -- whether-- 27 they are on the cusp of a breakthrough or not. whether you are dealing with an epidemic, or whether you are dealing with the epidemic of alzheimer's and autism in our country. we should be funding this. but no, we will cut the nih by $2 billion, make sure new grants are not funded, and make sure people stand in line for the health they need. ,his has consequences to lives the future of our economy, where we, with new ideas for new products, and if you want to save the budget, i leave you with one fact. beneficiaries are children in medicaid funding. to paying money goes

for long-term care because of alzheimer's and parkinson's, lou gehrig's disease, and other neurological impediments. if you want to reduce the medicaid budget, you fund nih. so we can find the cures to help the people with horrible diseases, help the family, to pg for and how our country. let's get on with it and let's stop huffing and puffing, the greatest -- body has become the greatest -- body. >> thank you. only five days left in the fiscal year. instead of working with them across to avoid a government shutdown, the republicans continue to march us right to the edge of another cliff. the senate will pass a clean, continuing resolution, funding the government until november 15 and giving us time to come together, pass the budget and

bills for next year. this is the only sensible solution. speaker boehner, house republicans, the tea party members of the senate, senator cruise, and others, are playing high-stakes poker with other people's money. we will tell you what we mean. their threats will not affect them. affect aeats wilson -- lot of innocent people across america. you heard the senator go through the litany of those impacted by a government shutdown, not to mention the thousands of federal employees across america, not certain today as to whether they will be needed at work tuesday morning or whether they will show up here at republicans decided they will use them as pawns in this political debate. if that is not bad enough, they take the next step. the next step is to threaten the debt ceiling, the paying of bills by our federal government. if they stand by their position

and do not give us a clean extension of the debt ceiling, victims will include not just federal employees, but all across america. economists we met with made it extremely clear the business roundtable has made it clear. this is a catalyst -- catastrophic strategy by the republicans that will cost us jobs in america and cause businesses to throttle back instead of moving forward and backg people, putting them to work. the republicans are playing with thees poker lives of so many innocent people across america. it is time for this to come to an end. we will give -- give them a clean extension of the debt ceiling. let's get on with the business that is important for the country. of creating jobs and working to help with the lives of so many innocent people across america. the middle class in america have a fighting chance. i want to make one last point related to the 21 hour not a filibuster, but speech on the floor in texas.

during the course of the debate, he told us a lot. some of it was very interesting and personal about himself and his family and his father. the inspirations and his life. he went on at great length in doing so. he told us a lot of detail about his relationship with his family and a lot of personal things. i came to the floor and asked in a basic question. get your health insurance? the only thing he would say is that he did not take the federal insurance plan. the plan that we all have. he has refused to tell the press where he gets his health insurance. man stood there for 21 hours lecturing us about america's health insurance coverage and will not tell the public what his health insurance coverages. it is time to ask. how is he getting his health insurance. what is the employer construct -- contribution for his health

insurance? is that not important to ask echo he raised the issue. how many times on the floor did he tell you about the amendment and health insurance for members of congress and their employees. he raisetimes did that issue? not once has he come clean to explain his health insurance. if he is one of the lucky people who is wealthy enough to buy the biggest plan in the world god s -- bless them. i can tell you an awful lot of people depending on the president's affordable care act senator cruise would deny the opportunity to buy health insurance. ask him where he gets help insurance. i think it's an important question. >> thank you, everybody, and i want to thank my colleagues for their great work on this.

from theeing a crusade far right of the republican party. their goal is to hold the until wepeople hostage derail or defund obamacare. is nothingre doing new. the hostage takers on the far right want out, and the republican leadership caved and handed them the keys and let them run the show. as a result, the house pushed us until republicans shut down the government. that is a disgrace. they're shutting down the government because they know this will never pass this body and will never be signed by the president. the continuing resolution the house passed is before us in the senate, and we are watching an attempt to have a rerun of the

same show. on the right of the republican party pledged they would do everything in their power to block this. in this episode, there is a plot twist. sincee first time obamacare gains steam, republicans began pushing back. leader mcconnell and the senator made it clear that despite their objections to obamacare, they will allow debate to move forward. despite pressure from outside groups and members of their own party, these leaders said enough is enough. you don't see mitch mcconnell mounting a campaign to try to block the crs to and cause a shutdown.

they could be telling them to have a cloture vote, but they are not. everyone voted. in the position of being against it and then for there is a number of votes you could count on one hand that might go with him, and that's because republican leadership decided not to play his game. the decision noteworthy is that my friends from kentucky and texas are up for reelection this year, and anator mcconnell has her on challenge. despite these pressures they refuse to go along with the extreme positions of the far is on and now the senate a path of avoiding that mistake, so why is this important?

when the cr goes back to the house it will be up to speaker boehner to decide if he wishes to cave to the hard right and shutdown the government or stand aside and and allow the government to open. will he follow the leads of senator mcconnell and not go to exceed right, or will he to the wishes of the tea party, even if it is not a majority of the house, and then shut down the government? boehner is in a stronger position to resist than mcconnell. a primary in his district, so why doesn't he step up to the plate and do the right ?hing

speaker boehner out to be able to do the same thing. is he vulnerable to a challenge in his caucus? that's what they say. toaker boehner would be wise take a page from the senate republican leadership book. he would be wise to stand up to the far right of the caucus and say, we tried it your way and failed. we will pass it, put it on the floor, and then he should pass it, even over the vocal objections of the extreme right. the speaker boehner did the right thing. party, his country, and congress, and he will be better ff for it. will speaker boehner step up to the plate? only time will tell.

>> republican leadership has allowed the tea party to push our country to the brink of a crisis, and now they need to work with us so we don't go over the age. edge. ibody is more frustrated than am. told everybody the only way to avoid lurching into a crisis was to come to the table before we were staring down the clock. us, and have pushed there is only one responsible path forward. focused oncans are internal battles and are fixated on pandering to the tea party. senate democrats are going to .ass a clean short-term bill

it shouldn't be difficult. deal toontinuing on a end these constant crises. democrats and republicans have said these are far from the deal. the senate budget replaces sequestration with a mix of spending cuts and new revenue raised by closing loopholes skewed to the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations. fully deaf --et fully funds defense programs and pays with deeper cuts to investments, all the while protecting the wealthiest americans from paying a penny more. we know this resolution doesn't we havel our problems. a lot of problem's, but the bare minimum is to protect our

economy and prevent a government shutdown. we will send this back to the house. to need to are going put an end to the tea party temper tantrum, pass our bill without any gimmicks, and work with us to tackle the deficit and debt responsibly. families are angry and disgusted, and they are sick and tired of seeing congress sabotage economic recovery with these crises. they want us to work together. speaker boehner doesn't understand this by now, so i want to spell it out for him. the tea party has no interest in making a deal. they want a shutdown. ton they get it, they want start pushing us to the next

crisis. they can be distracted with debt limit bills, but that's just one more thing for a party that cannot seem to stay away from them. the only path forward is for democrats and republicans to come together and work together on a bipartisan budget deal, which we have been asking to work on for six months. to keep the government open and allow us to get to work. >> house republicans are doing a couple of things today i want to get your take on. they are considering introducing a short-term bill that will keep the government funded for one more week. is that something you could support? speculate. oing to we want to clean cr. we aren't going to play any

games. as i announced when i gave my opening remarks, they don't know what they are going to do. they are throwing mud and hopes it sticks to the wall. about 15 items they want to see included in an increase in the debt ceiling. are any of those things you could accept or compromise on? >> no. do you think that any ?eetings in the days ahead >> there's an easy way out. said so.of us have send us a clean cr and a clean debt ceiling. that's the path forward. there's no need for conversation.

we have the support of the president of the united states, and that's pretty good. >> are you willing to negotiate on the debt ceiling if turning off the sequester for a year or two was on the table? >> no. likech as we .equestration, it is senseless as the chairwoman of the appropriations committee pointed at what it's doing. if sequestration kicks in next ofr, it will be two years $3.6 billion. it is the envy of the rest of the world. this genius that runs it is not smart enough to run it with no money. democrats have voted to repeal the medical device.

weren't against speculation, but that may well come back. with all democrats voted against a repeal of that? i know you have that listing, but we want a clean cr. that's what we are going to get. they want to shut down the government. here's, it's time we have left. they can play around all they want. some of the biggest supporters for doing away with the stupid tax -- i should not say that. doing away with that tax have told me they will not support that cr. what we have said, and senator durbin was very clear yesterday. want to deal with all these remaining issues, let's do it without a gun to the head of the american people.

look at the device tax. let's do it in context of separate legislation. we are not going to play games with the american people. " came out today, 80% of americans think with a are doing -- in a poll that came out today 80% of americans think they know what they are doing. walking talking about off a cliff. this is a time that calls for leadership of house republicans. i am thankful we have john senateand others in the who have convinced the two leaders this is a path to oblivion for us. we need you in the house to do the same thing. thanks, everybody.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> while the spending and health care debate continued on capitol hill, president obama talked about the health care law at a speech in washington. this is an hour. [applause]

>> how are we doing, prince george community college? you all look great. are you excited to see the president? so am i. i want to thank you for coming out. i want to thank charlotte for her work here. i want to thank the county executive baker. let's give it up for him and for entirennie edwards, our delegation for the great state of maryland. ladiesso represented. and gentlemen, progress is a choice. job creation is a choice.

whether we give you and your children a country of more or a country of less, these are all choices. because of these better choices we are achieving upward mobility, and there is one other call the president made for us. when i was a boy, we spent about six percent of our nation's product on health care. today it's 17%. those are dollars wasted that could be creating jobs and expanding opportunity. that's why we have chosen to be an early implement or of the affordable care act. lieutenant governor anthony charge, and wehe

are looking forward to implementation. we implement obamacare, that will give a competitive advantage to create more opportunities, which is really what this is about. our president understands creating a way so all citizens can get health care is not only the right thing to do for every individual. it's a necessary thing to do for our economy. you the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] ♪

>> hello, maryland. pgcc.pdc see -- [applause] it's good to be back in pg county. give it up for one of the hardest working, most effective governors in the country, governor o'malley. be with all of you today. i love you back. we have a few folks who work so hard on behalf of the people of maryland every single day.

senator ben carter is here. congressman hoyer is here. and congresswoman donna edwards is here. all of you are here. [applause] sometimes you just need to escape beltway politics for just a little bit, even if you are just a mile or two outside the beltway. i know that a lot of you have seen some of the antics going on in congress right now. [laughter] wanted to take a little bit of you,today to speak with the people who send us to serve, about something that is critical to our families, critical to our

businesses, critical to our economy. that is the reforms we are making to the health care system. there has been a lot of misinformation, a lot of confusion, but there are few things more important to economic security for the middle-class class and everywhere trying to get into the middle class and health care. for a long time america was the only advanced economy in the but health care is not a a right but a privilege. we spent more. we got less. we left tens of millions of insurance.ithout by the time the financial crisis hit, most ring him cut more than doubled in about a decade.

about one in 10 americans who got their health care through their employer lost that coverage, so the health care system was not working. the rising cost of health care burden businesses and became the biggest driver of our long-term deficit. been abouts always more than just statistics. everywhere i went as i ran for president back in 2000 seven and two thousand eight, every place i have gone as, i would hear stories from folks just like you because denied coverage of a pre-existing condition like asthma, of cancer survivors who had to choose between their home and health care, of small

businesses who wanted to do the right thing by their employees, but it seemed their insurance premiums go up so high they could not do it anymore. these stories were personal for me. worrying aboutom how she was going to deal with her finances when she got sick. michele andhe fear i felt when we found out sasha had meningitis, and they had to give her a spinal tap. we and never -- i never felt so helpless in all my life, but we to have goode health insurance. i remember thinking, what about the parents who are not that lucky? what about those who get hit with a bill of $20,000 or $30,000, and they have no idea how to pay for it? what about those with a chronic

illness, and the bills never stop coming? is going to stand up for them? patient --thiest wealthiest country on earth, no one should go broke because they get sick. in the united states of america, health care is not a privilege for the fortunate few, it is a right, and i knew that if we didn't do something about our unfair and inefficient health care system, it would keep driving up our deficit, it would keep burdening our businesses, it would keep hurting our families and it would keep holding back economic growth. that's why we took on a broken health care system. that's why with the helps of folks like steny and ben and donna we got it through congress. that's why we've been

implementing it. that's why we are going to see it through. the affordable care act is here. \[applause] i don't have to tell you it was a challenge to get it done. a lot of special interests who liked the system just the way it was fought us tooth and nail. then, republicans thought it was good politics to fight it even though the plan we proposed drew on a lot of republican ideas. but despite all the obstacles, the affordable care act passed both houses of congress. i signed it into law. \[applause]

the supreme court ruled it constitutional. republicans in congress have now voted more than 40 times to undermine or repeal it. their candidate for president ran on a platform to repeal it. and at every step they have been unsuccessful. \[applause] now, five days from now, five days from now on october 1, millions of americans who don't have health insurance, because they've been priced out of the market or because they were denied access because of pre- existing conditions, they will finally be able to buy quality, affordable health insurance.

\[applause] in five days. pre-existing conditions, whether it's back pain or allergies, were sticking you with sky-high premiums, won't prevent you from getting affordable insurance you need. that's going to happen in five days. now, of course, the closer we've gotten to this date, the more irresponsible folks who are opposed to this law have become. some of the same republicans who warned three years ago that this law would be armageddon -- that's what they said. armageddon. now they're threatening steps that actually would badly hurt

our entire economy, not because of the affordable care act, but because of what they're threatening to do. some have threatened a government shutdown if they can't shut down this law. others have actually threatened an economic shutdown by refusing to pay america's bills if they can't delay the law. that's not going to happen as long as i'm president. the affordable care act is here to stay. and so today i want to speak plainly, clearly, honestly about what it means for you and for the people you care about. now, let's start with the facts that even before the affordable care act fully takes effect, about 85% of americans already have health insurance. either through their job or through medicare or through the

individual market. so if you're one ever these folks, it's reasonable -- one of these folks, it's reasonable whether you might worry whether health care lee form -- reform will create changes that will be a problem for you, especially when you are bombarded with all sorts of fear mongering. the first thing you need to know is this, if you already have health care, you don't have to do anything. in fact, for the past few years since i signed the affordable care act, a lot of you have been enjoying new benefits and protections you didn't have before, even if you didn't know they were coming from obamacare. \[applause/] let me just give you a few examples. because the affordable care act more than 100 million americans have gotten free preventive care like mammograms and contraceptive care with no co- pay. because of the affordable care

act, three million young adults under age 26 have gained coverage by staying on their parents' plan. \[applause/] because of the affordable care act, millions of seniors on medicare have saved hundreds of dollars on their prescription medicine. because of the affordable care act, just this year 8.5 million families actually got an average of $100 back from their insurance company because the insurance company spent too much on things like overhead and not enough on actual medicare-- medical care. because the affordable care act, insurance companies can no longer put lifetime limits on the care your family needs. or discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions. and starting on january 1, they won't be able to charge women more for their insurance just because they are women.

that's a good thing. so, tens of millions of americans are already better off because of the benefit and protections provided by the affordable care act. like i said, they may not know why that rebate check came in the mail. they may not notice that they are not having a co-pay for some preventive care that they received. but they are getting those benefits. that's already happening. that's already in place today. it's been going on for several years. those are the benefits of obamacare that the law t