, you need a tax credit at savings. that should be automatic. not just you earned or socked away a thousand dollars, we rewarded you 500. some of the left would be taken from you. assets, homes,ey retirement and college, we could do a lot more to protect the cost, to subsidize and accelerate how you got all those assets. they are of a piece. i love your question. >> i agree, that is a very important question. the current law helps you, it directs it in one way and in another way it makes it difficult. if you're thinking of it from the point of view of a very long lifecycle, you may need to spend a lot of money in the early years for college and grad school and therefore you have less money available for

retirement, but in law there is something called a catch-up contribution that you can make to your retirement plan after age 50, so that is meant to solve that problem, so that is a good thing. the problem in current law is there is also something called minimum distribution retirements which starts at age 70. 1960.s picked in that was really old. 70 is not old now. so law has a lot of adjustments to make in that regard. i think it would help -- when you go to college or go to grad school, you're not thinking of next year, you're thinking of a whole career. to think it is best to think of these things in terms of the lifecycle. >> hello, thank you so much for having this amazing panel and for each of you being here. i am one of the thousands of feds that are furloughed.

you're not allowed to work. i was told that we would not receive any salary for perhaps three to four weeks or more. and many of us are looking to our retirement savings for hardship loans, which is the absolute worst thing to do. options.ve no other i have wanted to ask what do we do? and what can we do to turn congress upside down so we can get back to work? we have work to do. that and thankay you so much for your reply. >> thanks for your question. identified three areas house, savings -- education, retirement. when you sit down with financial planners, they always start with a fourth as well and that is a set of emergency savings.

financial planners will tell you to save three to six months of salary for financial emergencies. they were not envisioning this situation at the federal level when they were suggesting that and that is not our forecast, but that is what financial planners suggest or did the challenge with that is that those numbers seem daunting when you add up all those things. so, the implication is start today. save what you can and adjust your budget and your lifestyle and then pay yourself first when you get a raise. don't take it out of your paycheck, but instead pay it to your savings vehicle and keep accumulating it over time. that is what behavioral finance experts suggest is the best way to anticipate that over time. theow that we are in situation i think everyone should ask ted cruz if he wants to give you a loan for a couple of weeks until he can get this

sorted out. >> patrick tucker with the futurist magazine. ask a want to briefly question based on one of the comments at jamie said which is that young people don't think about retirement. i recently sat down with a group of about five or six people under 30 and i asked them if there was a financial planning book that they particularly liked. "the four hour workweek" by timothy ferris. it is actually a manual for early retirement by creating a passive income vehicle online. -- it is a very optimistic manual but i think it is fascinating. not necessarily representative as a whole, but i think it points to a mistrust of young people for the government

to provide financial safety later in life. do you perceive a growing sense among young people that entrepreneurship is supposed to take the place of conventional family-planning -- financial planning for young people? >> i think the popularity of that kind of book or occasional features of people who managed to retire very young shows that there is a certain benefit to finding ways to reframe the idea of savings as a little more positive. it often sounds like a bomber. like someone saying don't get the tv now, put in your 401(k). that is really boring. i know this is obviously like prudential trying to do with its marketing, but to make people be more excited about the idea of saving for retirement and look forward to it and think of it as a benefit for yourself. this does go to lisa's point about what realistically do

people have access to in their lives. the most acute problems are people who are facing real difficulties in savings. great if everyone could start a successful company, but that is like three barriers higher. that i'momments respond into is that you need to reframe the question about retirement to make it was it if, and thinkingrybody about positive aspects of differing pleasure today, having spending money for pleasure tomorrow. it is difficult. notof individuals are involved in their financial planning. it doesn't matter what age did or what income level. we find that almost half of individuals don't look at their statements on a regular basis, either out of fear or just not interest.

the issue is how do you get those individuals engaged and thinking about positive actions today and avoiding downside mistakes today as well. a i think that we will have transformed relationship with money as we look forward. i think your generation is going to have a list. there will be apps are whatever helping using is for manage money. i think about the future aspects. i think there will be ways to connect it in the way we spend. and be of a came up with their keep the change, this radical idea. think that is the whole transformation that is coming. it has got to be simple, automatic and put us on the right path. a lot of us have enjoyed things

that let you track was happening in your life. >> i am jennifer along of the kaiser family foundation. i work for the public medicare policies. leont out a report recent the racial and ethnic disparities in savings and home and equities. many had that retirement accounts like iras -- 401(k)s and financial aske there is a huge disparity about who has savings compared to black and hispanic. it is more like half a beneficiary has more than $12,000 in savings. to persistprojected well into 2030. i was wondering, do you see the disparity widening?

closing as life expectancy continues to increase in what can we do on the policy front to target or reduce the disparity? >> one issue of course is the disparity -- i think, i'm not familiar with the specifics, but in general it is related to lifetime income. there is that disparity, but it discontinues on into the retirement years. discussion about how some people are going to rely much more, low income folks , on social security, whereas who are the sole or main income for people with upper income levels. when you add the house and other sources of value, it is a rather complex story.

i think we need to be very flexible to respond to that. >> i want to thank you for raising the numbers and even bringing your notepad with you. the difference between 86 k and 12 k financial assets is extreme. it is also reachable. i spoke to the asset funders yesterday who are very concerned with the racial meltdown. between getting someone from 12 k to 86 k if you have time and you had a little different way of financing house and financing the financial assets, we have lost too many in the first place. i know jamie can get many accounts. if he is 20 years of people putting an even 5k, three k at the beginning of work with matches, he can close a lot of that cap. i think that is, first of all we

have to be appalled at the distinction, particularly in this era. we should be appalled at the real research on what is driving those big asset limits. it goes even beyond lifetime income. it says people did not invest in high-yielding assets or they were overweighted in-house and not ever being on the stock market ever. know howk we actually to deal with 60 and 70,000 all caps over a work life. >> there are small changes. things are talking about our small changes in public policy to make a big difference. there are inequities that we need to fix as well to tackle this problem. if we start having coverage among low to moderate income, retirement savings accounts against food stamps. it counts as an asset that disqualifies you from food stamps. we can fix these sort of public policy and a christie's --

public policy inequities along the way. >> think about scenarios see. c. whatabout scenario do payroll taxes need to be if retirement is 100 years long? there is a typical response that it is really easy, you just keep rationing out the age of retirement trade but there's this really quick retort that life expectancy at 70 is really variable. the previous question asker pointed out. that tends to track for heavily of thecome or difficulty sort of work that you're engaged in and it is really easy to say let's just ratchet up the age of retirement when we have sedentary, mental jobs.

that is really unfair to people who have really physical strenuous jobs who have really different health expectancies. how do we cope with that? can we differentiate the retirement system better to people's actual circumstances? >> it is hard to answer your question in specific terms, but in general terms if we have it isio c in general, reasonable to expect that people on the average and for most people, would work longer. it would seem natural to think in those terms. to your specific question, i think it is both a responsibility of the three levels, it is responsibility of the individual, the employer and society to deal with the of people who may need retraining. or they may need an employer plan that recognizes that

they're going to retire earlier. i think that is what we need to respond, both to the general trends that affect the mass majority of people as well as the specifics of those situations. i think of really identified where responsibility is shared. ,he social insurance system america did not choose europe's path. our social security, and it is old, it is 75, but we chose a system that was intentionally not a complete ensure. if we live long and prosper and tail,e got a much longer our social security system will be a piece of it very there will be a societal role because we are not all the same. some piece of social insurance does something that health insurance doesn't. we have to pick up more of that and all of us being in. i would predict that even if we we arescenario c and

all living long and prosperous, i will predict that we will still need a pretty strong core of social security and medicare system for our social insurance piece. but we do privately and what we did the workplace is another. thank you very much for this discussion. [applause] >> the c-span video archive is the true modern record of congress. the c-span archives are amazing. the video library is amazing. you can view and share c-span programming any time. it is easy. here's how. go to c-span.org and go to the video library. watch the newest video go down to the most recent cap. ocean what you want to watch and press play. you can search for a specific topic or keyword where you can find a person they just type in their name, hit search and go to

people. go to their bio page and scroll down to their appearances. you can also share what you are watching and make a clip area you use the set buttons are handled. click share and send by e- mail, facebook, twitter or google plus. the c-span video library, searchable, easy and free. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable >> next, provider. another segment from the new america foundation on longevity and public policy with escutcheon on how health, business and education are impacted by living longer. as is 45 minutes. >> i want to commend you for not using your slides, but for explaining and conversational terms. if you're interested in this

what happened when longevity increased last time, i want to plug a great series we did in "late" last month. it really looks at this vast translation in the middle of the century. we have people to think about whatctually to write in they would have died of if they had been born in 1900 instead of more recently, before antibiotics. we have died of appendicitis, would have died in childbirth? always curable untreatable ailments, infections and so on. aboutort of ghoulish game if you had lived a century earlier, what life expectancy would've meant in human terms. panel, can weinal live long and prosper? is going to explore the

potential responses of public and private institutions to increase human longevity and health. .ur moderator is will sallow where is will? will is the other person you have to read in slate if you want to sound smart. will is the national correspondent for "late" covering public policy, technology and society. [applause] >> thank you jacob. that was awesome. that was like car talk about your body. i would love to hear just an hour-long show every week about what you should actually be spending your money on in terms

of your payout. i don't know about the rest of you, but i'm hoping to find out some secrets of longevity. i've heard a lot of talk appear. talk is cheap. the actual behavior is -- i've been watching the video from the people from prudential. they're eating the fruit. it is not complicated. you know who you are. we are the docs at the dinner table group. we get what is left. our mandate is we're going to you and each other about public and private institutions and how they should respond to the transit we have talked about on the personal level. hereve returned for group to talk about this. at the far and is gary kinnick. he is structure of economic

which analyzesp policy for the population aged 50 and older. six -- his work focuses on social security, retirement savings, retirement accounts. he is to be an economist for the joint committee on taxation in the u.s. congress where he specialized in employer provided pensions and retirement plans. he actually was there during the shutdown of 95 and 96 but he swears he had nothing to do with the. .ext to him is wilhelmina leigh she is a senior research associate at the economic security civic engagement in governance institute, part of the joint center for political and economic studies. she has taught at harvard, howard and georgetown. she has done work throughout her career in the areas of health policy, housing policy, income security and asset building.

also labor market issues. she is an elected member of the national academy of social insurance. be a principal analyst at the u.s. congressional budget office, but again, as far as we know had nothing to do with certain events years ago were certainly the ones now. speaking of which, let me get to michael hurt. he. he is structure of the center for health at arizona state university. prior to that he was senior vice president at the united bureau of asian research and founding director of the bureau. we had a fourth panelist. we are really bummed he couldn't be here. actuator of the social security ministration. steve is the shutdown casualty. they told him he could only do

getting out the checks. that being with us here today was not essential. we call them and try to explain aboute were here to talk the debt ceiling, but apparently the hearing of older people is better than it used to be and they snubbed this out. so he could not be here today. we will try to cover for him as best we can. i'm going to sit down and just a second. i'm going to basically throw it open to the group here. we have heard a lot of topics during the course of the day. i would just mention a couple of things and let you guys go whatever interests you in this group third we have been talking the general phenomenon of longer retirement and how to debatedh that third we the two scenarios of drilling on your shoes versus living long and prosper. other health policy changes that we should consider with regard to trying to avoid the drilling

scenario and get the prosper scenario? the gaps between blue and white collar employees and their perspective retirements. the gender gaps, the phenomenon of widows, the phenomenon of greater likelihood of divorce potentially with longer life. consumer culture versus savings culture. you do need to change the approach in this country with policy changes. i guess i will invite michael to start us off because we have been talking a lot about this country, but we really haven't talked that much about the global perspective. we can learn from other countries, what are the global trends, what are the comparisons. michael is the author of a traffic piece that is in "late" right now -- that is in "late" in "slate" right

now. michael let's talk about the global context. >> thank you, wil. let me start with asking the audience to questions to get a feel for the audience. one, how many of you like roller ? not many. if you. how many of you have been to tokyo? oh, quite a few. beijing? taipei? eoul? let me try to connect those two questions. i love roller coasters. that moment when you're moving up. imagine those cars is you're going up, at the leaders of each of those countries is in a car. at the front of that line is japan and then it is korea,

taiwan, singapore and in the back of this five car train is china. you know that moment when you are on a roller coaster and it is just ok and then you get to the top and then it is that omg moment where you realize there is no way off this roller coaster and you are on it until it stops. moment or omf cheap moment, whatever you want to call it [laughter] now is for japan is right in terms of longevity and aging. it is good to have a profound impact on us and we are seeing it layout in something called abenomics. japan is literally rolling the dice on its future, as an as amy, as a society,

culture. they can handle the issues around longevity in a way that will be positive. but if they get it wrong, they are literally at the moment when all of us will pay the price for that. if you don't know this, you should study it a bit. japan's debt burden compared to the united states, japan is 240% of its gdp as government debt. , it is an absolute population freefall. it is less 2 million people from its population and those numbers accelerate dramatically. it looks like a roller coaster. 40% of japan's population will .e over the age of 65 and 2050 even more remarkably, japan's population over the age of 75 will be 25% soon. japan's birthrate is actually fairly high, 1.2 or so. if you start looking at those

other cars behind japan, taiwan, the birthrate is now less than one. replacement is 2.2, birth rate in shanghai is now 0.68. so these societies, and korea is about 1.2. these societies are accelerating . this and it isdo going to have an impact on us. i first went to asia in 1975. when i went in 1975, chairman mao was still alive. singapore was just eight years in the streets that threatened its very existence. korea was just 20 years away, 1975, 20 years away from being the world's poorest country. can you imagine? and japan was just beginning its economic growth. but what has happened in asia

for those of you who have been there, it is literally real-time compression of all those issues we're talking about that are happening there and actually well beyond what we are experiencing now. what they don't have that we have -- we think of it as a problem, right? immigration. this is not a solution that is available to any of these countries. so what we are facing or what they are facing is an absolute decline in population long-term. japan is already experiencing this. and forging populations the economists in the room, productivity is a factor of how many people work our heart and that his rigidity. -- and that is your gdp. how do you deal with this if you have a declining population? do, thatn is tying to downward momentum is that it has an explicit policy to print as much money as it will take in order to create two percent

inflation a year. that is its policy. if it gets that wrong, the default on its government bonds, if he can't go fast enough to pay those debts, the impact on the global economy is going to be profound. to show you just the back of the train, how much has changed, if you looked in your clothing labels recently you probably started noticing it is not made in china. vietnamde in indonesia, . why is that? i could'veething never imagined in asia when i went in 1975 is that there is a shortage of labor in china there labor.ortage of low-paid labor prices are going up, slow cost producers are moving elsewhere in order to have those products made very indonesia, vietnam, southeast asia. the impact of asian, dusty impact of aging, the way this is

going to play out in a global level is already hitting us here. it is real-time. we are not sure what it is going to be, but it is not just u.s. policymakers deciding what happens in the u.s.. is going to be how u.s. policymakers respond to what is happening in aging populations around the world. >> thank you, michael. gary, we have been talking today, a lot of folks have been talking about retirement savings and social security and some of it at a personal or corporate level. what should be due at a policy level? what reflections you have on what you have heard and what we should be doing? >> is fun to touch on what michael said. we're talking about longevity, but part of the aging society has to do with this drop in fertility. i heard this solution earlier today and that was baby factories. but we heardo it, earlier in the panel before us

in terms of -- we know that people need to save more. whatever the scenario ends up being, we know that people are going to save more. longer working lives is going to have to be part of the solution. in terms of savings, we think somethings are working. for example, one thing is automating the system. instead of having people electing to have a 401(k) is to have them automatically enroll. we don't see the marked out for much. there are ways to perfect that because right now the way it works is that you auto enroll them at three percent of the page which we knows not enough. i think that is where we are seeing a lot of promise. more companies are doing it. we need more companies to do it. the baseline we need more companies to offer a plan because i diseases way for through their employer and payroll reduction.

-- and payroll deduction. we like to talk about a mandate, but maybe we have to go there to get more people saving more money. mandate? that should be interesting. you might get a couple of shutdowns over there. have been talking a lot today -- i'vee existing gaps heard the numbers 30 years, 50 years in terms of longevity. are the trends increasing? is their prospect of them growing? is it prospect of contracting them? which it would should we do in terms of all a policies? whether it has to do with health research or asset searching? >> thank you. that is a very loaded question, but i've been listing all morning and have audio food for thought to bear on that. if you look at the gaps that

ed in life expectancy between blacks and whites in 2010 and if you looked at causes of death in which causes of inth were major factors causing those gaps in life up with theyou come usual suspects, some of which the previous panelist talked about in terms of the values we have. you come up with things like , diabetes,rt disease notcide and believe it or perinatal disorders. those are what you come up with as the cause of death factors that are bearing on the difference in the life expectancy. the ncaa was done by

peter looked at this. i'm not can stop there. i'm been to say ok, these are the major causes of death of everybody. most people die from heart disease or cancer. those are number one and number two killers. factors are the major that contribute to the gap in life expectancy between blacks and whites. these are the only two groups that were measured, by the way, in 2010. something was going on there too because everybody died of the causes that have named except for homicide. but there's something else going on there. and askthrow that out us to think about this in terms of how we deal with closing that gap so all of us can live long and prosper. organizationlth

had a commission on the social determinants of health in 2008. i'm going to quote from them because they say it better than i did. the circumstances in which people grow, live, work and age and the systems put in place to deal with illness in other words , the conditions in which people live and die are shaped by political, social and economic forces. if you look at the context of the usa, there are him as people have been saying throughout the session, there are places where there are huge gaps in life expectancy very near to each other. the city of baltimore, the social the poorest strata have about a 25% shorter life expectancy than the wealthiest.

, the socialtters determinants of health matter. the gentleman in the previous session made a point about education. tracks inhink about which the schools are not adequate. our foods tracks deserts so even if you want to eat right you can't very easily. there is no transportation system, public, that can get you where you need to go, even to jobs or buying better food. ,nd it is not necessarily safe because if people don't have jobs they become more like editors than human beings and they do things that they feel they have to do, but that is part of the reason why homicide is such a big factor in the difference between life expectancies. , if we want tos

think about moving forward to long andon c, live prosper, for everybody. the me have to think about focusing on whether the social determinants of health and doing something to close those gaps that make areas like those census tracks that i mentioned or even places in appalachia, which are not healthy and people have shorter life expectancies in other parts of the world or people who are american indians on reservations with shorter life expectancies than others. answer, going into the future i think we will still have gaps. i think ob can do about it is focusing on some of the broader demographicomic, t issues and focusing on those. >> we have several different

frameworks we can talk about here. i would like to start with a very concrete question which is, when we look at these numbers of increased longevity and increased health span, i believe the retirement age in this country has moved from 65 to 66 and is on its way to 67. is that anywhere near where it should be? if it is not, what do we need to change either retirement age for social security or some other policies around that program or programs such as medicare? 65.ocial security age was it is now at 66 and it is going to 67 for those born in 1960 and after. it was begun any policy changes happened in 1983. at the time it was to address the shortfall we had at that time. i think we are still seeing what the ramifications of that. one thing wilhelm mina said is this increaseeing

in life expectancy that is different for different social economic classes. i think there's a question here, what is the right policy? one policy may not be the right one for everyone. actually working longer is going to have to be part of the solution for people's individual security but also for our society as well in terms of these programs. the fact is that some people may not be able to work longer for health reasons or for job reasons. what we're seeing now in this economy is that if you are over 55 and you lose your job, you are out of work seeking employment for about a year. those are folks who are still looking for a job. we know that if you lose your job later in life you're going to have a tough time getting back or finding a job in making up for those lost years.

i think there are a lot of things that need to go into that consideration of what we do in terms of how we adjust these programs to make them sustainable. >> are the things we can learn from the way other countries adopted policies? >> i think so, but i'd like to comment about using age grading as we get older. we live in a very age graded society. we all enter elementary school at the same time, we get a drivers license at the same time , the drinking age is the same age, and we have had the 65- year-old retirement age. the healtht out, adjusted life expectancy in the united states has gone up. it is 68 years old now. that is the average a 21st have our first chronic disease. by the way, we are falling behind the rest of the world in that process. we are actually lower in the

international rankings than we were 10 years ago. we have improved our life expectancy, but we are not doing as well as other countries in that respect. challengee biggest for society in dealing with this issue is not to use a one-size- fits-all approach to what because asooks like we get older the variability accelerates. at 65 are dead. i have friends who did make it to 65. so to try to create that one- size-fits-all retirement age simply does not take into the phenotype, genotype, our life experiences, by their very definition, create individual variability. so what society needs to be creating, and maybe the prudential folks and others,

to providelly different responses so people can live different kinds of life as they age. rather than trying to find an action -- i would love to have had a social security actuarial person here. how do we increase choice rather than decrease it? here toe to say, we are talk about policy. when you say we don't need one size -- politicians seem to say we don't need one size, but when you are making policy it is your job. we have a couple folks who have done policy. first of all, i artie told the panel is a tv role. if you like my question just answer what you want to. how to deal with the problem of one-size-fits-all? given what everyone has observed which is the enormous increase of variation as michael points

out, what to do about that? >> i think one of the things that would help is if we could consider being much more flexible in the workplace. when i say flexible, i mean when someone gets to the age of 65 and they really can't get up and get to work everyday day and they really can't do a full days work five days a week, they should have the option to work four days a week or three days a to prod there are ways rate whatever benefits they get to go along with that, but seldom does it happen. there are a few employers that offer the kind of option, so in you couldolicymaking pass a law that says the workplace flexibility could be established.

it could include things with another mandate, but i think setting those hard and fast age limit -- i understand it for budgeting purposes, for programs -- but setting them from the point of view of kelly and employee that he or she has to stop working when they may feel perfectly capable of continuing to work but perhaps for three days a week instead of five days a week. .aking the workplace match >> when you're talking about this, how much of this is economics and how much of his is culture? do we need to change what is culture? -- howard way that policymaker go about getting employers to think differently about people at age 55? get themnight he could to think differently about people at age 55, but i do think it is sort of like the law that was passed that transforms the

3bning up for the 401(k) for opt in to opt out. as i understand the way the law was framed, it gave employers the options of establishing the to opting outsed for the sign-up. it wasn't a mandate, but a law was passed to say that an employer could change your program so that employees would have to opt out. that is made a world of difference and you have found lots of employers have just gone all the way with that. so that is the way i think you could frame something. this, iinking about think with increasing longevity, people are at risk of outliving their resources.

there's a lot more uncertainty. a think there is uncertainty now but i think there's going to be more uncertainty. a think planning for retirement, a simple question of how much should you save for simple retirement is a very complicated question. it is consultative because that first you don't know how long you're going to live and then i can't tell you how much you're going to save. think there's the potential here for policy. it could be a public solution. , you can doy risk something in social security or itbe something else, originates with her social security goes up our than inflation, that in some ways could carry the risk of increasing access longevity. it makes the problem of solving how much i need to live to 80 a little bit simpler to solve.

>> interesting. there's one more question that i am dying to throw out to the panel. i don't know if anyone here feels comfortable addressing it and if you don't want to you at the, but when i look scenarios that jewell presented at the beginning, when i think about the drooling on your shoes versus deliver long and prosper, i wonder, i have seen lots of politicians stand up in the last 48 hours and talk about nih. funding and research at nih is very important. i wonder whether there are smarter ways of allocating the money we spent on medical research. i was spending too much on the kinds of research that lead us to the drooling scenario and not enough on the kind that leaders to the prosperity of scenario. arerded in computer terms we spending more on the hardware than the software? this is a problem i face daily. i used to be the interim director of the by design institute. the u.s. has his

magnificent engine for what is called discovery research. that is what the nih funds. we have great scientists, we developed world beating technologies at the discovery level. what all societies, and the u.s. but we lackception, the way to translate that research into daily applications that really make a difference in people's lives. the statistic that used is that it takes 17 years, this is an institute of medicine statistic, to take a discovery research finding and translate that into practice. of that. even if there is an invention for a drug for alzheimer's that is artie there right now, it is 20 years before it actually gets applied. so the lag time in this as itation engine accelerates as a huge problem

because of sequestration, shutdowns and debt ceiling issues. as you can see, these folks are everything. so ask anything you want asked. we have a question becker start with. >> could we get back on the roller coaster and let me if from acenario d. --thusian point of view there ever come a time when governments have to say there is a tough cut off and how long you aniset social security e upper limit to what society can do? not euthanasia, but benefits, policy, but let's say when you're hundred 60 yuan your own? >> and see how that happens.

happening.see that i can't see that happening. we know right now that as people age their more likely to be in poverty. a lot of these folks are widows. you can't just getting to the point where we say, ok, enough is enough, you've had your fun. no, i don't see us going there. >> next question. quake, microphone coming. that an areao me of social research that has been neglected and that is how to get people to defer gratification. because what i understand is that half the population is capable of deferred gratification and half is not. so when we make social security

available to people at 62, we shouldn't be surprised that the majority of people actually take it even if it is not in the long-term best interest. i don't know that medical research is the research that we most need if we are really going to improve quality of life and healthy years. maybe we need more money into education throughout the lifespan and maybe that would have a bigger impact than curing cancer, which we all want, but which would only add a very tiny increment to longevity. >> i heard from both wilhelmina and gary, opt in and opt out heard it sounds like a little bit of a nudge policy that was in education or a mandate. would something like that the will to deal with the problem of deferred gratification? do we need broader policy changes? >> one of the part of the social determinants of health is educating people.

clearly, if we put our money into looking at those causes of the life expectancy gap, then yes. education to make people understand why they should make choices of a certain type or why making the choice to get your money at 62 minus be in your best interest. , it canes along with and it should come along with educational programs that are better overall. >> dimity go with the incentives? >> i'm not optimistic about us educating people to delay taking social security benefits. we have tried and i think we can do more but i think there's a temptation there to grab it while they can. why have conversations going on about social security being cut and it's happened to be there, that doesn't really engender a lot of confidence.

i think there are things we can probably do that can be borrowed could changes that it from and opt into an opt out or something along those lines. maybe reframing what we called the early eligibility age. issue and i think we do need to get people to wait as long as he can to claim benefits. it is a good deal to wait. certainly in a low-interest environment, it is an even better deal right now. we just not seeing a lot of people waiting. >> in answer to a question, john, it is actually an area of huge interest in investment and behavioral change right now. we are seeing devices like the which is job own knots an integration of physiological and behavioral metrics that will be around behavior change in order to intervene earlier so that it is not a cure for cancer, it is a delay of cancer

rate delay of disability is the real game we are in. we're not going to cure these diseases. you dive something in the end. so how long can you delay disability? that is what an actuarial will point out are the real cost savings. behavior is part of all those diseases. biggest part, absolutely. that's the exciting area of research i think. it is really fun to see what is happening right now. >> thank us a much. it is been wonderful. a loting policy issues, of of unhealthy food understand is subsidized in our country. looking at the disparity issue where the poor and minorities to have access to healthy food, what are your thoughts on policy

changes to actually bring what we know is healthy to the citizens that need it the most in addition to education, medical care and things of that nature? thank you. >> one of the things that is an experiment and with and it is been experimented with in places totally,oit, michigan, where there is lots of land. how's that been torn down. there are not many people living in some of the areas, is to develop urban farms. there is a program and i don't know what it is called, but to encourage people who are living there to grow their own foods. their programs to also get , kids goingted food, cause once people see this

and once they taste the real difference in the quality of food that is been grown in your backyard without a lot of pesticides and transported hundreds of miles, once people to makee food and went it more readily accessible, people will buy into it. one of the other things as co- ops. farmer's markets, people who bringrom nearby farms into areas, food deserts. one of the policy measures that i'm aware of that has a good thing is that what used to be called food stamps is now snap. but many farmers markets except those now. that is a step up. because it allows people who may not have enough money to buy

whatever at whole foods, it gives them an option that they can exercise. >> one, and i want to add, is it sure sounds to me from a lot of what i heard today that the convergence of lifespan or the diminishing gap in social or economic groups and also the increase from 1900 to 2000, and that is how much occurred of the level of mortality. the biggest bang for the buck efficiency wise exactly to target the populations with the on a sureespan and utility basis we produce the biggest gains for money. is that fair? >> i would say targeting the areas where they live which is a whole place matters approach. targeting their areas and bringing in resources that people don't have on their own to help them make choices. when the previous speakers indicated that he was coming to washington and he wanted to see this hip specialist and he

called him up two weeks in advance. i thought to myself, how many other people do i know who would think to do that, number one. and then be able to get to see the hip specialist third normally, getting medical care , youhings of that sort have to get in line. it doesn't come that quickly and easily. so there are things that can be done to help give people resources to empower them to think about things they can do to improve their health and thereby lessen that life expectancy gap. >> we have a question at the front table here. john turner. sometimes called -- benefits.

typically it is called longevity insurance. it is considered desirable because it provides care risk. if you live a long time, this outfit kicks in at a time is really an insurance benefit. i think is a great idea. and italking to jamie asked him why prudential does not offer this type of benefits. tosaid that they started offer the bump up benefit, but they did not perceive a demand for it. i just wondered if maybe there could be some discussion about this type of benefit, a bump up benefit and white would be desirable or not and who should offer it. >> would anyone like to field

that? >> john knows that annuities are not very popular. people are hesitant to give up a lump sum of money in order to screen of payment for the rest of the lies. it is not surprising to me that people are not demanding those. i find it hard to think about what things might be like when i'm 82 i'm what my needs might be. i'm not surprised that there is no demand for that. this may be a case where there is a need for government to step in and to fill that gap because i think there is a need even the people don't recognize that there is a need. tale that he is a comes a problem for people when they are retiring. talking about a bump down strategy which also would

kick in, too. a couple more view that has appeared we are out of time. feel free to come up afterwards. is there anything else you want to add before we conclude? thank you very much for joining us. [applause] thank you very much, that was true for guys. i was hearing about all of the savings and how great savings is. toas thinking of the s stockmarket crashes of my 401(k)s went through the last couple years. maybe we should put wall street out on the ice flow. as james said there's going to be more coverage about longevity on slates. especially slate/future tense. we are going to have videos of

this up on the new america foundation site soon. god bless c-span. that means you're going to be able to watch is that too in the morning for the next 150 years. -- you're going to be able to watch it at 2:00 in the morning for the next 150 years. a special thanks to prudential for helping underwrite this. thank you all. have a good day. [applause] next "washington journal," we will discuss the political and legislative impact of the government shutdown, including what it might mean for the debate about the debt ceiling. we would talk with syndicated columnist mona chair and and columnist clarence page. he talks about the current state iran relations as

well as the latest development of syria. and then a conversation with presidential historian douglas brinkley talking about president obama's relationship with congress and how it is to prior presidents. that plus your e-mails, calls and tweets on "washington journal," starting live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] as a result of the government shutdown. they also continue to call for negotiations with democrats in the president over how to end the shutdown. this is 10 minutes. >> good morning. the house just took another step to try to ease the pain of the

federal government shutdown, ensuring that furloughed federal employees will get their back pay. as you can see, it was a unanimous vote in the house. we also gotten word yesterday that the obama administration had been making it very foricult if not impossible chaplains to come and conduct services on government property during the shutdown. we felt that that really was an abuse of the shutdown and wanted to make sure that the fundamental constitutional right to practice your faith and religion would be upheld. i see saul again, nearly unanimous on the house floor. what we're looking at here, again, is an administration, a president that seems to be unwilling to sit down and talk with us. we have a majority leader in the senate he seems unwilling to sit down and work out our really, if. it is you think about it, it doesn't

make any sense if the president has an ax to grind with the opposing party, why he would want to put the american people in the middle of that and force the pain on them. up until today, we had 57 democrats that supported bipartisan bill to relieve the pain of the shutdown. we have to ask yourself now with the unanimous vote that we just saw for federal employees, if it is so important ease the pain for them, what about the vets? to the democrats not feel it is important to make sure the pain is used on them yucca what about the sick children that need access to clinical trials? is not as important to ease the pain of the shutdown for them? employees the federal at the democratic minority thinks is important? and we havethis out for the. -- the shutdown has been

brought about the president's unwillingness to sit down and talk with members of congress on the hill. i think if you were to ask on both sides of the aisle this administration has been almost absent when it comes to discussing and working out our differences. we're going to stay focused on train to ease the pain of the shutdown while we continue to ask what the president and the senate majority leader to sit down and talk. >> i'm then have to be clear from the house republicans, we never desired to shut down, that is why we continue to pass bills in the final hour that would fund the government. most americans don't realize that all we asked was for the senate to sit down and talk about her differences. that didn't happen. theier, i read with president canceled his trip to asia. that is a unique opportunity. if you see this weekend we are

here this weekend. all the president has to do is sit down along with the senate democrats and we can move forward. let's recap what had gone on this week. passedesday, the house opening the national parks, funding the nhs and local funding for d.c.. on thursday the house passed funding our guard and reserves, funding our veterans. friday we passed a national emergency disaster recovery act. friday nutrition assistance for low income women and children and today as a leader said, we made sure all the federal employees and also make sure the military was able to have service on sunday. wednesday, no role votes. thursday no roll call votes, friday no roll call votes. but they have worked. they did it topped the national just week. this is got to stop. everyone hurts in the shutdown.

we never desire to shutdown and we never asked for shutdown, that is why we fully funded the government and we continue for fund -- and we continue to fund the government each and every day we go forward. now is the time, since everyone is in town to pick up the phone to work together and solve the problem. >> while senate democrats and the president refused to negotiate with house republicans, we continue to do our work. we have now past 12 bills that fund critical parts of the federal government. thatve just passed a bill will take care of the 800,000 federal employees that were .urloughed contrary to what the president and those in the white house believe, there are no winners when the government shuts down. there are real consequences. the house did not want the there myand we believe

way or the highway mentality cannot be sustained. we look forward to sitting down with them and working to our differences so that we can stop inflicting pain on hard-working americans. >> this is a great challenge we have. we really did want to be here at this moment. it is important to us to be able to say to the senate we have our negotiators, our negotiators are ready to go. we're looking for the senate negotiators. they're not willing to sit at a table and negotiate this. they are willing to assign next week is national chess week. they are willing to deal the say withthey are going to deal trucker sleep apnea issues. they're willing to put other resolution on venezuela, but they're not willing to be able to sit down with us to get our government restarted again. i am amazed that after this conference passed unanimously,

the senate passed unanimously and the president signed ,nstructions that are military our civilians and civilian contractors should be held harmless in this entire shutdown, that after a week we are still waiting for them to implement the law that was put into place a week ago. as a lawyers and the pentagon discuss with civilians are affected by that and what contractors are affected, there are allowing us to have more pain and to inflict that on the american people. all of us agree together before the shutdown occurred that they would be held harmless entirely in this. it is frustrating that we even have to pass something today at houses of worship, places of worship and chaplin should still be able to work over the weekend engaging in worship. , worship andle practicing their faith is an essential part of their lives. for the administration to pull back and say there are places where you won't have worship on the weekend for our military is absolutely unacceptable.

i'm glad we passed that in the house today. hopefully the senate will take that up. this is something we have to do. hold them harmless and make sure we will continue to protect what the intention was originally before this began. why are you ignoring the republicans in your caucus would support any a clean start to the floor and voting in passing that? >> the republican position has continued to be no special treatment under the law, no special treatment under obamacare. our position has been that the administration continues to give special treatment to big business and to special interests and have left the working middle class americans out. is position on obamacare give them the same treatment. fair treatment for all. in the same place, the republican position has been that we don't think it is proper for members of congress to have special treatment under the law. mediask my friends in the

to look at the votes of we have taken. 57 democrats have voted with us in a bipartisan way on all these bills and in fact unanimously today to ease the pain of the shutdown. i would implore my friends in the media to ask majority leader reid why he is not ringing up any of these bills. i think there is a majority of senators who support these bills to ease the pain on the american people while we have continued to wait for the president to join us in these discussions to work out our differences. the stuff it about you haven't funded that you don't find political or were the? >> we have committed to fund the areas of government at we all agree on, which is a lot more than not. as you know, the disagreement is on that special treatment under obamacare. is position on obamacare very simple.

it is no special treatment under the law. it is a delay the individual mandate because why should it the working middle class orricans are set aside subject to the taxes and penalties, but not big business, not special interest? that is not fair. that is what our position is. for everything else, we are funding this government. time and again, all week long would we have seen as the senate refusing to even take the bills up and in fact to try and prevent their anger and impose that on the american people. we are trying to ease the pain here. they are not joining us and there is a majority of senators who would say, you know what? we really believe that sick children ought to have access to clinical trials. we believe that poor women and children should have the assistance that they need. we don't believe that they should be put through this pain. i know there is a majority in the senate for that great i

implore you, my friends in the media, to ask the majority leader why he is not taking these bills up. there is a majority in the house that once a clean cr. why would you not get a vote on that? >> again, there been no roll call votes in the senate. we have got a lot that we have in common. i think most american people do not tolerate the fact that this president has continued to insist that he is not going to talk. in fact, if you saw james baker's comments in the news said it is an utter failure of presidential leadership for this president to sit on the sidelines, to issue warnings and to scare the markets and the public about somehow anticipating that if something would to happen he could say i told you so. that is not leadership. it is that attitude, that unwillingness to sit down and

talk to us that has brought about the shutdown. it will continue -- we will continue to be here this weekend, we will continue to wait for any indication of the majority leader in the senate or the white house that they're willing to sit down and talk with us so we can relieve the pain on the american people and in the shutdown. thank you. >> next, they also talked about their intentions of negotiating a long-term budget if the house for the past the senate's continuing resolution that would end the shutdown. this is 40 minutes.

>> it is still morning. good morning, everyone. we have some news for you today. that is what we think we have every day. you do not always agree. today marks the fifth day of the government shutdown. this could be over in hours if the republicans would just take "yes" for an answer instead of being the party of "no." republicans have said no each time. two in the republican shut down 200 members have sounds their

names to a letter reaffirming our commitment for a clean, continuing resolution. this is not been easy for our members. they are willing to do so. on the republican side, the republican members have come forward to say they're willing to vote to reopen government. right now enough republicans have publicly stated their support for a bill that could pass and be on the president's desk today. we're asking them to bring up a vote to the floor for the republicans to show there is a bipartisan majority to end the republican government shutdown. if that were not newsworthy enough, 200 democrats have

signed a letter and others that will vote with us do not philosophically sign letters, at the beginning the speaker said he wanted regular order. he said that all along. he wanted regular order. that means when the house passes a bill, which it did, and the senate passes a bill, which it has, then you go to conference. after that he said, why are you not appointing this to the budget conference? his statement was under the rules if you appoint them, the minority has a right to offer motions to construct which become politically motivated bombs to throw on the house

floor. to be frank with all of you, we are following what i would describe as a resident order. to be frank with him, the regular order is not how he defines it. under the rules, any member would have the privilege to bring up the senate position. in public and otherwise, they said his concern was a motion to instruct. if you agree to pass a short- term bill and move the conference to the final budget

discussion for this fiscal year, we will not offer any motion to abstract. this is news. please recognize it as such. the speaker said that is his concern. we want to take that concern off the table. today we are giving republicans yet another opportunity to end their shutdown. the opportunity that the speaker has been asking for. we have accepted the number, as unpleasant as it is for us to do, we have agreed to not offer motions to abstract and we have voted to pay the federal employees for not working. why don't we pay them for working by opening government? we can have it open over the weekend in full force by monday.

they want to work. the american people want government to be open. it is in everyone's interest that they except our offer of 200 votes. all they need is a couple dozen republican votes. we have procedurally tried to accommodate and allayed their concerns. let's open government. give us a book. >> thank you very much. this is an important tool of the minority. and for that matter anyone else in the house. to tell the conference committee what they should do.

he speaker has asked rest a concern about that. i think his concern is inconsistent with the transparency that the republicans want to bring to the house. notwithstanding that and how important this device is to the minority and majority, we are saying that we will not do that. he believes politics will play with this. we have no intention of doing this. we want to encourage them for encouraging the speaker. that should not be and will not be a concern of them or a reason for them to delay going to conference on the budget. we are now in the fifth day of a

shutdown. we have just voted to pay the employees as we should have. the american public wants bit government open. the speaker needs to bring a bill to the floor. a lesser indicate that clearly in my view there are enough people to pass on the government opening on the government funding bill. we will do so at the republican suggested number of dollars. there's no argument about dollars. democrats are ready to help end the shutdown by voting for the senate's bill which put the people's government back to work here at republicans have voted seven times to block the senate bill to reopen government from the house floor.

while i am pleased that the house just voted to restore pay, it is time to get them back to work as well. democrats have already compromise by the funding level. we are ready as we have been for months. many have said we need an agreement. he is going to outline the significant issues that need to be discussed. i believe this to mr. van hollen. i want to thank the leader for taking this initiative with which all of us agree. it is critical for our national security, economy, and for the confidence of the american people that we get their government back to work working for them as we discussed differences between the two

parties in reaching compromise which is so essential in any democracy. let me yield to my friend the assistant leader. >> thank you for yielding. we have spent the better part of this week doing something which i do not believe should be the prerogative of the members of congress. we are picking winners and losers. that to me is very unfortunate. it is unfortunate because brian carter, a name we have all gotten to know, may not be the face of what we're doing here this week but he is in fact the storyline. brian carter was seriously injured two days ago because he

was protecting the members of congress, protecting us from those we may not get a chance to know. unfortunately, brian was working, providing that protection for no pay. that is a storyline of what this is all about. i spoke with brian several times. he does not want us to be supporting him. over his spouse and his siblings. we just voted to give him back that pay when all of this comes to a close. what are we doing for his spouse and siblings?

he does not feel comfortable thinking we are not providing educational needs and services to his children and grandchildren. congress ought not be in the business of picking winners and losers. certainly we ought not be doing things that pit family against family. with that i would like to yield to the chair of our budget committee. >> thank you. i want to start with the point that leader nancy pelosi made about the action that we took today in the house of representatives. i think we all agree that no one should be made to suffer for actions that are no fault of their own.

it was totally appropriate that the house of representatives in that dedicated federal workers who are among the many innocent victims of the government shut down will be held harmless and the long run. that was the right thing to do. that highlights the sheer folly of the current government shut down. we want to make sure these people are paid. they want to get back to doing what they love which is working on behalf of the public. if we're going to be providing the pay as we should, we should have them come back to work which is why we have been all along saying we should go to reopen the federal government and bring all the federal employees back to work. if you look at what republicans are doing, they're saying let's fund the national park service or fema. today their proposals that lets not get back pay.

it is not say let's give that pay to folks at fema. it said let's make sure all federal employees are held harmless. let's get back pay to all federal employees. so why are they not bringing up a bill that allows all federal employees to get to work? it makes absolutely no sense at all. the american people are paying for these important services. we want to make sure every federal employee gets back to work to do their job. that is what federal employees want to be able to do. the way to do that is in a vote right now to and the government shut down. as my colleagues have said ever since march we have been really clear that we have been clear of a negotiation on the budget. on three occasions we have called for a vote for the speaker to appoint budget

negotiators so they can negotiate with the senate. on all three occasions, speaker boehner and the republicans said no to negotiations on the budget. in the senate, harry reid and patty murray tried 18 times 12 point budget negotiators. paul 18 times senator ted cruz and senator mike lee and the republican said no. senator mccain said it was irrational for them to say no. they said no. that is why we have not had any budget conversations for months and months. as the leader said, we have been hearing this notion that democrats would exercise our rights to offer motions to instruct. a few weeks ago during a hearing, paul ryan said they will move forward with budget

negotiations. this was news to all of us. the leaders said we are making news today by saying we will beginning. the last point i want to make is what negotiations involve. they have been totally mischaracterizing the statement. what the president has been saying is that he will not negotiate away the full faith and credit of the united states. republicans cannot say they will only do what they should do in order to get their republican agenda through the house. that is not the way it works. we all share a responsibility.

they have the budget that chairman ryan put forward. we think it is very harmful to the country. it squeezes many seniors on medicare. it cuts $7 billion over 10 years. that is their budget. we passed the budget. we have an important plan amid to reinvest in the country to get the economy going again. we have a jobs plan. what else does he call for? replacing the sequester. in education, infrastructure it remains in place not just through november 15 but through this time this year.

there will be up to 1.2 million fewer american jobs. their best estimate is that we will have 800 thousand. that wipes out the last four plus months of job growth in this country. that is a self-inflicted wound we cannot afford. we have a long-term plan to reduce the deficit. in a balanced way. the deficit right now has been cut in half. we know we have to make progress in the long-term deficit. we have a plan to do that. we ask for shared responsibility. people are making millions and millions of dollars a year. our point is we want to have a budget negotiation. that whole republican wish list,

they do not get to force that down the country's throat threatening to default on our that's or to shut down the government. you do not get the republican agenda in exchange for doing what every member should do anyway which is pay our nations bills on time. they have work to make sure we're all on the same page. >> the house of representatives is not a sandbox. this republican shut down of our government is serious. the american people know that.

they have been saying that since the republican shut down our government on october 1. what they're telling us is it is time for no more excuses. they are saying we should stop acting like children in the house of representatives. the republican shut down the government is not just serious. it is also absurd. someone tried to explain that the republicans tried to shut down the government on october 5 they decided to pay all the workers that they told do not come into work. if it were not so serious it would be absurd. we are here to say what americans are saying all over the place. put america back to work.

let them vote on a clean budget bill to put americans back to work. what we should be okasan on our elected representatives of this country. building a stronger middle class, creating more jobs. putting americans out of work, not putting them into a state of anxiety if whether or not they will be able to pay their bills. who thinks anyone of our veterans wants to be part of a republican gimmick is shutting down the government where they are spared as veterans from the pain of a government shutdown? i do not think there is a veteran in america he will say take care of me and leave our children behind. that is the gimmick that takes place today.

americans are telling us we please put your country before your party? if republicans simply put themselves in the shoes of the american people, no small business in america on main street would rhyme they operate would run their operations the way the house of representatives. let america work. let congress vote for a clean budget bill to put americans back to work. let's get to the business of building a stronger middle class. let me yield now to the chairman of the democratic national campaign committee. >> in this game of ping-pong, his side is getting smaller and

smaller and smaller. he keeps creating excuses not to vote. we keep taking them away from him. it is simply time to vote. this weekend is going to be an another moment of truth for john boehner. 200 democrats have signed a letter that 90% of our caucus saying to the speaker we are ready to a vote on a clean budget. we have heard that there are between 20 and 22 republicans have said back home that they are ready to vote for a clean budget. now it is time for them to put it where their budgets are. they are saying they will support a clean budget with no

strings attached and now have the opportunity to reopen this government. they now have the opportunity to hold to their promises. we're going to hold them accountable. you cannot hold this at home and then act like a lapdog. those 22 republicans who said they will vote with 98% of the government without strings attached, this is their moment of truth. we have signed the letter. now it is time for them to do the same. i am really hopeful that those 20 or 22 republicans that have claimed to pursue a solution are going to keep their word. not to any of your colleagues but to their constituents they gave their word too.

we will test out this proposition over the next several days. inc. you. i now yield to nobody because i am the last speaker. >> i thank all of my colleagues for their eloquent statement about what our purpose here is in terms of representing the american people and getting the job done for what were budget priorities. thank you for working so hard on that over the years. what our proposal is today, here are three pages of signatures of names. we have signatures of the members that have signed the letter. we have accepted their letter. the president has accepted their number. the united states senate has accepted the republican number. the democrats in the house have accepted the republican number. the only missing piece are the republicans in the house accepting their own number.

what is the problem? if the issue is that you do not want to bring it up because once you go to the budget table we will have motions to instruct, we are not doing it. it is an unprecedented offer on behalf of the majority dish minority -- of the minority. we are paying the bill. now let us put people back to work for the american people. and for all of the purposes that the american people look to us. >> what was the response to you? >> it is a good faith effort on our part. i told in the context that i

want you to know this is an offer we are making to you and we will make this offer public. it is not like i was blindsiding him with it. >> we just came from a press conference with republican leaders. is there any conversation going on between you guys and republicans today, tomorrow? we made an offer this morning to the speaker. if this is concerned about going to the budget table and appointing them, we want to take that concern off the table. >> what is happening behind the scenes, making sure no other meetings are happening? >> to my knowledge. we thought that when the speaker said that he was not going to

default on the debt he was going to have a bipartisan agreement to do that. >> as we have all said, we have agreed to what they passed. nobody believed the affordable care act was going to be repealed were that we would stop the mandate. the majority of their party did not believe that. they thought it was off to explore their base. at this point in time, we're saying yes to their offer. i served for 22 years. normally when you are about to and the government funding authorization, you get to the end of the year. normally the numbers are different. you have to sit down and say

"which numbers are we going to use?" when will we use the lower of the house or senate. now however we said yes. we will take your number. you not going to take your number forever. we will go and we will talk about it. we will go to the budget committee and talk about it. that is how the budget works. that is how the american people run their lives when they have differences. they sit down and talk. i want to tell you. have i talked to republicans on a relative regular basis? absolutely. i talk to them every day. i will tell you an overwhelming number of the people i talk to the we ought to get this done and get the government open and then talk about other areas that we want to get working. >> i talked to quite a few

republicans about this. for the next six weeks while we sit down and talk about it from there. every republican i have talked to tells me they want to get rid of the sequester. this is what we are talking about. we would have had a discussion on how to go forward, how to get rid of the sequester. those methods for my state, i'm sure they're reading the same lines i am reading. this is not a representative of

that district. a lot of go through that plan. >> i fought very hard for that plan. to the chagrin of a few people here. i thought very hard to get the level of funding. this is the payback. i constantly hear my republican colleagues say that they are not willing to negotiate or compromise. not only have the been willing to compromise, we have except did the budget. we find it offensive. it is the right to exercise the own political agenda.

i hope that one of these times when they say democrats is not compromising their republican leadership went across the aisle. just across the hallway to meet with their democratic counterparts, all 200 of us, to ask us, to negotiate, or to request copper mines on each and every one of the bills they have in putting on the bill since the shutdown of the government. have they ever reached out to democrats who are in the same body to negotiate the bills they have put on the floor? they have never sat down with us to craft these bills they say are to take care of their own government shutdown. i hope you will post the question to them. if they are so adamant that having them negotiate or

compromise, have they taken the time to walk across the hall to the office of their democratic colleagues to ask if we're willing to compromise on the bills that they themselves are putting on the floor? >> what do you make of the idea of calling the house on a saturday morning that could've been voted on yesterday. we should be here working through so i think it does possible to open government on monday. if you are a taxpayer and you say i do not like this shut down because i am not getting our services, but now we are going to pay public employees for not delivering our services, our public employees are patriotic eared they are public servants.

they want to work. to say they will get paid to not work does not make any sense. i think this will be our last question. when you ask about negotiating and they make a big to do about the president, the full faith and credit, not negotiable. the idea that they were going to defund or delay the affordable care act, not going to happen. that is like saying give me your first warning child and then we will talk about the rest of the family. that is not going to happen. the third is to bring back the bill which was approved by the president, approved by the senate, approved by the house democrats but not by them.

the point of having the names is to say to those republicans that they have another responsibility right now. the word is that they are saying we might be willing to vote for this if we know it is going to pass. we're saying to them if there are fewer than that, it is going to pass. we are not asking them to take any risk. we are showing this 98% signed a letter. we just need a dozen and a half or two dozen republicans to open government to go to the table to negotiate. the president is willing to negotiate.

they talked about investing in jobs, the opportunity costs of what is happening in terms of the entrepreneurship and the greatness of america. it is stunning. we are having these conversations which should be swept aside and move onto how can we work together in a nonpartisan way adjusting the challenges we face in a very positive way? we know we can find common ground. there are elements that have determined that it will be the party of "no." no we are not going to say yes to it. with that ideal to my colleagues for the closing statements. >> let me respond to your question.

i think it is a recognition of the disgust that the american people feel and the failure to take an action which would have taken five minutes on september 30 to do everything and much more than we have done in the last five days. it is the appearance of action without action. it is a recognition that we ought to be working to get this done. it is so simple to get done that we are having these filler bills to pretend we are doing things when the reality is in five minutes we could open the government up, put people back to work, go to conference on the budget, discuss our differences, and be a responsible, effective

board of directors for the greatest nation on the face of the earth. that is what i make of it. >> today's actions were absolutely highlighted by the madness of dolly of the republican leadership position. what they have said is that we're going to pay all of the federal employees as we should but we're going to pay them to stay at home. we have been saying let's send everybody back to work as they want to go. they are saying let's pay them but we will prevent them from going back to work. they're going to stand at the door and prevent people from doing their jobs while they say they want to pay people to do their jobs. federal employees want to get

back to serving the public. that is what they want to do. i want to emphasize one last thing. we have tried to negotiate on the budget from the very beginning. i have blocked us from those negotiations from the very beginning. they blocked those for one simple reason. when you have a negotiation between the house republican budget and the democratic budget, you have to reach a compromise. there has to be give and take. he had to meet in the middle. we do not like the part of the republican budget that provide another windfall tax rate to very well be people. we do not like the parts of the budget that decimates important investments.

we want to make those important investments in our future. you want to replace the sequester. we want the elimination of tax rate for very wealthy people. a balanced approach. we have our budget approach and the president doesn't. the idea of a budget negotiation is you meet in the middle. they say no. what we are going to give is do what every member of congress has the responsibility to do. we're saying no. you cannot hold the whole faith and credit of the united states hostage to try to enact your radical policy agenda.

we all have to go to make sure we pay our bills on time. let's negotiate the other priorities. you will be hearing this conversation a lot. they want to set this. they're making a huge obsession for paying our bills on time. we have got to meet in the middle and exchange. he had to give us our budget agenda. that is not me middle. that is political extortion. the middle is between the president's priorities and their budget proposal. >> a half solvent nation is not a compromise. >> i want to thank them for

their leadership on behalf of the federal employees and part of their life work here. they honored their services to many other members. it is with all the respect in the world we want to open the government to work. they are public servants. want to honor them by making sure they can pay their mortgages. we also want them to get the taxpayers the services they deserve as well. thank you all very much.

including 9/11 and when

asked what was the scariest moment, i think people are expecting me to say 9/11. in reality for me it wasn't. the scariest moment came in september and october of 2008 that the global financial system was on the verge of a collapse comparable to the depression. >> washington journal, your calls and the latest views. then we will discuss the legislative impact of the government shutdown, including what it may mean for the upcoming debate on the debt ceiling with syndicated columnist mona charen.

and the latest development out of syria. then a conversation with presidential historian. he talks about president obama's relationship with congress. ♪ host: good morning, after a rare saturday session both the house and senate are out today. lawmakers will not return until tomorrow. it has the government shutdown and tuesday six, it is sunday, october 6 in an american commando has carried out raids october 6.and can -- american commandos have carried out raids. secretary of state john kerry will lead the u.s. delegation. and