there are bills introduced, bills passed, three days before rouhani is inaugurated, congress passed new sanctions that will go to the senate in a few weeks. what will that do in this specific environment, based on the narrative of the individuals you know on that other side, for the prospect of getting a deal? and please, chime in on this as well. >> i am sure this question can ahl better answered by dr. k and professor milani. >> what would happen if that takes place? >> it will complicate the negotiation process. significantly. i think those in the leadership in iran who are suspicious of american intentions are going to become even more suspicious of american intentions.

now the best ingot two countries can do is to give each other at least a month or two to see what they can do in terms of bilateral and multilateral negotiations. and if they can produce some tangible agreement about the course that they need to take, then i think any kind of ,anctions imposed by the u.s. in my judgment, would be an attempt to derail the negotiation process. i think the people who keep pushing for more and more mustions alternately answer the following question -- what is the strategy behind this? are we doing sanctions for the sake of sanctions? you'll probably ask us what can rouhani any american community

do in this country? one of the things they can do is show the humanitarian disaster that these sanctions have created. they have not hurt the iranian government. they have not hurt the revolutionary guard. they have hurt ordinary iranians. therefore, i think these sanctions are not helpful. and compare cuba with china look at what happened to cuba. they have imposed sanctions on castro tookidel over back in 1960, 1961. his family is still ruling, but the cuban economy has been devastated. the president nixon had perspicacity to open up china to the world and allow freedom, allow the private sector there to gradually grow in china, look at china now.

china used to be an enemy of the united states. right now it has become a partner of the united states. why this transformation? it took place because china was borders topen up its international investment. this is what we have to do in iran. this is why the sanctions in my judgment are not only a human right issue, but more importantly, a do not contribute -- they do not permit. -- they do not contribute to the growth of democracy. growth of the private sector goes hand in hand with the growth of the managers say. if you impose sanctions, what happens? you would allow only the most powerful and government to access to the limited resources, and therefore, you undermine the private sector. so my short answer to your excellent question is that i would say any kind of sanctions

at this time, when the two countries are testing each other's intentions them a would be i think harmful to peaceful negotiation toward resolution of the nuclear impasse. >> a lot of people would agree with you. if i could play devils advocate, and also point out that in the case of china, yes, no sessions, private trade, all of these different things occurred, tremendous prosperity, but not human rights. not democracy. how do you make sure that if you actually do resolve this nuclear issue, have a listing of sanctions, that iran does not turn into a china in which it becomes economically prosperous, but it comes at the expense that the human rights agenda is even further terry down and even fewer people care about it. >> you push human rights. you make it part of the agenda. but you have to prioritize.

in life you have to prioritize. what is the top priority right now? this country is not going to war with iran if iran continues to violate human rights of the iranians. this country can go to war if iran becomes a nuclear power. that is the difference. so i would say make human rights an important component of your negotiation, but in order to do that i'm a first you have to resolve or come to an agreement about the nuclear issue, but secondly, more importantly, and i think this is the point you are trying to make, we have had 33 years of mistrust. if the iranian team, and initiating team, does not trust america's intentions, or if america does not accept the iranian intentions, we do not go anywhere with these negotiations. i would say human rights must, at a later stage when there is some sort of agreement about the con tour of negotiations.

at this time i think the focus is rightly on the nuclear issue. >> we will talk about the human rights component in more detail in one of the panels in the afternoon. you mentioned that sanctions would be something that would complicate, and others would use a stronger word of saying that undermining diplomacy at this point. there's also another way of undermining it, and that is to set the bar for the negotiations theigh, essentially saying only good deal that can be had is one that is essentially impossible to achieve, and the ay to counter that is have much more forthcoming conversation about what is the best possible, viable, feasible, achievable deal that can be had? what are the contours of the at a minimum? whatt to go to colin -- would a good deal look like interview that at the same time is achievable, but the best ideas stick deal we would get in

the best of universes, but in this universe, in this very current situation, colin? >> yeah, let me say one quick thing on the sanctions front. i think i would agree that additional sanctions at this moment, if the negotiations am especially go well, would be counterproductive. is i do believe that there clear evidence the sanctions up to this point are what are motivating the iranian leadership to get to the table and negotiate in good faith. i think they are increasingly concerned about the economic situation. i think rouhani believes that is electedon why he was overwhelmingly. the challenge for people making the argument we should not have more sanctions as i do not think it is persuasive to make a point in washington that sanctions have not and helpful this far

and getting iranians to the table to negotiate. we can debate about whether that is true or not. i happen to think it is true. if it is not, you will never win that argument in washington. you have to make the argument that sanctions have been hopeful to empower the current negotiations, but going further at this point would be counterproductive. that is the argument that i innk is better to make washington. i it relates to the deal, think we know what the broad contours of an acceptable deal, at least from -- if the concert is to remove the major risk of a nuclear breakout, a deal would need to cap enrichment at five percent. that is the level that is sufficient for civilian nuclear power. but is fairly far away from bomb creating material.

no enrichment of uranium above 5%. the other would be some reduction of the iranian stockpile of low enriched ramin -- uranium, either by shipping it out of the country or converting it to a form that is not readily usable to make him- creating material. want to reduce the stock fell -- stockpile so iran would not have a him's were the material on hand if they decided to cheat. i should also say iran does not have any justification for having more low enriched uranium than that, since they only have one civilian nuclear our plan and they do not need any feel for that because they get it from russia. if they say they need to have a domestic supply, they do not need a bomb's were the material for that. i think that would be another component. there would be to be limitations on the number of centrifuges. david albright at

inproliferation, an expert town, one of the most careful observers of the running program, has suggested an upper limit of 10,000 first-generation iranian centrifuges. if they insist on installing more advanced models, then you would have to reduce the number below that. lastly, on the enrichment side, it would be important for the iranians to re-implement the additional protocol so that the international inspectors associated with the iaea cannot only visit the cleared the soul of these, but can visit other suspected facilities in iran to ensure that they are in compliance with the agreement and not taking a secret path toward the bomb, which we know from their past activities there is a risk that they might engage in. it is really important for transparency to be high. last point i would make is iranians are sometime in the next year or so they made be

bringing online the heavywater plutonium reactor, which is at arak. not the place we invaded. the heavywater reactor in arak. once that reactor becomes life, they will create enough plutonium for a bomb in a year or two. they would have to reprocess that plutonium, and they do not have that facility, but the international community is concerned about that reactor coming online. part of an acceptable deal would have to find a way to either halt construction on that reactor or convert it to a light water reactor and make other modifications that would make it very difficult for them to use that in the future to pursue a plutonium pathway to a bomb. that major contours of deal, at least from what would be required on the p5 plus one

side, to check and iranian breakout potential are fairly where they hit a snag is there are several un security council resolutions that require ron to suspend all -- that require iran to suspend all enrichment activity. some insist anything short of a complete and total suspension of enrichment for all time is defined by them as a bad deal. i would agree i the way that a deal that zero doubt iranian enrichment and be better. it would be better from a nonproliferation perspective. i am also a realist and do not think this iranian regime can agree to such an arrangement, and i think a good if imperfect deal along the lines i just described is better than pushing all out for a suspension on enrichment, which is not going to happen, and therefore risks flexing diplomacy. >> thank you.

on the point of sanctions, you raise interesting points, and you can make the argument that in washington the sanctions argument is the effect of one that you would have to credit it. it also creates an interesting the lemma mindful of the fact -- dial-in not mindful of the fact that the deal you would point out would be achievable. implicit of what you are saying is that she step five united states that enables this deal in the first place, it is that there is an acceptance of enrichment in iran. that is more in my view leading up to the opening that exists than anything else, and all of this and more of what you mentioned could have been achieved 10 years ago prior to this very unhelpful and unfortunate as: tori game that has been played by both sides in the last 10 years. >> if you pay attention to what

we just heard, it makes sense. these are what the international community demands from iran, but this is only half of it. what are we going to give it to iran to do this? we always talk about what the iranians must do. we are very clear about what they have to do. but very unclear and ambiguous about what we are going to do. it is not the way you negotiate. this is the way you dictate. there is a difference between dictation and negotiation. iranare we willing to give to stop enrichment of 5%? what are we going to give iran if they agree to close down the reactor? what we are going to give them when they are willing to give the number of centrifuges from 0 to 10,000?

we are clear about what we want them to do, but liberally unclear about what they have to do. this is not going to work. his is not going to work. i think you are absolutely correct, everything that we just heard could have been achieved a few years ago. but we did not. 2004, but the reason we did not is because i think some people thought that they can continue pushing iran to achieve other goals. i believe any time any of you in the audience or anywhere here about how can we have a deal? do not just talk about it what iran has to do. plus onet what he five has to do. these are two sides of the same coin. >> if i may, listening to this

conversation, i have sat down with a team of really experts, is, as experts as dr. kahl in a group that he very well knows, in which tom pickering was involved, and there are clearly some ideas that were ahl make somed k that are plenty of sense. i would like to say the following -- down in ait negotiation and you have in front of you the mountain and you know how difficult it is to tain, notmoun impossible, but with a mountain in front of you, sometimes -- i do not say this is a rule that works all the time -- sometimes when you start the engine of a submarine, the engine of a submarine is an incredible machine, but it

starts with a teeny little flame which is an igniter. and i found at times the igniter, a teeny little bit, nothing dramatic, but the igniter is very useful because not only starts the greater engine, but it also sends signals that things are possible . the question is of discussing and focusing on the nuclear dimension is indispensable. some oftion is to avoid the repercussions you may have exactr in tehran to concessions from the other side, if i were try to imagine a game that could be realistically played, i would look at those couple of igniter's that has nothing to do with the overall system, but those igniters may the focus in away

the leadership by those who are using the bigger issue to say it is impossible and at the same time can create something physically do on the ground. is worth, what i would put on the table, one situation -- once the situation get so static and he do not know what the iranians want, like everybody else in the world, all those things are fine, but if the machine does not move, why not identify one teeny matters,, if you like a teeny things, but in theenerate a reaction narrative of individuals. i do not teach- things. i have nothing to teach. i had to learn in the streets how to do the practical of the -- the practicality of things.

everybody's in the streets, because nobody tells you about how to negotiate with somebody who wants to kill you. i learned this from saddam. he was a man. my point is i do not get where they europeans are. [indiscernible] with a clear-cut position, right? sometime in negotiation you have to get out of the thing by which you are, and see if you can find the igniter that starts a negotiation going. i hope we understand in this room that iran-iraq war was negotiated and was ended without direct and with iran in the other room. literally. it was not a negotiation. diplomat wrotean a book about the end of the war, no, the negotiation to end eight

years of war were done without the iranians and the iraqis. i was there. two of us, two of them. and the telephone. and who was on the telephone? his majesty the king of saudi arabia. the war would not have been finished without the last two days intervention of the king of saudi arabia. did we learn this in the books, that it was negotiated? what does the book tell us? or maybe it tells something completely different. >> you can see all of this that www.c-span.org. the house is coming back now. making continuing appropriations for the bureau of indian affairs, the bureau of indian education and the indian health service for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlewoman arizona seek recognition? mrs. kirkpatrick: i have a motion to recommit at the desk.

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed? mrs. kirkpatrick: i'm opposed to its current form. the clerk: mrs. kirkpatrick moves to -- mrs. kirkpatrick: i move to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the request? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is reserved. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mrs. kirkpatrick: the tribal leaders in my district join me in calling for a vote on a clean funding bill to restart our government. arizona's district 1 has 12 native american tribes. these families are suffering and our economy is taking a direct hit as a result of this irresponsible, unnecessary shutdown. house leaders have wasted

precious time but offering nothing but piecemeal bills. these partisan games show a reckless disregard for the people, communities and economies hurt by this shutdown. today, as house leadership puts forth yet another piecemeal bill, that will go nowhere, i would like to share some comments from my district's tribal leaders. these are in their own words. navajo nation president been shelley said, the current piecemeal approach that house republicans are using to fragment tribal communities from the rest of the country is insulating. tribal communities want a comprehensive resolution. the former navajo nation chairman and their first president said, tribal issues should not be used as political props in this shutdown. our kids, families and elders

are all part of the large community and we all suffer from a shutdown. we need the house to vote on a clean funding bill to reopen the entire government. on the white mountain apache nation where i grew up, tribal nation leader said, impact aid is vitally important, but we need furloughed workers from b.i.a., interior and all other agencies allowed back on the job. our tribal members need their paychecks and small businesses eed their customers and need benefits without any lapses. and from the hopi tribe, piecemeal bills are empty gestures that have no chance of passing both chambers and being signed into law. we need real action to open the entire government or we will continue to lose important resources like those that help

protect women and families. if the house leadership were concerned about our native american tribes then i suggest they listen to the tribes and allow a vote to reopen the government. congress should stop picking winners and losers, stop playing games and only prolong this shutdown. house leadership should stop this shutdown right now and stop this shutdown tonight. let's vote on a clean funding bill to restart our government and protect our economy. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. simpson: i make a point of order that the instructions contained in the motion violate rule 16 which requires that amendment be germane to the bill under consideration. as the chair ruled on october 11, 2013, the instructions contained a special order of business within the jurisdiction on the committee on rules and the amendment is not germane to

the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: any member wish to be heard? mrs. kirkpatrick: i wish to be heard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. kirkpatrick: my motion to recommit would open the federal government entirely so all our needs can be met. why are we only providing funding for native americans through the interior department? what about education and law enforcement programs for native americans, are they somewhat less important? can the chair explain why it's not germane not to keep all the federal government open. why are the republicans in favor of closing down the federal government and denying taxpayers the benefits they have already paid for? this makes absolutely no sense to people who have had to work very hard to make a living. mr. speaker, if you rule this motion out of order does that mean we will not have a chance to keep the entire federal government open today? that we will not have a chance to vote on the senate continuing

resolution? can the chair please explain why we can't keep the entire federal government open today? can the chair please explain why we can't keep the entire federal government open tonight? the speaker pro tempore: the chair's prepared to rule. the gentleman from idaho -- mr. simpson: may i speak on the question -- mr. garamendi: may i speak on the point of order? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized on the point of order. r. garamendi: thank you. mr. speaker, on the question on the point of order, it appears -- and i would like to have an explanation about this. why are these rules being interpreted in such a way as to prevent the united states government from operating? what is the purpose of this rule? where was it conceived? and why is it being constantly

put forward to stop the federal government from acting? mr. speaker, there's a world of hurt out there. all across this nation. people want the government to work. they want the parks opened. they want the national indian health services operating. they want to make sure that head start is up and operating, that the medical services are available, that homeland security is functioning. mr. speaker, what is the point of the point of order, other than to stop the federal government from working? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from idaho makes a point of order that the instructions proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from arizona are not germane. the joint resolution extends funding relating to the bureau of indian affairs, the bureau of indian education and indian health service. instructions in the motion proposed and order of business of the house. as the chair most recently ruled on october 11, 2013, a motion to

recommit proposing an order of business in the house is not germane to the measure of providing appropriation of funds. because such motion addresses a matter not represented in the underlying measure. therefore the instructions propose a nongermane amendment. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? mrs. kirkpatrick: i appeal the ruling. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the decision of the stand for the house? mr. simpson: i move to delay the appeal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mrs. kirkpatrick: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having

arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered members will record their votes by electronic evice. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by five-minute vote on passage of the joint resolution. if arising without further proceedings in recommital. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] 216 and the

nays are 180. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to

reconsider is laid on the table. the question is on passage of the joint resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he ayes have it. does the gentlelady ask for a recorded vote? >> yes. ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rides. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 31 and the nays are -- on this vote the yeas are 232 and the -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233 and the nays are 160. the joint resolution is passed. without objection, the motion to

reskr laid on the table -- to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order. members will clear the well, will remove their conversations to the cloakroom. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. amend the title so as to read, making continuings appropriations for the bureau of indian affairs, the bureau of indian education anlt indian health service for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes. although we prefer and would support a comprehensive, clean continuing resolution -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the clerk may resume. the clerk: resolution to end the government shutdown.

the speaker pro tempore: under clause 6 of rule 16, the amendment is not debatable. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. grayson: mr. speaker, i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3190 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection the bill is engrossed, read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the chair will now entertain requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, prior to being elected to congress, i worked 28 years as a health care provider. through working to provide patients with the best possible care, one of the earliest lessons i learned was first, do no harm. the nation would benefit greatly if those elected to public service followed same principle. unfortunately, this pins pl has been seriously violated throughout the government funding debate. mr. speaker, the american people were harmed when president obama failed to come to the negotiate tabling until 11 days after the shutdown.

the american people were harmed when he sought to cause as much pain as possible. i quote, it's a cheap way to deal with the situation. we have been told to make things as difficult as we can, end quote, stated an angry park ranger in washington. this is not public service, it is public injustice. it is time to do no more harm. it's time to end the politics and start solving the problems. the american people deserve as much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the swrelt is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the devastating effect of the shutdown is now rippling beyond the federal work forest. last week it was learned that scientists at lawrence livermore and sandia national laboratory who work as federal contractors will be furloughed this week.

mr. swalwell: those in favor say aye job is to uphold the nuclear safety of the united states and proswide energy security. i flew home yesterday to hold a town hall meeting for sandia and livermore employees and the room was filled with fear and anxiety about how they'd meet their bills and obligations. enough is enough. it's time to end the shutdown and put back to work our federal work forest and government contractors. i have sent a letter to the secretary of the department of energy asking to guarantee back pay for the furloughed workers at livermore and sandia. this ripple will continue as the shutdown goes on. the responsible thing to do is end this shutdown and put back to work these hardworking individuals who are serving the national mission. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i received the following email from an a constituent who forwarded me comments from a former government worker. as a former government employee, i have worked for the government for over 40 years. during that time i became familiar with reck sigses, bidding and awarding contracts. it is time consuming with bean counters and pencil neck bureaucrats. a request takes months, not days or hours. but in less than eight hours of the shutdown, maymy rack lousely, professionally printed signs with logos appeared all over the country in thousands, saying this park facility closed due to government shutdown. there hadn't been a government shut depoundown in in 17 years. these signs had to be designed, reck sigsed and bids had to go out, i a proved and contracts signed. this then signs were made an distributed.

either this is the most efficient thing the federal government has ever done or this quick shutdown was planned and determined months ago. mr. speaker if the writer is accurate, this is an interesting and odd coincidence, don't you think? and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. any more requests for one-minutes? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today, mr. fattah of pennsylvania for today, mr. gene green of texas for today and mr. pass for of arizona for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. hartzler, is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. speaker. tonight, the country is facing great challenges. the challenges of obamacare, of runaway spending here in washington, and of our fiscal crisis that's increasing our debt over and over again. now is the time for solutions. and now is the opportunity that we have to get things right and to turn things around. i'm looking forward tonight to visiting with my colleagues about the challenges we have before us as well as the opportunities. you know, this situation that we're in today reminds me of a story i heard a few years ago. i think it's firting to this time in history. this is a true story. there was a man who went hunting with hising to many years ago and as he walked through the great outdoors and came back from his hunting trip, he noticed his pants were covered with something that in missouri

we call cockleburrs, it's basically a weed and it leaves very prickly seed pods about the size of a dime and they will stick to anything from your clothes to your pet's fur or anything else that happens to brush against it as it passes by the weed. so this man got to looking at all of these cookleburrs on his pants and his dog when he got back, he was trying to clean them off and then he stopped and got to looking at the cookleburr and got to thinking, what is it that causes this to stick so well? and he wondered, is there a way we could use that same format to help provide some solutions. he thought about some friends who had arthritis that had trouble buttonning up their shirt, and -- or zipping things. young children who had trouble fastening things together and he

thought, i wonder if we could take this challenge of this cookleburr and make an opportunity out of it. and you know what? he did. he invented something we all use every day called velcro. he laid the groudwork for what we need to -- groundwork for what we need to do here in washington. take the challenges before us and use it to ecreate a better health care system that addresses americans' needs, makes government more efficient and more effective and it also addresses our long-term debt and reverses course so that we will get out of debt as a nation and balance the budget. this is the opportunity that we have before us. you know, i wanted to, before my colleagues shared their thoughts on this, i wanted to talk a minute about the challenges that we have in obamacare. there are so many reasons that that -- that at this time in history we've been taking a stand here in the house and saying we need -- it is time to reverse this onerous policy

because the american people don't want it and it's hurting them. i want to share seven thing that's challenging about this law. . the first thing is the cost of premiums. i got a call from a constituent who sells insurance back home and they were very distraught because they have a constituent or customer who came in who wanted to renew their health insurance and after they figured out what it would be through obamacare, they discovered this customer was going to have to pay $1,500 a month. and that isn't even the full premium their employer -- premium, their employer would pay some others. so when you add this up, she had to tell them they were going to have to pay $18,000 a year for their health care. this makes a difference in that family. whether they can send a child to ollege or not.

it's wrong. we need to have some solutions here. something else i heard. today i was in with a constituent who told me that they went on exchanges to see what obamacare would do to their health care premiums. what she found south that her insurance next year is going to cost $200 more a month than she's paying right now, plus she's going to have to have a larger deductible and her coverage is going to decrease. so, she was obviously very upset. obamacare is increasing premiums and increasing costs on americans. that's wrong. it's time for solutions. number two, obamacare is killing jobs. despite what others on the other side of the aisle say, it is killing jobs. one in five small businesses report that they're letting employees go due to the new law. others are deciding not to expand their business due to the new law. the gal up survey this year found a staggering 41% of small business owners are holding off

hiring new employees due to obamacare and 38% have pulled back on plans to grow their business. i have an example i wanted to share with you from my own district. i was visiting with a small business owner the other day. they're doing pretty well. they've small business that's been growing and the exciting thing is, they said, representative hartzler, we want to open up a second location. we want to hire some new workers. we're very excited about it. but they looked at obamacare and the requirement involved and they said, we cannot afford it. if we do -- if we open up the second location, hire new workers, we're not going to be able to keep going. and so they decided not to expand their business. that's what makes this extra tragic. in this town, there's been a manufacturing plant closed down over the few years. there's hundreds of people in my district looking for work who would love to have that job but because of obamacare, they're not going to be able to do it. this business owner wants to expand but they can't.

that's wrong. obamacare is killing jobs. that's why it's time for solutions. number three, obamacare's reducing the take-home pay. it's been many years since many americans have got a raise. they're making due but if anybody goes to the store like i do every weekend and buys groceries and other things for your family, you know that things are costing more and more. so we have a real problem here. americans aren't getting pay increases and yet the cost of living is going up. there are many businesses that are cutting back on their employees' hours because of obamacare, to get them under the 30-hour requirement. in fact, the u.s. chamber of commerce small business study showed that 27% of businesses have and will cut hours to reduce from full-time employees to part time. so we're becoming part-time america because of this law. just today i got an email from a large business owner in missouri and here's what they said, it

validates this very point. as one of the largest outstate employers in missouri, we aren't expanding or hiring. our health insurance costs will increase by an estimated $800,000 in 2014 due to obamacare. despite significant reductions in coverage for our employees and reducing hours to less than 30 hours per week where we can. our taxes have gone up, regulations overwhelming, there's no end in sight. it is happening. number four, obamacare's jeopardizing our personal security and our privacy. how would you like to have your social security number made available to everybody? cording to an audit -- a "forbes" article, the government will need to know a lot about your financial, medical and employment situation and this cair's ry well, obama

exchanges, end up illegally exposing americans' private records to hackers and criminals. just last week, when obamacare went online, mcafee, which is the nation's premier internet security company, they tweeted out that obamacare is a hacker's dream. this is very, very concerning. it's clearly time for solutions. five, obamacare is simply not working. i'm sure many of you have heard the news reports. this is just a four-page outline of all the different headlines from around the country about how this is not working. florida says the glitches in this new electronic health care signup system almost began immediately and they never let up. missouri says, missouri is more in phasele than a bang. north dakota says that he and his staff were monitoring the federal website tuesday but unable to access it. west virginia says, 10 hours later, after two attempts at signing up and one 45-minute call with a federal agent, technical glitches have

prevented a 60-year-old grandfather from purchasing a plan. it goes on and on. there are real problems there. thank you, alexis. and obamacare is unfair. president obama has exempted big business from having to comply with obamacare for a year and he's granted over 1,300 waivers. yet he hasn't given a waiver to the hardworking american public who deserve it. that is not fair. and, lastly, something that a lot of people don't know but a lot of people care about or should care about is that obamacare uses tax dollars to pay for abortions for the first time. and it hides the fact that people -- here's how it works. the law says that at least one policy in every exchange has to cover abortion. but it also says, the law says,

that they can only disclose that as part of the huge summary of benefits and all the fine print that is there at only the time of initial signup. so, many people right now are going online and they're looking -- they've got these policies that come up, there's all these fine print. they don't even know that that policy includes abortion. well, obamacare's going to have subsidies to help people pay for their premiums. that subsidy comes from our tax dollars. many americans do not want their hard-earned tax dollars to go and pay for abortion. yet it will. and sadly, the people many times will not even know if their policy has abortion or not. there are many americans who support life and when they go to buy it directly, they will not , not ut inside the bill only does it cover abortion, but

obamacare has what's called a secrecy clause in it. that specifically says that that charge for the abortion fee cannot be listed in their monthly bill. so many pro-life americans who value life unknowingly will buy an insurance policy that is covering abortion and every month they will be paying their own hard-earned dollars to go towards abortion. it's just wrong. so clearly, clearly we need some solutions. republicans do have solutions. we are putting forth a health care bill that replaces and is better than obamacare. it allows for increased access and lower costs and we're going to be hearing more about it in the days to come. but we call it the american health care reform act. there are better solutions. so we've got a lot of challenges with obamacare but this is our opportunity to make it better for the american people. and that's what we're going to do. we also have the challenge of huge debt crisis at this time in history. i know many of my colleagues here are going to share about

that. but we've got to quit spending money we don't have. people at home are tightening their belt. it's time for washington to do that too. and this is where we're at. monday night, october 14, 2013. how this is going to play out we don't know. but i know i'm going to continue to fight for positive solutions that are good for the american people. i'm going to be looking for opportunities to take the things of life and look at it and say, is there a way we can turn this around and make something good out of it? and i believe that's where we are right now. we can make something good of this situation. it's been hard on americans. it's hard on families. there's a lot of uncertainty. it's been hard on us as members of congress. but we can make something better that has ever happened before from this country. we can produce a health care bill that the american people deserve. we can rein in this runaway spending and get it right. make government more efficient and more effective. and we can address our debt

crisis. we can do it. that is our challenge, that is our opportunity, that's why we're fighting. that's why here here tonight. and i want to thank my colleagues who have stayed tonight to share their thoughts on this important time in history this monday night that we're at, and i'd like to yield to my friend from utah, chris stewart. go ahead. mr. stewart: i would like to thank the gentlewoman, representative hartzler, for sharing the floor with myself and other colleagues tonight. it's an honor and especially on a topic that all of us know and recognize that is so very, very important. dean artson once said, the negotiation in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties are more anxious to agree than they are to disagree. for the past two weeks, president obama and senator harry reid have made it very, very clear that they are much more anxious to disagree than they are to agree with republicans.

a situation that has very honestly prevented sincere negotiations. it's impossible to work out a deal when one party just sits on the sidelines and won't talk like we have experienced over the last few weeks with the president. we heard rumors this afternoon that the president is finally gone to negotiate with republicans. i hope that that is true. because our founding fathers established a system that was intended to be deliberative. whether you agree or disagree with the president, this much we know -- he has been willing to push our nation toward an economic crisis all for the sake of a political agenda. when this happens, every american loses. it doesn't have to be this way. it shouldn't be this way. for 14 years i was an air force pilot. which was, by the way, the coolest job in the world. i loved doing that.

at one point i was selected to be a member of the verification team. strategic arm reduction talks. of course we were working with the russians during this time. they would come to my base to verify that we had complied with elements of the sart treaty. during the 199s to the russians were not our friends. and by the way, mr. speaker, i would cautiously add that today the russians are not our friends either. now, these were in some cases tens and very carefully ork -- tense and very carefully ork traited events but we did them. we extended a hand of trust and fellowship between two nations that had very little in common, that had much to lose if they did not develop a working relationship. now, mr. speaker, if we could do it then between the russian and the u.s. military, surely we, with the republicans and the president, we can do the same thing now.

the president is the leader of this nation. he has a responsibility to lead. but part of leadership is being willing to sit down can and in a sincere way be willing to listen to the other side. and the president has failed in this responsibility and the nation has paid a price. before being elected to congress, i was the president and owner of a small company. now, being part of a small business means developing relationships that are built upon trust. with the disastrous rollout of obamacare, the president has clearly broken the trust of the american people. -- $634 million. $634 million, that's how much it cost to develop obamacare website. facebook operated for six years on less money than that. twitter was launched and operated for less than half the

cost. instagram, linkedin, spotify all were designed, implemented and operational at a fraction of the price of obamacare web page. and yet -- webpages. and yet in one of the most embarrassing moments in obamacare history, and i believe this will be a history that will be rife with embarrassing moments, news organizations had to search high and low throughout the country to find one person last week who could be verified that they had actually signed up on the obamacare webpage and of course days later we had borne the legend of chad. something many people are familiar with. hearkingen -- hearkening back to my military days, had i been given a mission and so utterly failed that mission, i would have been held accountable system of when will kathleen

sebelius be held accountable for years st her after three does she llion, why still have her job? but at the end of the day we're not talking about obamacare, or about a webpage or or sequester or continuing resolution. what we're really talking about at the end of the day is our nation's crushing national debt. our national debt is now approaching $17 trillion. now president obama congratulates himself on having reduced the debt by half but when you run up a debt in one year in office of $1.2 trillion $1. trillion, when you have two years in ta row of a continuing deficit and congratulate yourself because 62 billion, ta $

that's not a time to congratulate yourself. this is a tough decision. but we were elected to make tough decisions. my plea to the senate and the president is please, come to the table. let's start the conversation now about how we can put our fiscal house in order. time is running out. with that, once again, mrs. hartzler, thank you for letting me share the time with you. i yield back. mrs. hartzler: thank you, chris, i appreciate your perspective as a former air force pilot. i think what you said about leadership is very, very true. it's time for the president to show some leadership and for us to get together and talk about this. it is time for solutions. thanks for sharing this space. now i want to yield some time to my good friend from louisiana, steve scalise, chairman of the republican study committee and a leader here in the house and i appreciate you sharing tonight.

i yield my time to you. mr. scalise: thank you and i want to thank the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler, for her leadership as chair of the r.s.c.'s communications committee for leading this effort to talk about real solutions and of course today, we're in day 14 of a government shutdown a shutdown that has seen republicans bring proposal after proposal after proposal to fund government. in fact, mr. speaker, i want to point out, there are more than 20 bills now that have been passed by the house of representatives to fund all or parts of the federal government. 20 bills. this chronicles the timeline going back to september 20, by the way, well in advance of the midnight hour, where today on day 14, by the way, president obama had still yet to even engage in conversations. in fact, we went to the white house thursday to meet with the president, sat in the room with

him for an hour and a half, simple offer was, mr. president, we'll increase the debt ceiling, all we're asking is for you to start talking, just to agree to have conversations. unfortunately, mr. speaker, we left that meeting without the president even being willing to start talking. so we're 14 days into a government shutdown that the president is decry, calling people names, you've got people in the white house calling people suicide bombers, terrorists and all kind of other things that are so unbecoming of the office of the president of the united states, a president who said he was going to change the tone in washington, allowing people in his white house to call people on the opposition terrorists and suicide bombers. and yet he refuses to even sit at the table and negotiate our differences while we've passed 20 different bills to fund all or parts of government. what are some of those parts of

government? bill to fund veterans affairs. mr. speaker, for all the areas of disagreement we have in washington, clearly, with a divided in addition, with divided government, there are area where we have disagreement but we should all be able to come to the table and say, we taught to -- ought to fund our veterans. we sent the bill to the senate to fund our veterans and harry reid tabled that bill, mr. speaker. we sent a bill to say disaster aid shouldn't be something we disagree other. we passed a bill with bipartisan votes, sent it to the senate. in fact, we saw maybe one of the most disgraceful acts by a commander in chief, mr. speaker, where for days, we saw this administration refusing to give death benefits to our fallen heroes. a moment i don't think we've seen in our nation's history. and we passed a bill to say, don't hold our veterans hostage. and yet you still see

barricades, i call them obamacades up in front of the world war ii memorial. an open air memorial. on normal days there's no one there to guard or block the memorial. it's an open air memorial, built by our world war ii heroes. and yet when our veterans come to see the memorial they're met by bear kids. this is the kind of embarrassing leadership we're getting out of the white house. all we're saying is let's negotiate our differences like has always been done. ronald reagan was president, tip o'neill was speaker, a divided government. what ronald reagan did as a leader a great leader, one we miss today, he started having regular meet wgs tip o'neill. they built a relationship. started getting things done. we saw one of the greatest

revolutions, economic expansions, in our country's history was because you had real leadership in the white house. now mr. speaker, we're still say, again, we've sent 20 different bills to the senate. all chronicled. many of which had large democrat votes out of the house. still to this day, not one word from the president over whether he'll even agree to start talking. of course he wants to make it all about obamacare. clearly there are big areas where we have disagreement but it's not just a partisan issue. it's not just republicans that have issues with obamacare. let's start with the occupant of the oval office. barack obama has problems with obamacare. he's issued over 1,200 waivers to his signature law. as the gentlelady from missouri pointed out, 1,200wares. i've yet to find one small business in my district who got one of those waivers, by the way. it was handed out to special interest friends who could get access to the white house. is that the way government is

supposed to run? he worked out a deal to give members of congress an exemption from his signature health care law. what we're saying, mr. speaker, is, why don't we at least start with the basic premise of fairness, if this law is so good, make it apply to everybody. if it's not that good, if it's so bad you need to issue 1,200 waivers to your friends, mr. speaker, then why not give that same waiver to all more thans? all americans. until this thing is ready to work which clearly it's not. as somebody once said, the failures of the law, october 1 was the date that for three years they knew was coming and now we're hearing debacle, debacle, people registering 12, 14 times without being eable to get through. somebody said it's like flowers.com not being prepared for valentine's day, mr. speaker. as we stand here today talking about getting our economy back on track, talking about the 20 different proposals we have sent

to the senate to get up and run, most of which haven't been given a minute's consideration, literally tabled on party line votes by senator reid, what we're saying is how about fairness? let's start with fairness. make obamacare apply to everybody. if it's that good, why don't we make it apply to everybody. get rid of the special waivers, all these special back room deals to everybody from the president's friends to members of congress. let's make this apply to everybody. let's get the government back hope. let's start tackling our long-term spending problems that are causing programs like medicare and social security to face bankruptcy where we put good plans on the table to save those programs from bankruptcy and frankly, mr. speaker, to save our country from bankruptcy system of we can hand off to our kids and grandkids the same opportunity that we enjoy today in the greatest country in the history of the world, a country facing serious problems, a country unfortunately facing a lack of leadership from the president who 14 days into a

government shutdown still to this kay has not agreed to start talking with people from the other party to work out those differences. again, i thank the gentlelady from missouri for creating this forum to talk about solutions and my other colleagues on the republican study committee that have been bringing forward solution after solution to get our economy moving again and restore the greatness that this country knows is there, that beacon of light we're all fighting for here on the house floor. with that, i yield back to the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. hartzler: well said, talking about the leadership we have been providing here in the house. i think it's important that people know, we proactively worked to make sure government stays open. we pass these bills way before october 1. unfortunately, we haven't had leadership in the white house or the senate willing to come together but thank you for bringing that up. in fact, something that a lot of people don't know is at this point in the house of

representatives we have already passed one third of all appropriations bills in the continuing resolution. we have been passing bill after bill to keep this government open, to fund it, to make sure it keeps going, working for the american people. the senate hasn't passed it. they haven't taken them up. it's not us that's shut town the government or responsible nor lapse in funding and it's certainly not us that's keeping it shut. but thank you very 34ut67 for sharing that. now i yield my time to randy weber of texas, glad to have you here tonight and appreciate what you have to share. mr. weber: i thank the gentlelady from missouri, mr. speaker, it's good to be here. since 1978, the debt ceiling has been raised 53 times. 27 of these increases have been used as a negotiating tool both by congress and the president. o why not now? can we not negotiate now and

tomorrow -- to borrow a somewhat trite phrase from days gone by, yes, we can. sadly today we have a president who does not want to make any concessions with house republicans, mr. speaker. you know, thomas jefferson once said, pride cost us more than hunger, thirst, and cold. has pride gotten in the way, clouding the judgment of our president, do you think, mr. speaker? has this president chosen party politics and his unworkable health care law over working with house republicans toward fair solutions that would help hardworking americans keep more money in their pockets? mr. speaker, think with me here for a second. during the debt ceil degree bait in march of 2006, then-senator obama said, and i quote, the ct that we are here today to

debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. it is a sign that the u.s. government cannot pay its own bills. it is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reck less fiscal policies. increasing america's debt weakens us nestcally and internationally. he went on to say, mr. speaker that leadership means that the buck stops here. instead, washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. he said. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. americans deserve better. here nd his quote, yet, are, seven years later, and

we are debating the exact same thing. why is that ok now, i would ask him, mr. speaker, why is that ok now, mr. president, do we have a failure of leadership? can we admit that? yes, we can. it's a failure of leadership also for spewing such venomous rhetoric when the governing process doesn't go your way, calling republicans names. it's a failure of not listening to the american people. can we call this a failure of leadership? yes, we can. the american people want the government reopened. they want to make their own health care decisions. the shutdown the american people want is the out of control government spending, the $17

trillion debt that's been amassed, that the president in his own words said is a failure of leadership and in another instance, unpatriotic. mr. speaker, house republicans have put forth proposal after proposal to fund this government, to keep it open, to protect the american people from the president's hostile takeover f the health care system. sadly, still, mr. speaker, we have a senate and majority leader acting like children, refusing to come to the table to negotiate, prolonging that failure of leadership. each day that passes with the affordable care act going into effect, our nation's fiscal health gets worse. a failure