mr. moran: mr. speaker, at this time i yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from new york, mr. maloney. mr. maloney: mr. speaker, in order to end this republican shutdown today to get the people's government working, i ask you bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 and open the government without further delay. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained without appropriate clearance. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa. mr. hinojosa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to the house joint resolution 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i now yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent

request to the gentlelady from new hampshire, ms. kuster. ms. kuster: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end in republican government shutdown and gi the american people the relf that they deserve. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. mr. moran: i now yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the member of the appropriations committee from new york, the honorable mr. serrano. mr. serrano: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask that any member seeking recognition remove any communicated badge while making any request. mr. rrano: you mean this sticker? the speaker pro tempore: yes. mr. serrano: we're allowed to bring posters and other items to the floor.

why not this red, white and blue sticker? the speaker pro tempore: badges are not allowed. mr. serrano: i'll take it off but it's with great pain i do so. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this republican government shutdown now. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, this cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. mr. mcnerney: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, to open the government and to go to conference on a budget so that we can end this republican

government shutdown and get our nation back to work. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to e gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.r. 59, instead of leaving for a three-day weekend, that we open the government and go to conference on a budget and end this republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, the request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. mr. doggett: ms. pelosi has cleared it. who's objecting? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. pocan. mr. pocan: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j. resolution 59, to open up the government and go to conference on a budget so we can end this

republican government shutdown that's costing the u.s. economy $160 million a day. . the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised tha request cannot be entertained without appropriate clearance. mr. moran: yield to the yeal from california, mrs. davis. mrs. davis: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, to open the govement, go to conference on a budget so that we end this republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertain absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield fopurpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from nks ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, because many families today are not able to pay their mortgage, i ask unanimous consent tt the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, to open the government and go to conference on the budget so we

can end this republican government shutdown hurting the children of america. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the geleman from virginia. mr. moran: i now yield to the gelelady from alabama, ms. terri sewell. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the hoe bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we can end this republican government shutdown now. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, at this point i'd like to yield for the purpose of a unanimousonsent request for the -- to the gentlelady from ohio, mrs. beatty. mrs. beatty: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amdment to h.r. res. 59, to open government and to go to conference on a budget so we can d this unnecessary republican

government shutdown that hurts veterans and children and the american citizens. let's open up the government now. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from florida, judge hastings. mr. hastings: thank you very much for yielding. mr. speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. what i would ask the speaker to advise of this member as to what is the definition of appropriate clearance. the speaker pro tempore: earance must be given by committee staff. under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers as reported in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to

entertain the request unless it is cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships. mr. hastings: further parliamentary inquiry, do you know as speaker whether or not such an attempt has been made and maybe denied with reference to the bipartisan clearance? the eaker pro tempore: as indicated in section 956 of the house rules and manual, it is not a proper parliamentaryry inquire to ask the chair to indicate which side of the aisle has failed under the speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous consent request. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, you are a republican and i'm a democrat, further parliamentary inquiry, i seek appropriate clearance from you. the speaker pro tempore: the chairs has not received appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia is recoized. -- moran: mr. speaker, i now i yield time to the gentleman to complete his unanimous consent reques mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to

h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this republican shutdown and that's with or without clearance. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, for the purpose of the unanimous consent request, i yield to the distinguished layy from -- lady from california, ms. bass. the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we can end this republican government shutdown. as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: at this time i'd like to yield for the purpose of unanimous consent request to the gentlemafrom california, mr. honda. mr. honda: good morning, m. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to

conference on a budget so that we end this republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair has previously advised, that request is cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i would like to yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the vice chair of our democratic caucus, mr. crowley, from new york. mr. crowley: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. to open the government and go to conference on the budget so we can end this republican government shutdown. it's time to shut down the shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot entertaid absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent to mr. welch from vermont. mr. welch: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open up the government and go to conference on a budget so we can end this

republican government shut gun. i yield back the speaker pro tempore:s the chair previously advised that request cannot be entertain absend pronetcleernts. mr. moran: i yield to the gentlelady for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. shea-porter: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this republican government shutdown and allow the government to do the people's business again. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertaint absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. veasey. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we hand this republican government shutdown

-- end this republican shutdown now. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i yield for the from e ms. waters california. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on a budget. so we can end this republican shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. speaker, parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state. mr. scott: mr. speaker, you have ruled that these unanimous consent requests cannot be entertained because they have not been precleared. it's obvious the democratic leadership suprts these motions and i would wonder if it

would be in order for the republicans here now to preclear these unanimous consent requests so we can vote to reopen overnment. as speaker pro teore: indated in section 956 of the house rules and manual it is not proper to ask the chair to indicate which side of the aisle has failed under the speaker's guidelines to clear a unanius consent request. mr. scott: further parliamentary inquiry. apparently the chair can't do it. is it in order for me to ask the republicans to preclear the unanimous consent request? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is free to try to obtain clearance. mr. scott: i yield to anybody on the republican side at this time under my parliamentary inquiry to please clear -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized is not recognized to yield. does the gentleman have a unanimous consent request?

mr. moran: i yield to the gentleman from virginia for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open up the government and go to conference on the budget so we can end republican shutdown and let the record reflect that the republicans have had an opportunity to preclear one of these unanimous consent requests. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield for the purpose of a unanimous consenrequest to the ms. elady from california, roybal-allard. ms. roybal-allard: i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on the budget so we can end this republican government shutdown today. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i yield tthe gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, to open the government, to go to conference on a budget so that we end this republican shutdown and stop holding the economy hostage. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearanc the gentleman from virgini mr. moran: i yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from california, ms. brownley. ms. brownley: mr. speaker, please, our country is asking, i'm asking unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to house joint resolution 59 to open our government and go to conference on a budget so that we will end this republican government shutdown now and get our government back to work fothe american people. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield for the purpose of a

unanimous consent request to the gentleman from california, mr. takano. mr. tano: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on the budget so that we end this republican shutdown now. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy. mr. kennedy: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59, to open the gernment and go to conference on a budget so we can end this republican government shutdown today. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. he house will be in order. members will take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from virginia.

mr. moran: mr. speaker, i n yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from new mexico, miss lohan grisham. miss lohan grishian: i join my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that the house immediately bring up the senate amendment to h.j. resolution 59 to open the government and go to conference on a budget so we end the republican shutdown immediately. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, at this time i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. le for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we can end this tea party republican government shutwn and put people back to work. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that requescannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from minnesota, mr.

walz. mr. walz: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up senate amendment to use joint resolution 59 to open the american people's government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from california. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield to the gentleman from california for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, mr. ruiz. mr. ruiz: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j.res. 59 to open the government and go to conference on a budget so we end this reckless and irresponsible government shutdown and do the right thing for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i now yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the dean of the new york delegation, mr. rangel. mr. rangel: mr. speaker, may i make a parliamentary inquirery.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may state his inquiry. mr. rangel: under what circumstances could a senior member of this august body protest the shutdown of government at this time? it the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not making a parliamentary inquiry. mr. rangel: i ask -- i'm asking from a parliamentary point of view, i don't want to violate the house rules, but as a member of congress, representing 700,000 people, i feel that i have to scream out in protest as to what's happening to the country, and my constituents, there has to be some way for me in a parliamentary way without violating the house rules to express myself. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair is following guidelines on appropriate unanimous consent requests. mr. rangel: with all due respect, that has nothing to do with my parliamentary inquiry.

nothing at all. the speaker pro tempore: under the -- mr. rangel: the rules for unanimous consent doesn't ha to do with a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is engaging in debate. does the gentleman have a unanimous consent request? mr. rangel: are you saying that you're ignoring my parliamentary inquiry? i'm just asking. the speaker pro tempore: the geleman has not made a parliamentary inquiry. mr. rangel: that's how i started. and i could ask the recorder but i don't nt to waste a lot of time on this weekend legislative session. but i started asking permission to make a parliamentary inquiry and that was granted. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers the rule 956 the chair is constrained not to eertain requests -- mr. rangel: mr. speaker, are you talking about a unanimous

consent request? the speaker pro tempore: yes. mr. rangel: well, i'm talking about a parliamentarynquiry. if you're telling me i'm out of order for making a parliamentary inquiry, i'm not prepared to challenge e chair even though i truly believe you and i believe u would be incorrect. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary inquiry. mr. rangel: i ask -- how do you state it properly? i ask, how could i properly state the feelings of my constituents as a member of this august body in a parliamentary way? what could be more parliamentary than that? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may be yielded to for debate. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. rangel: oh, so the parliamentary inquiry is not going to be recognized? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is

recognized. mr. rangel: ok. i accept that. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i had yielded the geneman from new york for a unanimous consent request the gentleman has unanims consent request. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous nsent that the speaker and the parliamentarian take a good look at the rules of this >> the bill debated was eventually pulled from the four without a final vote. instead, --, members voted on proposals to consider in negotiations over the farm bill. those failed the past. the house is scheduled to return monday at noon eastern. live coverage as always, here on c-span. next, house democratic leaders speaking to reporters about the government shutdown. over the last week am a several house democrats said they are considering a so-called discharge petition to force a vote on a clean spending bill.

that option was brought up at this meeting with reporters. it is a little more than 15 minutes. >> once again in the 12th day of the shutdown of government for the american people, on the 12th day of having people out of work who pledged to be paid that are , again the republicans refused to put on the floor legislation to open the people's government. over 150 members petition to open the government now and bring legislation to the floor which would do that. membershad scores of asking for unanimous consent of the body to do just that. so the government can be open today. in fact, mr. van hollen just

made a point of order that but for a resolution that was passed just a few days ago, any member of the house would have been in 59, housesk for hr joint resolution 59 to be put on the floor. we will discuss that at greater length. but the american people once the government open. they want us to talk. a want us to reach agreement. they see no need, as we see no need, to have literally millions of people adversely impacted, shut out of their workplace while the republican majority shuts down the government and tries to hold a gun at her head to agree on things that in a democratic process to be dealt with not at the point of a gun but at a conference.

colleague,d to my the assistant leader, jim clyburn. >> thank you. 12 of aare on day government shutdown that has been imposed on the american ofple by a series manufactured crises. witnessed attempts on behalf of this congress by up -- shuty to shore out debate and keep the minority forces that they say they want to hear from offering up the alternatives. the american people have made very clear they would like to see them brought into play. this is what happens in a governmental process when we stymie opposition, when we cut

off debates, and when we ontinue to teach her disaster by manufactured crises. it is time for us to reopen the government and let people go back to work and have the american people put at ease. with that, i would like to yield to our chair. >> i thank mr. clyburn. it is incredible what we are watching. just now, house democrats took to the floor and asked for unanimous consent to see if our colleagues would allow, without objecting, us to put on the floor a measure to reopen the government. even the request just to ask to have this on the floor was shut down.

i think the message is clear on the part of the representatives of so many of the millions of americans who do not understand why they cannot go to work, why we cannot let our economy move forward. he are simply saying, let america work. let america's representatives vote to put america back to work. let our government reopen. that is the simple message we are here to demand. we will not stop until we are allowed to put america back to -- let america work. let me yield to the vice chairman of the democratic caucus, joe crowley. >> what we saw was the shutdown of democracy, of freedom, debate about the most important issue of funding our country right now. this government is not operating. we were using our procedural motions to express our displeasure with the majority. they took their opportunity to

shut down that debate as well. what has not been shut down -- was the shutdown of this government. this government continues to be shut down. we need to open up government working for all of the people of the united states. with that, i would like to turn it over to my colleague from new york, mr. israel. >> thank you. the republican leadership made a decision to in the session for -- to end the session for the weekend. this weekend the federal government remains shut down. planes cancans said take off carrying members back to their districts. seniors continue to have uncertainty about what will happen to social security benefits on monday. social security benefits on monday. small businesses do not know when they open on monday whether they will be able to apply forsba -- for sba loans. they still have uncertainty based on a decision to let those

planes take off while the government remains shut down. that is fundamentally wrong. we saw in this discharge 180 six democrats in less than an hour sign a discharge petition to open this government now. 186 democrats. 200 democrats already stated they would support a vote on a clean a budget to open this government now, no strings attached, no conditions. just open this government. there are 20 to 30 republicans who will get on that plane today and fly home and spend the rest of the weekend in the district saying to their constituents, i am one of the good guys, i am willing to vote for a clean budget. i hope that when those constituents see those republicans who claim they are willing to vote for a clean you signhey ask, will that discharge petition when you get back on monday? will you put your pen where your

promises are, and will you put your people ahead of partisanship? they had an opportunity to do that on monday. i hope they listen carefully to their constituents on saturday and sunday. with the fat i will yield to the distinguished ranking member of the budget committee who has let us in this fight to reopen the government, chris van hollen from maryland. >> thank you. every day this shutdown goes on is another day the country is hurting from this unnecessary action taken by our republican colleagues. we know from public statements that there are a majority of the house of representatives who want to go to immediately open the entire federal government. the speaker has refused to allow the people's house to work its will. he has refused to allow democracy to work its will. we just heard on the floor of the house that they actually house,the rules of the changed the rules of the house

to deny the opportunity to any member of congress, republican or democrat, to call up and vote that wouldw immediately open the federal government and end this unnecessary disruption throughout the country. they said only the republican leader, eric cantor, or his designee could call to open up the government. what kind of democracy is that when you know they -- that a majority of republicans and democrats today want to reopen the government? as chairman israel and others have said, we will give all of our members an opportunity to show they mean when they say, to show that here in congress they will do what they are telling their constituents back home they will do. you have well over a majority who have said they want to do the people's business, and they want to immediately allow the government to reopen. we have a petition called the discharge petition.

we can getl do, if everybody who said they want to open the government right now to sign it, it is a petition to reopen the government now. and there are no more excuses. i think republicans forgot why they shut down the government to begin with. the opportunity to take action, to get it open now. let's just be real. the speaker could walk out of that chamber today and get it done if they had not changed the rules of the house. any of us could have gotten it done. let's sign that petition. i hope everybody who is here will be asking members of congress who publicly said they wanted to vote to reopen the government right now whether they would sign that petition to see what -- to do what they said they wanted to do. with that, i want to introduce one of our terrific new members from the grades eight of new york -- great state of new york, who just signed the petition and is calling on all other members

of congress, new and old, to join. ming, new york. >> as a proud member of this new freshman class, i was very happy to sign the petition. we are a freshman class that came to congress to work on behalf of the american people. we came to congress because we want to cooperate with both sides of the aisle. we want to make sure americans have more opportunities, more jobs, and that our children are fed. we are disappointed and we plead with the republican leadership to end this shutdown to make sure we are able to cooperate. we have issues of concern, too. we want to work on immigration reform and tax reform. issues like that and the affordable health care act should not be part of whether government functions or not. so we plead with republican leadership and the 20 to 30

members who signaled they would be supportive of this measure to reopen the government and thank them. >> thank you all very much. as each of our members have said, we believe there are the votes to open up government. as mr. van hollen said, they amended the rules a few weeks ago and said only the majority leader, mr. cantor, whose state is being adversely affected by the shutdown, can offer the motion to bring hr 59 to the floor. we would hope they would do that. we would hope the speaker would do that. ,merica wants that to happen and they clearly indicated that in every poll. questions?

cantor saidleader you inappropriately touched a staffer. has this been blown out of proportion? i had a few words with a young staff member of mr. cantor. i believed his actions on the floor were out of line and not keeping with the decorum of the house. he agreed with me. he apologize. i accepted his apology. >> what did he do? >> clearly the republicans were not happy with us continuing to say, let's open the government. they are not opening the government. that frustration, i think, boiled over. the staffer is a good person. exercised ande there was an exchange with one of my staff members. said he thought that

was inappropriate. i am glad to hear the staffer has apologized. but the issue is, we need to open the government for the american people. not get distracted by the fact of thee government united states of america that serves the american people is shut down needlessly for .olitical purposes only 186 signatures. >> what have you heard from senator reid on how the plan might be changing? >> i have not talked to him. your keyword there is " eventually." we need to reopen the government now. the president indicated he is willing to talk. we are willing to talk. mr. van hollen for six months has been trying to go to the conference table to talk about these issues.

they do not need to be talked whileweiland -- government is shut down. it is hurting our national security. hurting government employees. it is hurting the millions and millions of americans that those employees serve. >> [indiscernible] >> i am not going to negotiate here. the issue is very clear. the american people think it is absurd and wrong and bad policy to be shutting down the government, which cost $300 million a day. while we are talking. they understand that in a democracy, you have differences of opinion. you talk through those differences of opinion and try to reach a consensus. they also understand that that may take some time. what they don't believe is that

you should shut down the government in the process. >> [indiscernible] >> no, we are not. we have no believe the republicans will open the chamber for business. if they were to announce that tomorrow morning we will convene to open up the government, i guarantee you we would get every democrat that here that was able to get at here. we have a couple of members who are ill. >> [indiscernible] >> it is not a question of being in session. we have been in session for 12 days and the government has been shut down. we have been here. we have demanded over and over and over again. right now, we can open up the government. it is not a question of calling members back or not.

it is a question of they amended the rules so only eric cantor, the majority leader of the house, can put something on the floor to open up government. eric cantor has indicated no willingness to do that. we are willing to do it tomorrow. we are ready to do it monday. we want to do it now. thank you very much. [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013]

>> this morning at 9:00 i met with senator mcconnell. the meeting was set up last night, late. mcconnell indicated that , as rankingander member of the rules committee, worked for a number of years with senator schumer. that there were different republican officers going around and discussions with my senators. senator alexander and said, what is going on?

he said, i am representing senator mcconnell. later in the evening he asked if i would meet with him and senator schumer and senator mcconnell. i said yes. we met at 9:00 this morning. were extremelyns cordial but very preliminary. nothing conclusive. talking isthat are some solace to the american people and the world. this has not happened until now. senator mcconnell asked to meet with me. i was happy to do that. this should be seen as something very positive. even though we do not have anything done yet and a long way to go before that will happen. that is a relative term. minutes, hours, days, we are trying to find a way to go

further. susan collins is one of my favorite senators, democrat or republican. i appreciate her efforts to find a consensus. the plan that she suggested and -- that i have seen in writing is not going at this stage. things in it.good number one, it opens the government. number two, it extends the debt ceiling. other than that there is little agreement with us. i want to make sure people here understand we have some problems with that, as does the white house, within the so-called collins plan. as i explained to senator mcconnell and senator alexander this morning, they are not doing us a favor by reopening the government.

not doing us a favor by extending the debt ceiling. that is part of our jobs. that is why we have said, open the government, let us pay our bills, and we need to do that before we have any agreement on what goes after that. this is not a concession. this is basically doing our jobs. this is what we are supposed to do. default is four days away. , i was happy to do that. know, i had a piece of legislation on the floor today to extend the debt ceiling for a year. it is hard for me to comprehend. but every republican voted against it. this was a motion to proceed to

the measure so we could debate it. invoke allowed us to this, we would be -- have 30 hours to use every minute we want to deceive we could come up with something. they voted no. procedurally, you know how it works. that is not easy to move forward. i cannot imagine why they did that. defaulting our debt would risk millions of american jobs. not thousands. not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands. millions of jobs. it -- social security checks, medicare payments, even our military. people in theot house saying, that is ok, we can prioritize them. there is not a reasonable person anyplace that things that would work. we want to reopen the government.

pay our bills so we can move forward with good faith negotiations on a long-term budget. that is what senator mcconnell and i are working on. >> people of america have seen this movie several times. the american damsel is tied to the tracks and the engine is bearing down. the question is whether or not congress at the last minute to come to the rescue and save this country. i think some of them have said ultimately they will work it out. i think there is reason to believe that ultimately we will work it out. let's be honest where we are. we saw today on the senate floor. we ended up with a sad outcome when it came to this vote. it is troubling to me that not a single republicans tapped up to allow us to start the debate on whether or not we avoid the debt ceiling default in just four

days, as senator reed said. not a single republican would step forward. some have said that we are forward to this vote to vote no. i do not understand her logic but that is what they said. before people give up hope, and hear the train whistle and wonder if this will end up in the right way, there are conversations going on with senators of both political parties. beyond what senator reid mentioned in his earlier meeting, there is an active conversation between republicans and democrats in the senate. we understand how important this is. we understand how much damage has been done already to 800,000 furloughed federal employees. all the people who rely on government services. we realize the potential damage to 300 million americans if we default on this debt for the

first time in history. it has been spelled out. only the flat earth economist who somehow inspire a handful of extreme republicans, aside from them the economists have told us in clear terms we are dealing with interest rate increases for everybody. family,dividual, every every business, and our nation. and the reputation of the united states will be damaged in a way it never has been damaged. that is how serious i -- it is. that is why we must proceed. we are going to continue to open up these channels and try to find a way to deal with this. it is troubling. it is heartbreaking to think we have reached this point. we are motivated not only by what is good for the nation, but by the fact that the house republicans have failed utterly in leadership in terms of coming up with a solution. now we have to accept the responsibility.

>> first i would like to say that we had a very good caucus today. democrats were unified. we are all united around the principles of opening our government, paying our bills, and let's negotiate. today brings bad news and good news. the bad news is that the motion to proceed so that we could pay our bills failed because it did not get the 60 votes, did not get the bipartisan hope -- support we hope. this is playing with fire. we do not know when the markets will react to this. you can't say it will be no sooner than next thursday. i worry on monday that when the american markets open in, maybe because of this vote that they will start worrying and not only will the stock market go down and interest rate go up and value of the u.s. treasuries decline, it is very serious.

it would have been a whole lot better if we could put this aside and have 100-zero votes to pay our bills. that did not happen. the good news is that the meeting that senator reed and i had with senator alexander and senator mcconnell gives me a little bit of cause for optimism. clearly the talks are in their very early stages, but i believe senator mcconnell showed goodwill. i believe he wants to come to a solution. i believe he knows how serious isis to default, and my view that it will be the senate that will have to come to an agreement here, because the house republicans seem so divided and in such disarray. they do not have a plan.

endthe hope is that at the of the day, sooner rather than later, in a bipartisan way we can come to a -- come together and take this burden off the shoulders of the american worker, the american family, and the american economy by coming up with a fair and reasonable solution. reid said, we -- made it clear we do not regarded as a concession to open up the government. we do not regarded as a concession to say we want to pay our bills. that is our job. we should all be doing our job. and figuring out a way to stick to those principles and come up with a bipartisan agreement. i'm considerably more optimistic today than i am yesterday as a result of our meetings and a result of many other things that have happened. we are all ready to roll up our sleeves and work to avoid this

calamity. we are looking for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us. >> we are here on a saturday when a lot of families are focused on foot all and what they will have for sunday morning brunch. a here in congress have responsibility to make sure they are not worried about their paychecks or about the economic future of this country or whether or not we will be able to work together. we stand here very strong as democrats to say we are willing theork together when government is open, and we have told the economy we are going to pay our bills. it is extremely important for us. there are conversations going on that are critical. we also have to remember back to how we got here. to have areed continuing resolution so we could work on the broader issues that we all have big

disagreements about and the house republicans decided they would take the obamacare hostage and shut down our government, into a pointbled where we are about to not pay our bills and hurt our economy. they have to stop asking for hostages in order for our country to be ok. for families to have breakfast tomorrow morning without worrying what will happen on monday morning in the stock market. as democrats, we stand ready to negotiate. none of us believes we are going to get our way at the end of the day. but we should not be holding our country and our families and communities hostage any longer. we ask the house republicans to stand up, pass the continuing resolution that is in front of them, and work with us on the challenges in front of us are in -- in front of us. >> you have been very firm about what you will and will not accept in terms of a deal.

does not havel much wiggle room either with senate republicans. what do you think you are going to accomplish? had theould never have conversation. be serious. he has problems. i have problems. that is how arrangements are made. this is a piece of legislation. we are working to come up with a compromise. we are not going to do that until the government reopens and there is a way to pay our bills. senator mcconnell and i have been in this body a long time. we have done things for a long time together. i know him. he knows me. we do not agree on everything. we were whips together a long time ago. we did some good wings together. -- we did some good things together. we revamped government together. this is what this is all about.

if we have political scientist out there now, this is a classic case of what legislation is about. the problem we have had in recent years is we have had too little of this, too little of sitting down and trying to work out problems. that is what we are doing now. >> to what extent are you taking into account what the house of representatives can expect? >> i do not think that is my responsibility. i think that is that of congress. >> how do you get the government to reopen? let's pass a resolution in the house that gets passed like that. we hope we can do it for a longer time. that certainly would be a step in the right direction. going to make an about-face? >> i will not do anything to harm anyone i have talked to their.

saying anything would not help. >> how long would you like the cr to be? >> i would like the debt ceiling to be for 20 years and i would like the cr for 10 years. think, we are negotiating. i am not locked in. , astor murray has focused has the president, and others. we have to be very careful. we have this automatic sequestration that kicks in january 15, so any date we have to take that into consideration. >> you want to resolve this before january 15? >> i would like to resolve it now. there is no reason we cannot resolve it now. when i say now, i mean in the next 48 hours. >> are you willing to make any changes to the obamacare? >> it is interesting how that is

not part of the discussion anymore. a week ago tomorrow when the speaker was on national television, the talkshow, he started off on obamacare. that lasted about 30 seconds. then he switched to spending. that is where he kept leading to have the conversation. obamacare is no longer the number one issue. the number one issue to do anything they can to divert folls theyfrom the have made of themselves over obamacare. we are taking nothing from the table. mcconnell got a copy of the letter. we are willing to talk about anything. there are no limits. we will talk about health care, which includes, of course, obamacare. we are willing to talk about anything. one last question.

>> the republicans want entitlement reform. they also want the delay of the medical device tax. since you do not consider reopening the government or raising the debt limit a concession, do republicans have to make a real concessions to get some of the things they want? >> i appreciate your jobs, to be as probing and inquisitive as you need to be. but i am not going to negotiate here with you folks. -- i am notsince negotiating with myself. i did that. it did not work. thanks.

>> the government shutdown is again the topic in the weekly addresses. we will hear first from president obama, then the republican address by telephone economist and buck mckeon. he is chairman of the armed services committee. >> over the past few days i met with republicans and democrats from both houses in an effort to reopen your government and remove dangers of default from our economy. the positive development is house republicans agreed on the need to avoid economic consequences of not meeting our countries commitments. once the debt ceiling is raised and the shutdown is over, there's a lot we can economist together. we created 7.5 million jobs in the past 3.5 years. now let's create more. we have cut our deficit in half over the past four years. now let's do it in a smarter, balanced way that lets us afford to invest in things we need to grow. the truth is there is a lot we can agree on. one thing we have to agree on is

that there is no good reason anyone should keep suffering through this shutdown. i met with some really innovative small business owners on friday who have already lost contracts, customers, and put hiring on hold because the pain of this republican shutdown has trickled down to their bottom lines. it is hurting the very citizens our government exists to serve. as why a growing number of reasonable republicans say it should end now. it would not be wise, as some suggest, to kick the debt ceiling can down the road a couple months and flirt with the first-ever intentional default right in the middle of the holiday shopping season. because damage to america's sterling a credit rating would not just cause global markets to go haywire. it would become more expensive forever when an american to borrow money. students paying for college, newlyweds buying a home. it would amount to a new tax. a republican default tax on

every family and business in america. it does not have to be this way. it is not supposed to be this way. crises to extract concessions is not how our democracy works, and we have to stop. all takes is a battle of ideas, but you advances ideas through elections and legislation, not extortion. i know you are frustrated by what you see in your nation's capital right now. because it is easy to it lost in the political back-and-forth, i want you to remember. this is not normal. our government is closed for the first time in 17 years. risking default for the first time since the 1700's. this is not normal, and that is why we have to put a stop to it. not only because it is dangerous, but it saps everyone's faith in our extra nurses some of self-government. whether it is the work of creating jobs, growing the economy, or getting our fiscal house in order for the long haul, we have got a lot of work to do. does notbrinksmanship

let us do and constant brinkmanship does not let us do it. and it looks real pain unreal people. it creates thousands of uncertainty for business. it threatens our nation's credit and standing in the world, and the longer it goes on, the more frequently this brinkmanship is inflicted, the more we will see markets react, businesses put off plans to spend and hire, and unemployed and claims tick up. the hundreds of thousands of hard-working civil servants who go even longer without pay will worry that they will not be able to cover their bills, and that their own credit worthiness will be ruined for no good reason at all. i want to thank all of the neighbors and local business owners who have shown acts of kindness to these americans. it is that same spirit -- i ask that same spirit of citizenship from lenders. they are being punished for no fault of their own. end this republican shutdown. let's pay our bills and prevent an economic shutdown.

then let's get back to the work of the american people, because there is so much else we should be focusing our energies on right now caret we have to create more jobs, we have got kids to educate, we have an immigration system to fix, and a middle class to rebuild. an opportunity to restore. there is so much america has going for it in this new century, and as always, this country works better when we work together. thank you. >> hello. i'm buck mckeon, chairman of the house armed services committee. for all the focus on disagreements in washington, we have actually found some common ground this week. on thursday, president obama signed legislation that guarantees the death benefits for the families of fallen troops that will continue to be paid out during the government shutdown. we have also come together to ensure that members of our military and the civilians who

support them will be paid no matter what. we should not stop there. the house has passed more than a dozen bills providing funding for things that we can all agree on -- veterans, cancer research, national guard, national parks, head start, food safety, flight safety, border security, nuclear weapon security, and more. president obama and senate democrats should act these bills immediately. then the president should work with us on plans to reopen the entire government. and make sure we do not default on our debts. after all, sitting down and resolving our differences is exactly what americans expect their leaders to do. , especially at times like this. to that end, a group of house republicans including myself

went to the white house on thursday to talk with the president and see where we can find common ground. those conversations are continuing. i am sure all of this back-and- forth has sounded like the typical washington drama, but politics is not about politicians. it is not about washington. it is about you and your family. it is about building an economy that generates good paying jobs and real prosperity. it is about making sure there is fairness for everyone under the president's health care law. so that hard-working people like you get the same relief big businesses have received. it is about stemming the tide of debt and deficits that threaten to wash out an entire generations opportunities. and it's about ensuring our troops in harms way and their families are taken care of the same way they take care of us here at home. preserving the american dream. that is what this is really about. and the longer we go on settling for maybe next time, for this notion that putting things off until after the next election is

ok, the harder this is going to get. it is a challenge, but we can do this. let's get back to work together. >>ank you for listening. coming up next, the supreme court oral argument on campaign- finance restrictions. of the healthiew care law's implementation. after that, house -- house members in a temporary funding bill. this week, eliot engel will be on "newsmakers." topics include the debate over u.s. aid to egypt, the lease it grade in u.s. aid -- somalia. here is a brief look.

>> this trip has been important to the united states. a lot of the focus of our mideast policy stance with having a good military to military -- with egypt's military to our military. i think when a government or country with which you are allied does something you do not think there are different ways of reacting than just saying, we will punish you and cut this off or that off. from the united states point of view, there are two choices in egypt. the muslim brotherhood or the military. we will not have a western-style democracy any time -- any time soon in. given the two choices and given how mr. morsi under the muslim brotherhood ran in egypt, i think it is more important and better to engage with the military than the muslim brotherhood. >> the white house has been

reluctant to say a coup took place in egypt. what happened? you could say it was a coup or give excuses and say it was really that morsi was elected, but he co-opted it and tried to derail egyptian democracy. >> what would you call it? >> i would say -- i do not know if i would call it a coup but i think it is a semantics question. i think what the administration is trying to do is they are trying to walk a middle path. they do not want to call it a coup. on the other hand, they do not want to condone it. trying to find a middle path. what they did this week was to go down the middle path. i disagree with what a mill -- middle path is. it is better to keep egypt engaged. you call it a coup, and you cut off aid, that is cutting off your nose to spite your face. it will come back to bite us in

the and and i do not think it is wise policy. >> you can watch the interview with representative angle of new a.m..unday at 10:00 sunday, part two of our conversation with josh. >> start out by giving us what the press, and the media, and that. how did you view them? >> usually with hostility. it is the natural state of affairs between the white house becausepress corps that is the nature of what the press needs to do. they need to try to catch the white house out on whatever is going on. >> more with osha administration chief of staff josh bolten sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> c-span. events to --ic

from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conference, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service to private industry. created by the cable industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable light or -- cable or satellite company. >> this week, the u.s. supreme -- it challenges the limit on the total amount of money one individual can contribute in each election cycle. currently, the biannual limit is 120 $3000. if the court strikes down the limit, individuals will be able to donate more than three point $6 million to candidates and political parties every two years. next, the oral argument in the case. it is about one hour. >> we will hear the argument

first this morning. s. murphy? >> may it please the court. . by prohibiting contributions, congress already has composed, these limits seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these cannot be justified on circumvention grounds. are already addressed. >> how is that? >> it imposes numerous prevention measures. for instance, provisions on earmarking contributions. coordination restrictions on coordinated

expenditures with the candidate. proliferation restrictions on creating multiple packs. >> they were there at the time. i guess the court thought something would happen like the following. , you only give him 26 hundred dollars. he has a lot of supporters. each of the 40 puts on a little sign that says, "sam smith, this money goes to people like sam smith. great people. of the $45,000h -- they are not established by a single person. each is independently run. 5000ow well the total of times 40 will go to sam. what does that violate? >> a

couple of problems. there are base limits -- >> $5,000. >> and what a path to give to a candidate -- >> $5,000. all we have is my $5,000 going to the back. there happened to be 400. five times 40,, 5 times 400, how much is that? >> without doing the math, earmarking -- >> there is no earmarking. it requires you write on a that youin a letter want the money to go -- >> it does not. the earmarking regulations are broader than that. if you have a patch that will contribute to one candidate -- >> they will contribute to several. they will get more than one contribution. >> at that point, you do not have the ability of your talking about. there is more money coming into the packed that could find its way to anyone --

>> if you name the packed after a particular candidate, as a hypothetical assumes, i would be surprised if the federal commission would not come after you for earmarking. >> exactly -- >> let's say this one. and each of packs them say they will support the five candidates in the most contested senate races. there are really only five very contested senate races. 100 packs say they will support the five candidates. a donor gives $5,000 to each of which supports, the candidates. it divides up the money. $1000 goes to each candidate. the total of those packs, $100,000 goes to each of the the fivendidates and

most contested races. 20 times what the contributions allowed. >> a couple of responses. first of all, we are talking about scenarios where there is not coordination at all between the first person who makes the contribution and the candidate leader receiving it. >> each candidate knows all of his $100,000 donors, there are not all that many of them. they are not actually donors at that point. it is contributing to multiple different candidates -- >> five of the contested senate -- the five senators most in tune to donors. he knows who is giving him $100,000, each of the five senators who gets in, when the strength of the these contributions were 20 times what the individuals allow. >> i do not think it works to think of these as direct contributions in excess of the

base limits. -- pack is limited itself >> what we are trying to do, because it is hard to do an oral argument, but what we are trying to do in both our cases is that we have looked up all and what we discovered and it may be wrong because i'll look at it again, is there has been no significant change in the earmarking rules, in any of the rules that you're talking about, but for one, change since buckley. the one change, the one change is the change that all contributions made by political committees established by or financed or maintained or controlled by a single person will count as one. so what you're seeing in these hypotheticals is simply the construction of precisely the same situation that existed in buckley while being careful to have not one person control the

4,000 pacs, which is pretty easy to do. and if you want to say, is this a reality? turn on your television set or internet. because we found instances, without naming names, where it certainly is a reality. >> two responses. there are changes in earmarking, more than what you've suggested because the restrictions that the fec has put out in regulations are -- are -- they cover more than the statute itself. and specifically, they cover these instances of a pac that is only going to be contributing to one candidate, which is where a lot of the concern comes from. >> i just want to be clear 8 alderson reporting company official subject to final review what your answer to justice kagan was, her hypothetical. is -- is part of your answer that this might -- the hypothetical that she gives -- contravene earmarking? or

>> that's part -- it can pose both earmarking concerns and proliferation concerns if we're talking about something. and if we're talking about a pac that's-- >> so is part of your answer to her there that the hypothetical isn't real or isn't going to happen or -->> yes, i think >> or can't happen under the existing law? is that your answer? >> that's part of the answer. don't think it's a particularly realistic scenario under existing regulations.

>> would the other side concede that this is true? >> i -- i doubt they would concede that it's true. but, you know, i think that if you look at it, if you have a bunch of pacs that are getting contributions from this same group of individuals, you are going to run into earmarking and proliferation restrictions. 9 alderson reporting company i official subject to final review but the other thing i would say -- >> i can't imagine that if you have a pac which says we're going to give money to smith, that's bad, but if you have a pac that says we're going to give all the money that you

contribute to us to smith and jones, that's okay. or smith, jones and three others. it seems to me that that's earmarking. >> exactly. it's an earmarking restrictions if you know that your contributions >> if you think it's earmarking that have a pac that gives money to the five most -- the candidates in the five most contested senate races, i just don't think any fec would say that that's earmarking. >> well, i may have an overly suspicious mind, but i don't know. if i saw 100 pacs rise up and

rise up and all of them said exactly the same thing, we're going to make contributions to the five most contested senate the candidates in the five most contested senate races, i would be suspicious. and maybe the fec would also be suspicious that they didn't just all spring up independently. >> i think that's absolutely right. i think the fec would be suspicious, but-- >> well, suppose -- suppose a 10 alderson reporting company official subject to final review number of pacs -- i forget the number in justice kagan's example -- said we're going to give to congressional and senatorial candidates who want to cut down on governmental spending. and we know there's only about four people that are like that.

>> well [laughter.] >> i mean, at that point, i think, you know, that -- that when you have a pac that's not saying to any certainty what they're going to do, then you don't -- it's not clear you have something to target there, because the pac might be spending money in different ways that are not operating as a conduit to -for circumvention. so, you know, i think that gets again to why this doesn't have the kind of coordination you need. >> can i give another one? there are 150 house candidates with completely safe seats, all right? and there are maybe, you know, 30 or 40 or something like that in their party who don't have safe seats. so the 150 gets together and they say we're going to run a joint fundraiser. and anybody can contribute $2600 to each of these candidates, 150 of them, right? so that makes about $400,000. 11 alderson reporting company official subject to final review and then these 150 candidates with completely safe seats just transfer all this money to the one person who doesn't have a safe seat. so that's about $400,000. double it for a primary and a general election, that's about $800,000 that all goes to one candidate from one donor because of the ability for candidates to transfer money to each other. >> that is not legal, justice kagan. the candidates do not have the ability to transfer money to each other. they only have >> a candidate can transfer a maximum of $2600 to another candidate per election. >> a candidate can transfer

$2,000 to a candidate per election. and that's a contribution >> i stand corrected on the basis of $600. >> that's a hard contribution limit on how much they can contribute. but -- but i think all of this also gets to another problem, which is there's an overbreadth problem here. because if -- if you're talking about this scenario, in your scenario, there's only one person who can even make a contribution at that point after the first $2600 is received. >> you're exactly right. 12 alderson reporting company official subject to final review you're exactly right, >> one person could make an $800,000 contribution to a house race, where $800,000 goes a long way. and then what these 150 candidates can do is they can do it for every single other candidate in a contested seat. so take your 30 or 40 house contested seats and it becomes a conduit for a single person to make an $800,000 contribution to a candidate in a contested district. >> i think even if you accept this scenario where all of these candidates are independently deciding to give all their money to one candidate, you can't have a law that is designed to prevent this one person from circumvention by prohibiting everybody else from engaging in --ntributions that don't >>

on the "everyone else," can you give us an idea of whose expression is at stake? i mean, most people couldn't come even near the limit. so what percentage -- is there any information on what percentage of all contributors are able to contribute over the aggregate? >> i don't have a percentage on how many are able. i mean, we aren't talking about a large number of individuals. we certainly are talking about more individuals than whose first amendment rights were implicated by the provision at issue in davis, for 13 alderson reporting company official subject to final review example. >> i assume that a law that only only prohibits the speech of 2 percent of the country is okay. >> absolutely not. >> oh, it isn't? >> we haven't talked yet about the effect of the aggregate limits on the ability of donors to give the minimum amount to as many candidates as they want. the effect of the aggregate limits is to limit someone's contribution of the maximum amount to about 9 candidates, right? >> that's right. if you're talking about a general >> is there a way to eliminate that aspect while retaining some of the aggregate limits? in other words, is that a necessary consequence of any way you have aggregate limits? or are there alternative ways of enforcing the aggregate limitation that don't have that consequence? >> well, it's certainly a necessary consequence of bcra's scheme in which there's a distinct aggregate limit on

contributions to candidates alone. i think, though, aggregate limits in 14 alderson reporting company official subject to final review general are always going to have this effect of prohibiting people from giving contributions that don't themselves give rise to quid pro quo corruption concerns. and that's why if the government is really concerned about the things it's talking about, there are narrower avenues to get at them. if the concern is joint fundraising committees, you could have >> i'm a little confused, okay? i'm confused because we're talking in the abstract. this decision was based on a motion to dismiss. and there is a huge colloquy about what happens and doesn't happen. we don't have a record below. >> well >> i mean, i can go into the news, as >> suggested. it's very hard to think that any candidate doesn't know the contributor who has enough money to give not only to himself or herself, but to any of his or her affiliates who are supporting him or her. i mean, it's nearly common sense, hard to dispute. so you're saying it can't happen, but i don't see charges of coordination going on that much. >> i guess i'm not sure what you're talking about happening. i mean, if you're just 15 alderson reporting company official subject to final review talking about knowing that some individuals are making contributions to other candidates or state parties who are not going to share those contributions with a particular candidate, then i don't see how that -- or gives rise to any corruption or circumvention concern. >> here is the actual ad, the actual ad. i won't name the candidate. you see a picture of the candidate. there is a sign that says "smith pac." that's what it says. and then it says, "make a donation to help smith pac support republican," if you like, or "democratic candidates." period. and then they have an address. all right.

now, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they're going to do with the money and that maybe smith will get a pretty good share of it. now, if smith has 400 people who figure this out, he will have 400 times 5,000 times one person. now, you say that really couldn't happen because of the designation. we haven't found a designation rule that would stop it. but then justice sotomayor is saying -- i don't know. and i don't either, because there's been no hearing, there's been no evidence presented. there is nothing but dismissal. >> two points, your honor. first of all, the case was brief on cross-motion for 16 alderson reporting company official subject to final review injunctive relief. so the government had an opportunity to make a record and it chose to treat this as a legal case, not as one in which

-- >> do -- do we need a record to figure out issues of law? >> and that's my second point. really, this is >> no, no. i agree. [laughter.] >> i agree -- i agree that -that this campaign finance law is so intricate that i can't figure it out. it might have been nice to have the, you know, the lower court tell me what the law is. but we don't normally require a record to decide questions of law. >> and you shouldn't need one here either because these limits are facially over- and under- inclusive. they're not closely tailored and evidence can't-- >> you're taking a position -- you're taking a position that the law stops corruption. and you're suggesting that the government is incapable of showing facts that the law doesn't work? >> i'm suggesting that >> as it is? don't you 17 alderson reporting company official subject to final review need facts to prove that or disprove that proposition? >> even if the government could prove that proposition, there would still be an overand under- breadth problem. if i may, i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. burchfield. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court -- senator mcconnell agrees that this aggregate limit does not pass

exacting scrutiny. senator mcconnell believes that all restrictions of this nature should be reviewed under strict scrutiny. to begin with, this is a severe restriction on political speech. >> mr. burchfield, i'd like you to address this question about the restriction on speech. it has been argued that these limits promote expression, promote democratic participation, because what they require the candidate to do is, instead of concentrating fundraising on the super- affluent, the candidate would then have to try to raise money more 18 alderson reporting company official subject to final review broadly in the electorate. so that by having these limits you are promoting democratic participation, then the little people will count some, and you won't have the super-affluent as the speakers that will control the elections. >> your honor, i disagree with that, for this reason. first of all, this limit, the aggregate limit on political parties, places like-minded political parties in the position of competing against each other rather than collaborating against each other. all the national political parties on the republican side and the state political parties compete against each other for

an artificially limited pool of money from each contributor. the same is true on the candidate side. they compete against each other for the same artificially limited pool of money, even though each individual contribution to the candidate or to the party is limited by the base limits. the federal election commission regulations -- and >> , i would -- i would propose that you look at section 110.1[h], which specifically -- which specifically prohibits a pac of the nature you describe. if a person contributes to a pac with knowledge his contribution is going to a particular 19 alderson reporting company official subject to final review candidate, that is an earmark under the -- under the precedents of the federal election commission.

>> counsel, is it -- is it correct that the consequence of this provision has been very severe with respect to national political parties? >> it is, your honor, particularly in the current environment where the national political parties are -- are being marginalized by outside forces. >> and -- and much of the money that used to go to them now goes to pacs; isn't that what has happened? >> exactly right, your honor. >> so that this is really, you know, turning the dials on -- on regulating elections. now, i ask myself, why would -- why would members of congress want to hurt their political parties? and i answer -- i answer to myself [laughter.] >> well, ordinarily, the national political parties will devote their money to elections in those states where the incumbent has a good chance of

losing. so, in fact, if you're an incumbent who cares about political parties, i don't want money to go to my opponents. 20 alderson reporting company official subject to final review and if you -- if you turn down the amount of money that the national political parties have, that's that much less money that can be devoted against you if you're challenged in a close race. isn't that the consequence of this? >> let me see you and raise you one. there are separate limits here, your honor, for candidates and for political parties. the effect of this is to insulate the incumbents from competing with the political parties for the dollars. and by imposing a cap on the candidate -- on the amount candidates can raise, the incumbents realized that they're the favored class among -- among candidates who are going to be getting the contributions.

>> what a surprise. >> has it worked out that way in practice? has it worked out? because there was one brief at >> well, your honor, i think it is -- it is -- there's a hard cap on the number any contributor can give to all candidates, and a separate cap on the amount that contributor can give to all party committees. >> so -- so i read in one 21 i spent several weeks reading the record before the district court in that very lengthy case on this. and it was filled with testimony by senators and congressmen that a handful of people can give hundreds of thousands of dollars, they know who those people are, and that those people do have undue influence, which means in first amendment terms that the individual who, in fact, has wonderful ideas and convinces others, even by paying three cents to buy the internet or something, hasn't a shot because it will influence

people, not ideas, but the money. now, there was a record on that. here there is no record showing whether this aspect does or does not have the same tendency. that is why i ask -- how can i decide this on the basis of theory when the record previously showed the contrary of what's been argued, and in fact at least might show that even in respect to these limits? >> well, your -- your honor, this case comes to the court as an as-applied challenge. mr. mccutcheon does not want to go through -- does not want to go through the committees you're talking about. he wants to write checks directly to the candidates and directly to the committees. he is constrained by the aggregate limit. >> but he can -- he can write checks to everyone that he wants to write checks to. it's just he can't give his special number of 1776. >> if -- if he wanted to give a

contribution to every candidate running for a federal congressional seat, congressional and senate, he would be limited to $86 or some number like that. >> in his own case, it would be something over $1,000, right? because he identified 12 more candidates that he'd like to give 1776 to. but he could give each of them over $1,000. >> your honor, he could. but again, you're -- you're diminishing his right to associate and the intensity of his association by applying this aggregate limit. >> mr. burchfield, if you take off the aggregate limits, people will be allowed, if you put together the national committees and all the state committees and all the candidates in the house and the senate, it comes to over $3.5 million. so i can write checks totalling $3.5 million to the republican party committees and all its candidates or to the democratic party committees and all its committees even before i start writing checks to independent pacs. now, having written a check for

million dollars to a single party's candidates, are you suggesting that that party and the members of that party are not going to owe me anything, that i won't get any special treatment? because i thought that that was exactly what we said in mcconnell, that when we talked about soft money restrictions, we understood that you give $3.5 million, you get a very, very special place at the table. so this is effectively to -- to reintroduce the soft money scheme of mcconnell, isn't it? >> no. no, your honor, it is absolutely not, because mcconnell dealt with the situations where there were -- you were not considering the base limits. the soft money by definition was not subject to the base limits. to take your example of the joint fundraising committee, the joint fundraising regulation, which consumes more than three pages in the -- in the federal code of federal regulations -- it's at 102.17[c] -- it specifically reaffirms the base limits. it specifically reaffirms the anti-earmarking restriction, and it says that the joint fundraising committee must inform all contributors of those restrictions.

so, again, it's the situation where the money leaves the contributor's hands, he loses control over it, and the person who receives it makes the 24 the money goes to a single party. and indeed, i could make this even worse. i could say, let's say the speaker of the house or the majority leader of the house solicits this money from particular people. so solicits somebody to ante up his $3.6 million. and then, you know, justice kennedy said in mcconnell the making of a solicited gift is a quid both to the recipient of the money and to the one who solicits the payment. so the speaker, the majority leader, can solicit $3.6 million to all the party members and you're telling me there's just no special influence that goes along with that? >> well, we know from the citizens united decision, your honor, that gratitude and influence are not considered to be quid pro quo corruption. so i think that's what you're talking about. that is not the sort of

corruption that would sustain this limit, especially in light of the severe restrictions on speech and association that it imposes as the political parties compete against each other and as they -- and as -- as the candidates have to compete against each other. >> in buckley, the court sustained -- sustained aggregate limits. what has changed since buckley? >> your honor, the -- the statute has changed significantly to impose base limits on the parties, to impose on both the state and -and federal parties. it has changed to prohibit proliferation of political committees. one of the concerns in buckley was the dairy industry, which contributed to hundreds of pacs supporting president nixon's re- election. that is no longer possible. >> those were all created by the dairy industry or by the nixon campaign, is that correct? >> that's not -- as i understand as i read the lower court decision in buckley, that is correct. in addition, you also have -- you also have a thick volume >> then how is it that

>> in addition, you also have -- you also have a thick volume -- you have a thick volume of the code of federal regulations of the federal election commission, which did not exist at the time of 26 alderson reporting company >> general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- aggregate limits combat corruption. let me start by explaining exactly how. aggregate limits combat corruption both by blocking circumvention of individual contribution limits and, equally fundamentally, by serving as a bulwark against a campaign finance system dominated by massive individual contributions in which the dangers of quid pro quo corruption would be obvious and inherent and the corrosive appearance of corruption would be overwhelming. now, the appellants in this case have tried to present the case as though the issue were whether there were some corrupting potential in giving contribution to the nineteenth candidate after someone has already contributed to -- the maximum to the eighteenth. but that is not what this case is about.

the appellants are not arguing the aggregate limit is drawn in the wrong place. they are arguing that there can be no aggregate limit because the base contribution limits do all the work. and so what that means is that you -- you're taking the lid off the aggregate contribution limit and, as justice kagan and her question earlier indicated, that means that an individual can contribute every two years up to $3.6 million to candidates for a party, party national committees and state committees >> that's because they can transfer the funds among themselves and to a particular candidate. is the possibility of prohibiting those transfers perhaps a way of protecting against that corruption appearance while at the same time allowing an individual to contribute to however many house candidates he wants to contribute to? i mean, the concern is you have somebody who is very interested,

say, in environmental regulation, and very interested in gun control. the current system, the way the anti-aggregation system works, is he's got to choose. is he going to express his belief in environmental regulation by donating to more than nine people there? or is he going to choose the gun control issue? >> so, mr. chief justice, i 28 want to make two different points in response to that question. the first is that restricting transfers would have a bearing on the circumvention proble>> it wouldn't eliminate all circumvention risk, but would have a bearing on that problem. but there is a more fundamental problem here. it's a problem analogous to the one that was at issue with soft money in mcconnell, which is the very fact of delivering the $3.6 million check to the whoever it is, the speaker of the house, the senate majority leader, whoever it is who solicits that check, the very fact of delivering that check creates

the inherent opportunity for quid pro quo corruption, exactly the kind of risk that the court identified in buckley, wholly apart from where that money goes after it's delivered. but the delivery of it -- >> what is the framework -- what is the framework for analyzing -- i agree with you on the aggregation, but it has this consequence with respect to limiting how many candidates an individual can support within the limits that congress has said don't present any danger of corruption? so what is the framework for analyzing that? give you your argument with respect to the transfers and the appearance there, but it does have that other consequence on something we've recognized as a significant right. so >> let me make a specific point about that and then work into the framework. the specific point is this -- the aggregate limit would have the effect of restricting the ability of a contributor to make the maximum contribution to more than a certain number of candidates. that's true.

we can't help but acknowledge that. it's math. but that doesn't mean that that individual cannot spend as much as the individual wants on independent expenditures to try to advance the interest of those candidates or the interests or the causes that those candidates stand for. mr. mccutcheon, for example, can spend as much of his considerable fortune as he wants on independent expenditure advocating the election of these candidates. >> and that does not -- that does not evoke any gratitude on the part of the people? i mean, if gratitude is corruption, you know, don't those independent expenditures evoke gratitude? and is -- is not the evil of big money -- 3.2 million, an individual can give that to an independent pac and spend it, right? >> the foundation -30 alderson -- >> it's not that we're stopping people from spending big money on politics.

>> the foundation of this court's jurisprudence in this area is the careful line between independent expenditures, which this court has held repeatedly do not create a sufficient risk of quid pro quo corruption to justify their regulation, and contributions which do. >> wait. that -- that >> so we're not talk >> that line eliminates some of the arguments that have been made here, which are arguments against big money in politics. there -- big money can be in politics. the thing is you can't give it to the republican party or the democratic party, but you can start your own pac. that's perfectly good. i'm not sure that that's a benefit to our political system. >> well, i do think we have limits on contributions to political parties in addition to limits on contributions to candidates. and i think that does help establish the point here, which is that candidates are not hermetically sealed off from each other, and parties are not hermetically sealed off from candidates. they -- you know, they're all on the same team. and we limit the amount that an

individual can contribute to a political party as well as the amount that an individual can contribute to candidates. >> that actually does very much while i don't -- i'm looking for an answer here. it's not that i have one at all. it is rather basic, the point i think that's being made now. i mean, as i understand it, the whole reason -- it is no doubt that campaign limits take an ordinary person and they say -- you cannot give more than such- and-such an amount. there are apparently, from the internet, 200 people in the united states who would like to give $117,000 or more. we're telling them -- you can't; you can't support your beliefs. that is a first amendment negative. but that tends to be justified on the other side by the first amendment positive, because if the average person thinks that what he says exercising his first amendment rights just can't have an impact through public opinion upon his representative, he says -- what is the point of the first amendment? and that's a first amendment point. all right. so that's basic, i think.

now, once that's so, congress has leeway. and you are saying, and i have seen all over the place, that that's why we don't want those 200 people to spend more than 117- or 120,000 because the average person 32 alderson thinks the election is -- after the election all the actions are affected by the pocketbook and not by the merits of the first amendment arguments. okay. and now you say the person can do the same thing anyway; just call it independent. and what independent does, he can spend 40 million. he can spend 50 million. and all that does is sort of mix up the messages because the parties can't control it. now, that's, i think, the question that's being asked. and i think that that is a very serious question, and i'd like to know what flows from it. is it true? so what? what are we supposed to do? what is your opinion about that question? >> and i have the same question. you have two -- two persons. one person gives an amount to a candidate that's limited.

the other takes out ads, uncoordinated, just all on his own, costing $500,000. don't you think that second person has more access to the candidate who's -- when the candidate is successful, than the first? i think that was at the root of justice scalia's question and -- >> let me try to answer this with an analogy, if i could, justice kennedy. i think the right way to think about it is 33 alderson reporting company official if somebody thinks the secretary of defense is doing a great job, they can take out an ad in the washington post, spend $500,000 on that ad saying -- the secretary of defense has done a great job. and -- and they would have an undoubted first amendment right to do that. no one could think that there's a content -- it's hard to imagine a content-neutral

justification for prohibiting that speech. but if instead the person wanted to express their symbolic >> what if boeing does it? mean, you know >> i still think >> you think no problem? >> that would be an independent expression. but if, instead, somebody wanted to express symbolically their view that the secretary of defense has done a great job by giving the secretary of defense a maserati, nobody would think that there was a first amendment ground that could be -- that could be invoked. >> but we are talking here about we're talking here about campaign contributions. isn't it illegal for a candidate to take campaign contributions and use it to buy a maserati? 34 alderson reporting company i >> we -- yes, it is, but the point >> well, i don't see how that really gets to the point. >> but -- it get -- i think it does, if i may, justice alito, because i think that the point is that the -- that the rule against gifts, the conflict of interest rules, they exist to advance a content-neutral government interest of the highest importance. >> what troubles me about your what troubles me about your argument, general verrilli, and about the district court's opinion is that what i see are wild hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible or -- and

lack, certainly lack any empirical support. now, you've -- you've chosen to use the same hypothetical the district court used about the $3.5 million contribution that would be -- that could be given by a coordinate -- which involves all of the house candidates and all of the senate candidates in a particular year getting together with all of the all of the parties' national party committees, plus all of the state party committees, and then -- and that's how you get up to the $3.5 million figure; isn't that right? >> yes. >> now, how -- how realistic is that? how realistic is it that all of the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and they're all going to transfer it to one candidate? for 49 of them, it's going to be a candidate who is not in their own state. and there are virtually no instances of state party committees contributing to candidates from another state. and the other part of it that seems dubious on its face is

that all of the party -- all of the candidates for the house and the senate of a particular party are going to get together and they are going to transfer money to one candidate. there really -- you cited in your brief the example -- best examples, i take it, of -- of contributions from some candidates to other candidates. they are very small. isn't that true? >> yes. but i think there are two -- justice alito, i think that, with all due respect, i think the point your honor is making confuses two different ways in which these laws combat the risk of corruption. the first one is that the -- the handing over of the large check, and whether it's a $3.6 million check for everyone or a $2.2 million, or a $1 million check for all the state committees, the very -- just as the court found in mcconnell with respect to massive soft money

contributions and the inherent risks of -- of corruption there, there's an inherent risk of corruption. and that's why indeed, as i said, we have limits on how much we can contribute to a political party for that reason >> well, i don't understand that . >> the way these fund-raising committee's work is that you , give to theeck rest of my team. that is handing over the check to that candidate, a create significant risk of indebtedness on the are of the candidate'. party leaders are going to be the ones that solicit those contributions have particular indebtedness to candidates because of their power and authority depending on the party retaining or getting a majority

in the legislature. they're going to feel indebtedness that this person is helping only them but everyone. >> the third point is that every candidate and party is going to be affected by this because every candidate is going to get a slice of the money, and every candidate is going to know that this person who wrote the check has helped not only the candidate but the old team, and that creates indebtedness. every member of the party is likely to be leaned on by the party leadership. >> the limits might stand or fall together. take this example and walk me through this step by step. we have somebody who wants to corrupt member of the house. makeperson strategy is to contributions to multiple house candidates with the hope that the expectation of a plan those candidates are going to transfer the money to the member that

this person wants to corrupt. how was that person going to accomplish that, given the emerging regulations and the limits on how much one member can contribute to another? >> i think it is possible. if somebody had that goal, that circumvention goal, a better way of achieving it would be giving contributions to state parties and national parties were free to transfer money among themselves without restriction, and by making contributions to paccs. >> if you're not going to defend in that situation, these are -- could happen in that situation.

it is more than likely to happen. >> explained to be how it is going to be done. >> the person gives to person a in the hopes it will give to member be. person wanted to go to be. that is earmarked. how is it going to be done? the outerking is not ability the governments to regulate here. a lot of this can be done through winks and nods. i do not think it is a case rking would limit that. they keep the circumstantial and -- >> what would you think? dialogue, thisur is tough.

, andnstruct hypotheticals the cancel says we have this heart wrong or that are wrong. we cannot do this, figuring out these factual things in an hour. i am not sure. there hasn't been a full hearing. it seems there are things to explore and respect the circumvention. who is right? ande are things to explore respect to the question of whether being able to write a $3.6 million check to a bout of people does lead -- leave the average person to think my first minute speech in terms of influencing my representative means nothing. there are things to explore in terms of the relationship between what is permissible, $40 million spent independently, and what isn't.

none of these have been considered. they would seem relevant. what do you think about going into these matters in a district court where the evidentiary aspects of them can be explored at some length? >> i think that the statute can be upheld under the current state of the record. i understand and i take your honors point. i do think you have a thatantial record, and bears on the question of whether massive aggregate contributions pose the inherent danger of corruption and the corrosive appearance of corruption. didn't suggestnt --response to the [inaudible]

science -- both sides [indiscernible] there was this point made that , it drawses contributions towards the .acs, and away the money would flow to the candidates, to the party organizations, but it is going to pacs. what is your response to that? the constitutional first amendment framework as a given. the court has determined that an dependent spinach or's do not -- expenditures do not prevent a risk of would grow quote -- when

pro quo.id , given thation says it is the law, is in the consequence of this particular provision to set the vitality of political parties, and encourage election?acs for each >> the answer is we do not know if that is the consequence. , theyll the respect raise and spend substantial amounts of money. beyond that, what the congress has determined is that there is a risk of corruption, as

regulated with respect to that. congress is free to keep the into consideration. >> $3.5 million. someone who gives the maximum to every possible candidate and party he can contribute to, $3.5 million, with an perspective. how much money is spent by political parties and pacs and all elections? in one election cycle. >> that is a good point. take the 2010 elections. $1.5 billion.nt >> what about pacs? >> i do not have the specifics. newspapers that spend money endorsing candidates? money.e to put in that

that is money that it starts to political speech. think $3.5 million is a lot of money? >> i do not think that is the right way to look at it. if you think a party has to get one point $5 billion together to run a congressional campaign, then you have a maximum of $3.6 million, that is 450 people you need to round up to fund the whole thing. that is part of the problem. you are creating a situation where you take off the aggregate limits in which there is a real risk that both the government people, andby those that the public will perceive that the government is run by and for those people. that is why we have these limits. is just toequence

get back to my prior question, you are telling someone who doesn't want to give $3.4 million, but wants to contribute to more than nine candidates, you are telling him that he can't make that contribution however modest within the limits congress has said does not present a corruption to attend candidate. i appreciate the arguement you are making for the aggregate limits pre-understand that. what you do with the flipside? you can't pretend it is pursued with a first minute cause. it seems to be a direct restriction on a much smaller contribution that do not present a point of corruption. >> i take that point. the analytical framework of the first amendment is to think

about this in terms of neutrality. the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption. a content neutral. >> that is a normally get you very far on the first amendment. timesst or the new york can only endorse nine candidates. it is completely content neutral. that limit would not be -- >> that would be a content-based justification. you're not trying to prevent the appearance of carbs in my doing that. -- the appearance of corruption by doing that. with the respect elected officials and the giving of money to elected officials, there is this content neutral justification. not first amendment costs. that causes mitigated.

any way to prevent the concern you have about the 3.5 million dollar check without imposing the limit on the person he wants to support 10 candidates? >> you could calculate inaccurate tabulation than the one that is here now. the you are making the argument that you cannot have aggregate limits. >> they are making the argument that the regulations that exist about transfers from one to -- that is what you are word about. but if they are not sufficient, it it could be bolstered. in a very blunt way trying to get at the problem.