give up support. some of that support was very crucial to farms. it has been crucial to farmers to keep them from turning into bankruptcy, from farms from turning under, they're giving that up, no more direct payments. that's the kind of reforms we need to do. now, what they've asked for in return is a little protection of risk. the expense today to put out a field of crops, corn or soybeans, wheat, creates a tremendous amount of risk, risk that banks won't cover unless there's some sort of protection in the event of a flood, in the event of a hailstorm, a drought, sometimes all of the above, you can wipe out a single crop overnight. these farmers have invested their entire livelihood. they don't have a 401-k. they don't have a pension. they don't have some, you know, corporate plan to protect their retirement. their retirement, their future is in the crop they're laying out in that field. and so if that crop goes under and there's no crop insurance,

there's no protection for those farmers, then that -- those farmers go under. they go bankrupt and that way of life ends. and so, yes, so my heart goes out to those farmers that that may occur to. but it's a larger issue than just the farmers. without crop insurance, without that protection, those farmers may lose those farms. that means we don't have a food supply that we can count on. that means that the world doesn't have the food that they need to feed the hungry. and i know most people get food from the grocery store these days, but it comes from the fields of kansas and illinois and places in between. so it's my hope that congress, democrats, republicans, house, senate and the president will work together in the coming days to put a farm bill on the floor that we can all get behind, that can go to the president's desk and receive his signature. we've got a lot of divisions but we should be united today, all of us, in protection, in fighting for the american farmer. and with that i yield back. mr. davis: thank you, mr.

speaker. my colleague, mr. yoder from kansas, brought up so many great points of why it's crucial to have this debate here on the floor of the house. you know, it seems as though farmers get a bad rap. there's a lot of talk on this floor about growing our economy. and frankly ag has been a bright spot in our economy, mr. speaker. it's just like washington, because of inaction of a lot of times republicans and democrats, that we're not able to continue to allow them to grow their portion of the economy. it just seems like the right hand works against the left sometimes here in washington. i just want to see us put some good midwestern common sense that many of us learned right on the family farms in the midwest, right here into work, into action in washington, d.c. and speaking of common sense, i want to introduce my good friend, my colleague from the great state of pennsylvania, mr. thompson, and yield as much time as he may consume. mr. thompson: i thank the

gentleman. i couldn't agree more. i'd like to see a little farm country sense brought to washington. i think we could -- that was leading the charge on a lot of fronts, we could resolve some of these issues we've been facing pretty quickly. and i'm real proud, mr. speaker, to be here, to be talking about agriculture. when i was first elected in 2008, won in 2009, one of my first picks that i asked for for committee assignments was agriculture. and today i'm proud to serve as chairman of the subcommittee for conservation, energy and forestry on the agriculture committee. i'm proud to be from the keystone state. we had a number of folks, colleagues at that point, in 2009, ask me why would i ever be on agriculture? when i'm from pennsylvania. well, the fact is it's our number one industry in pennsylvania. we're one of the top providers and producers for the united

states. and sometimes other parts of the world in terms of our commodities that we raise and we grow and we can't speak enough about the importance of this farm bill. there's a lot of reasons why we all, every colleague in this chamber, should be supporting the farm bill. there only are less than i believe 100 of our districts, congressional districts, out of 435, where we actually grow and raise the food to feed this nation and much of the world. but the fact is, there's not, you know, every district has americans that shakes hands with a farmer at least three times a day. every time they pick up a fork. so one of the principles that guide me, mr. speaker, in terms of my decision making on any issue, i call it principle-based leadership. i always start and try to define what my principles are first. and when it comes to serving on the agriculture committee and

specifically with this farm bill , by the way, we have been working on this for, well, 4 1/2 years, actually. i remember having hearings when i first -- i was in the minority my first two years and we had hearings. first hearing was in harrisberg, pennsylvania, specifically on y title -- dairy title. but the principles that have guided me since day one here in terms of the agriculture is that america should always be the place where we have the most affordable, highest quality and safest food supply anywhere in the world. so every decision i've made in supporting the development and the writing and actually in the passing of this farm bill has been to honor those three principles. now, in addition to that, my good friend, i believe from michigan, who had talked about the importance of food security, and i agree with that. we should -- the biggest threat for national security, and there are a lot of them out there, mr. speaker, i mean, i've got two kids who just got back from afghanistan.

i understand terrorist threats and threats to our financial situation and -- but the most imminent threat to our national security would be at whatever point we would begin to rely on another country for our food supply. and this farm bill is the single most important piece of federal legislation that america has. there's a lot of things that this bill does, it repeals and consolidates more than 100 programs. this is a great example for the rest of the government. this is exactly step one on how we begin to reduce our spending appropriately. looking at things that either don't work, things that are duke cantive, -- duplicative. it eliminates direct payments which farmers receive regardless of market conditions. i'm not sure why have supported past farm bills, to tell you the truth, passed before i came here. but i support this one because the reforms we brought to the agriculture side and the nutrition side are very good. very good. very good for the sustainability

of our food supply and the programs such as our snap program. extreme lines and reforms, commodity policy, we're also giving producers a choice in how to best manage risk. it includes the first reforms to the supplemental nutrition assistance program since the welfare reform act of 1996. why is that important? because the reforms we put in place, it preserves the future integrity of the food stamp program so that those in the future who need those programs, those men, women and children who find themselves in circumstances of finding themselves in poverty circumstances, where they need that assistance, they'll get it. if we protect the integrity of that program. and it's only through these reforms that we're putting into place that we offer those protections so that we assure -- are sure that the food stamp program continues into the future to meet the needs of those who need it. it consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13 and improves delivery to producers and saves

more than $6 billion. now, that's an area of farm title that i chair. the subcommittee has jurisdiction on conservation. and there are at least four reasons i can think of why it's extremely -- that that move is extremely important. number one is it's cost. this country's facing significant debt. so we have to be conscious and careful of our spending and we know that the farm bill, the pie itself, would be smaller. and so i think that's just one of the realities. second is the need. you know, we have -- we're a country that feeds not just 311 million americans, but we are feeding a lot of the rest of the world. and to allow land to sit idle under the context of some government-funded convation program, well, that's just wrong. we don't want people to go hungry. so putting more land that's appropriate back into productivity is a very appropriate thing to do and we do that with this farm bill. the third is effectiveness.

the fact is that we have had perfectly -- under the existing conservation programs before the reforms we proposed, we have perfectly sound, tillble land sitting islandle and falow and receiving some type of government support under our conservation program to do that. i have met young individuals, i'm very impressed with, that want to go into farming, that have never been in farming before. some of them have been in farming. but they can't afford to go out and purchase acreage. so they have to rent acreage. and they're competing under the existing conservation programs with the government. and in competing with the government, they can't do that. they just can't pay that. there's many parts to this farm bill that -- all the parts to this farm bill have been well thought out and well prepared and i'm appreciative of the work that's been done. the fact that we're strengthening science and the role of science and technology when it comes to agriculture, a lot of people talk about stem.

i like to talk about steam. agriculture is all about science and technology. alma shoutout to my own mater, penn state university. those universities help us advance that science and innovation and that technology and just finally talking a little bit briefly about -- we have probably one of the best forestry titles that we've ever had in this farm bill in maybe 100 years. we've got great things in there in terms of making sure that timber is recognized and eligible for that bio-preferred labeling. today of all things, the original renewable resource of wood has never been eligible. you could buy a box of bamboo flooring and we don't grow bamboo in this country, and it's got a usda stamp of approval. but you've got a box of good hardwood cherry from pennsylvania and it's not eligible. that changes in this farm bill

that we passed out of the house and we're going to go to conference in the senate on. the categorical exclusion allows the forest service not to have to waste money during these nepa analysis every time they do trail maintenance or clear power lines or just routine things that takes money away from actively managing a forest in a healthy way. and finally the forest access road, which was a great endment, which basically reinforces that our forests are nonpoint sources of pollution. that goes a long ways in terms of allowing our forests to be managed under state-adopted best practices. and so i want to thank the gentleman for coordinating this special order on a subject that every american should be fully intuned to because of how important it is to have affordable, high-quality and safe food. that's what our farm bill does. i yield back. mr. davis: thank you to my good friend and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. speaker. i do want to address something

that my colleague from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, brought up. he talked about research. research in agriculture is crucial to our ability here in america to continue to feed the world. we feed the world from america's farms. and it's underappreciated, taken for granted. part of this farm bill is a research title where the agricultural and food research initiative through the national institute for food and agriculture was re-authorized. other ways we strengthened and promoted ag research in this bill are doing things like providing new research funding for specialty crops, beginning farmers and organic agriculture. we've improved public accountability and transparency of the ag research programs. and we've harmonized policies under the various competitive grants programs to improve program efficiency and reduce wasteful spending. many of my colleagues are talking about ag can leading the way in reducing spending here in

washington. our farmers need to be congratulated for that. the university of illinois in my district, another land grant institution, uses many of these public research programs. and our students are being trained on how to make our food supply safer and better. and through the university of illinois has conducted cutting-edge research aimed at improving food security, achieving more efficient crop production and promoting animal health through livestock genome sequencing. and let us not forget, mr. speaker, the southern illinois university corn to ethanol research center. this is an example of a public-private partnership that is working. where public funds were used in its initial construction. but private entities are doing cutting-edge research to make our nation's fuel supply cheaper and make our nation's security better. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize my good friend and colleague from the great state of indiana, mr. messer,

for as much time as he may consume. mr. messer: thank you. i want to thank my colleague and friend from illinois, congressman davis, for his incredible leadership on this issue. i know of nobody in congress who is working harder for the american people -- american family farmer than congressman davis and this special order today is just one more example of your leadership. thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. farming is hard work. and it's vital to indiana. ag industries contribute almost $38 billion a year to the hoosier economy. supporting nearly 190,000 jobs. the farmers who provide these jobs work from dusk until way past dawn and face great risks when withering droughts or excess rains threaten to wreck their crops -- reck their crops. despite these challenges, hoosier farmers manage to overcome adversity, succeed in

their business and feed the world. too often their work is made even harder because of uncertainties and inefficiencies in federal farm policy. the problems with federal farm laws are many. price supports inflate the prices of some consumer goods, payments are made to people not actually farming, outdated and duplicative programs waste money that could be put to better use. rules regarding disaster assistance are complicated and fail to provide enough certainty about whether and what farmers will receive when they reinvest profits in their family business. many are surprised that the supplemental nutrition assistance program, commonly called food stamps, is administered by the department of agriculture, the usda.

most agree the program is not well managed, it pays too many people who should not be eligible for help, diverting help from those who really need assistance. there aren't enough incentives to encourage people to find work and there's too much waste, fraud, and abuse. that's why we need a farm bill. the farm bill, which passed the house, is not perfect. but it would have -- it would over the next decade new york part by repealing or consolidating more than 100 programs that don't work, could work better or are duplicative in purpose. the bill would stop the nonsense policy of paying people not to farm and instead it would give farmers greater flexibility to utilize federally backed crop

insurance to manage risks. it also would require food stamp recipients to work more, get drug tested and become self-sufficient. american icon paul harvey once said, and on the eighth day god looked down on his planned pair dice and said, i need a caretaker. and so god made the farmer. others have spoken about how important it is that we stand up and be a champion for those who farm. a defeat of the farm bill mane tains the status quo. we need a conference, and we need a farm bill. defeat would hurt farmers and taxpayers but both need the certainty of knowing that farm and nutrition assistance programs work as they should so

scarce taxpayer resources aren't wasted on food stamp fraud or programs that just don't work. we need commonsense farm reform policy to prevent waste and make sure the next generation of farmers get their chance to run the family farm. thank you. i yield back to mr. davis. mr. davis: thank you to my good friend and colleague, congressman luke messer a true leader on so many issues here in congress and the midwest. thank you for being here today to tout how important agriculture is to our economy. i know much has been brought up about crop insurance. some who don't represent districts think that crop insurance is wasteful. let me tell you, let me remind

everyone, mr. speaker, before we had a crop insurance program, farmers didn't have to have skin in the game. they have to pay premiums just like we do for life insurance, auto insurance and other types of insurance. this is what makes america work. this is why crop insurance is working. before this program, we would have supplemental add hoc disaster assistance where members of congress that served before many of us would come to this floor and pass bills to fund disaster assistance. let me remind you, mr. speaker, those weren't budgeted. in a time where decisions were made to basically put the financial future of our country in jeopardy decades before now, they were still passing disaster assistance bills that cost taxpayers billions. crop insurance changed that. farmers had skin in the game. they pay their premiums and it stops us, stops congress right

now, from spending beyond its means. it's been said before, bill, this farm bill is an example of how washington begins to work once again. we're looking forward our -- toward our financial future. we're looking to balance our budget through bills like this farm bill. and we're going to going put a down payment on this unsustainable debt that my kids, your kids, shouldn't have to pay. i want to yield some time to my friend from my birth place state, the great state of iowa mitigating circumstance good friend and colleague and leader in ag policy, mr. king. i yield him as much time as he may consume, mr. speaker. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from illinois for organizing this special order here today and committing an hour of floor time to the discussion of the

farm bill and the need to get one passed. we don't get many debates on agriculture here in the house of representatives. fewer and fewer people represent agriculture districts. there's been not so much a migration of people from the farms, though that's happened, but a concentration of people in the cities and they lose track of where their food comes from and what it takes to produce that food. we're here at this point, i want to start with the gentleman from illinois' remarks with regard to crop insurance. i'm going to pull these numbers off from memory, anyone can go back and check it, but it's going to be conceptually accurate and perhaps even precisely right. my memory serves me, those years when it couldn't rain, back in the 1980's, in 1988, 13% of the producers had crop insurance from that time on forward until this modern era, there were disaster payments after disaster payments, any place that had a

drought, any place that had a flood, there was a discussion in congress and sometimes those disaster areas got rolled up together, let's take a disaster in -- out west and add that to a disaster in the midwest and add that to a disaster in the south and it might be a flood and two droughts packaged together with a disaster pame to bail people out. i remember when i first came here in 2003 there was a drought out west in nebraska. was there going to be disaster money? we looked at that. looked at aerial photos. it looked like here were these beautiful green circumstance frls the air and they were going to be in areas that got disaster payments. you know what those are if you're from farm country, those were the pivoter fwation system, but in the corners, they said we ought to get disaster for our corners, the four corners of them, even though we've got a good crop, 200 bushels of corn

here in the pivot system. i want to thank the representative from nebraska, tom oz burn, who also was a -- os burn who also was a pretty good football coach who said, this isn't right. let's get that part correct. we don't have those discussions anymore, because back in 1988, those 13% had crop insurance, now i believe it's 88% do. because of that, we suffered through the worst flood in my lifetime in 2011 where the missouri river ran hill to hill from mid june to mid september, flooded out, according to the secretary of agriculture, 500,000 acres under water, all of that was a complete wipeout. you could fly over it and see corn. you could row corn that was in three feet of water, corn that was about a foot and a half tall when it got covered with the flood. we didn't have a disaster payment for that because the

crop insurance covered it. the following year, 2012, epic drought. the crop insurance covered it. in many states, let's start with my state that i know, the premium reflects the risk. now it shifts from state to state and history to history ry, it's hard to do that calculation. you might have a drought, and the next year might be a flood year and the next 225 years might be perfect. you -- a yen ration may be the better way to look at it. the premium needs to be moved in a direction where it better reflects the risk. but it has been a very god they can the crop insurance piece of this as i look at the farm bill, i want to remind people, mr. speaker, that for years there have been direct payments, direct payments that went into the producer who signed up per acre, roughly a $20 per acre

payment might be reflective of that era. we saw this. we saw commodities prices going up. we saw profitability in agriculture. when that happened, our producers came to us. people like farm bureau, corn growers, the soybean association they said the time comes when we need to let go of direct payments. they came forward and said here, will you take my direct payments, i don't need them. hats off to anybody that's got federal dollars coming into their operation. they gave up direct payments willingly. that's in this bill, ends it permanently. last farm bill, 2008 farm bill it turned out to be, i tried to rename the direct payments then as conservation compliance payments because that's what they actually were. if they existed, i would say they are, it's a way to say to producers that all of us are invested in the future productivity of our soil and

we're fwoning to ask you to be good stewards of the soil and this is your -- actually in many cases, a token incentive that you do that. so that's going by the wayside this bill also eliminates several existing programs, enrolls -- roll into two separate programs, a shallow loss and deep loss program, that i think is a prudent use of resources. we also said we're fwoning to cut money out of this ag side, not just in direct payments but we've dialed it down to the tune of $20 billion, $20 billion in cuts out of this bill on the agriculture side and to draw a comparison, mr. speaker, one could think of the other part of this farm bill that is not much discussed, i don't know, today, that is jurisdiction of the subcommittee that i chair, the nutrition subcommittee. the numbers were about 7 % of the previous farm bill went to nutrition and about 20% a little better than 20% went to agriculture and some

miscellaneous along the way. so we rounded it. for easy talking purposes, 80% to snap, food stamps, nutrition programs. 20% to farmers. we call et the farm bill but it's 4-1 knew tregs. and we -- nutrition. and we watched also, when i came to this town, there were 19 million people on food stamps and we called them food stamps then. and by the time barack obama became president that number was about 28 million people on food stamps. and now that number is north of 47 million on its way to 48 million people on food stamps. now it's partly because this administration believes, and they have said openly, in fact i'll just quote our secretary of agriculture, for every $1 you hand out in snap benefits that means food stamps, for every $1 you hand out you get $1.84 in economic activity. i've heard steny hoyer, the minority whip, say to us, the best stimulation you can get,

the quickest you can get in your economy is food stamps and unemployment checks. now there's an economic development lan for you, isn't it, mr. speaker -- plan for you, isn't it, mr. speaker? if you hand out more food stamps and more unemployment checks that's the best bump you can get to grow the economy. what kind of country are we if we think that's going to help the economy? people on that side resisted the reduction of the food stamp program, we brought in categorical changes into it. as it's grown into an $800 billion program, and we've gone from 19 million people a yore on food stamps to 28 million people when barack obama became president up to now 48 million people on food stamps with millions being spent by the usda to advertise food stamps to get more people to sign up on food stamps, and minions going out there physically signing them

up, that's what's going on. we don't need to be expending the -- expanding the dependency class in america we need to expand the independency class in america. we need to get resources to people that need them. that's what this bill does. it changes the categorical eligibility in such a way that those who need as the resources have access to them. in one of those cat gorical eligibility changes, it these do with if a child qualifies for free and reduced lunch, that isn't automatic that the family gets food stamps any longer under this bill, people on the other side of the aisle have used that to argue we're going to kick 120,000 kids off food stamps. that's the most extreme example they can come up with to embellish a number to scare people off the reform they need. what it means is if that number is right, they have to re-apply in a legit may way, if they're

eligible, they're eligible and will still get their food stamps. but they found a little sliver to make an argument. we see e.b.t. cards, the electronic benefit transfer cards have been used for tattoos, used at the massage parlor, you can see neon signs that say, we take e.b.t. that's just straight up, that's not talking about the 50% discount that is the going rate of cash you can get for your e.b.t. card. we need to move these reforms in place, we've seen agriculture producers step up and say i'll give up my conservation compliance/direct payments and we'll reform the programs, keep the pieces in place we need, so that there is a predictability in agriculture. our producers need predictability. there's no guarantee when it comes to agriculture, you're taking a risk but at least we can predict the federal

government's policy, we need five yoferse policy guarantee for our agriculture producers, we need to start the long march to start to reform the expansion of the dependency class that's been a political calculation on the part of the administration. do the responsible thing for the taxpayers and by the way, slow down this burden that's being heaped on those children yet to be born called our national debt. that's the picture, there's an urgency, let's get this done, i thank the gentleman from illinois for his leadership here and i'm happy to yield to a question. mr. thompson: are the school lunch programs within title 4 of the farm bill? mr. king: in response to the gentleman's question, no. school lunch programs are not. mr. thompson: i guess -- that was my reading, i have read the farm bill. yet i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about with the changes to the reforms, and as i've mentioned my remarks and you reaffirmed,

we're trying to preserve this program for people who truly need it, who meet the eligibility by filling out an application. but i guess i get confused when i hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use rhetoric that they claim that somehow school lunches are impacted or the school breakfast program is impacted by our work on the farm bill. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i would say that there are times when people that are in the political business will intentionally con flate terms and arguments because it suits their agenda rather than informs their constituents. and that's what i believe is happening here. and if anyone is looking for proof-positive that school lunch program is not part of title 4, any part of this farm bill, all they have to do is look at the record of the committee and they can see that this person right here, steve king, offered no amendment to the school lunch program that would have prohibited the secretary of agriculture from rationing

calories to our kids in the school lunch program. i wish we had that language for us here on the floor of the house of representatives. we would have an engaging debate. in fact, a year and a half ago, if i've got my dates right, in any case, the first lady had an idea that she wanted to let -- the let's move program to go and she wanteds to get a healthy and hunger-free kids act. it was passed by the then speaker pelosi was the speaker of the house at the time. they passed healthy and hunger-free kids act. that was -- it gave no authority to the secretary of agriculture to ration calories to kids in the school lunch program which is not part of this farm bill. but they did it anyway. now we're starving kids in school and that ought to be something that outrages the other side. but they will not show any outrage because they defend the first lady's let's move. which by the way is a critical service and it was not shut down in the shutdown and i'd yield back to the gentleman from illinois.

mr. davis: thank you to the gentleman from iowa. mr. speaker, how much time do we have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. davis: three minutes. three minutes. i love the discussion about school nutrition programs. i've spoken to many superintendents in my district who are useed to run programs in their cafeterias were kids would eat the school lunches and now those once profitable programs are not profitable anymore. some school districts are opting out because of the stringent rules and requirements to reduce calories and serve food that kids won't eat. i mean, and let me also for the record, mr. speaker, state that we're missing an important part of any equation in tackling childhood obesity and that's exercise. illinois, my home state, is the only state in the nation that quires physical education in k-12. maybe we make that part of the debate too. well, as i wrap up this special

order, i want to thank everyone, all of my colleagues, for coming down and talking about the importance of this five-year farm bill. i cannot -- it cannot be said enough that farmers have decided on their own to help us save billions in your tax dollars. $20 billion is what the farmers of this country have given up in direct payments to really allow us to balance our budget and put a down payment on the national debt. but there are some other crucial aspects of this bill, mr. speaker, that we don't talk a lot about in the ag sector. but it's about the rules and the regulatory process. i was happy to introduce an amendment that actually gives the department of agriculture a seat at the table, when those at the e.p.a. decide to come up with rules like maybe treating milk spills like oil spills from the exxon valdez. mr. speaker, i ask you one question, which one of those spills could be cleaned up with cats? you know the answer, i know the

answer. but when they come up with crazy ideas like this, we believe that the united states department of agriculture also deserves a seat at the table to say, in the good, commonsense midwestern way, hang on a second here. let's think about this. that's why an amendment like that is crucial to a farm bill like this. because it's crazy ideas like that that cost our farmers their livelihoods. in some cases. mr. speaker, this is a bill that is going to save taxpayers billions. it is reforming crucial agricultural programs, it is putting us on a path to certainty for america's agricultural future. and there are some in this body, mr. speaker, that believe we shouldn't be involved in ag policy in this country. well, my response to them is, do you want america to be a food

exporter like we are now? or do you want toimport our food supply -- to import our food supply? we know the answer to that, mr. speaker. and the answer, the solution to making sure that doesn't happen is getting this bill through a quick conference committee, bringing it back to the floor of the house and ensuring that our family farmers and all those who rely upon the ag committee for their livelihood -- economy for their livelihood are put first. and, mr. speaker, with that i thank everyone who has been involved in this process, my staff, many interns that have worked for me, to put this special order in place, and i thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. if i have any. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for

0 minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the speaker for his courtesies. and thank my friends on the ther side of the aisle who engaged in an hour-long discussion that i'm sure that many of my colleagues were certainly interested in. want to congratulate the organization in my constituency, catholic charities. catholic charities in houston is 70 years old. and has a storied history of service. i had the privilege of being inspired by a wonderful mass led by cardinal denardo that

catapulted that special day into the understanding of who we are in this country and how our service is guided by the principles of our faith. i remember that in his words to the congregation, he offered these phrases. the just live by faith. even a little faith can do great things. he added that when you are acting in faith, you are serving. i think those are powerful words for all of us, whether we're republicans or democrats or other in our political beliefs. that is what we are sent here to do. we're really sent here to speak

for those who cannot speak for themselves, to speak for the vulnerable, and to ensure that the united states of america remains an umbrella on a rainy can day. for our country's principles are vested in a wonderful constitution that says that we all are created equal, with a number of rights that allow us the pursuit of great things such , if we y and health interpret the term happiness to mean we have a variety of rights. certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and so where we find ourself on october 10, in the midst of this government shutdown, 10th day, does not comport with the very

principles of this nation and our constitution that says that we have organized to create a more perfect union. as i listen to my friends have a long discussion, they had some very vital points about the importance of the farm bill. a bill that we've not been able to bring to closure because the government is shut down. but even more importantly, we have not been able to put the phrase of just and acting by faith in the midst of that legislative initiative. our friends did not take note of the fact that $40 billion was cut out of food stamps. they didn't take note of that. $40 billion for people who are hungry. $46 million -- 46 million americans live in poverty. they are poor, but they're americans. they deserve equality. 16 million of those are children. but yet someone says it's the

dependency group. maybe the 47%. i say those are the next astronauts and captains in military, presidents of the united states, teachers, inventors, scientists who may need food stamps. and so i'd like to talk this afternoon in the short period of time that i have in finding the ruth, also recognizing the difficulties that we are now in with the government shutdown. let me pause for a moment and say that i know as i speak republicans are meeting with the president. we met yesterday. the president made it very clear and was very strong on wanting to see america move forward. but was very strong on the fact that we needed to come together around a clean bill. a bill that could be put on the floor with 200-plus democrats here in the house and a sturdy amount of republicans.

that is just. we know that republicans were invited to hold conference. of course they decided that they wanted a few to come and meet with the president. of course it is their choice. in a sense of humor i said, there's an i.o.u. to my other republican friends that didn't make it to the white house today. but i hope the discussion doesn't center around leaving the government closed. i hope it doesn't center around a six-week raising of the debt ceiling. though i am open to any way forward, but i would hope in my discussion you swee why that is faulty thinking -- you would see why that is faulty thinking. but i do want to thank my original co-sponsors who join me today to introduce this very important legislation, h.res. 375, which now makes the statement that this house will never, i want to say it again, never, i'm going to say it again, never tie a nongermane

legislative issue to the running and opening of this government. what does that mean? we will never do what we have done, which is to defund a law approved by both houses of congress, the president of the united states and the united states supreme court, the affordable care act, and hold up the government while we are fighting against it because we don't like it. h.r. 375 is legislation to have this house go on record to ensure that we do not ever do that and tie the government's hands and void the services that are relevant to my constituent who again i will call in a few moments who is a cancer patient coming out of a hospital and is fearful of losing her disability checks because of the government shutdown. we're getting any number of phone calls on that matter.

so here's why i hope many of my colleagues, republicans and democrats, will support h.res. 375, which will put us back in regular order and do things in the right way. my friends, i will acknowledge that all states are hurting, but let me first of all just cite for you the state of texas, one of the largest states in the of , and show the faces go to o are looking to head start, our children. this is all over mesh america, 50,000 head start seats are lost because of the shutdown, because of the furlough, because of

sequester. and now we continue down this are sequestration, cuts forcing marla rosen to cut her preschool dreams for her son hector, maybe the next captain in the united states military, maybe the next pediatric surgeon, maybe the next outstanding professor of law, maybe the next wonderful teacher in an elementary school. but right now, the head start program for 3 to 4-year-olds in $5.341 are being cut by employees, ars, 109 600 slots for children. this is in texas, this is in houston, not even the entire state. this is what we get when we begin to think of the dependency owd and it is important that

we understand the results of what's happening. poster in eep this mind. i just want you to look at those faces and what's going on across america. we've got the government shutdown. we can't fix the sequester, which by the way, the van hollen democratic budget is not only growth for jobs, but it is also -- it also fixes the sequester, gets people back to work. it is well known we are losing jobs here, 1% of the economy is going down because of sequester, we can't fix it because the government is shut down. now if you want to know what's happening across america, $2.24 billion in title 1 grants have been cut and so our young people who need high poverty schools and who need to be able to have title 1 grants to help them in

the education, mr. speaker, it's simply gone. title 1 funding at current levels will not merely reduce the level of services to our poorest and lowest achieving students but would likely cause the elimination of services to millions of students. teachers know that. they know what is happening by osing $2.24 billion. so hector doesn't get head start, then we take it beyond the pre-k to the k through 12, to our high school, where we look for young people to take their rightful place in society and here we are cutting them again. i guess it is the dependency crowd, these cuts come after a the numb of chern living in poverty has grown from 16.3%, as i said earlier, let me update it, to 21.9%. losing opportunities for our children. here's a more tragic feature.

for our special needs children, because the government is shut down, we cannot fix the $1.73 billion we have lost out of helping our special needs children. the very children who need a stair step to help them climb up and be all that they can be. some parent is out there feeling the pain of not having services for their special needs child because the government is shut down and we cannot get back to the business of appropriation, fixing the sequester. child care and development block grant, another problem. here we're losing dollars. $142 million in real, per capita dollars. to be able to say that we don't have child care. developmental block grants. i just want to refer you back to my good friend hector.

and his mother. these are the problems that a e facing because we have shutdown of the government. a two -- our good friend the speaker is meeting with the president as we speak. he's entertaining the idea of a debt ceiling increase to pay our bill the full faith and credit, to save us from a mortgage collapse, save us from our credit cards' interest rates shooting through the roof, to hopefully stop the increase in small business loans and young families trying to get mortgages on their homes or get a home, what a country if that happens. mr. speaker, they're suggesting that in fact we will not open the government. how is that possible? how is that possible? i see my good friend here, i'm

going to yield to the distinguished gentleman from illinois who has been a champion on childhood development, on dealing with the special needs child, on dealing with assisting in developmental issues of children, on dealing with rehabilitating families, giving second chances to some of our individuals who have found a different path. as i do that to him, i want to remind my colleagues that we're not too far away from veterans day. and as of october 15, this is probably happening around america, that veterans' cemeteries will reducer that staff and reduce their burials. this is the friend that we talk about over and over again. in fact, we have heard a constant refrain, why are you giving me accolades and cutting

my veteranser is vess cent, not allowing home lets veterans to be placed or get job train, but here we are, telling families that there lab slow process in burying and giving honor and dignity to your loved one because of the government shutdown. mr. speaker, let's unlock these doors and let the workers work. i've heard from them personally. they want to get back to work. let me now yield to my distinguished friend, danny davis, who serves on the ways and means committee, serves on the education committee. we have co-chaired a number of summits or seminars and sessions, brain trusts, on the issue of childhood development. the distinguished gentleman from craig, illinois, danny davis. mr. davis: let me first of all thank you for the leadership you have provided and continue to provide.

those of white house know you well, we often joke and say that we don't know anybody that's got as much energy as you've got. i mean, you're here this minute, you're someplace else the next minute, you're dealing with -- i had a group of laities in the hallway the other day, they were from houston, and they were wives of ministers and one happened to have been a lady who had once lived in the community where my office was located in hey, you wentaid, to houston and found yourself a minister, you've got yourself a husband, it must be a good place. it must be a good place for people to go. but i just want to join you in highlighting, you know, we talk a great deal about low income people. we talk a great deal about safety net and it seems to me

that our colleagues have decided to attack every safety net program that there is. no matter what it is. they believe that it's providing too much and that government really ought not be a government of service that government should be a government of coordination, it should just be a government of rules and regulations. but it should not provide any help. any assistance to those individuals who have fallen ohard times and tough -- on hard times and tough times. i've always believed you can measure the effectiveness of a government by how well it treats its young people, how well it treats its old people, and how well it deals with the needs of those who have difficulty caring for themselves. but i represent a very diverse

district. not only do i have all of these individuals who have all of the needs that we just mentioned, i represent the futures industry. you know, the board of trade. the marcan teal exchange, the stock -- the mercantile exchange, the stock market. i was sitting beside a trader on the airplane last week, he was moaning and groaning and talking about how devastating this shutdown is on the overall economy of our country. you know, you think in terms of the individuals who receive the benefits of a w.i.c. program but guess what? if those who produce the food, if they can't sell it, if they can't move it, if they can't do anything with it, what's going to happen? it sits in somebody's warehouse

and rots. it sits in somebody's warehouse and spoils. and so this slows down the economy in order for the economy to get a lift, to pick up, people must be buying and selling, providing services, exchanging goods, exchanging ideas, moving money, moving money around, otherwise the economy goes flat. nothing is happening. so i don't know how we think that shutting down the government, chicago is a big town and of course it's a regional office town and so there are a lot of government workers, we are the regional headquarters for illinois, indiana, ohio, wisconsin, minnesota.

lot of fovet workers there. now all of these individuals laid off. not being table ride the c.t.a., that takes money out of the transit system. not having to come downtown and park their cars, that takes money out of the parking garages. just like it is around here now. practically dead. all of the things that people would normally be doing, people who work in the cleaners, they can't work because there's nobody there to bring the clothes. the restaurants are practically empty. so it seems to me that there is an effort not to move the economy but to shut down the economy of our country. makes no sense at all. none whatsoever. and so we've actually seen a

shift now, people finally are beginning to decide that hey, obamacare, as they like to call it, and let me tell you, for me it's the best thing that ever happened to health care sense the indians discovered corn flakes. it provides an opportunity for millions of people to get care who never, ever had health insurance during their lifetime. never ever. and so now we see that that's going to stay. i mean, there's so many people signing up in illinois. we just can't even keep up with them, our county government has signed up more than 100,000 people in one county. in cook county alone. they started before we really it because they got a waiver

and were table do it. so i want to commend you again for he the leadership and the dynamic way in which you function, helping the american people know that we can't standstill, can't stop. we've got to keep moving and that struggle, struggle, strife and pain, as frederick douglass would say are the prerequisites for change. if we want cheage, we've got to keep struggling. that's exactly what we're going to do. i yield back. ms. jackson lee: what a significant, enlightened presentation by congressman davis if i might summarize his very broad and effective presentationed on the educating of our members, he has spoken about the collateral damage and the collateral damage, mr. davis is spreading like wildfire. you added to it, it's parking fwradges, it's the c.t.a. or the

m.t.a. or the metro. it is the restaurants. it is the district of columbia that is a collateral damage a city that has to keep its doors open but lo and behold it's being impacted by the shutdown. again, workers are shut out and shut down. if i might ask the speaker how much time is remaining, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has nine minutes remaining. . ms. jackson lee: if i might take a moment and mr. davis may want to comment as i proside on some facts. i know he's been a leader on some of these issues like snap and w.i.c., but let me just, because texas is just viewed as a well-to-do state and we don't need anything. and again it struck me the previous dialogue and debate on he floor that talked about

dependency crowd on food stamps. i said there are 46 million people living in poverty and growing. i didn't say they were nondeserving. i didn't say that they were deadbeats. i didn't say that they were making up their poverty. i didn't say they weren't working. i said there are 46 million people living below the poverty line and a large majority of them, large numbers of them are children. and so it bothers me for individuals to talk about that we got a dependency crowd and we got to have these reforms and what we're doing with reforms and sequester is we're taking food out of the mouths of children. we can't say it any other way. food out of the mouths of children. and so i just some of our friends to know that even though there's a bemoaning about getting the ag bill passed, the agriculture bill passed, and i'm out of texas and have always voted for the ag bill because my district is surrounded by ranchers and

others who need the farm bill. we've never separated on the farm bill in the state of texas. we've had a lot of support, but when you cut $40 billion out of food stamps and you begin to talk about the deadbeats, that gets to be a problem. -- and w.i.c., 47.8 people 47.8 million people are on w.i.c. funding for these people need to be ensured. ensuring that the one or two that are violating the requirements, nobody's arguing for maintaining those individuals. but what we're saying is that there's collateral damage. farmers are being impacted. by the way, the rural development and farm services agency, 99% of those employees are furloughed. and my good friend just got

through talking about the commodities. let me just say these points. i'm going back to texas again. noted as a big and well-to-do state. but in actuality in a couple of days, mr. davis, we're standing to lose and have an impact or cutback for $64.6 billion. the government has shut down. 515 million were in federal highways. we were in a meeting with the texas department of transportation. we have 1,200 people a day moving into texas. $130 million in home energy assistance for the poor shut down. $71 million in homeland security grants at our ports, shut down. our borders shut down. $55 million in coordinated border infrastructure. when i say the border is shut down, what i mean is the resources that they need and $97 million in something that i worked with senator landrieu on, federal adoption assistance to help our children. now, let me say, and i started

by saying that we organized to form a more perfect union. i'm aghast that the wheels of justice have come off, the department of justice is in a complete dilemma. there are people that are keeping the lights on and doing what is needed for the absolute necessity of making sure the principles of our constitution are not destroyed, but we've lost 950 lawyers who have cases pending. 4,000 u.s. attorneys. we are seeing the immigration review cases where people are fighting to keep their loved ones who legitimately should be here, 950 are gone. in the environmental division, 350 lawyers. tax division, 250 people expecting their refunds so they can pay their bills. marshal service, u.s. marshal service, what a disgrace, 500 are gone. why?

because the government is shut down. so i wanted to, before i close, if the gentleman wants to offer a word on this, where are we in this shutdown? mrs. davis: well, let me say -- mr. davis: well, let me say something about the farm bill, because i'm sympathetic and empathetic with farmers. i grew up on a farm, so i know a little bit about farming and how valuable. illinois is a great farm state. ms. jackson lee: it is. mr. davis: you know, i'm not in favor of these great big subsidies that we give to some people like sugar growers that help to keep the price of sugar so high so the candy makers and cookie makers and ice cream processors have serious difficulty making or producing the products that they sell. so there's a lot of give and take in these decisions that we make.

there ought to be enough give and take to know that it can't just be my way or the highway. it can't just be my thoughts and ideas. it's time to really put behind us all of the difficulties that we've had, and i'm hoping that the next time i go home that i can tell the people in my district, yes, we've reached an agreement. the government is going to reopen. we're going to function, and america is going to move like we know it can, like we know it will, and that's going to be the legacy of this shutdown is that we're going to cut it off and reopen. and i thank you for the opportunity. ms. jackson lee: i thank you so very much. let me just say i'm on the sugar farm side of the issue, but we're on the same side of the coin on opening the government. and i want to thank congressman davis. and i want to make mention of my fellow texas colleague,

democratic colleagues who stood together at 1:00 p.m. today, all of them calling for a bipartisan solution. actually, calling upon our good friends, our senators in the other body out of the state of texas to come and stand with us and follow in the tradition of the catholic charities mission of helping our brother and sister, the most vulnerable. the words that this government is an umbrella on a rainy day, cancer victims, children who need head start seats, the justice system of america, the interstate highway of america, sick patients in hospital beds needing disability checks, veterans who need service centers and need the resources of hospitals, all of these and beyond, teachers who are living under the pressure of a sequester that cuts off the money for their impoverished

students and the services for special needs children, all tied into the sequester, all at a stand still because of the shutdown. and so what is our plea today? our plea today is to recognize that we can't live in this world alone and that it is imperative that we unshackle ourselves. koch brothers that sent a letter that said, don't blame us. we never tied defunding obamacare. we never wanted to tie that to the funding of the government. i consider that a get out of jail free card. i hope all the members of congress are getting it so it means you can vote on a clean bill and lift the debt ceiling for a period of time that allow america to pay her bills. young couples will get mortgages. young families will get loans. that's what we should be doing. and i will take in the words of my good friend, we want a way

forward in a bipartisan manner, but what i would offer to say to you, that america, the greatest country in the world, has a constitution that has said, we organize for a more perfect union. and in fact, we have that perfect union if we can open this government. e all are created equal. with certain inalienable rights . mr. speaker, i thank you for allowing me to speak to my colleagues. i think tomorrow we may have something on the floor that opens the government. vote, put it on the floor, a clean bill so we can vote and open the government and we have a message forward for lifting the debt ceiling. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

we have a special guest today, the ranking member on the budget committee, a frequent does it hurt our meetings, chris van hollen of maryland, and ranking

member of the budget committee, one who represents the values of our country so beautifully in congress. today marks the 10th day of the republican government shut down. listening to workers talk about how they want to open government to go back to work. it is very clear. one person has the key to open government, and that is the speaker. we had said if he opens that door we can give him 200 votes to open government and funded government. want him to open government so we can go to the budget table and also to render our part of as a minority to clear the way as heart of that discussion. we want the speaker to use that key. we were getting soaking wet, it was nothing compared to how

drenched the american people were from these policies, whether it is -- you know the list of concerns. veterans, children on head start and the rest. the list goes on and on. different offered 13 motions on the house floor. 13 opportunities for the republicans to open government. agreeing to their numbers. the republican numbers. each time the republican readership has rejected its own number. this saturday members of congress can now under the rules start signing our discharge petition to force a vote on a clean continuing resolution to open government. all house democrats have reaffirmed their support. 30 house republicans say they want an up or down vote on this. we think the end could be

inside. it could happen in the next five minutes. with one person, the speaker of the house, if he would bring to the floor the bill. he has the key. with all that is going on, you do not know because we have not been told, and the rules committee has not met, but there is some talk of an extension of the ability to extend the ceiling for six weeks. we do not know the terms that go with it. what we here are ominous, but let's see what it is, given the chance if it has any value. lifting ofix-week the debt ceiling is not the right way to go him and i think we should go at least one year so there is some certainty in the market so that every six weeks people do not have to wonder if the united states america wilson dan by its full faith and credit. nonetheless, let's see what they have to offer. as you know, if we were to

default, credit markets could freeze, the value of the dollar could plummet, interest rates could skyrocket, and for individuals, or 401(k) would go down, your interest payments on your car, your mortgage, student loans, whatever, small business loans, all of that would rise. it is not anything we should to, butgetting close nonetheless, we are. we hope what the republicans responsible so that we can hopefully get to a place to follow the lead that the senate has taken to take liftedbt ceiling until december of next year. it is really sad. we were out there in the rain and people were speaking from their heart, the workers, ebbers of the house and senate, -- member as of the house and senate, in solidarity. open government. let's talk then about how we go

forward. be the republicans seem to taking themselves down a path where, as they say on a plane, your nearest exit is behind you. we have given them an opportunity over and over again to come to the floor on their terms. we wish they would take yes for an answer. with that, i want to yield to chris van hollen for any comments he may have about statements that other republicans have made on the budget issue. mr. van hollen? >> thank you, leader pelosi. couplet to emphasize a things, there is no excuse for one more day of a government shutdown. this is something republican senator burr of north carolina described a little while back as the dumbest idea he ever heard of. it is something that senator mccain said was irrational. and yet what we are seeing is

the continuation of implementation of the dumbest idea that republicans ever heard of. it is time to lift that, today, and as the leader said, the speaker of the house has it in his power simply by holding a vote. we could open the government now. number two, why would you generate increasing and continuing uncertainty in the by saying the united states of america is only going to pay its bills on time for six weeks? why wouldn't you want to make nd a signal ofd certainty and say the united states will pay its bills for a whole year? instead what we are hearing is let's continue to hold over the economy all this uncertainty. and i'm a third, we are very pleased to hear that republicans in the house finally want to have a conversation and negotiations on the budget.

as all of you have been here we havees before know, tried since march to have a .egotiation on the budget march is when the house passed its budget. march is when the senate passed its budget. the law requires you have a conference committee meet to iron out the differences by april 15. but the speaker of the house refused to appoint budget negotiators. three times he refused. 20 times senate republicans blocked the effort to appoint budget negotiators. instead, they want to run out the clock, take the country to the edge of the cliff, and try of a through threats government shutdown and defaulting on our debt what you could not get through a normal compromise negotiation. that is where we are now, and we look forward to working with our colleagues to open the government today, pay our bills on time, and negotiate on the

budget. and the last point i would make him a as the leader knows well, since she has been leading our caucus in establishing the priorities of our budget, there are big differences between these budgets and it is important to recognize what they are. the republican budget would reduce the deficit riemer lead by squeezing commitments to be made to our seniors in medicare. they undermine important investments in our economy, whether in our kids education or scientific research or infrastructure. it would provide a win fall tax break to the wealthiest americans by dropping the top rate down to 25%. the democratic budget accelerates job growth today through greater investments, replaces the sequester, which the congressional budget office said woodruff result in 800 thousand fewer jobs this time next year.

we need a competition of targeted cuts, but also closing tax breaks. we welcome the opportunity to have that negotiation. >> very similar to what happened in the 1990's because it was a tax break at the expense of education. , educationedicare and environment. i want to make the point, we have not seen anything come and the speaker said some things to the press. we do not know what the particulars are of his bill. we heard members of his caucus has said we will only extended for six weeks, but we insist the government be shut down. well, we do not know what that is. that is just what some of you tell us came out of our caucus -- out of their caucus. we do not know about paul ryan's government. open why should the mac and people be

held hostage while we have a debate while we negotiate? six weeks is the length of the cr, should government be shut down for all that time? that would be very wrong and instructive. let's see what it is and take it one step at a time him and i hope it is something we can support. until we see what it is, we do not know what it is. yes. >> are you saying that -- [indiscernible] are you saying in general you would not support a six-week increase in the debt ceiling unless you have a guaranteed that the government would reopen? >> i would like to know what is it they are thinking? why would they keep government close during that time? i'm not saying anything. i'm saying until we see what they have to offer, i cannot tell you whether we support it or not. chris, do you want to speak to that?

>> there is no reason to keep the government shut down. i think even republicans, most of them, have forgotten why they shut down the government to begin with, right? the funding level for the government during this short time is at the sequester levels that republicans insisted on. all of you know that, right? nationaler admitted on television on sunday that he had reached an agreement with the democratic leader in the senate, harry reid, and the agreement was that we would reluctantly accept for a short time the lower funding levels in exchange for the not adding extraneous provisions like obamacare. that was the agreement. called up the house members and the speaker decided to listen to them instead of the american people. there is no reason that we should have the government shut single additional day.

the house has agreed we are going to make sure we pay for all those federal employees. why does it make sense -- how does it make sense to say we are going to pay federal employees to stay at home? it makes no sense at all. let's get them back to work for the american people. >> this is very serious, the issue of a shutdown of government now on the 10th day, and the full faith and credit of the united states of america. so we are not dismissing anything out of hand, but we have to see what it is. and what is it they yet the votes in the republican caucus to extend the debt -- lifting the debt ceiling, at what cost to keep government open or shut down? we will wait and see. optimistic, hopeful, open, but until we see it we do not know what it is. i do not know if they know what it is because they are responding -- the rules

committee was supposed to be at 11:00 this morning, and now it is later today, could even be 7:00 in the evening. we just have not seen anything. for all the things they are saying publicly, we have not had even the courtesy of them saying this is sort of what we are looking at and we will let you product looksend like from our perspective when we have it. we have not seen any of that. again, there is a lot at stake here, and the markets are watching what we do, not only on lifting the debt ceiling, which is critically important, but how we can -- how we deal with our fiscal situation in congress. yes, ma'am? >> do you think you have not seen the proposal -- boehner is saying he is not trying to reach out for your votes? >> they may not know what it is, in all fairness to them. they may not know what it is. >> will there be any attempt to put something for that would

come to you for votes or that would you would expect any discussions about trying to define -- >> we would hope so. you would have to ask them. and in the spirit of being available to them, i accepted the speaker's invitation to come to his office yesterday morning thinking he might have a proposal to offer us at that time. when we got there, it was one of two things. they had no proposal or they just wanted to say, see, we invited democrats, but we do not have anything to talk about, and so we have been had. it was an interesting meeting. and hopefully at least we understood what neither of us is going to support, and hopefully that never do feel to where we can come to agreement. again, i do not know if they know, and as i have said, it is hard to negotiate with people who are still negotiating among themselves as to what form this

will take. yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] boehner said on sunday that taxes would not be involved, and if they were to come to you on the debt ceiling, but are there things -- he has strong that line in terms of what he feels to not be in the deal. is there an anything that you would not be willing to give up if this were to come into negotiation? >> well, i'm glad you raised that. on national television, the speaker said why can't we have a conversation? why can't we have a negotiation? and then in the same breath, he said, we are not going to negotiate about closing one single tax break as part of reducing the deficit. that is what he said. on one hand, they are pretending to be open about negotiations between the house republican budget and the democratic budget , and on the one hand, they are closing the door before the negotiation even starts. we have said from the beginning

should look at both the house republican budget and the democratic budgets. that is where the conversation is, between those two budgets. and we welcome that negotiation. as i said earlier, we think it is totally inconsistent for republicans to say on the one hand we have a serious long-term deficit problem, which we do, but we think it is inconsistent for them to say that and then say it is really bad, but we are singleling to close one tax loophole to reduce the deficits and the debt. we want to make sure we do not burden our grandchildren with these debts, but we apparently, republicans do not care enough rid of theto get subsidies for the big oil companies or any other tax breaks. so all we have said is we want a balanced approach to long-term deficit reduction, because if you do not close some of the

special interest tax breaks, it means you have to impose a really unfair burden on the whole rest of the country. is the discussion that is the work of congress, to write a budget, to have the debate as to what the priorities and to see what they are how you make changes or how you pay for them. so this is a very legitimate thing. we look forward to it. take it to the table, bring up what what you want to bring up, but you cannot say we will go to conference if you say the senate budget with which is part of the conference, it passed the senate, is off the table already. that is not going to conference. again, i am exhilarated by the prospect of a public debate over the budget, at the budget conference table, that shows the andrast and navy finds --

maybe finds that compromise, the reconciliation on some point where we can find agreement on the most important things, growth and job creation, that growth and job creation, which our house budget and the senate budget focuses on. it is not growth, job creation, how do we make decisions in investment and education to keep america number one, how do we pay for this, how do we have something that is balanced in when we -- for example, were the having the discussion two years ago, at one of the meetings among the leadership members at the white house, i said to them, we are looking for some millions, billions of dollars in order to come to terms. why don't we close the loophole that mr. van hollen mentioned? why don't we close the tax top fiver big oil, the big oil companies, who in the time of that tax breaks would make a private -- not an income -- a profit of $8 trillion, the

biggest profit in the history of the world, and yet they needed a $38 billion incentive in order to make a trillion dollars. when i said can we close that loophole, that tax break for big role, the responsible leadership, why would we do that when we can save $30 billion by cutting health grants? that is the value of the debate that we need to have. that is what we look forward to, and i really do believe if growth is the goal and economic and job creation is the goal, that certain decisions will have to be made in common. for example, nothing rings more money to the treasury -- nothing brings more money to the treasury, tax things out anything else, then investing in the americans'education. lifetime learning. nothing brings or money to the

treasury that investing in education. when they say they want to cut education, you are cutting the growth and increasing the deficit. yes, ma'am. >> [indiscernible] is limiting the treasury >> would that be a dealbreaker for democrats? it certainly isn't very smart. i think the market, wall street, and anybody that pays attention to the full faith and credit and confidence that springs from competition is always one of their worst ideas. they are not only making that change for six weeks.

people could understand what the consequences are. don't take away an opportunity to use an emergency measure to prevent default. >> let's get back to budgets. you talked about motions to instruct conferees. i am just curious whether it still stands. >> i can't speak for the senate. but what i did say with the chart, we are here to offer the speaker 200 votes to open government.

-- fear noat path more. we are not going down that path, but it was 200 votes that passed to open government. pledged not to do motions

to instruct going to the conference table. it seems like they are pretty adamant for the individual mandate. is that a dealbreaker for you guys? >> what about waving the tax penalty? >> as far as the affordable care act is concerned, october 1 is a glorious day for our country. liberty, thee, freedom to pursue your happiness. you want to be self- employed, start your own business, change jobs. that fear that someone in your family has a pre-existing condition that you can follow

your passion and not be chained by a policy that was unfair. that is the course that we are on. suggestions are successful. after we open government and the plan is in place, any law that congress makes, bring your ideas forward. not before the plan is in effect are they going to make changes. ceiling, i support what senator reid is doing. he has been a champion.

it is really important, because that is what he has to do. i think he should just say america will pay its bills. our constitution says that. certainly any discussion of the budget raises any issue we are going to raise in terms of your priority versus my priority. and will it respect the taxpayer dollars? why do we even go through this? suggested that we take that off of the table. recognize the full faith and credit of the united states will always be honored. , let's maked ladies responsible citizens agreement that this is off the table.

recognize that any law that is passed, another one can be passed to amend it. you can't say this is always the way it will be. not shutting down government unless you have your way before the bill is implemented. nonstarter and is an excuse. they are trying to get to medicare and the rest of that under the guise of the affordable care act. the façadeeful about they have put on this health issue. where we are concerned is where they go next on this issue. >> one more question on the budget?

>> house republicans are meeting with the president at the white house and will meet again around 4:30 eastern. obamacare is now off of the table. there are 18 house republicans at the white house meeting, including majority leader cantor , representatives fox and wagner, and gop chairman ryan upton. boehner proposed a short-term six-week increase in obama agreest if to negotiate on a broader budget deal. but the proposal would not and the government shutdown. -- end the government

shutdown. with themocrats met president this afternoon. >> i told the president and my caucus how proud i was of them for the strength of the unity we have shown. and 45completed an hour minutes with him, i feel the same way. here. the government should be opened. we should be able to pay our debts. if that happens, we will negotiate anything. the president confirmed that today.

the house has a unique form of legislature. hour by hour, i don't know what morning,ned, but this they were floating three different proposals. let's wait and see what the house does. when they send us something, we will look at it as clearly and closely as we can. there is so much pain and suffering there. it is tearjerking to see, but we want big government open and able to pay bills. a situation where they do not know what they want. i told the republicans to decide what they want and we will be happy to work with them in any way. i repeat for the fourth time

right here. open the government, let's pay bills and we will negotiate about anything. would you accept a short-term deal? >> we will look at anything they , even coming out of this meeting. they have changed on how much time they've got on the debt limit. let's wait and see. what theyt decide want. one more question. it has beennow, very clear that you have had a position which is that we need a toan cr, and we would need open the government before we engage in negotiations. republicans want to negotiate before you reopen the government. >> not going to happen.

>> what is your sense? are we any closer? to monitorontinuing what is happening at the white house. with presidentak obama right now and has been underway for about an hour and 10 minutes. this is the 10th day of the government shutdown. the treasury secretary jack lew testified before the senate finance committee this morning about the debt ceiling. the affordable care act is the law of the land and will not be dismantled in this budget fight. the issue is not up for debate. our committee wrote the affordable care act. i am always open to this committee working together to better serve the american people. president said, we cannot

negotiate under the threat of default from the nation's bills. before any debate or deliberation, we need to reopen the government and re-pay the bills with no strings attached. we need to work together and return to regular order to address the long-term budget challenges working together including entitlement and tax reform. now, we need to prevent a self-inflicted wound to america's economy. the is what defaulting on debt is. a self-inflicted wound with global consequences. the deadline is fast approaching. exhausted all extraordinary measures. the u.s. will be at the risk of defaulting on pavement -- payment. the richest and most powerful nation of the world be forced to look for loose change in the

sofa in order to pay bills. the shutdown has been disruptive, a default would be a financial heart attack. widespread economic consequences. it has dropped more than 800 s.int ceiling is breached, the government would immediately have to slash federal spending by 20% or 30%. acrossn would be felt every sector of society. social security and medicare would be cut. funding for highways would be it. every government program would be devastated by deep cuts. lost.ould be

interest rates on mortgages would soar. some have said that we can avoid default by prioritizing u.s. payments. mention that this would force the treasury to pick and choose which programs to pay . forcing vital programs to compete for funding. the president of the world bank warned that a default would have dire consequences. said that itarde is "mission critical that the debt limit be resolved as soon as possible. " this is serious. the whole world is watching.

our actions in the next couple of days will have global implications. we're the most important economy in the world. they are the backbone of the international financial system. it could echo the events of 2008 or worse. the collapse and lehman brothers have set off the financial earthquake. america's confidence was shattered to the core. the crisis upended lives across the country. the aftermath which could still be felt today. have a responsibility to

avoid another economic disaster. our leadership and resolve will be tested in the coming days. all of us in this room, we have an opportunity to pull america back from the brink. i had a bill that would get us past the stalemate. it is an increase without any amendments. it simply allows the u.s. to pay its bills and avoid a catastrophic -- >> you can see all of what the treasury secretary said tonight at 8:00 eastern. here is more on the nation's borrowing limit on another hearing on capitol hill today. we hear from officials in the financial services mr. -- committee. >> i call this hearing to order.

the committee has many important issues to consider and plenty of together ono solve a bipartisan basis. ourselves in day 10 of the government shutdown. it drags down our economic recovery with each passing day. the unnecessary shutdown has left us to address the long-term physical challenges and is certainly not promoting job creation. if it were not better now, we have only one week left before we reach the nation's debt limit. if congress does not act soon, we will fail to pay our bills in the fall for the first time in history.

i do not favor making the u.s. which deadbeat nation would be the consequence. there is little to nothing that congress could do after the fact to require -- to repair the damage that would be felt for generations. is important to remember the real threat of a default can have significant costs. ining the last major debate 2011, the uncertainty in raising the debt ceiling cost taxpayers about $1.3 billion for that fiscal year according to t.e.o.

the cost could be as high as 18 point -- $18.9 billion. before it is too late, we will hear from our witnesses about the kind of impact we should expect if the united states defaults. what this could mean not only for the financial system but also for american andlies to pay their bills andability to create jobs for retirees to protect their life savings. is time to stop playing this game of chicken with recovery and time for congress to focus peoplereal problems that sent us to washington to solve. we must first raise the debt limit.

ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you for appearing today to present your thoughts on this important topic. recentas been a lot of attention on what happens if the debt limit is not increased, but less attention on the larger and wider debt crisis. debt limit is $16.7 trillion. debt limit has been increased by $5.4 trillion. the cbo projects it will reach 25 trillion dollars in 10 years. is atatutory debt limit symptom of our fiscal problems and must be addressed. thee we have focused on impact of failing to lift the debt ceiling, i would like to focus on the debt itself.

the gross debt has increased $6.1 trillion since 2009. deficits are projected to be the norm as the aging population pushes spending higher. make significant reforms to entitlement programs, they will crowd out government spending from infrastructure to defense. failure to improve these programs friends them with insolvency which will happen within a generation if we don't act now. in recent years, we have made important progress. have begun to actually make federal agencies go through their budgets to identify and eliminate waste. abuse identify fraud and to set priorities and learn to do more with less. the mid and long-term projections show that the debt crisis is only going to get worse if we don't substantively

deal with the fiscal policies that we have thus far failed to a dress. reform.ntitlement the committee for a responsible federal budget recently noted that most of the deficit reduction agreements made since 1980 have been accompanied by a debt ceiling increase. members inllow sending a letter to secretary lu suggesting that we use the debt limit as an opportunity to bring lasting reforms and debt reduction to our nation. as a member of the commission sidese gang of six, both can find common ground. equallyrm isn't interesting -- important component. we need to dramatically simplify our tax code, reducing rates for

taxpayers so we can create economic growth. i am interested in the thoughts on how the current tax code affects investment. the debt ceiling debate creates an opening for real progress in these areas. to work together on solutions that reduce deficits and move our economy forward. it is time to make these hard decisions. >> are there any other members that would like to give brief opening statements? senator reed? is a very this important hearing. are on the verge of doing something that is not only unwise policy but flies in the face of the constitution. says theamendment u.s., authorized by law, debts incurred and payment for bounties and services shall not

be questioned. we are certainly questioning that. this is not a trivial matter. -- forefathers and producers predecessors recognized the value of paying debts on time. are on the verge of breaching that sacred commitment that we have all taken. everyone is in favor of long-term and wise policies. but we are talking about within a few days reaching and defaulting on debt. i could not agree more with his comments. thank you for being here. ceiling asebt leverage is unwise and dangerous. citizens are frustrated with the political stalemate and it should not be used as a bargaining chip.

absolutely agree and thank you for that statement, governor. aat we can do is set off financial chain reaction that will go from market to market with unknown and perhaps catastrophic consequences. anyone who was here in 2007, 2008, and 2009, and saw the everyone saw, it could be self-contained with a minor blip on the scene and understands the potential consequences in multiple markets. already, we are seeing credit default swaps increase. european banks said that they jumped to 150 million pounds to -- from6 million pounds

1.6 million pounds. i just saw today that the hong kong stock exchange is basically downgraded treasuries as collateral. the ripple effect as this goes out. to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default. >> anybody else? >> first of all, i appreciate your leadership and having this extraordinarily timely hearing. i think the question of default is a question of both what happens at home and abroad for us. colleagues across the aisle and in particular the house of representatives agree that defaulting would cause tremendous harm to american

families, businesses, and the global economy. would dramatically weaken america's standing in the world. not just in respect and stature, but ways that have consequential economic significance at home. they agree these are outcomes that no one wants to see. friendssay to our threatening default, let's stop lurching from one manufactured crisis to another manufactured crisis and stop threatening to default on the nation's obligations. i understand that there are policy priorities, though i am never quite sure what it is we are talking about. first was ending obamacare that was passed by congress, signed by the president and affirmed by the supreme court.

there were two clear choices in the election of the president. then it was the medical device tax and now i hear about that. -- debt. by president reagan 18 times, president bush nine times and president bush the second nine times. there were 34 times in which the debt ceiling was raised. i want to achieve comprehensive reform but that does not mean i will shut down the government until i get what i want. it doesn't make sense as a way of doing business. we ask countries around the world to actively pursue fiscal and structural reforms because .e think it is in our interest we ultimately look at the cost

of a default. how do we pursue those policies that promote economic opportunity at home? defaultthe harm of will take a decade to recover from. it is an immediate drop in money thatowth, the comes directly out of the taxpayers pockets. home values can very well plummet at a time in which they get recovery in the housing market. duden's loans and credit cards will become more expensive. seriously -- student loans and credit cards will become more expensive. , they willretirement get their college education decimated. , the u.s.out this

dollar is the world's most important reserve currency. u.s. treasuries are a safe haven where investors know they and this value to the world strengthens our economy and lowers interest rates for american consumers at every level. why is that something that we are willing to risk? i cannot understand it, and i hope that better sense will come shortly to the congress. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to make a point in response my colleague or rhode island and new jersey. i could not agree more with that sentiment about the importance of the fact that the united states, the u.s. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and the importance of the u.s.