care. part of the affordable care act will minimize the uncompensated care. there is also federal workers that will be hired. there is fraud there. >> as we indicated, only a portion was taken from medicare. as for the caller, they got that correct. problems in how the affordable care act is going to be paid for on time. that will play out. host: thank you for joining us and talking to our viewers. guest: i enjoyed it. >> on the nest washington journal, we discussed the government shutdown. after that we will hear about the impact the government shutdown is having across the

country with reporters from stay in local newspapers. we will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> we want to know how the shutdown is affecting you. send us your touts. >> uploaded it from your mobile device at tout.com at the blue henry house here at stanford. this was the primary residence of the hoover's. significant because she designed it. she had a strong grasp of design and how she wanted the house to look, even though she was not an architect. we are lucky to have the original drawings and documents relating to the design and

construction how she wanted the house to look. herhe influence came from travels in the south part of the united states. also from her travels in north africa, which you travel with herbert hoover. it is a great legacy. she designed and created the house. it was inspired by her ideas. she had close involvement in all aspects of the house. span.et lou hoover on c- >> some of the events that occurred on capitol hill today. debate in the house over a temporary funding bill for american indians. after that, -- democrats automatic government shutdown. sid majority leader harry reid and other senate democrats talking to reporters about the

debt ceiling. in the house, members to rated -- debated a temporary funding program for indian health programs. next, the debate on the bill. mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. simpson: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this important legislation, to continue funding for the bureau of indian affairs and indian education and indian health services. this bill focuses on education, law enforcement, health care and many other vital services to american indians and alaskan natives. mr. speaker, for long ago the federal government made treaty commitments to american indians who in return ceded the vast lands that make up the united states today. visit any indian reservation

today and you'll quickly realize that the federal government has not lived up close to its end of the bargain. my colleagues on both subcommittees on both sides of the aisle and mr. moran and mr. dicks that chaired this committee have been working hard over the years -- over the past several years to address the critical needs and challenges in indian country. even in declining budget environments on a bipartisan basis, our committee continues to make funding for indian country a priority. why i doubt my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle will oppose the merits of the bill. they might oppose the strategy but they probably won't oppose the merits of the bill as something we agree on on a bipartisan bay bipartisan basis. for the past 11 days the house has abeen tempting to reopen the government without further delay and without trying to extract any further concessions from the senate or president. mr. speaker, you can't go wrong by trying to do the right thing.

right here, right now, those of us who care about indian country have been given the opportunity to do the right thing. let's not waste this opportunity, pointing fingers and arguing over everything other than the topic at hand. the topic at hand is indian health, indian education, and the b.i.a. this is the hand we have been dealt. let's do the right thing. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair will recognize the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that i be able to control the time. i guess there is a parliamentary procedure. does mrs. lowey have to request that? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. here we go again.

each day the gaping wound of the government shutdown represents grows bigger and the house republican response continues to be these little band-aid. of course we on the democratic side want to see all native american programs funded. the other side knows that. and in fact, this has been one area where we have achieved bipartisan agreement. both chairman simpson, i want to particularly mention mr. cole on our subcommittee, myself, ms. mccollum, all of us have tried to put as much money as possible given very severe fiscal constraints to native american programs. but this bill that's on the floor today in fact doesn't state -- doesn't serve its

stated purpose. we are going to hear from house republicans what this latest band-aid temporarily funds, but here is just some of the native american programs and offices that are not funded by this resolution. native american education programs that are funded by the department of education. native american law enforcement programs funded by the department of justice. the programs to carry out the violence against women act. that's an area we had achieved finally bipartisan agreement. this doesn't allow us the funds to carry out that program. native american social service programs that are funded by the -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct. members will please tear their conversations from the floor and -- take their conversations from the floor and clear the well. the gentleman may continue. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker.

i understand that this is a very trying day for all of the american people, and that colleagues feel that as well. i'm happy to speak through the interruption. but i do want to make the point these native american social service programs that are so important to the american indians, particularly on our reservations, are not funded by this bill. childcare, temporary assistance to needy families, because they are funded by the department of health and human services. native american housing programs, funded by the department of housing and urban development. h.u.d. has the highest percentage, almost 100% of its employees are furloughed. still, what is this the 11th day, mr. speaker? that was a rhetorical question. mr. speaker, while this resolution temporarily funds the bureau of indian affairs and bureau of indian education, it fails to fund the office of the

assistant secretary for indian affairs, which oversees those agencies. we are not even willing to fund the office that's responsible for managing the programs that we purport to fund today. what about the office of the special trustee which administers $3.7 billion in tribal funds and $728 million in individual indian accounts. that's not funded either. let's not be deluded that this is going to fix the situation with regard to the -- our native americans. that's why a number of tribes have opposed this way of doing it. they want all the government to open up. because it is their government as well. mr. speaker, the underlying basis for the republican shutdown of the government has been an irrational and intransigent opposition to the affordable care act.

that's how it started. house republicans voted 43 times to repeal the affordable care act. at the same time they were voting to repeal the permanent re-authorization of the indian health care improvement act. every time the other side voted to repeal the affordable care act, they were voting to repeal the determine re-authorization of the indian health care act. as well as voting to repeal many new programs that are contained in the affordable care act that are designed to assist indian health -- indian health service in meeting its mission to raise the health status of native americans. these 43 attempts to repeal the affordable care act and shutting down of government is all the more disheartening because we in the subcommittee on interior and environment have so strongly supported native american programs. unlike what we have seen in the last week of certain members

come to the floor to claim support for n.i.h., head start, all of which we strongly support, even as members have pushed sequester and proposed additional cuts to these programs in 2014, on the other side, this subcommittee has a bipartisan commitment to native american programs. that's something we should be proud of. and this subcommittee, i know, does not want to go about funding native american programs in this manner. it's a halfhearted band-aid approach. it's strong. we need to fund all native american, we need to fund all federal government. it's long past time for this shutdown to end. let's release all the federal employees that have been taken hostage. let's reopen the people's government. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: it's my pleasure to

yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, the chairman of the natural resources committee, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in full support of this resolution to fund the bureau of indian affairs. while house republicans continue to offer solutions to end this government shutdown, we will continue also to take steps to provide funding for important areas of our government. this measure fulfills the congress' unique responsibility to fund programs vital to indian tribes and alaska natives. there are 56 million acres of indian trust lands in the united states. unlike other privately owned lands, in most cases indian trust lands may not be leased for development purpose without approval of the secretary of the interior. these lands are critical for indian tribes to create jobs and generate revenue for their reservation economies. for example, in my central washington district, two tribes

are major producers of timber that employ hundreds of people and produce income for tribal governments and thousands of individual members. in other parts of the country, tribes utilize their trust lands for oil, natural gas, and coal development, and a variety of business leasing and housing. it is critical to ensure continued funding for the bureau of indian affairs to perform functions necessary for tribes and individual landowners to lease and develop their lands. the joint resolution additionally provides funding for the indian health service programs. while direct care for accuse and chronic health conditions is being provided to the american indians during the shutdown, other services have been scaled back. it is critical these be restored to normal operations. the president repeatedly stresses the importance of the united states' unique relations with indian tribes. he now has the opportunity, mr. speaker, to match his rhetoric with action by supporting the passage of this resolution and

signing it into law. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back to the chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, it's my great pleasure right now to yield two minutes to the ranking member of the full appropriations committee, mrs. nita lowey, from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the republican shutdown. of course we support funding for indian education and health services. unfortunately, the house hasn't had the opportunity to approval funding for these programs this year because the majority did not have the courage of their convictions to bring their f.y. 2014 interior and environment, on the labor-h.h.s. appropriation bills to the house floor. don't for a moment think that

today's bill fulfills their commitments to native americans. under this bill they will still not receive funding they are due from the departments of justice and the department of education. this is nothing more than a republican ploy, and the claim that democrats are not negotiating is absolutely false. house republicans wrote a bill, sent it to the senate, the senate adopted the motion -- the most important part of it, the funding level, anti-president agreed to sign it, even though democrats wanted greater investments to support economic growth, jobs. the only thing democrats oppose are irresponsible efforts to put health care decisions back in the hands of insurance companies. which has nothing to do with keeping the government opened. that is democracy.

that is negotiation. we have done more than meet in the middle, but the republicans now say no to their own bill. we could end the shut down today if the majority would only support a reasonable solution to allow a vote on the republican written senate-passed bill. vote no, demand a house vote to immediately end the reckless republican shutdown. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: it's my pleasure to yield a minute and a half to gentleman from montana, mr. daines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1:30 seconds. mr. daines: i rise to support to appropriate funds for the bureau of indian education today because our native americans cannot sustain another day of this washington gridlock. in my home state of montana, we

have seven indian reservations, and also the state recognized little shaw tribe. we are now working on getting recognition for them. native americans encompass 6% of montana's population. on a reservation, unemployment can rise as high as 50%. the indian health service, the bureau of indian affairs, and education can literally be life line for many. earlier this year, when i visited the college, i learned about their slogan grounded in tradition, charging into the future. our reservations want to be self-sustaining without adequate health services, education, and economic opportunities, that goal is unattainable. i want our native american to be able to thrive in my home state of montana. that's why i support this resolution today. i yield back my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i'd like to inquire how much time we have on both sides. remaining in the debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 12 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from idaho has 14 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from minnesota, the chair of the indian caucus, miss betty mccollum -- ms. betty mccollum. ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, the house not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct. if members would please remain from conversations on the floor. the gentlewoman is recognized. mitts mccollum -- ms. mccollum: i rise today to oppose this bill. as democratic co-chair of the native american caucus, i'm here to promote respect for tribal sovereignty, to fight for the needs of native american families, and to call our

federal government to uphold its trust and treaty obligations. mr. paul, my republican co-chair, ranking member moran, and mr. simpson, the author of this legislation, shir those very same goals. . but i think the bill before us today doesn't meet the needs of indian country. the national conference of american indians has asked us to, quote, reopen government operations for all federal agencies that meet trust and treaty obligations to tribal nations and to stop the sequester of 2014. and i've heard that same message loud and clear from minnesota tribal leaders. mr. speaker, when we consider federal funding for tribal nations, we are talking about government-to-government relationships. this means the entire federal government needs to be open and functioning. many services have been pointed out that are vital to indian country are not funded with b.i.a. or b.h.s.

the department of agriculture, commerce, justice, transportation and other agencies within h.h.s. or interior all have native american accounts. food distribution on indian reservations is administered by the department of agriculture and no funds is able to replenish food reserves to support low-income american indians each month. in minnesota, winter is on its way and tribal housing development has been brought to a halt for white earth nation because the bureau of land management is closed. mr. speaker, i could list other important tribal partnerships that this bill will not open. and i have one that i'll enter into the record with your permission. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. mccollum: we need to vote for a clean funding bill for this government. i'll vote no.

i encourages others to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: my fellow colleagues, this is an important piece of legislation. when you vote against this legislation, you're voting against the first americans. everyone in this room is an immigrant. we made a trust relationship with american indians to take care of them, provide them and a trust relationship that we failed. you say this won't go anywhere. very frankly, we should have done this a long time ago. we should set up the system because of the trust system that they are front end loaded for their health care primarily. we have a system now that does not work. they have to hold their hand

out and beg, and a lot of you on that side, all you'll say, don't say too much. take your blanket and go home and be quiet. no other minority would be treated that way. this health system has to be fixed. we have an opportunity to fix it now. we should fix it now. when people stand up and say, i support the american indians, the first americans, you're not really supporting it. you're paying lip service. you're paying lip service. that's all you have been doing for all these years ever since columbus landed on these shores, and you broke treaty after treaty after treaty, both sides of the aisle. i've been with eight presidents and they paid lip service. they paid lip service. the president is going to have a big first american conference, the fifth one, and now all they tell them again,

be quiet, take your blanket and your half a beet and go home. for those that talk about the minority, this is the first minority. yes, i get a little emotional about this because i have 10 american native grandchildren. i have two beautiful american native children that's given me those 10 grandchildren. and i had a wife that was in fact one of the first americans and i'm proud to be associated with that. we should vote yes on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i agree with my good friend from alaska. the unconscionable treatment that's been accorded our native americans. and i agree that there should be a unique commitment to our native americans, but at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: thank you, mr.

speaker. thank you for the time. look, we all know what's happening here. if anybody believes that there's a true commitment to fully fund the promises that we have made to america's native american tribes, you've got to be joking. look what is not funded in this legislation. it would be really simple to meet the promise that the gentleman spoke so eloquently about and the way we would do that is to simply bring up a clean bill to reopen the entirety of government. instead of picking and choosing which promises we will keep to america's native american tribes, we would keep them all. instead of skipping the housing program, skipping the social service programs and providing a talking point but not meeting the obligation that this congress has made to america's native american tribes. if any community in this

country understands broken promises, it's the native american tribes of this country. in this bill, this legislation, continues the trail of broken promises. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. mr. moran: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: mr. speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from oklahoma, a valued member of our subcommittee and probably the largest advocate for indian issues in congress, the gentleman, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i can agree with parts of what my friends have said and parts i frankly can't agree with. i worked in a bipartisan manner across the aisle and with the white house on native american issues ever since i've gotten here no matter who was on the other side of the aisle or who was in the white house. i have to tell you, when you question the commitment of our native american affairs, you clearly haven't looked at the

record. because of this chairman, indian health expense is up 29% in three years. each year for the last three years, we have raised above what the administration quested in native american community. i want to give my friend, mr. moran, my friend, betty mccollum, a lot of truth -- excuse me -- a lot of credit for those achievements. i want to give our predecessor, norm dicks, who operated in the same way, a lot of credit for that. this is a good faith effort to do exactly what my friends suggest, make sure that critical programs in indian program are funded right now. i'll continue to work in a bipartisan manner with my friends on these kinds of -- and other issues, but to suggest that they're being used as a pawn, no, for the first time they're just not being forgotten about, because that what tends to happen around here. that's happened with democrats and republicans. so with that, i would urge the adoption and support. i want to thank my friend for being the leader in this house

on funding native american programs. has done more than anybody in this country to improve the quality and the level of federal services on that. so he ought to be given the credit that he respects. i want to thank my friend, mr. moran, working with him every step of the way to accomplish those things. i saw them do it when their roles were reversed and he was chair and he was ranking member. not an effort to divide. it's an effort, actually, to put something out that has united us in a bipartisan sense and to make sure that the first americans aren't the last americans that anybody around here thinks about. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, this releases .15% of the federal government, leaving more than 9% of the federal government -- 99% of the federal government still closed. so at this point i'd like to yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to

our very distinguished minority whip, mr. hoyer from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h. resolution 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we end this epublican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: under guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request o ms. velazquez from new york. ms. velazquez: i thank the gentleman for yielding. ask that the house bring up the resolution to open the government so we can end the

republican government shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: the request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. speaker, i yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to mr. green from texas. mr. green: thank you. mr. speaker, i, too, 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 the 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: mr. speaker, i yield for the purpose of unanimous consent request the gentlelady from california, ms. hahn. ms. hahn: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to h.j. resolution 59, to open this government and go to conference on a budget so that we can end this republican government shutdown that is hurting so many american people. 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 yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the house bring up the senate amendment to house joint resolution 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so we can end this republican shutdown now and get the american people 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, 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 give the american people the relief 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. serrano: 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 the 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 that 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 government, 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 for purpose 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 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 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 gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: i now yield to the gentlelady from alabama, ms. terri sewell. ms. sewell: 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 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 unanimous consent 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 amendment to h.r. res. 59, to open government and to go to conference on a budget so we can end 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 speaker 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 recognized. -- moran: mr. speaker, i now i yield time to the gentleman to complete his unanimous consent request. 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 gentleman from california, mr. honda. mr. honda: good morning, 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. 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 entertained 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 supports 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 tempore: 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 unanimous 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 consent request 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 to the 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 clearance. the gentleman from virginia. 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 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 gentleman from california, mr. takano. mr. takano: 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 government 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 now 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. lee, 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 shutdown and put people back to work. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised, that request cannot 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 house 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 have 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 gentleman has not made a parliamentary inquiry. mr. rangel: that's how i started. and i could ask the recorder

but i don't want 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 entertain 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 parliamentary inquiry. if you're telling me i'm out of order for making a parliamentary inquiry, i'm not prepared to challenge the chair even though i truly believe you and i believe you 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 gentleman from new york for a unanimous consent request if the gentleman has unanimous consent request. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent that the speaker and the parliamentarian take a good look at the rules of this

>> the house is scheduled to return monday at noon eastern. live coverage is always here on c-span. next, houston the credit leader speaking to reporters by the government shutdown. several house democrats said they are considering a discharge petition to force a bill on a clean spending bill. that option was brought up with this meeting with the public -- reporters. >> once again in the 12th day of the shutdown of the american people. the 12th day of having people out of work. people having to work, but not working for that pay. the publicans have refused to put on the floor legislation that will open the people's

government. we have had over 150 members sign a petition to open the government. and bring legislation to the floor. we had scores of members asking for unanimous consent of the body to do just that. so that the government could be open today. a point of order was just made. any member of the house would have been in order to ask for hr 59 to be put on the floor. we will discuss that at greater length. the american people want the government opened. they want us to talk. they want us to reach an agreement.

they see no need. we see no need of having literally millions of people shut out of their workplace while the republican majority shuts down the government and tries to hold a gun at our head to agree on things that, in a democratic process, should be dealt with not at the point of a gun, but at the table of conference, to which they have refused to go over the last five months. that me yield to my colleague tim cliburn. -- tim clyburn. >> here we are on day 12 of a government shutdown imposed on the american people by a series of manufactured crises. and today, we have witnessed attempts on behalf of this congress by the majority to shut

off the pay and to keep the american forces they say they want to heal. the american people have made clear they want to see this brought into play. this is what happens in a government process when we stymie the opposition, when we put off debate, and when we continue to teeter on disaster. 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. that's america' as it is vote to put america back to -- let america's representatives vote to put america back to work. we will not stop until we are allowed to put america back to work.

that me yield to the vice- chairman of the democratic caucus. >> 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 -- 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 the weekend. the government remains shut

down. lands can take off carrying members back to districts. we continue to have uncertainty about what will happen to 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. those planes take off while the federal government remains shut down. that is fundamentally wrong. we saw in this discharge position -- position -- petition 100 80 governments -- 186 democrat sign to open this government now. 280 democrats stated they would support a vote on a clean government -- a clean vote to open this government now. no conditions. just open this government. there are 28 republicans who

will get on that plane today and fly home and spend the rest of the week in their districts saying, i am one of the good guys. i am willing to vote for a clean budget. i hope when those constituents see those republicans who claim they are willing to vote for a clean budget, they ask them, will you sign that discharge position -- petition when you get back on monday? will you put your people ahead >> 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 rigged the rules of the house, changed the rules of the house to deny the opportunity to any member of congress, republican or democrat, to call up and vote upon the law that would 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. what it will do, if we can get 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. but this is 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. grace 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. america wants that to happen, and they clearly indicated that in every poll. questions? >> majority leader cantor said 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. he got a little exercised and there was an exchange with one of my staff members. mr. crowley 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 that the government of the united states of america that serves the american people is

shut down needlessly for political 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 about weiland -- while 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. senator mcconnell indicated that senator alexander, as ranking member of the rules committee, worked for a number of years with senator schumer. i was concerned that there were different republican officers going around and discussions with my senators. so i called 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. the conversations were extremely cordial but very preliminary. nothing conclusive. but i hope that are talking is 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. there are two good things in it. 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. they are 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 say again, i was happy to do that. you 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. if they allowed us to invoke 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. then we have got people in the 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. every individual, every family, 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 it is to default, and my view is 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. so, the hope is that at the end 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. as leader read -- 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. we here in congress have a 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 to work together when the 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. when we agreed to have a 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, which is now bled into a point 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. mitch mcconnell does not have much wiggle room either with senate republicans. what do you think you are going to accomplish? >> we should never have had the 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. >> is the house 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. but -- i think, we are negotiating. i am not locked in. senator murray has focused, as 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 attention from the folls they 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 have long since -- i am not 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. manufacturing 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. constant brinksmanship does not let us do it. it inflicts real pain on real people. it creates spasms of uncertainty for business owners. it threatens our nation's credit and standing in the world. 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. thank you for listening. >> coming up next, the supreme court oral argument on campaign- finance restrictions. then, an overview of the health 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

recent u.s. aid -- grade in 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 like, i 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 york sunday at 10:00 a.m.. >> this sunday, part two of our conversation with josh. >> start out by giving us what you saw with 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 and the press corps because 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. we bring public events to -- 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 court -- 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. ms. murphy? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- bicker's aggregate contribution limits are an impermissible attempt to equalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process. by prohibiting contributions that are within the modest base limits congress has already imposed to combat the reality or appearance of corruption, these limits simply seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much first amendment activity. these limits cannot be justified on circumvention grounds because the concerns the government hypothesizes are already addressed by bicker's multitude of more direct anti- circumvention measures. >> how is that? >> because bicker imposes numerous 3 alderson reporting company official subject to final review direct circumvention measures. for instance, we have earmarking provisions on earmarking contributions for candidate. we have coordination restrictions on coordinated expenditures with a candidate. there are proliferation restrictions on creating multiple pacs that are all designed.

>> now, all these were there at but for one -- were there at the time of buckley vs. valeo, and i guess the court thought something could happen like the following -- candidate smith, we can only give him $2600, but he has a lot of supporters. and each of them, 40 of them gets a brainstorm. and each of the 40 puts on the internet a little sign that says, sam smith pac. this money goes to people like sam smith. great people. now, we can give each of those 40 $5,000. they aren't coordinated, they're not established by a single person. each is independently run. and we know pretty well that that total of $5,000 times 40 will go to sam smith. okay? what does that violate? >> well, there's a couple problems with that hypothetical, your honor. first of all, there are base limits both on what can be given to a pac

>> $5,000. >> and on what a pac can give 4 alderson reporting company official subject to final review to a candidate. >> $5,000. so we all have is my $5,000 going to the pac and there happened to be 400 pacs. so 5,000 times -- 4,000. five times 40, five times 400, how much is that? i'm not too good at math. [laughter] >> without doing the math, i will tell you that earmarking and proliferation restrictions >> no, no. there is no earmarking >> but -- but there's >> because earmarking requires that you write on a check or in an accompanying letter that you want the money to go to something. >> but actually it does not. >> it does not? >> earmarking -- the fec's earmarking regulations are broader than that. if you have a pac that is going to contribute only to one

candidate, you're not >> no, no. they'll contribute to several because they'll get more than one contribution. >> and at that point, then you 5 alderson reporting company official subject to final review don't have the kind of traceability you're talking about because there is more money coming into the pac than can find its way to any one particular candidate. >> i would think if you named the pac after a particular candidate as the hypothetical assumes, i would be surprised if the federal election commission wouldn't come after you for earmarking. >> that's -- that's exactly my point. >> well, let's say this one, >> let's say this one -- you have 100 pacs and each of them say that they're going to support the five contest -- the five candidates in the most contested senate races. there are really only five very contested senate races, and 100 pacs say that they're going to support those five candidates. so a donor gives $5,000 to each of those 100 pacs which support those candidates, the pac

divides up the money, $1,000 goes to each candidate. the total, all those pacs, $100,000 goes to each of the -- of the senate candidates in the five most contested races, 20 times what the individual contribution limits allow. >> a couple of responses to that, your honor. i mean, first of all, we're talking about scenarios where there isn't coordination at all between 6 alderson reporting company official subject to final review the first person who makes a contribution and the candidate later on that's receiving it. >> this candidate knows all of his $100,000 donors. there are not all that many of them. he can keep them all in his head in a mental rolodex. >> but they're not actually donors to him at that point. they're contributing to a pac that, in your hypothetical, is contributing to multiple different candidates and >> five of the most contested senate races. so a person gives $100,000 to each of five candidates who if they win become the five

senators that are most attuned to donors. and he knows who's giving him $100,000, each of those five senators who gets in on the strength of these contributions that are 20 times what the individual limits allow. >> i don't think it works to think of these as direct contributions in excess of the base limits because the pac is limited itself in how much it can contribute, so you would have to have >> all we're trying to do, because it's hard to do in oral argument. but what we're trying to do in both, i think, our cases is that we looked up all the rules and the regs -- or my law 7 alderson reporting company official

subject to final review clerk did -- and -- and what she 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 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 contributions 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 -- andi 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. 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 least saying no, that -- that that's wrong. in fact, it's the challengers who are aided.