shutdowns by this administration occur just to punish the american people because of the temper tantrum being thrown by those who want their way or nobody gets to play. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i would move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

>> a rare live for room call used by majority leader harry reid to bring senators to the floor to talk about the government shutdown, now in its eighth day. also on capitol hill, an immigration rally which about 200 people were involved in. a dozen or so democratic lawmakers were arrested during the immigration rally on capitol hill, including john lewis of georgia and joe crowley of new york. we are going to open our phone lines to hear from you on this eighth day, as the government shutdown enters its second week.

can be part of the conversation by phone. the numbers are on your screen. i mentioned the house passing a bill that would create what is called a working group or so- called supercommittee, the king at spending issues, including entitlements and other issues. it has passed in the house but not received much favor in the white house. here is a headline in "roll call" this evening. emily pierce said president obama dismissed the house gop posner was idea of creating a supercommittee.

president obama held a news conference at the capitol. his message to republicans was, pass a clean cr. here is some of what he had to say. >> there comes a point in which if the treasury cannot hold auctions to sell treasury bills, we do not have enough money coming in to pay all our bills on time. it is very straightforward. and i know there has been some discussion, for example, about my powers under the 14th amendment to go ahead and ignore the debt ceiling law. setting aside the legal analysis, what matters is, if you start having a situation in controversyis legal

about the u.s. treasury's authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done, even if that were constitutional, because people would not be sure. it would be tied up in litigation for a long time. that is going to make people nervous. a lot of the strategies people have talked about -- the president can roll out a big coin, or he can resort to some other constitutional measure -- what people ignore is that whatately what matters is, do the people who are buying treasury bills think? i will just boil it down in personal terms. if you are buying a house, and you are not sure whether the seller has title to the house, you are going to be pretty nervous about buying it. minimum, you would want a much cheaper price to buy that

house, because you would not be sure whether or not you were going to hold it. most of us would walk away. no matter how much we like the house, we would say, the last thing i want is to find out after i bought it is that i do not actually own it. the same thing is true if i am buying treasury bills from the u.s. government. what if there is a supreme court case, deciding these are not legal these are not valid instruments obligating the u.s. government to pay me? i am going to be stressed. which means i may not purchase. if i do purchase them, i am going to ask for a big premium. there are no magic bullets hill. -- here. andanswer is congress going voting. right now, there are votes, i believe, to go ahead and take this drama off the table.

it should at least be tested. speaker boehner keeps saying he does not have the votes for it. what i have said is, put it on the floor. see what happens. at minimum, let every member of congress be on record. to keep thee government open or not. and they can determine where they stand and defend that vote to their constituencies. let them vote on whether or not america should pay its bills or not. and if in fact some of these folks really believe that it is not that big of a deal, they can vote no. useful information for voters to have. and if it fails and we do end up defaulting, i think voters should know exactly who voted not to pay our bills. so that they can be responsible for the consequences. >> president obama, this afternoon -- you can see all of

his comments in our video library. that was about 3:00 p.m. eastern or so. later in the afternoon, early evening, white house news coming out that the president plans to nominate janet yellen to be the next fed chair. here is the headline. let us get to a couple of your calls, your reaction to what you are hearing from the president and other leaders on capitol hill. the eighth day of the government shutdown. , on the tennessee others line. >> i have been watching c-span and keeping up with all that goes on for 62 years. i am 80 years old now. what i feel this is going to lead to is people fighting in

america because so much hurt and hate is getting built up. and i really do worry about it. i would like to say, if anybody believes in prayer, to pray for america, because we are headed for some trouble. thank you for taking my call. >> thank you for taking my call. one thing i have noticed. everybody is talking about so and so does not know what they are doing, but nobody is really keeping their word. i have noticed that republicans want to talk. it is just about that one thing,

obamacare, but not really about taxes and that stuff. i am not affiliated officially. my lastt obama was official vote in my life. i am 33 years old now. republicans, a lot of the people -- why$250,000 or more would they pay just 13% in taxes and not be 23% everybody else does? out of debtckly get if everybody paid the same amount of taxes, since we get the same amount of benefits when we reach the appropriate ages. >> we go this time to our republican line. rockwell, north carolina. >> i am so furious i can hardly

speak or even think for that matter. this country in such a disastrous state. we do not even know what we are doing anymore. i would like to know where. in north carolina, on every street, there are at least two houses that are empty. everybody is moving out. all the jobs are going overseas. we have enough in america to fund us for years and years, and never worry about it. everything will be fine if we bring all of our mills back. office,e obama was in he has tried to do nothing but write our country. turn us into a socialist country. he has done that.

he wants to be a dictator. he ought to be put out of office. stand up and fight. that is mary, in rockwell, north carolina. newsdent obama held a conference this afternoon for a little more than an hour and 10 minutes. a writer for "politico" writes about the questions asked in that conference. no health care questions. he says the president obama sustain the press conference without a single question about the signature health care law and the glitches that continue to plague the insurance exchanges, which frustrated several conservatives. the speaker had his own brief

news conference. here is what john boehner had to say. >> good afternoon, everyone. phone all know, i had a call with the president of the united states this morning. i will say it was a pleasant conversation. disappointed i was that the president refuses to negotiate. when it comes to the issue of funding our government, the house has passed for bills to fund our government and provide fairness to the american people under economy. each of those bills was rejected by the united states senate. under the constitution and our system of government, we asked that they sit down and have a conversation with us about funding the government, keeping it open, and providing fairness to the american people under obamacare. they refused to do it. over the last 30 years, dozens of times, there have been negotiations over funding our government. all those negotiations over the

last 30 years have resulted in significant policy changes. i would remind you that the president of the united states and i have sat down in the spring of 2011 to negotiate a funding bill for the government from march all the way through september. during that negotiation, there were all kinds of policy considerations. and if you recall, the opportunity of scholarships for kids here in d.c. was in fact restored into law. president's position that we are not going to sit down and talk to you until you surrender is just not sustainable. it is not our system of government. when it comes to the debt limit. -- debt limit, i agree with the president. we should pay our bills. i did not come here to shut down the government. i did not come here to default on our debt. but over the last 40 years, 27 times the debt limit has been

used to carry significant policy in fact,hat would, reduce spending and put us on a saner fiscal path. president reagan sat down with tip o'neill in the 1980's. , in 1990, went out to andrews air force base and got into a long debate and negotiation with democrats here in congress. bill clinton went through this three times in the 1990's. downdent obama and i sat in 2011 and had a serious negotiation. while the president today suggested that i walked away from the deal, i would have to remind him that i was at the oval office along with majority leader eric cantor when we negotiated and the president walked away. it was another negotiation in 2011 that resulted in the

largest deficit reduction bill we have seen here in the last 30 years. in 2010, when democrats controlled the congress and president obama was in the white house, what happened was a group of moderate democrats in the house would not agree to raise the debt limit without a negotiation. there was a negotiation then amongst democrats over raising the debt ceiling. the long and short of it is, there has got to be a negotiation here. we cannot raise the debt ceiling without doing something about what is driving us to borrow more money and to live beyond our means. the idea that we should continue to spend money that we do not have, and give the bill to our kids and our grandkids, would be wrong. this is not about me. frankly, it is not about republicans. this is about saving the future for our kids and grandkids. the only way this will happen is to in fact have a conversation. it is time to have that conversation. not next week.

not next month. the conversation onto start today. i am hopeful that whether it is the president or democrat leaders here in congress, we can begin the conversation. >> what would you say to military families who have been denied benefits due to the shutdown? >> last week, the congress passed a "pay our military benefits" act. we gave money to the department this.ense to pay all of it is disgraceful they are withholding these benefits. tomorrow, the house will act specifically on this, and i hope the president will sign it. >> [indiscernible] what happens if it is 11:59 on october 17?

>> at times like this, the american people expect their leaders to have a conversation. i want that conversation to occur now. >> the president said today he would negotiate -- >> it he said if there is unconditional surrender by republicans, he will sit down and talk to us. that is not the way our government works. thank you, everybody. from aboutboehner, 4:30 eastern this afternoon -- the government shutdown is making for possibly interesting alliances. from theame out speaker plus office not long after his news conference this afternoon. he is talking about the delicate d.c. .c. -- delegate from

that is one of the short-term funding bills passed by the house. a tweet from mayor gray. the mayor of washington, d.c., a democrat. there'll issa, head of the oversight committee, retweeting vince gray's tweet. judith is in riverside, illinois, on the other's line. thanks for waiting. span fort to commend c- giving factual reporting during this crisis. about thelivid republicans doing what they are doing and closing down government. the very decisive people, the s, they are pitting north against south, governmental agency versus governmental agency.

against pitting white color. and i want to mention, i see no people of color on the republican side. i think what they are doing is absolutely horrible. repeal want to obamacare, there are other ways to do it, but not doing it the way they are doing it. they can repeal it. they can amend it. thest find the tea baggers most divisive people in congress, and i hope they are all voted out of office. >> let us go to our democrats line. good evening. >> thank you for taking my call. >> go ahead. >> i am getting sick and tired of getting sick and tired of all this mess. i am a federal employee, and i do not want to go without.

everybody should get together and get this bill passed. put everybody back to work. get our money on time. stop acting childish. this is immature. -- caller a few minutes ago there was one who called names. we need to stop calling each other names and start working together. can we work together? a family that prays together stays together. everybody is getting out of hand, calling names and everything. get back to work. get our money. get these agencies back. >> kevin is next up. he is in new york. i am a registered republican. i've voted republican for president always, since ronald reagan. but i have to agree with the president on this one, and i am almost embarrassed to be a republican. the fact of the matter is, you

should not hold the government hostage on any of these situations. is ank john boehner embarrassment to their publican party. he should do what the president said today. get a clean cr. raise the debt ceiling. and then you negotiate. this game of chicken is costing economicry too much doom or failure. a lot of heartache. i think the president was very authentic and genuine today. i did not even vote for him in two elections, but the republicans are doing him a disservice, the way they are holding the country hostage. they failed to win. you know what? when midterm elections come, they are going to lose even more. >> they will be back at me in taking up a couple of republican sponsored bills. one would be partial funding for the federal aviation

administration. the other is with the payment of death benefits to veterans. the army times is writing about that this evening in the headline. -- here we go.s shutdown of death benefits for military families. number ofa growing military families are facing temporary denial of the $100,000 gratuity benefit the defense department typically provides after service members are killed while on active duty. they say at least 17 troops have died, since the shutdown began october 1, but family members have not immediately received the lump-sum payments known as gratuity benefits. that typically is wired into the accounts of designated beneficiaries, and helps cover immediate costs related to the death, which can include travel to dover air force base, where caskets of fallen troops return

from overseas. the benefit payments were suspended because the law congress passed on september 30, a week ago monday, to ensure troops get paid during the shutdown, was worded in such a way that it does not permit payment to family members. they are talking about legislation coming up in the house, on the house floor tomorrow. it was an issue that came up in the senate today between senator ted cruz of texas and majority leader harry reid. want toresident, i again thank the majority leader for bringing to the attention of this body the tragedy of those servicemen who lost their lives. and the fact that unfortunately they have been notified, improperly i believe, that they will not be -- their families will not be being paid the tax gratuity they are entitled to under law. this is wrong. every member of this body agrees it is wrong.

every republican agrees it is wrong. i am confident every democrat agrees it is wrong as well. indeed, the way this announcement was made was highly troubling. the department of defense notified our military families via twitter that those service members who die in battle will not be paid their tax-free death gratuities, due to the partial federal government shutdown. i think this is yet another pattern that we have seen distressingly from the obama administration, of politicizing this shutdown and playing partisan games to maximize the pain that is inflicted on americans. it is part and parcel with the ,attern we have seen barricading the world war ii memorial, barricading the parking lot at mount vernon, george washington's home, even though mount vernon is privately operated.

barricading the roads leading to mount wash for -- not rushmore, even though they are state roads. the department of defense are also contrary to the statute that this body just past. is military death gratuity by statute a pay and personnel benefit. clearlygly, it is funded by public law 113 -- 39 -- 113-39. to preventacted this. unfortunately, the defense department is declining to follow the law that we passed. that this body already passed would immediately of to take the families those soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines whose lives are tragically taken -- take them off the table and say, regardless of what happens in a government shutdown, we are going to stand by the men and women fighting for america.

the house of representatives has to introduce a bipartisan bill stillediately film -- death gratuity payments. the senate should pass that bill immediately. the pentagon should abandon this and follow the law that was already past. i call upon all 100 senators to come together and listen to the majority leader. about theowerfully need to stand by servicemen and are tragicallyes taken. when the house passes this bill, which i am confident it will do so with considerable speed, i would call upon every senator to listen to the majority leader's call, and stand with our servicemen and women. there is something we can do today to demonstrate this party -- body does not have to be locked in bipartisan gridlock, to demonstrate that cooperation

is possible and to demonstrate that our veterans are truly not the subject of partisan dispute. they are separate and deserve to be treated fairly, deserve to have the commitments we made to our veterans honored. our body can stop blocking the legislation the house of representatives have already passed -- bipartisan legislation to fund the v.a. and disability payments, so we do not hold them hostage to what is happening in washington. and accordingly, i ask unanimous proceedthat the senate in considering a bill making continuing appropriations for veteran benefits for fiscal year 2014. but the measure be read three times and pass, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

click the distinguished senator stated again what has already been talked about a lot. that is a piecemeal approach to funding our government. as do most americans, we democrats support the purpose of this bill to fund the veterans administration. but there is no reason for us to have to choose between this important government function, disease control, nih, highway safety, fbi, poor children, and protecting the environment. the house republican leadership vote,just allow a everyone knows the votes are there. our position is simple. open the government. pay our bills.

then, i will be happy to negotiate about anything. we need to end this government shutdown. mr. president, first of all, my friend talks about these five families who are in bereavement. that is an understatement. five sons, husbands, friends, or killed under the weekend -- were killed over the weekend. providing the funding my friend requests would not enable the dod to pay the families of 17 members -- five over the weekend. we have had others die. they have given their lives for the nation since the shutdown. 17. this is but one example of how fundingtor from texas on a piecemeal basis does not work. if the house allows the senate to pass the resolution, we would

have the authority to bring families to delaware and to pay the debt patootie benefits. from texassenator expresses concern for american veterans. but his concern addresses only some of the things on which the american people and the government have committed to help our veterans. quote from the remarks of the senator from connecticut, senator murphy. ongave those are marks october 3. here is exactly what he said. resolutionieve the provides only partial funding for the v.a. there is no funding for the national cemeteries, no funding for veteran appeals, gnome funding for veteran hospitals, and there is an entire system the v.a. needs to continue going forward. mr. president, there could not be a better example of why we are involved in this.

we just open the government? have ourbenefits former colleague, former senator from georgia, a decorated disabled american veteran, running the cemeteries -- he cannot do his job now. have the nih go forward. let us have the centers for disease control, the park service. we cannot have a piecemeal approach. we want to do something for the veterans? it will not take care of much of what the veterans made. -- need. i ask that my friend's amendment be modified, be read a third time and passed, and the motion reconsidered. this amendment is the text that

passed the senate. it is a clean continuing resolution of the entire government. everything. veterans. cemeteries. benefits. everything. it is already over in the house. of the majority of the house of representatives. i would ask my friend to really surprise the world, surprise the country, and say, i agree. let us fund the government. as we have said, i have said -- we are happy, when the government is open, when we can't pay our bills, to sit down and talk about anything you want to talk about. it does not matter. no restrictions. >> will be gentleman modify his request? >> reserving the right to object, i would ask unanimous consent that the majority leader

and i'd be able to engage in a colloquy so that we may perhaps be able to, as the majority leader said, surprise the world by finding some avenues of bipartisan cooperation. >> mr. president -- >> is there objection? happy toesident, i am sit down and talk to the senator, his office or my office. the point right here today is that we need the government open. with all due respect to my friend, the junior senator from i want to say this in a most respectful way. i, with the dialogue right here on the senate floor -- we are not going to work this out. i have asked the senate open so that everyone can have benefits. proposals leave many

veterans out in the cold. out in the cold. including the families of 17 of our servicemen, who were killed since this came into effect. mr. president, we will go, as we have. i object to his proposal. i am certain he will object to mine. we will go through the 10 minutes per person and see what happens. i am happy to sit down and talk in his office, in my office, privately or publicly. president, was there -- >> will you consider his request? >> was there objection to the request that we be able to engage in a colloquy? i was not clear what the majority leader was objecting. >> we are back to the normal order of 10 minutes each side. there objection to the modified request? >> reserving the right to

object, i will know with regret that the majority leader rejected engaging in negotiations here on the senate floor. i think that is unfortunate. i will promulgate the questions i would have asked him directly. he may choose whether or not he wishes to answer them. the majority leader read from comments senator murphy made on the senate floor, suggesting the house bill funding the v.a. was not broad enough. i would note in my office we have drafted legislation that will fund the v.a. in its entirety. if his objection is it is not broad enough, i will readily offer that i would happily work with the majority leader to fund every bit of the v.a. as it is right now, today. we can introduce that bill. indeed, i would be happy to have it labeled the reid-cruz bill -- i would be happy to yield for a question.

>> with the senator be willing to take care of the veterans and federal employees, 500,000 of them who have been furloughed? enthusiastically support the proposal the house unanimously passed to give back pay to federal workers. indeed, i would ask a question of the minority -- assistant minority leader. whether the senate will even vote on the proposal. because there are eight bills funding the federal government that are sitting on the majority leader's asked. we have not been allowed to vote on any of them. >> if the senator from texas is asking me a question, i would respond to the chair at we have given the senator from texas ample opportunity to completely fund the government, including all the veterans who work for the federal government and all of the functions of the federal government, so we do not run into the embarrassment of these poor families and their bereavement being denied the

most basic benefits our government gives. he has the chance to do that over and over again, and i believe he has declined that opportunity, so he bears some responsibility for the unfortunate circumstances we face. >> will be senator yield for a question? >> i am happy to yield for a question. >> i am wondering if your motion includes the full funding of the v.a. medical system, which is a completely government run, government-controlled health care system? >> i thank my friend for that question. as i said, i would readily support legislation fully funding the v.a., because the v.a. is a vital government .ystem

it is a promise we have made. and it is unrelated to obamacare. my principal complaint this past year has been that the democratic majority in this body is holding programs unrelated to obamacare hostage in order to force a obamacare on everyone. we agreed for active-duty military. >> just so i am clear, if i might, just to clarify, so that i understand, because the senator from texas has in fact made the ending of a private sector competitive health care system for up to 30 million americans part of what he wants to stop -- i just wanted to be clear that the fully government- , with, government-run government doctors system, through the veterans administration, is something you are advocating that we continue to fund through the federal government? my friend from michigan for that question. yet again, the answer is yes.

i believe we should fully fund the v.a. the questions i would promulgate -- >> is there objection to the modified request? objectrving the right to . >> majority leader? is there objection to the modified request? >> the majority leader seems to not to want to engage in debate, so i object, and i hope that the majority leader -- >> objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? >> i object. >> objection is heard. >> he should be able to speak, but i say as nicely as i can, the problem we have here is what myple are saying, like

friend from texas. little bits and pieces of government. it will not work. it has got to open the government. happens, we have to i know he is fixed on obamacare. we know that. the problem is, mr. president, that that is not going to change. i hope we can do what needs to be done. when the government. run the government. and then we negotiate. >> the majority leader used a quorum tocourtroom -- bring all the members to the floor. the house is back at 10:00 eastern. we will continue to take your comments and calls about the government shutdown.

a couple of notes to pass along. newman have heard news that the white house is planning to nominate janet yellen as the next federal reserve chair. here is the headline this evening in the financial times. obama to nominate yellen as fed chair. i will happen tomorrow. a ceremony will be held at the white house on wednesday. jack lew, the president secretary -- the treasury on capitolwill be hill on thursday, testifying before the senate finance committee. we will have live coverage of that for you on the c-span networks, 8:30 a.m. eastern tomorrow. we will also have coverage of the janet yellen event at the white house. we just do not know which c-span it will be on. we will have coverage on the c- span networks. on the issue of jack lew on capitol hill, a comment from senator bob corker of tennessee.

this is in full call. -- roll call. he says the treasury secretary has not been much of a factor in working with congress on economic issues, leaving lawmakers to wonder who the treasury secretary is sometimes. he spoke about his concerns regarding the looming debt limit deadline. he teed off on the former white house chief of staff, and took a swipe at his sunday talk show appearances over the weekend. that is from this evening. a couple of quick tweets on the issue of a potential default if the debt ceiling is not raised. this is from a contributing editor at "vanity fair." sche bank.rom deutc this is a story from "the wall street journal." american confidence in the economy has tumbled more since

the government shutdown than any week since that time or 2008. that is a story about a gallup poll this week. >> good evening. thank you for taking my call. one of the problems i think we are faced with here as a country is how to avoid this sort of obstructionism, and shutting down the government. what i did is, i looked at the constitution, and i can see where each house of the congress can operate by its own rules. my assumption is that each rules committee decides whether a is calledrity vote for on any particular bill. i will invite you to correct me

if i am wrong on any of this. that is my impression. in the have here congress is a minority of the house that has forced the shutdown of the government. thehe will of the congress, will of the majority of congress, is being thwarted by these people. my son says it is too strong a word for me to use, but i think it is tyranny by minority. papers,o my federalist the foundingat fathers had in mind when they required or allowed super to be used during legislation.

that theympression is wanted super majority votes to make sure that fractions of thernment did not override government legislative process avoid thingsr to that were being done by factions that were bad for the american people. peoplehink the american are suffering right now because of this government shutdown. my point is -- and i want to add plate the to constitution.

it is something we need to live up to and work for every day and respect. so i am loath to amend the constitution. i think that this is something that congress can fix themselves. texas, ieman from think his name is jeff sessions -- these rules committee chairman -- >> that is pete sessions. >> that is correct. they have the power to assign whether super majority votes are required or not. that the people in their position should be mindful in the future. -- in the future of what the intent of our founders was.

they are in effect using the super majority rules to thwart the will of the entire congress. and it is government by faction and government by tyranny. and it is just not american. >> you asked about the rules committee. we showed you that earlier. we will show you in a few minutes. the house rules committee has been meeting regularly, considering the rules for debate on these bills that come up in the house, arsenal funding bills. people will say in general the house is a body of congress that is run by the majority, whereas the senate is where the minority -- in the senate, republicans have much more -- the minority party in the senate has much more power. but in the house you are seeing a lot of use of the rules committee, and they can do things like a -- bring a bill up under what they call suspension of the rules, meaning it takes

two thirds of the house to pass it. in some cases, when they have done that, it has not worked out, so they have brought the bill under regular order and getting it passed with a rule attached to it. for democrats in the house, the only real power they have in terms of the rules committee is make on a amendment toion to -- or make a motion commit, or something like that. orthat is another concern question i have not answered for myself yet. invoke a suspension of the rules in an attempt to break this logjam, does that mean that subject or legislation that is in question

has to be debated again in both houses before it is sent to the president? >> i think we would need a parliamentarian to answer your question. from thehow you a bit rules committee today momentarily. to playing well, michigan. randy on the republican line. air.re on the >> thanks for having me on. i have been watching the gridlock, i guess, everybody has called it, the between the democratic party and the republicans. i am a registered republican. a lot of what i have seen in the last two weeks, where name- calling has been done -- republican officials are leaders. what i do not understand is that even though the democratic leaders have been justifying , and position on obamacare

how it is the nation's law, everybody has calling -- been calling the republicans and tea party members anarchists and whatever. made up 45% ofe the presidential vote in 2012. -- i guess a lot of the democratic leaders have not been-- i mean, they have basically justifying the obamacare act by saying that we reelected the president, and therefore all of america must be with the affordable care act. but 40% of them did not vote for obama. when a gridlock like this

happens, how come we are not having committees, like has been proposed in congress, to figure out these details? the 40% of the people who did not vote for obama, how come their voices are not being heard? it is like their votes do not even count. heard. voice is being let us check twitter. here is an independent.

david in seattle, on our democrats line. are you there? >> sorry about that. >> no problem. >> can we start by acknowledging not cryn boehner did today, even though he did not get what he wanted? my background is in developmental psychology. when you showed the clip of ted mean, it justn, i sounds like someone who is too concerned with his own career to really even listen to the other side. i think that health care reform started out just being called health care reform. republicansn the tried to use fear to scare ,eople into public health care

i think the obamacare thing started. but that is not where the majority of the u.s. is today. to othereople are open types of health reforms. whether or not that is actually remainsma has proposed to be seen. but connect me if i am wrong. president has said he would be open to a discussion with about a single-payer reopen theer they shutdown. is that correct? >> have you been impacted yet? actually 22. i am still on my parents health care. that is because of obama, actually. i am one of the lucky ones. i have not seen a change in my

day-to-day life. i still have a job i am being paid to do. it is frustrating, as someone out,s young, just starting starting out in my own career and that sort of thing, and watch dysfunction in washington. i mean, it i would think this would be a prime time for a to step republican forward and really be that bridge between the aisle, i does wantthat america to feel washington is working. i do not think many people do. >> i want to show you a piece

from "the examiner." tim mack writing. and infuriated john mccain railed against the false premise offered by some of his fellow republicans that it is possible to repeal the affordable care act. it would require 67 republican votes in the senate will stop him -- in the senate. we did the american people a great disservice by convincing them we somehow could. vote margin is what senate republicans would need to overturn a presidential veto, and unlikely achievement given that republicans hold just 46 of 100 seats. here is great in atkins, arkansas.

old man told me years ago, when i was growing up, and i learned it to be the truth -- [indiscernible] here and watched on this deal. you do not know who to believe anymore. it is way too long. as far as the obama care law, please the law alone. when everything is done, i am going to have hardly $50 left out of my check. $86 a month with a $6,000 co- pay, or whatever you call it. call thisfor your evening.

we will hear from republican senator paul cole tomorrow. excuse me. republican representative tom cole. and we are joined by a democrat from maryland. we will also hear from a reporter from "the houston chronicle," talking about a donation from a texas billionaire to fund the head start programs in six states. and we will hear from the president of the northern kentucky chamber of commerce. up next, president obama, from about 3:00 eastern this afternoon -- his statement for reporters in about -- and about an hour and 10 minutes of questions with reporters. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> i will try to be brief at the top.

tos morning, i had a chance speak with speaker boehner, and i told him what i have been saying publicly, that i am happy to talk with him and other republicans about anything. not just issues i think more important, that also issues that they think are important. but i also told him that having such a conversation, talk, negotiation, should not require hanging the threat of a government shutdown or economic chaos over the heads of the american people. think about it this way. the american people do not get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs. callo not get a chance to your bank and say, i am not going to pay the mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car and an xbox. if your negotiation is around buying a house, you do not get to say, let's talk about the price i am going to pay, and if you do not give me the price, i am going to burn down your house.

that is not how negotiations work. that is not how it happens in business. it is not how it happens in private life. ofthe same way, members congress and house republicans do not get to demand ransom in exchange for doing their jobs. jobs areeir basic passing a budget and making sure that america is paying its bills. say,do not also get to unless you give me what the voters rejected in the last election, i am going to cause a recession. that is not how it works. no american president would deal with a foreign leader like this. most of you would not deal with either coworkers or business associates in this fashion. and we should not be dealing this way here in washington. i have heard republicans suggest this is reasonable.

i think it is fair to say that republicans would not think that was appropriate. let us lift these threats from our families and our businesses, and let us get down to work. it is not like this is a new position i am taking. speaker boehner and the other leaders in just last week. neither my chief of staff nor i have had serious conversations on the budget with all kinds of business. what we have not been able to our serious positions from republicans that would actually resolve core differences.

and they have decided to run out the clock until there is a government shutdown for the possibility of default thinking that it would give them more leverage. that's not my characterization. they said it themselves. that was their strategy from the start. and that is not how our government is supposed to run. it's not this me, by the way, who has taken the position that we are willing to have conversations about anything. senate democrats have asked to sit down with house republicans and hash out a budget, but have been rejected by the house republicans 19 times. at the beginning of this year speaker boehner said what we want is regular order and a serious budget process. so senate should pass a bill and the house should pass a bill and then a committee comes together and they hash out their differences and send the bill to the president. that's what democrats did. except somewhere along the way house republicans decided they wouldn't appoint people to the committee to try to negotiate.

and 19 times they rejected that. so even after all that the democrats in the senate still passed a budget that effectively reflects republican priorities. at republican budget levels, just to keep the government opened. and the house republicans couldn't do that either. the point is, i think, not only the white house, but also democrats in the senate and democrats in the house have shown more than ample willingness to talk about any issues that the republicans are concerned about. but we can't do it if the entire basis of the republican strategy is, we are going to shut down the government or cause economic chaos if we don't get 100% of what we want. so my suggestion to the speaker, has been, and will continue to be let's stop the excuses, take a vote in the house, let's end this shutdown right now. let's put people back to work.

there are enough reasonable republicans and democrats in the house who are willing to vote yes on a budget that the senate has already passed. that vote could take place today. shut down would be over. then serious negotiations could proceed around every item in the budget. now, as soon as congress votes to reopen the government, it's also got vote to meet our country's commitments, pay our bills, raise the debt ceiling because as reckless as a government shutdown is, the economic shutdown caused by america defaulting would be dramatically worse. i want to talk about this for a minute because even though people can see and feel the effects of a government shutdown, they are already experiencing it right now, there

are still some people out there who don't believe that default is a real thing. we have been hearing that from some republicans in congress that default would not be a big deal. so let me explain this. if congress refuses to raise what's called the debt ceiling, america would not be able to meet all of our financial obligations for the first time in 225 years. and because it's called raising the debt ceiling, i think a lot of americans think it's raising our debt. it is not raising our debt. it does not add a dime to our debt. it simply says you pay for what congress has already authorized america to purchase. whether that's the greatest military in the world, or veterans benefits, or social security whatever it is that congress already authorized,

what this does is make sure that we can pay those bills. the last time that the tea party republicans flirted with the idea of default, two years ago, markets plunged, business and consumer confidence plunged, america's credit rating was downgraded for the first time, and a decision to actually go through with it, to actually permit default, according to many c.e.o.'s, would be, i'm quoting here, insane, catastrophic, chaos. these are some of the more polite words. warren buffett likened default to a nuclear bomb a. weapon too

horrible to use. it would disrupt markets. it would undermine the world's confidence in america as the bedrock of the global economy. and it might permanently increase our borrowing costs. which of course ironically would mean that it would be more expensive for us to service what debt we do have and would add to our deficits and debt. not decrease them. there is nothing fiscally responsible about that. preventing this should be simple. as i said, raising the debt ceiling is a lousy name which is why members of congress in both parties don't like to vote on it because it makes you vulnerable in political campaigns, but it does not increase our debt. it does not grow our deficits. it does not allow for a single

dime of increased spending. all it does is allow the treasury department to pay for what congress has already spent. but as i said, it's always a tough vote. people don't like doing it. although it has been done 45 times since ronald reagan took office. nobody in the past has ever seriously threatened to breach the debt ceiling until the last two years. and this is the creditworthiness of the united states we are talking about.

this is our word. this is our good name. this is real. and the government shutdown millions of americans face inconvenience or outright hardship in an economic shutdown , every american could see their

401-k's and home values fall, borrowing costs for mortgages and student loans rise, and there would be a significant risk of a very deep recession. at a time when we are still climbing our way out of the worst recession in our lifetimes. the american people have already fought too hard and too long to come back from one crisis only to see a handful of more extreme republicans in the house of representatives precipitate another one. the good news is over the past 3 1/2 years our businesses have created 7.5 million new jobs. our housing market is healing. we have cut the deficit in half since i took office. the deficit is coming down faster than any time in the last 50 years. america's poised to become the number one energy producer in the world this year. this year for the first time in a very long time we are producing more oil than we are importing. so we got a lot of good things going for us, but the uncertainty caused by just one week of this nonsense so far has caused businesses to reconsider spending and hiring. you have seen consumer confidence plunge to the lowest level since 2008. you have seen mortgages held up by thousands of home buyers who aren't sure about the economic situation out there. and all this adds to our deficits. it doesn't subtract from it.

so we can't afford these manufactured crises every few months. as i said, this one isn't even about deficits or spending or budgets. our deficits are falling at the fastest pace in 60 years. the budget that the senate passed is at republican spending levels. it's their budget. the democrats were willing to put votes on to make sure the government was opened while negotiations took place for a longer term budget. and what's happened, the way we got to this point was one thing and one thing only, and that was republican obsession with dismantling the affordable care act and denying health care to millions of people. that law ironically is moving forward. most americans, democrats and republicans, agree that health care should not have anything to do with keeping our government opened or paying our bills on time. which is why i will sit down and work with anyone of any party, not only to talk about the budget, i'll talk about ways to improve the health care system. i'll talk about ways we can shrink our long-term deficits. i'll also want to talk about how we are going to help the middle class, strengthen early childhood education, and improve our infrastructure and research and development. there are a whole bunch of things i want to talk about in terms of how we are going to make sure everybody gets a fair shake in this society and our economy is growing in a broad-based way and building our middle class. by the way, if anybody doubts my sincerity about that, i put forward proposals in my budget to reform entitlement programs for the long haul and reform our tax code in a way that would close loopholes for the wealthiest and lower rates for corporations and invest in new jobs and reduce our deficits. some of these were originally republican proposals. because i don't believe any party has a monopoly on good ideas. i have shown myself willing to go more than halfway in these conversations. if reasonable republicans want to talk about these things again, i'm ready to head up to

the hill and try. i'll even drink for dinner again. but -- spring for dinner again. but i'm not going to do it until the more extreme part of the republican party stops forcing john boehner to issue threats about our economy. we can't make extortion routine as part of our democratcy. democracy doesn't function this way. this is not just for me, it's also for my successors in office. whatever party they are from. they shouldn't have to pay a ransom, either, for congress doing its basic job. we got to put a stop to it. the last point i'll make. already this week i had to miss critical meetings in asia to promote american jobs and businesses. and although as long as we get this fixed that's not long-term

damage, whenever we do these things, it hurts our credibility around the world. it makes it look like we don't have our act together. that's not something we should welcome. the greatest nation on earth shouldn't have to get permission from a few irresponsible members of congress every couple months to keep our government opened or to prevent an economic catastrophe. so let's pass a budget. let's end this government shutdown. let's pay our bills. let's avert an economic shutdown. let's drop the gimmicks, put aside what's good for any particular party, and let's focus on what's good for the american people because they know we have a lot of work to do. with that, let me take a couple of questions and i'll start with julie of a.p. >> thank you, mr. president. obviously if congress does pass a clean c.r., debt ceiling bills, those may be short-term measures. does your offer to negotiate with them on issues like health care and spending and deficit reduction still stand in the intervening week they pass perhaps this week? >> absolutely. what i have said is that i will talk about anything.

what will happen is we won't agree on everything. the truth is is is that the parties are pretty divided on a whole big -- bunch of big issues right now. everybody understands that. by the way voters are divided on a lot of those issues, too. and i recognize that there are some house members, republican house members, where i got clobbered in the last election. and they don't get politically rewarded a lot for being seen as negotiating with me. and that makes it harder for divided government to come together. but i am willing to work through all those issues. the only thing that our democracy can't afford is a situation where one side says unless i get my way and only my way, unless i get concessions before we even start having a serious give and take, i'll threaten to shut down the government or i will threaten to not pay america's bills.

so i will not eliminate any topic of conversation. and i show miself willing to engage -- myself willing to engage all the parties involved,

every leader on any issue. >> that applies no matter how long it is on the bills they pass. >> the only thing will i say is that we are not going to pay a ransom for america paying its bills. that's something that should be nonnegotiable and everybody should agree on that. everybody should say one of the most val ubling things we have -- valuable things we have is america's creditworthiness. this is not something we should even come close to fooling around with. so when i read people saying, this wouldn't be a big deal. let's take default out for a spin and see how it rides. and i say, imagine in your private life if you decided that i'm not going to pay my mortgage for a month or two. first of all you're not saving your money by not paying your mortgage, you're just a deadbeat. and you can anticipate that will hurt your credit. which means that in addition to debt collectors calling, you're going to have trouble borrowing in the future. if you are able to borrow in the you are your are future, you have to borrow at a higher rate.youhigher rate. willyou are a you are you

you as you won't what's true for individuals is also true for nations. even the most powerful nation on earth. and if we are creating a atmosphere in which people are that is the is is him him and him and not sure whether or not we pay him

our bills on time, then that will have a severe long-term impact on our economy. and on america's standard of living. that's not something that we should even be in a conversation about. that is not something that we should be using as leverage. ok. juliana. >> thank you, mr. president. the economic consequences of default, but if we were to get to that point, would you prioritize and pay bondholders first and maintain -- rather than social security recipients or military? how would you go ahead and make that determination? >> i am going to continue to be very hopeful that congress does not puts in that position. and i think if people understand what the consequences are, they will set that potential scenario and him and him i do know that there have been and some who said that if we just pay bondholders, we just pay people who bought treasury bills, that we really won't be in default because those interest payments will be made and to them what i have to remind them is we have a lot of other obligations not just people who pay treasury bills. we got senior citizens who are counting on their social security check arriving on time. we have veterans who are disabled who are counting on their benefits. we have companies who are doing business for our government and for our military that have payrolls that they have to meet.

if they do not get paid on time, they may have to lay off workers. all those folks are potentially affected if we are not able to pay all of our bills on time. what's also true is if the markets are saying that we are not paying -- seeing we are not paying our bills on time, that will affect our creditworthiness even if some people are being paid on time. just to boil this down to personal examples, if you got a mortgage, car note, and a student loan that you have to pay. and you say aim going to make sure i pay my mortgage, but not pay my student loan or car note, that's still going to have an impact on your credit. everybody's still going to look at that and say, you know what, i'm not sure this person is that trustworthy. at a minimum presumably they are going to charge a hire interest rate.

that's what would happen to you if you made those decisions. the same is true for the federal government. so we are exploring all contingencies. i know the secretary of the treasury will be appearing before congress on thursday and he can address some of the additional details about this. but let me be clear, no option is good in that scenario. there is no silver bullet. there's no magic wand that allow this to wish away the chaos that could result if for the first time in our history we don't pay our bills on time. and when i hear people trying to down play the consequences of that, i think that's really irresponsible. and i'm happy to talk to think any of them individually and walk them through exactly why it's irresponsible. it's particularly funny coming from republicans who claim to be champions of business. there's no businessperson out here who doesn't think this wouldn't be a big deal. not one.

you go anywhere from wall street to main street and ask a c.e.o. of a company, or ask a small businessperson whether it would be a big deal if the united states government isn't paying its bills on time, they'll tell you it's a big deal. it would hurt. and it's unnecessary. that's the worst part of it. this is not a complicated piece of business. and there's no reason why if in fact republicans are serious about wanting to negotiate, wanting to have cafferings, wanting to talk, there is no reason why you have to have that threat looming over the conversations. think about it. the only reason the republicans have held out on negotiations up until the last week or so is because they thought it was a big enough deal that they would force unilateral concessions out of democrats and out of me. they said so. they basically said, you know what, the president's so responsible that if we just hold our breath and say we are going to threaten default, then they'll give us what we want and

we won't have to give anything in return. again that's not my account of the situation. you can read statements from republicans over the last several months who said this explicitly. and so for them now to say, it wouldn't be a big deal if it happens, that's not how they have been acting over the last couple months. if it's not a big deal, why would i give them concessions now to avoid it? it is a big deal. and nobody should be getting concessions for making sure that the full faith and credit of the united states is retained. >> when speaker boehner will hold a vote on clean c.r., what assurances can you give with a longer impact? how worried are you personally that the sequestration levels may do harm to the nation's economy. >> you're making an important point which is what we are asking of the republicans right now is to keep the government opened at funding levels the democrats think are very harmful to the economy and inadequate to make sure that the economy is growing faster, more people are put back to work, and the middle

class is growing. we are willing to pass at least a short-term budget that opens up the government at current funding levels. it doesn't even address the harm that's been done because of sequestration. now, the democrats have a budget that would eliminate sequestration, this meat cleaver approach to deficit reduction, and make sure that we're adequately funding basic medical

research and head start programs and v.a. programs, and a whole range of things that have been really hard hit this year. but we recognize that there are going to have to be compromises between the democratic position and the republican position, and in the meantime we shouldn't hurt the economy even worse by shutting down the government. so let me just give you an example. very specific i -- specific. because of sequestration, because of the meat cleaver cuts that have taken place over the course of this year, thousands of families have lost head start slots for their children. you have parents across the country who have been scrambling trying to figure out how can i find some decent, quality childcare for my kids. the government shutdown means several thousand more are going

to be losing their slots. if we vote today or tomorrow or the next day in the house of representatives to go ahead and reopen the government, that leaves those additional several thousand people will be spared the difficulties of trying to scramble and figure out where your kid's going to be when you're trying to go to work. but it doesn't solve the broader problems. if we were going to have real negotiations, the democrats would say, let's solve the bigger problem. what about those thousands who have been hurt by sequester? the democrats aren't making that

demand right now. we understand there's going to have to be some give and take, but we are saying is don't hurt more people while we are trying to resolve these differences. let's at least make sure that we keep the lights on while we are having these conversations. >> you talked about the credibility around the world that this impasse has caused. i'm wondering what you and your administration are telling worried creditors, china and japan, calling and asking about whether the united states is going to avoid defaulting on its debts. >> i won't disclose any specific conversations, but obviously my message to the world is, the

united states always has paid its bills and will do so again. but i think they are not just looking at what i say, they are looking at what congress does. and that ultimately is up to speaker boehner. this will not get resolved. we are not going to calm creditors until they see speaker boehner call up a bill that reopens the government and authorizes the secretary of the treasury to pay our bills on time. and until they see that, there is going to be a cloud over u.s.

economic credibility. but it is not one from which we can't recover. we have been through this before. every country, every democracy in particular, has tussles over the budget, and i think most world leaders understand t. they themselves have been through it if they are in a democratcy. what you haven't seen before i think from the vantage point of a lot of world leaders is the

notion that one party in congress might blow the whole thing up if they don't get their way. they have never seen that before. and that does make them nervous. particularly given what happened in 2011. keep in mind we have been here before. we saw what happened in 2011. i think the assumption was that the americans must have learned their lesson. that there would be budget conflicts, but nobody would threaten the possibility that we would default. and when they hear members of the senate and members of congress saying maybe default wouldn't be that bad, i'll bet that makes them nervous. it makes me nervous. it should make the american people nervous. because that's irresponsible. it is out of touch with reality. it is based on a flawed analysis of how our economy works.

you cannot pay some bills and not others and think somehow that the fact that you're paying some bills protects you from a loss of creditworthiness. that's not what happens in our own personal lives. i don't know why people think that's how it works for the united states government. we have used a lot of our emergency powers. jack lew has used extraordinary measures to keep paying our bills over the last several months. but at a certain point those emergency powers run out and the clock is ticking. i do worry that republicans, but also some democrats, may think that we've got a bunch of other rabbits in our hat. there comes a point in which if the treasury cannot hold offers to sell treasury bills, we do not have enough money coming in to pay all our bills on time. it's very straightforward. and i know there's been some discussion, for example, about my powers under the 14th amendment to go ahead and ignore the debt ceiling law, setting aside the legal analysis, what matters is is that if you start having a situation in which there's legal controversy about the u.s. treasury's authority to issue debt, the damage will have been done even if that were constitutional, because people wouldn't be sure. it would be tied up in litigation for a long time. that's going to make people nervous. a lot of the strategies people have talked about, the president can roll out a big coin and -- or he can resort to some other constitutional measure, what people ignore is that ultimately what matters is what are the people who are buying treasury bills think? again i'll just boil it down in very personal terms.

if you're buying a house and you're not sure whether the seller has title to the house, you're going to be pretty nervous about buying it. and at minimum you'd want a much cheaper price to buy that house because you wouldn't be sure whether or not you would own it. most of us would walk away because no matter how much we like the house, we would say to ourselves the last thing i want after i bought it is i don't actually own it. the same thing is true if i'm buying treasury bills from the u.s. government and here i am sitting here what if there's a supreme court case deciding that these aren't valid. that these are val i had -- aren't valid legal instruments, obligating the u.s. government to pay me. i'm going to be suppressed. which means i may not purchase it. if i do purchase them i am going to ask for a big premium. so there are no magic bullets here. there's one simple way of doing

it and that is congress going ahead and voting. the fact that right now there are votes, i believe, to go ahead and take this drama off the table, should at least be tested. speaker boehner keeps saying he doesn't have the votes for it. what i have said is, put it on the floor. see what happens. and add minimum let every member of congress be on record. let them vote to keep the government opened or not. and they can determine where they stand and defend that vote to their constituencies. and let them vote on whether or not america should pay its bills or not. and if in fact some of these folks really believe that it's not that big of a deal, they can vote no. and that will be useful information for voters to have. if it fails and we do end up

defaulting, i think voters should know exactly who voted not to pay our bills. so that they can be responsible for the consequences that come with it. harry. >> you mentioned the supreme court, the term started today with the campaign finance case. you call citizens united devastating to the public interest. i wonder if you could weigh in. >> the case would go any further than citizens united. essentially it would say anything goes. there are no rules in terms of how to finance campaigns. there aren't a lot of functioning democracies around the world that work this way where you can basically have millionaires and billionaires bank rolling whoever they want, however they want, in some cases undisclosed, and what it means is ordinary americans are shut out of the process. and democrats aren't entirely innocent of this in the past. and i had to raise a lot of money for my campaign. so i -- there's nobody who operates in politics that has perfectly clean hands on this issue. but what is also true is that all of us should bind ourselves to some rules that say the people who vote for us should be more important than somebody who is spending a million or 10 million or $100 million to get elected. we don't know what their agendas are, their interests are. and i continue to believe that citizens united contributed to some of the problems we are having in washington right now. you have some ideological extremists who have a big bankroll and they can entirely skew our politics.

and there are a whole bunch of members of congress right now who privately will tell you, i know our positions are unreasonable, but we are scared that if we don't go along with the tea party agenda or some particularly extremist agenda, that they'll be challenged from the right. and the threats are very explicit. so they toe the line. that's part of why we have seen a break down of just normal routine business done here in washington on behalf of the american people. and all of you know it. i'm not telling you anything you don't know because it's very explicit. you report on it.

big chunk of the republican party right now are in gerrymandered districts where there is no competition and those folks are much more worried about a tea party challenger than they are about a general election where they have to compete against a democrat or go after independent votes. in that environment it's a lot harder for them to compromise. >> thank you, mr. president. this week the president of china has visited several of the asian countries you were going to visit and had to skip because of the shutdown. he's also taken a big role at a summit both of which your administration has made a pretty

big priority of as part of the broader asian -- does china benefit from the chaos in washington? then more broadly, you said in general that this hurts the reputation of the united states overseas. are there specific things that you can point to where you already have seen some damage? and one that occurs to me is the trade deal you tried to do in asia. the leaders today announced they still want to wrap it up but they no longer are able to say they want to wrap it up by the end of this year.

had you been there do you think could you have gotten that additional push? >> i think that's a great example. we don't know, but it didn't help that i wasn't there. to make sure that we went ahead and closed a trade deal that would open up markets and create jobs for the united states and make sure that countries were trading fairly with us in the most dynamic, fastest growing market in the world. i should have been there 8 -- been there. i can tell you because hi to apologize to some of the host countries that they understood that the most important thing i could do for them and the most important thing i can do for the bilateral relationship and america's reputation is making sure we reopen our government and don't default.

i don't think it's going to do lasting damage. as i said if we deal with this the way we should, then folks around the world won't attribute this to the usual messy process of american democracy. but it doesn't do lasting damage. in the short term i would characterize it as missed opportunities. we continue to be the one indispensable nation. there are countries across asia who have welcomed our pivot because they want to do business with us. they admire our economy. they admire our entrepreneurs. they know that their growth is going to be contingent on working with us. they care about the secure environment that we maintain, help maintain, and the freedom of navigation and commerce that is so important to them. it's not as if they have other places to go. they want us to be there and they want to work with us. but 234 each -- in each of these big meetings that we have around the world, a lot of business gets done. in the same way that a c.e.o. of a company if they want to close a deal aren't going to do it by phone. they want to show up and look at is eye to eye and tell them why it's important and shake hands

on a deal. the same thing is true with respect to world leaders. and the irony is our teams probably do more to organize a lot of these multilateral forums and set the agenda than anybody. we end up being engaged much more than china, for example, in setting the agenda and moving this stuff forward. it's almost like me not showing up at my own party. it creates a sense of concern on the part of other leaders, but as long as we get through this, they'll understand it. elwe'll be able to -- we'll be able to, i believe, get these deals done. the last point i'd make, though, is we can't do it every three months. back in the 1990's we had a government shutdown.

that happened one time. then after that the republican party and mr. gingrich realized this isn't a sensible way to do business. we shouldn't engage in brinksmanship like this, and then they started having a serious conversation with president clinton about a whole range of issues and they got some things that they wanted. they had to give the democrats some things that the democrats wanted. but it took on a sense of normal democratic process. so here we already went through this once back in 2011. and at the end of last year, right after my election, we went through something similar with the so-called fiscal cliff. where republicans wouldn't negotiate about taxes despite the fact that taxes actually went up anyway even though they refused to negotiate. they could actually have gotten some things from us that they wanted if they had been willing to engage in normal negotiations. so we got to stop repeating this

pattern. i know the american people are tired of it. and to alt american people, i apologize that you have to go through this stuff every three months it seems like. and lord knows i'm tired of it. but at some point we've got to kind of break these habits. and get back to the point where everybody understands that in negotiations there is give and there is take. and you do not hold people hostage or engage in ransom taking to get 100% of your way. and you don't suggest that somehow a health care bill that you don't agree with is destroying the republic. or is a grabbed socialist scheme. if you disagree with certain

aspects of it, tell us what you disagree with and work on it. if you're concerned about long-term debt, that's a good thing to be concerned about. don't pretend as if america's going bankrupt at a time when the deficit's been cut in half. that's what the american people expect is just civility, common sense, give and take, compromise. those aren't dirty words. there's nothing wrong with them. and i think the american people understand i may -- not i may, i have flaws. michelle will tell you. one of them is not that i'm unwilling to compromise. i have been willing to compromise my entire political career. and i don't believe that i have the answers to everything. and it's my way or the high way. but i'm not going to breach a basic principle that would weaken the presidency, change our democracy, and do great damage to ordinary people just

in order to go along with what the house republicans are talking about. >> specifically about china and i'm wondering to what extent -- >> i'm sure the chinese don't mind that i'm not there right now. in the sense that there are areas where we have differences and they can present their point of view and not get as much pushback as if i were there.

although secretary of state kerry is there and aim sure he's doing a great job. but i have also said that our cooperation with china's not a zero sum game. there are a lot of areas where the chinese and us agree. on trade in particular, though, here's an area where part of what we are trying to do is raise standards for example, intellectual property protection, which sometimes is a big problem in china. if we can get a trade deal with all the other countries in asia that says you got to protect people's intellectual property, that will help us in our negotiation was china. richard mcgregor. >> going back to the -- [inaudible] >> no.

>> what are your legal liabilities -- [inaudible] >> you know what i'm going to do is i'm going to let jack lew, the secretary of the treasury, make a formal presentation on thursday before the senate committee. because this is obviously sensitive enough and i think people would be paying close enough attention that details count. and i think prepared remarks from secretary lew on that topic would probably be more appropriate. but as i indicated before, we planned for every contingency. so obviously, worse case scenario, there are things that

we will try to do. but i will repeat, i don't think any option is good. stephen dennis. >> mr. president. i was wondering if you could talk about budget process. in the past, you've negotiated, along with the debt ceiling, with blue dogs, for instance, in 2009-2010. along with a debt ceiling increase then. pay as you go reform. you named a fiscal commission. the republicans today are talking about what may be another committee that would work out our differences over the next few weeks. is that something that you could talk about on the side, something that wouldn't

necessarily be a concession, but something that would be a format for getting a deal done? >> here's the thing, stephen. i know that speaker boehner has talked about setting up some new process or some new supercommittee or what have you. the leaders up in congress, they can work through whatever processes they want. but the bottom line is either you're having good faith negotiations in which there's good give and take or you're not. now, there is already a process in place called the budget committees that could come together right now, democrats have been asking for 19 months to bring them together, make a determination, how much should the government be spending next year, the appropriations committees could go through the list and here's how much we're going to be spending for defense and here's how much we're going to be spending for education. that's a process that's worked

reasonably well for the last 50 years. i don't know that we need to set up a new committee for a process like that to move forward. what has changed or what seems to be motivating the idea we have to have a new process is speaker boehner or at least some faction of the republicans in the house and maybe some in the senate are holding out for a negotiation in theory but in fact basically democrats give a lot of concessions to republicans, republicans don't give anything, and then that's dubbed as compromise and the reason that democrats have to give is because they're worried that the government's going to stay shut down or the u.s. government's going to default. and, again, that -- you can dress it up any way you want.

if that's the theory that the republicans are going forward with, then it's not going to work. so let me just give you one specific example. i've heard at least, and i can't confirm this, that one of the ideas of this new committee is you could talk about reductions in discretionary spending, you could talk about entitlement reform and reductions in mandatory spending, you could talk about how long you'd extend the debt ceiling but you can't talk about closing corporate loopholes that aren't benefiting ordinary folks economically.

and potentially if you closed them would allow us to pay for things like better education for kids. well, i don't know why democrats right now would agree to a format that takes off the table all the things they care about and is confined to the things the republicans care about. so, again, i don't know that that's exactly what's being proposed. my simple point is this. i think democrats in the senate and the house are prepared to talk about anything. i'm prepared to talk about anything. they can design whatever format they want. what is not fair and will not

result in an actual deal is ransom taking. or hostage taking. and the expectations that democrats are paying ransom or providing concessions for the mere act of reopening the government or paying our bills. those are not things that you do for me and they're not things that you do for the democrats. >> is there room here where it's not necessarily a concession, where it is you negotiate what the negotiations are going to look like you? don't have to agree to overturn obamacare, but you can actually negotiate what the talks are going to look like, so everybody's comfortable. and you know, you mentioned yourself, this is a tough vote for all these house republicans. you're asking them to take a very tough vote for the debt ceiling. usually people in both parties want to have some cover, something that they can point to

and say, hey, i want some budget process reform before i approve another $1 trillion in debt. >> which is fine. and so if they want to do that, reopen the government, extend the debt ceiling, if they can't do it for a long time, do it for the period of time in which these negotiations are taking place. why is it that we've got hundreds of thousands of people who aren't working right now in order for what you just described to occur? that doesn't make any sense. the small business administration gives out $1 billion worth of loans every month. to small businesses all across the country. that's not happening right now. so there are small businesses in every state that are counting on a loan to get their business going and you've got the party of small business saying small business administration can't do it. that's what they call themselves. and yet they're suffering. you've got farmers who are waiting for loans right now, those loans cannot be processed. the republican party says they're the party that looks out for farmers. i happen to disagree. i think farmers have done real good under my administration. but having said that, why would you keep the government shut down and those farmers not getting their loans while we're having the discussions that you just talked about? the republicans say they're very concerned about drilling. they say obama's been restricting oil production, despite the fact that oil production is at its highest levels it's been in years and is continuing to zoom up. but they say, you know, the democrats are holding back oil production in this country. you know, one of the things that happens when the government's shut down is new drilling permits aren't processed. so why would the republicans say

to the folks who are interested in drilling for oil, sorry, we can't let those things be processed until we have some negotiations and we have some cover to do what we're supposed to be doing anyway? that doesn't make sense. if there's a way to solve this, it has to include reopening the government and saying america's not going to default, it's going to pay our bills. making -- they can attach some process to that that gives them some certainty that in fact things they're concerned about will be topics of negotiation. if my word's not good enough -- but i told them i'm happy to talk about it -- but if they want to specify all the items that they think need to be a topic of conversation, happy to do it. if they want to say we're going to go through line-by-line all the aspects of the president's health care plan that we don't like and we want the president to answer for those things, i'm happy to sit down with them for as many hours as they want. i won't let them gut a law that is going to make sure tens of millions of people actually get health care. but i'm happy to talk about it. stephen cohen. i'm just going through my list here. >> [inaudible] are we going to see u.s. military operations all around the continent, how does

that square with your contingent that america cannot be at war forever? >> if you look at the speech i gave at the national defense college several months ago, i outlined how i saw the shift in terrorism around the world and what we have to do to responds to it. and part of what i said is that we had decimated core al qaeda that had been operating primarily between afghanistan and pakistan, but you now had these regional groups, some of which are explicitly tied to al qaeda or that ideology, some of which are more localized. few of them have the ability to project beyond their borders, but they can do a lot of damage inside their borders. and africa is one of the places where, because in some cases a lack of capacity on the part of the governments, in some cases because it is easier for folks

to hide out, in vast terrains that are sparsely populated, that you're seeing some of these groups gather. and we're going to have to continue to go after them. but there's a difference between us going after terrorists who are plotting directly to do damage to the united states and us being involved in wars. the risks of terrorism and terrorist networks are going to continue for some time to come. we've got to have a long-term plan that is not just military-based. we've got to engage in a war of ideas in the region and engage with muslim c.r.s -- countries and try to isolate radical elements that are doing more damage to muslims than they're doing to anybody else. we've got to think about

economic development, because although there's not a direct correlation between terrorism and the economy, there's no doubt that if you've got a lot of unemployed, uneducated young men in societies, that there's a greater likelihood that terrorists recruits are available. but where you've got active plots and active networks, we're going to go after them. we prefer partnering with countries where this has taken place, wherever we, can and we want to build up their capacity. but we're not going to farm out our defense and i have to say by the way, the operations that took place both in libya and somalia were examples of the extraordinary skill and dedication and talent of our men and women in armed forces. they do their jobs extremely well. with great precision, and great risk to themselves. and i think they're pretty good examples for how those of us here in washington should operate as well. >> did the capture of mr. libby comply with international law? >> we know that he helped plan and execute plots that killed hundreds of people. a whole lot of americans.

and we have strong evidence of that. and he will be brought to justice. >> mr. president, while you're waiting for the shutdown to end, why is it that you can't go along with any of the bills the house is passing, funding the f.d.a. and fema, where you were yesterday, and veterans benefits and head start. you've got to be tempted to get funding to those programs that you support. >> of course i'm tempted.

because you'd like to think that you could solve at least some of the problems if you couldn't solve all of it. but here's the problem. what you've seen are bills that come up where wherever republicans are feeling political pressure, they put a bill forward. and if there's no political heat, if there's no television story on it, then nothing happens. and if we do some sort of shotgun approach like that, then you'll have some programs that are highly visible get funded and reopened, like national monuments, but things that don't get a lot of attention, like those s.b.a. loans, not being funded. and we don't get to select which programs we implement or not.

there are a whole bunch of things that the republicans have said are law that we have to do. and i don't get a chance to go back and say, you know what, this commaimy idea that this republican congressman came up with i really don't like so let's not implement that. once you have a budget and a government with a set of functions, you make sure that it's all operating. we don't get to pick and choose based on which party likes what. that's where the budget discussions take place. now, if there's some things that the republicans don't like, they should argue for eliminating those programs in the budget, come with an agreement with the democrats, maybe the democrats will agree, and those things won't be funded. but you don't do a piecemeal approach like that when you're dealing with a government shutdown. ok? >> on the military death gratuity -- [inaudible] >> i'm going to take one more question. >> mr. president -- >> your persistence has worked.

>> mr. president, you talked about the political dynamics that leaves house republicans feeling that they don't want to negotiate with you, they don't want to come to you. i wanted to ask you two things about that. look back at the 2011 default discussions and the budget drama, is there anything that you wish that you had done differently in 2011? and after this, what cau you call this nonsense ended, what do you expect the political dynamics might -- how might they have changed to move forward? >> i think that's an interesting question. in 2011 i entered into good-faith negotiations with john boehner. he had just won the speakership. it was at a time when because we were still responding to the recession deficits were high, people were concerned about it and i thought it was my obligation to meet him halfway. and so we had a whole series of talks and at that point at least nobody had any belief that people would come close to potential default. i don't regret having entered into those negotiations and we came fairly close. whenever i see john boehner to this day i still say, should

have taken the deal that i offered you back then. which would have dealt with our long-term deficit problems, would not have impeded growth as much, would have really boosted confidence. but at that time i think house republicans had just taken over, they were feeling their oaths but at that time, house republicans had just taken over. they were feeling their oats. they were thinking, we don't have to compromise. we came pretty close to default. we saw the impact of that. thought that they would have learned a lesson from is, we i did, which can't put the american people and the economy through that ringer again.