so there is a prohibition on that sort of a thing. the argument folks are making, when they say it is weird spending more money keeping things close -- isn't that probably violating the anti- efficiency act? this is actually an issue that is sortwithin the president's discretion. there is the law, and it says that without congress passing a only a few sorts of things they can continue operating. the phrases "emergency authorizations involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." this is where we get the opm rule that says essential personnel keep working. the three branches of government -- each branch gets to define

for itself what is necessary to protect the safety of human life and federal property. the parksike what service is saying here is the only way for us to secure this property is putting up these massive barricades. that seems odd. i do not think it would be court.ged in i think it is a safe bet for the park service to make these calls. anotheract, there is argument against this, which is for many years, the executive branch since the stockton memo in 1981, the omb issued a memo that said what sorts of things are essential? we get to keep security on the payroll. park security is still getting paid. it seems odd that the park service would be setting -- shutting down a part for security reasons when the

security personnel are allowed to be staffing the us monuments. that is just kind of strange. the second issue i would like to talk about is the blocking of private or co-owned property. the congressman mentioned lake mead. there was a news story about a whole bunch of folks with vacation homes in lake mead being told to take a hike, get out. they had year leases. somewhere in the least there might be something about having to have a second home since these are vacation homes. folks are asking why are private places being shut down? when i was in philadelphia, i openedand that a tavern in 1773 was shut down, it was frequented by some of the founders. it is a private establishment. they serve food and alcohol and is very well regulated. it was shut down, too. i also heard the park service

tried to shut down the mount vernon park, and mount vernon is privately owned actually. and privately run. but the park service got a little overzealous and tried to barricade the parking lot of privately owned mount vernon. so, this seems a little bit ought to folks. i would just point out this is one of those areas where what matters very strongly are the lease agreements and the property rights of the property owners. many people own property on federal land. many people have different businesses they run on federal land. i would encourage those property owners not to necessarily take .he park service at their word take a look at your lease and see if you have rights. if you do, you should stick up for yourself. one of the other things i just heard about was the federal government has started to reopen

certain places. the independence tavern was allowed to reopen. the statue of liberty was allowed to reopen, provided new york state would foot the bill. to be a little bit of a problem, or cause the anti-deficiency act states "absent congressional appropriation." because congress has the power of the purse. so, i do not know what the legal justification is for the department of the interior to permit states to foot the bill when there is a law that says the federal government cannot let anyone foot the bill if appropriationn involved. i would be very curious if members of congress would like to take a look at that. the third issue i would like to talk about is the first amendment. -- the worlde to

war ii vets, they fought for our country and they have a strong, instinctual response to things being shut down. i saw a sign that someone had that said "normandy was closed, too." the first amendment says that folks have free speech and the government has to have a good reason for shutting down public land or regulating public land before they can prevail the freedom of speech. there are actually federal court cases pointing out -- for example, the national wall is a traditional public forum. what that means is, when the government seeks to regulate these traditional public forums, the regulations seem to be content neutral. they seem to be narrowly tailored to serve significant government interest. so, that is the test.

ask, is the national mall a traditional public forum? are the signs, these barricades, what side of the line do these fall on? what can the average citizen do on the national mall? there are court cases that say thinking or reading or passing out literature, those are all first amendment protected activities. it would be very strange for a park service person -- if i am walking through one of these barricaded areas where the sign says "closed except for first amendment activities," it would be very strange if a park service person tried to kick me or anyone out. if you say i'm going to go read a book. that is a protected activity. it seems like any person can walk into these areas and there's essentially nothing the park service can do to you. there was another lawyer at the

legal center here, i had him go down to find out what authority the park service but they had. they said, no, we are not asking what people are doing. we are enforcing it to the best of our ability. [laughter] if you are a private citizen, remember you have your rights. there is a second problem. they have the signs that say "closed except for first amendment activities." explained, pretty much anything can qualify as a first amendment activity. hereou are allowed in unless you are allowed in here. and pretty much anyone is allowed in here. so what is the purpose of the sign? i would say it is there to scare people. i would encourage people to contact the aclu if they think

that is the thing to do. designed amendment is for the average joe. it is not do not -- it is not designed simply for lawyers. from is a great line justice potter stewart on the case, the case where he points -- a man of average intelligence shouldn't need to guess at what ordinances mean and i think that is exactly what happens. i would like to close with a couple takeaways. first of all, park rangers. what should you do if you are asked to shut down or kick people out? i would just say if there is ambiguity and what you're being told, err on the side of permissiveness, err on the side of the first amendment.

look of the first amendment. look at the folks and say i am here to protect property, not to enforce political points. on the side of the spectrum, if you are a park ranger there are things you are asked to do on a know, yous -- you sort of have to follow your boss when he says that. on this end of the spectrum, you're being asked to kick out all the bull of one race, for example and clearly you do not have to do that. you're being asked to kick out all people of one race, for example and clearly you do not have to do that. no you're right. -- know your rights. we have the heritage guide to the constitution. i encourage folks to take a look at that. we have sections on the first amendment written by eminent legal scholars. take a look at that and learn your rights. i am not encouraging folks to go to the areas and pick up the barricades and drop them off in front of the white house.

additionalve property or vandalism concerns. but certainly, if you are simply paying no attention to the signs that may not be legally there, that, you know -- [laughter] you may be well within your rights there. so, it seems, despite what the park service is saying, it seems to be business as usual for folks who want to visit, to see our nations capitol, to see philadelphia, to visit places enjoy ourmead or two national -- or to enjoy our national parks. the problem is this is not an academic issue. there are finds being given out -- there are finds being given out. there are people being arrested. a lot of these cases would seem to be slam dunks. i would hope people would

challenge these cases. it is very difficult to be on -- on theceiving receiving end here. if there is an authoritative to getnger telling you off the property, i understand if you do not necessarily stand up for yourself. but i think there are enterprising aclu types who would stand up to this kind of encroachment. will beandrew -- there a hearing tomorrow, i believe in the house, on alleged infractions by members of the park service. essentially what we have been talking about is a thing called "washington monument syndrome." this is the term given to the political tactic, making, as you put it, the average joe feel the affect of a partial government it iswn, and in essence, making life difficult for aerage u.s. citizens for political impasse here in washington.

to first parks director engage in this activity, to pioneer the idea of washington syndrome was george herzog, and soon after that he was dismissed. saying i am correct in -- i have investigated this -- during this partial government shutdown there have been more monuments and memorials closed man and any other shutdown in our history. the stories it you see coming out, even on social media, people posting video clips and all of this -- it kind of reveals an intimidating activity by park service personnel. certainly not all are engaging in this. and i quoted earlier a park service employee who described it as "disgusting" that they were asked to make average american citizens feel so displaced and inconvenienced

through no fault of their own. one of the major questions i am interested in here, and i want to know the opinion of each of you, is this the sort of high water mark of this sort of activity? it is obviously violating the spirit of why we have memorials and public laces like this, because the very ideals the are supposed to represent -- we have obviously seen and overstepped by this administration and the park service in particular this month. is this going to get worse with every shutdown? or can we hope that this will be the extent to which american citizens will be treated in this manner? >> with respect to lake mead i have heard some property owners -- there was a piece, i think, in the washington times interviewing the property owners. outproperty owner pointed

they have had leases on this federal land for 30 years and that includes during the last shutdown in 1990 five, and they were not asked by the clinton administration to vacate. there is something new. i do not recall reading about any cases angryordinary folks. so that they started -- ordinary folks got so angry that they started violating ordinances. american citizens know their rights, but they also know they are not going to fight everybody. so, they are largely compliant even when sometimes the policies are little bad. but i can't think of any case where there was large numbers of world war ii vets or people storming the barricades. this backfired. the flashpoint was the world war ii memorial. i do not think overallexpected this government shutdown. this, i think, was something new. arrived to see

things barricaded, and they were outraged. he went through all of this. this was their memorial. i think the reaction really set up a chain reaction where this individual would say no to i do not here, and think that was expected. >> i think that's right. and the social media, for example, a highlighted the story grass onwho mowed the the lincoln memorial and got his push mower to mow the grass because it was not being done. act to my mind is a great of public mindedness by a public citizen. and of course he was asked to leave. and the 200-year-old senate clock stopped ticking.

not because there was not a living breathing human being next to it that could not have a rounded, but the official winder had been furloughed. this does represent something very troubling and it reveals a new attitude, especially by the park service toward the american people. striking out against them, not as a people who have a government or our caretakers of public land, but somehow to punish americans for daring to cut funding. is, i think, quite problematic and i certainly hope we will never see this again in future shutdowns. now we will take your questions. again, we have mics. handu will just raise your and please it in a fight yourself. >> richard --

bruce cole.or can you give us an idea of the lay of the land of the committee you were on, the drum modest personae -- beecher modest personae -- the dramatis personae. toi am just starting navigate those treacherous waters now. [laughter] wasbipartisan committee gathered for senate and visn members. i've only been on the commission for a couple months or so. the other commissioners -- sort of taking their temperature about how they feel about the memorial, adding advised by all sorts of people. it is too early to predict what is going to happen. i'm an intern here at heritage, actually. what i wanted to ask was in relation to something you said

before the questions, mr. cole, and that was when the world war ii veterans arrived, a lot of the outrage was this was their memorial, something that belongs to them. in a lot of ways, i think the old were waking up and being outraged because they are seeing their memorials go, and that is every memorial, not just the world war ii one. my question to you is, how do you think we can do people do start to understand this is far more than just memorials? that it reaches into every area of what is going on right now and that is the coming war of the government decreeing what goes to the people instead of the other way around nowadays? on thettle follow-up first question. i think the commissioners wanted to get this done and i think everybody realizes it needs to there remains the question of how it is to be done.

certainly the world war ii memorial, i got an e-mail from a friend of mine whose daughter is visiting normandy. bunch of vets there at the same time. they climbed over the stone , until theyot in were shooed out by the employees . i'm surprised. what you see is these monuments, world war ii memorial --people start asking the question, those are my memorials. why am i not allowed to visit something i actually own? -- wayshe park south the park staff allowed to keep me out of it? i think this is a very healthy theirse and people feel relation to the government. there was a wonderful piece by mark stein that talked about the

magna carta. he said, you know, it is true the english peasants were more access to the commons than americans in 2013. i think this is a really healthy discussion. i hope there are ramifications of it. >> judge peele. i am an attorney in falls church. understanding of the antideficiency act is it is in forced by the executive against agents of the executive. can someone comment on the legal actions regarding oversight? >> right. first of all, i would say congress -- in the office for compliance, there is the inspector general and a variety

of different places. congress has the ability and congressman issa's committee, the oversight committee, there are a variety of different places were members of congress can go to request reports or to do their own investigation into expenditure. those sorts of things can get publicity and there can be political ramifications. so, number one is obviously the political process used. interims of private actions to enforce -- i don't think that there is one. but there are a whole host of different statutes the executive .s subject to the executive is the branch that does the enforcement. if there is a non- enforcement issue, i know there have been other non-enforcement haves at doj that folks raised questions about. congress again has the power of

the purse to say we are not going to make appropriations to doj until they get their house in order and start applying the law where it ought to be applied. >> presumably -- [indiscernible] >> that is true. yes, if the executive -- for example, the gentleman mowing the lawn in front of the lincoln memorial. presumably there is a groundskeeper whose job that was until he or she was furloughed, given somer she had indication that he or she was excepting those services, that groundskeeper would be subject to the felony provisions of the ada and would be able to challenge that prosecution or conviction in court. but i don't see -- we are asking with the obama administration enforce the ada in other

contexts, and i do not really see that. i do not see a way for an average citizen to sue the federal government for doing stuff without authorization. maybe. there are structural constitutional provisions, and in the first on case, the supreme court says the federalism provisions of the constitution do include private rights of action, so someone could test that case, but until then, i doubt that. >> around the same time that i heard world war ii vets and also the vietnam memorial -- they had to take the barricades away, i heard somewhere in d.c. they were providing the type of security that they do -- it was some rally, citizenship for illegal aliens, and it has been hush-hush in the press. i wonder if you had heard anything more about that?

not heard anything more about that. there are -- what you might he likeg, gosh, it looks certain content is allowed to be expressed but other content is prohibited. on the national mall. that would be a lawsuit if that were the case. hasver, the parks service said they will allow all first amendment activities. presumably if someone wanted to have an theyimmigration rally, could apply. however another problem with these policies is, again, another lawyer in our department asked "how can he get a permit?" , we don't know how you can get a permit. hiding the permit russes is a problem -- the permit process is a problem in itself and another challenge. tea party politicians and tea legalleaders making great

challenges to these things. isolated individual will have a hard time doing that. but tea party leaders -- what dfw. they had lawyers. are they thinking, well, it is not going to last that long, so we might as well wait it out western mark -- waited out? >> very briefly, we do coordinate activities like this. i can mention the washington post is reporting, i think, today a federal judge has ordered the national art service to reopen in virginia based on a lacrosseuit from the youth association.

organization sued and the judge ruled that the park service has to keep that federal land open. that is the type of thing that could keep happening. i will have to get back to you. >> hi. my name is bill moody. i'm a retired career naval officer. i served for 26 and a half years, mostly on air carriers. can you hear me? old world is a 95-year- war ii vets living in new hampshire. he fought in every major campaign in the pacific on the uss yorktown, commonly referred to as "the fighting lady." he is heartsick about the closing of the memorial on the national mall and he has called it a shameless act of commission.

i walked down to the mall and i was stunned to see the barricades put up like strategic of the fournd each war memorials. so, i got a little closer and noticed the barricades had been wired together at the top and the bottom. five metro police officers, some on motorcycles, some in squad cars, around the world war ii memorial. i saw five work rangers and for park maintenance officers and the maintenance offers were wiring the -- they had these big bundles of wire that they were ut.ing the barricade sh i guess that gives credence to the proverbial old joke about employeesark service it takes to wire a barricade shot. i know the answer.

it is five. with wire knows pliers. -- with wire knows prior's -- wire nose pliers. the parky, a member of service was giving a chore to people on the outside of the barrier, pointing out different parts of the memorial. my father could only come to the conclusion that someone in the administration -- we do not know who -- is amended dip, petty, and small. is --, my question to you based on your legal analysis, but also a policy analysis, serving in the pentagon and the white house, i know that money is reprogrammed all the time. people are deemed essential all the time. not to mention that these are

open air memorials that do not require much security or maintenance. on the mallewalk had a barrier that said "closed," and people were walking around, breaking the law, with no repercussions whatsoever until you got to the hamlets. why is it that the president who has the authority, who with the stroke of a pen could open these memorials, why -- this defies common sense and appears to be vindictive, petty, and small. >> white does the sunrise? i don't know the -- why does the sunrise question mark i don't know the answer. it's definitely an raging. your dad understands this. people understand this. i will leave it to you to say more. i knowustification --

what the legal justification is. the justification is, gosh darn it, we need to padlock these things to secure the property. from who? >> [indiscernible] what on earth is causing this to break the wires on these barricades and move them aside? certainly -- i think this administration has taken a very broad reading of what it can and cannot do. this is a very weird reading. by gosh, we do not have the authority. we will have to shut it down. >> i know what you're talking about. i have seen that. to see that behavior, against citizens who were just touring open air memorials is mean- spirited. and that sort of mean-spirited

behavior of a government towards its people is absolutely unacceptable. and when she realized it was a decision that was made. no law tells them they have to close those memorials. in previous shutdowns they were not closed. on topof that thomas -- of that, look at the purpose of these memorials in contrast with their behavior. it is deeply, deeply troubling. andave it to andrew others to find legal remedies. we should make it clear that this is unacceptable. and in any future government shutdown, the park service or whoever is responsible for taking care of these public places cannot behave in this manner. >> it time for one or two more questions. >> it seems like a common thread shutting down the monuments. and that is an elite that does not care about the rest of us.

a political elites who do not think that monuments mean anything or do not care. then aesthetically, artistically, they keep trying to push monuments on us that most people do not understand and do not like. they are so toned deaf to the 99% of the rest of us, it really is extraordinary. i'm curious if you share that perception and what do you make of it? think one of the things that has not been taken into on the folks trying to build the eisenhower memorial is the tremendous groundswell of outrage. it is all over, conservative and liberal papers. smallwn publications, towns. it is just huge. i think what has happened with the eisenhower memorial is there

is a determination to move ahead with the plan pretty much unaltered. view as a commissioner is the situation would be much improved by listening a little bit more, and listening to this criticism and showing a sense of accommodation. after all, it does not look like there will be any private money raised for this. so far, not much has been raised and i do not think there is any requirement in the legislation that talks about raising private money. so, this is not the staff memorial. this is not the commissioners' memorial. this is the people's's memorial. i think we should listen to a wide range of opinion and accommodate it. >> and showing respect and deference to the subject. >> yes. >> it is not as though we do not

know what quite the eisenhower thought about architecture. he preferred classicism. he said as much while he was still living. one must question. the way over here, i happened to walk through -- >> on the way over here, i happened to walk through the park honoring general daniel green and there is a public notice board. on that it is announced this facility is closed due to the government shutdown of the national park service. not only did i commit civil disobedience by walking through the park, but there were 30 toddlers with their mothers openly recreating -- [laughter] it strikes me we have to laugh and try toid policy do something. >> right. thank you all for coming. roos and andrew for being

here. appreciate it. [applause] we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tomorrow morning, a house hearing looking at how the government shutdown is affecting the national park service. by theeing held jointly natural resources committee and the oversight committee. coverage begins at 9:30 eastern on c-span three and www.c- span.org. ever asked a negative question. i think it is insulting to the person you want to talk to and creates a bad impression about what you're doing. you are asking for someone's time because you need information that will lead you to a better understanding of their subject. sometimes you get negative you haven't even asked for. i know. i remember talking to a woman at

a senate wide luncheon in honor of the first lady. she said to me "i know why you are calling. you want me to repeat those nasty things that nancy reagan was telling us yesterday about barbara bush." [laughter] actually, i'll i wanted to find out was how much the senate wives had raised for mrs. reagan's drug abuse fund. in that telephone call, i got more than i asked for, and i used every single word. >> presidential history, political intrigue. biographer kitty kelley will sit down for three hours of your calls on sunday, november 3 on book tv in-depth. and look forward to future events with christina hoff sommers.

join other readers by reading "walking with the wind" by congressman john lewis. find more at booktv. org/bookclub. >> politico is reporting tonight that senate leaders harry reid and mitch mcconnell are close to a deal on raising the debt limit and reopening the government. on two will briefly caucus the deal tomorrow morning before the senate reconvenes at noon. we will have live coverage on c- span2. president spoke with house leaders of the white house. afterward they spoke to reporters.

>> good afternoon. it is a beautiful afternoon. we had the privilege of having a conversation with the president about the looming deadline. we are still optimistic there's a path to lift the debt ceiling in time. we are pleased with the work done thus far, but we have heard legislation is being prepared in senate.ed states we are disappointed the house republicans decided to sabotage or delay what was happening there, but we are hopeful that everybody knows time is of the essence and if the republicans in the house want to put up a bill, they should do it soon. they have to know, it has has been described, they have to do that with 100% republican votes. we stand ready and members have

signed letters, petitions to open government, that we are therefore a clean petition to open government, clean legislation to open government, clean legislation to lift the debt ceiling that will take us on the path to the budget table where any and all issues can be discussed. so, that is where we are. i'm optimistic. i believe because of the impact of not lifting the debt ceiling -- alone, actually. not lifting the debt ceiling so catastrophic there will be those in the republican party who will see the light. on, they willt need 100% republican votes. toh that, i would like introduce the distinguished member for your. >> thank you. obviously, we want to make sure

that america pays its bills. we spoke with the president. those objectives have the overwhelming if not unanimous support of our caucus. we have a letter that is signed on the debt limit and we are unanimous on opening up government. those are our two major objectives. we have 48 hours to make sure our country remains solvent and paying its debts and to make sure our workers get back to work on behalf of the american people. i agree with the leader that the republican conference wants to offer -- we have not seen text yet -- it has other things in it. one of which we think is very, very damaging to the united states of america, and that is taking away from the president and the secretary of the treasury the ability to manage the payment of our debt so we remain a zero percent risk

creditor. with that, let me yield to my friend jim clyburn, the assistant leader. >> thank you. ,he last hour has been very very productive. i hope the next several hours will be as such. i find it kind of interesting that much of the discussion we have been hearing for the last the ideaeeks has been that we can maintain the full faith and credit of the united states of america by prioritizing how we address the debt. now all of a sudden, from what we are hearing, legislation is being brought forward to take held by thelity president and the secretary of the treasury to manage our debt

and deficits. absolutely be worst possible thing that can be done. we are very interested in a clean continuing resolution. a clean debt limit. and we can supply the vast majority of the democratic caucus to get that done. we are hopeful the speaker will allow such legislation to come to the floor, and we commit to him and the american people that democrats will be solid in support of that effort. obamacare, the house republicans are talking about consolidating a bigger amendment and including staff in that as well, something i know a lot of democrats and republicans have proposed. your statement about not having any democratic votes -- does that stand if they do that

amendment, taking away the health benefits of members? >> let me just take a crack at that. let me reiterate. 15th day hours -- the of a shutdown where government workers have been precluded from serving those who are trying to get veterans benefits, those who want to get on social security, those who want to go into our parks. from not being able to manage our debt and stay at zero percent risk nation. theextraneous things republicans are talking about do not serve our nation. what the leader and i are saying is our members are prepared to cooperate fully in getting those two things done. then we can talk about other things. but we need to move on those and we need to move on them now them

and we are hopeful the speaker -- we are very pleased with what has happened in the senate. the senate has been working together in a bipartisan way to try to get to an agreement. i'm sorry that that bill has not been sent over to us, but there will be time to chat about other matters once we get the government open and pay our bills. confident are you you can keep your democrats together, that you will not lose any democrat supporting the gop proposal in the house now? >> we're pretty confident. let me say why. this full faith and credit -- if we take any proposals they have had, and they have had an assortment of proposals they full faith and credit of the united states of -- but here it is. at the whole world is watching. this is the global consequence.

we are the united states of america. the against economy in the world. we want to have our credit we want to have our credit rating downgraded. we want to pay more for our credit. have engaged these expenses. we have to honor the commitment to pay for them. if you do not acknowledge the global and national consequences of that at the boardroom table and the international global table, if it doesn't resonate with you, just think of america's kitchen table. kitchen table. tochen tables or people have pay more for their interest on loans, for student loans, mortgages, credit card bills, small business owners have to pay more interest on their business loans. so, your interest will go up and your 401(k) will go down. here have a 401(k)?

do you check it from time to time? is at stake here and how it directly affects people over and above the bigger picture. our members understand we are here to do something big and consequential for our country. already we have had the opportunity cost of time when we should be creating jobs. that is why we are eager to go to the budget table. that is why the senate bill that says to lift the debt ceiling, open government and go to the budget table appeals to us. i would rather have a senate bill over our bill that says we will extend the debt ceiling for a full year. i do not think a few months is enough. obviously that is where their comfort level is. we accept that. we will have strong, strong democratic support. speakerain -- if the puts all of these extraneous

matters, e is going to have to have his own votes to do it. it has ground to a halt. there is not more work on the senate bill. what you are saying is -- why are you optimistic? the only thing i would say in response to that is the only bipartisan conversations going on where in the united states senate between republicans and democrats. theyu have to ask why did stall? they stalled because of this deliberate effort in the house, started by the tea party caucus, and once again speaker boehner has allowed that part of his caucus to run the show. so, what we need -- what ever happens with this legislation, which is not bipartisan, they

need to get back to the table at the united states senate and work out an agreement. i would just say with respect to some of these extraneous provisions, we have always said we are prepared to make adjustments to the affordable care act. we are happy to discuss any issues that are in the republican budget and the democratic budget at the negotiating table where we have been trying to go since last march and have been blocked. what we are not prepared to do is accept these unrelated extraneous measures under the threat of continued government shutdown and the threat of not paying our bills on time. and i will lastly say emma will lastlynd i say, imagine the president of the united states said to house republicans that he was going to veto the debt ceiling bill. that he was going to refuse to pay the nation's bills on time unless the house republicans adopted his budget or his jobs land. you all know it would say the president had lost his mind.

but that is exactly what house republicans continue to try to do even as the clock ticks down to default. >> [indiscernible] >> i believe -- i think what we are all saying is in the united states senate reason will prevail once they recognize the house republican proposal is not going to go anywhere at the end of the day. >> [indiscernible] believe there are two possibilities here. one it passes most of the senate and they send something back. it goes to the floor. it does not pass. i think it is a little frivolous -- more than frivolous, reckless to put a bill on the floor like that when markets are watching what is happening here. but nonetheless, maybe the speaker needs to have -- let them so their oats or whatever the expression happens to be. and once they have had that opportunity, sanity will prevail. then perhaps we can take up the

senate bill and send that over or the senate can send it back. but i think we have to give it one last chance to resist. that's unfortunate because time is ticking and it takes a while faith and the full credit, to continue the full faith and credit, as well as restore confidence that maybe ebbing because the clock is ticking. >> what did the president say to you? >> leader pelosi, have you explained the urgency given the fact that some republicans have suggested it is an artificial deadline? upe an americans wake october 18, they may not witness changes overnight. please, already the rating agencies are saying what will happen to our credit rating. if you were a businessman -- perhaps you are a small businessman -- with the

affordable care act, you can be self-employed, start your own business. but in any event, would you decide to have your lender charge you more interest? that would be stupid. this would be stupid. i don't believe -- and why i have anfidence is, i little more confidence and my colleagues that they would understand this is -- you can shut down government, and that is a bad thing. and you can have it shut down for 15 days and that is a bad thing. but you undermine the full faith and credit of the united states of america, that is a very hard thing to get back. it does have major consequences you saw what happened to the market. talks.neged on the it went down 175 points. again, it is sanity. i have confidence and i am optimistic because i believed at

the end of the day they will do the right thing even if they have to do contortions to get to that place. that is unfortunate because it does not inspire confidence, but the fact is, they have to get there. did the president ask you to -- did the specific medical devices tax,? >> i don't like to have a conversation unless you promise not to tell anyone about what transpired in the oval office. somethingbody have they want to say about the conference? >> not on that question anyway. >> we are very proud of our leadership. tv on you saw him on saturday with that line about the permission to open government.

we have a very unified caucus. thanks to our leadership -- and hollen,d from mr. van the chair, the bice chair, -- the vice chair, joe crowley. we have a number of new yorkers here. and we are proud of our caucus. we are proud of our president. no negotiations on the full faith and credit of the united states of america. let's go to the budget table two negotiate the rest. >> it sounds like in the end you two,rusting john boehner in your mind, do the right thing and put a clean bill on the floor. >> i don't know what the sequencing of it is, but yes. i don't know what order it will be, but yes.

>> [indiscernible] >> the building are talking about right now is a bill to default. make no mistake. the bill republicans are putting on the floor today is a decision to default. once they get over that, we will see what they send to the floor. thank you all. >> much of the federal government has been shut down congressys. members of looked at proposals to end the impasse. after the conference, speaker john boehner and other house leaders spoke to reporters.

>> good morning, everyone. our leadership team met with our members today. we tried to find a way forward in a bipartisan way that will continue to provide fairness to the american people under obamacare. are there a lot of opinions about what direction to go? there has been no decision about what exactly we will do. but we are going to continue to work with our members on both sides of the aisle to try to make sure there is no issue of default and we get our government reopened. talked morning, we just to our members. i think we have been clear all along what we in the house want. we want the democrats to sit down and talk to us so we can work out our differences and we have been saying since day one that we believe there should be

fairness for all americans, those elected and unelected. i am glad to see that harry reid in the senate finally has begun to sit down and talk with the republican leader there, and we encourage that. we also though, as the house republican caucus, think it is very important for us to stress and what ever proposal we move forward will reflect our position on fairness. no special treatment for anybody under the law. >> it was very clear in our discussions that we think individuals should be treated fairly. that the business should not have special treatment and congress should not have special treatment. we are sensitive to the calendar. we want to tackle this in a bipartisan manner that gets america back working. >> four weeks, members of the house up in meeting on

solutions. ony need to be based fairness for all. we recognize that people all across this country continue to struggle and have their challenges. we want to ensure that laws are written and implemented to provide that fairness for all, whether it is moms, dads, seniors, young people, small business owners trying to find their way forward. we in the house remained committed to being part of a solution to working in a bipartisan fashion to find those commonsense ways to make sure we are doing what is good and right for america. >> i can take a couple of questions. >> mr. speaker, the changes in your bill for the president's health care law are relatively minor. were they worth a two-week government shutdown? >> we are working with our members. >> can you guarantee that

congress will not push us into default? >> listen, i have made clear for months and months that the idea of default is wrong and we shouldn't get anywhere close to it. vote --ou going to making changes to the senate bill? >> we are talking with other members on both sides of the aisle to try to find a way to move forward today. thank you. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi and other democrats commented on the republican proposal and efforts from the senate to come up with a deal. this is 25 minutes.

>> good morning, everyone. for the last couple of days, the senate has been acting and working in a very bipartisan way to come up with a solution, a way to go forward. from what we have heard of their agotiations, they are near final version, and from what we have heard, it sounds the like a longeruld lifting of the debt ceiling, but nonetheless this is great progress. evidentlyess has struck fear in the hearts of house republicans whose radical, reckless behavior has caused them to sabotage the bipartisan effort in the united states senate. this is day 16 of the shutdown which has hit our country hard and harder by the day. now, for reasons i do not quite understand, the republicans want -- and the house of

representatives again, want to sabotage the bipartisan effort in the senate and that will hit our global hard, standing as well. what is also interesting is how it it's the american people >> it is going to mean higher interest rates on the car loans. if you are business person, it will affect your 401(k). why? it is hard to understand, because this is very damaging. -- wasu saw here earlier that here? the speaker did not have the votes for his proposal. hope -- why are they doing this to the american people, sabotaging a good faith, bipartisan effort coming out of the senate, wasting the public's time, and in this case, time is

money. this is going to be very costly to our economy, even if eventually we do lift the debt ceiling. the cost in interest payments will be in the billions of dollars. ofs republican sabotaging any effort to move forward is a luxury our country cannot afford. you could see by their comments they did not have the votes. radicale those on the right who don't want to live the debt ceiling, and you have the moderates who say they want to do so in a way that is clean, that will go to the senate, that will pass, and that the president will sign. i will yield to our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer. >> i don't know if there's much to add. i think the american people were heartened by the fact that senators were talking. by all appearances, they were

close to reaching an agreement that would open up our agreement in which we would make sure the credit of the united states was not put at risk. as leader pelosi has indicated, make sure as well that interest rates would not spike, that 401(k) values for retirees would not go down, that people would not be adversely affected. in effect, what they have done once again, we understand from the republican conference, is to snatch confrontation from the jaws of reasonable agreement. that is what so angers and makes rightfullyso upset with their government. they want reasonable solutions so that they and their families can have some confidence that their government is being run appropriately, but more importantly, so their lives are not disrupted, so government employees are not put out, so that when a veteran makes an application, there is someone there to make -- to take the application.

somebody to show them around the national parks. all of these things, we are undermining the confidence of the american people. that on the brink of an agreement that would open up our government and make sure thatamerica pays its bills the republican conference met this morning, apparently after a number of them talk to ted cruz, and said, no, it's not good enough for us. i now want to yield to jim clyburn, the assistant leader. ip.thank you, mr. wh i think what we are experiencing at this time is a tremendous effort on the part of the republicans in the house to once the faith in the american people that was rendered last november. what they have added to this

legislation are more extraneous issues dealing with the affordable care act, something that ought to be settled on and i thought we've gotten away from. experiencingwe are , according to the information i have received, a nine-month low in consumer confidence. people are really leery of the to accepts' ability their verdict and move on to the next issue. i would hope that some time within the next few hours the speaker of the house will take an assessment, not just of his conference, but also the sentiment of the american people and allow an issue to come to the floor that would give us a raising of the debt ceiling, give us a continuing resolution, and allow for some negotiations

on the budget that will put americans back to work as we argue over these issues. with that, i would like to yield to our distinguished chair of the caucus, mr. becerra. >> thanks, jim. droves after republicans americans over the cliff and told them not to come to work, we are now in this 11th hour on the verge of launching republican -- of watching republicans shut down the economy as well, simply because there is a family feud going on because of -- within republicans. senate republicans have chosen to sit down with their democratic counterparts to try to come up with a solution. we can disagree, but if we can come up with a commonsense solution, that moves all of us forward. ditch effort on the

part of our house republican colleagues to disrupt, your responsibly disrupt -- irre sponsibly disrupt those conversations leaves all of us at risk. no american family should have to pay the price for the reckless behavior of some politicians who are trying to get their way in a budget bill and in a bill to pay our tax debts at a time when so much is at risk. three and a half years after we saw the depths of economic downturn, we have seen 7.5 million americans go back to work. we cannot watch our colleagues andtage those good efforts disrupt an opportunity to actually move us forward. we urge our republican colleagues to talk to us here in the house. we urge our republican colleagues not in this 11th hour to put the american economy at risk. we urge our republican colleagues to make up with their

own republican brethren and come to an agreement that we can then move forward with for the martin people. with that, let me yield to the vice chair of the democratic caucus, joe crowley. >> something that continues to change is the logic behind the republican shutdown of government. first, it was about defunding or repealing the affordable care act. then it was about the budget. now it's about something else, something else with the intention to sabotage the bipartisan, commonsense solutions that our republican colleagues and democratic colleagues in the senate were trying to work out. one thing still hasn't changed -- that is the last two weeks, the republicans continue to ensure that the government shuts down, and by their behavior, are on the cusp seeing that our national debt is not paid. mentioned, the real practical element to that, how it will actually affect the average american is

catastrophic. with that, i now turn to congressman steve israel from new york. >> thank you. we found the middle ground. in aund the middle ground negotiation between the republican leader of the senate and the democratic leader in the senate, and once again, house republicans have made the decision to hurt middle-class families, to reject a commonsense solution in order to advance their political agenda. that is very disappointing. house republicans are in a car. the car is speeding to a cliff. the car has no brakes. the steering wheel only turns to the far right. somebody in the house republican caucus has to grab the wheel and hit the brakes. stop the house republicans from speeding our economy off this cliff. driving middle-class families off this cliff. 20 -- 17, 20, 30

house republicans that said they are willing to grab the wheel and hit the brakes. now is the time to do it. we are getting to the point of no return. no return is when the car goes over the cliff and takes middle- class families and the american fat -- american economy with it. with that, i yield to the ranking member of the house budget committee, who has been leading us towards a balanced approach to deficit reduction and the right priorities, chris van hollen. >> thank you, steve. we areow, as we as -- as gathered here, great damage is already being done to the american economy. 15 days into the government shutdown, you are already beginning to see slowing of economic growth in this country. simply the threat of default, which is just days away, is also having a very negative impact on the economy. you are already seeing the impact in terms of short-term interest rates. as our leader indicated, when that begins to filter through the economy, that means interest rates go up on everybody, and

everybody gets hurt. despite that fact, in the last couple of days, we've heard a lot of our house republican colleagues saying it would be a good thing if the united states defaulted on the debt. some of them had said it is no problem because we can pay bondholders, holders of u.s. treasuries, at the expense of folks on social security, folks who rely on medicare, and our troops in the field. that apparently is their prescription. when those members of the house key party caucus saw that -- tea party caucus saw that a bipartisan agreement was emerging in the senate, they to work toor to -- sabotage it. the question is, will the speaker and will some of those self-proclaimed moderates that steve israel mentioned, will they stand up and say they support a sensible, bipartisan solution to that and will not allow the continued sabotage to

go on, which is hurting every american right now and will only get worse as the days go on? we hope common sense will prevail. with that, i yield back. leader pelosi, at the outset, you said you are positive about harry reid nearing a deal, but we have been hearing that for a while. what is the holdup? are you concerned that we are getting so close to the deadline that there won't be enough time to avoid default? >> i haven't heard it for a while. i heard it yesterday, maybe a little bit the day before and today. i think they've made a lot of progress in a short period of time. that doesn't mean it is the bill we would have written. i think we should be extending the debt limit for a year. i don't think we should be discussing it. i think it should be a given as the constitution indicates, that the full faith and credit of the united states will always be honored. nonetheless, it is an approach. it is middle ground.

it is common ground that enables us to go forward to go to the budget table by the middle of december to open government until the middle of january, by which time we hopefully will have a solution to keep it open and then to go to february for the debt ceiling. -- you may be have heard more than i have heard, but i haven't been hearing it for a long time. i think this is a relatively new development. i just wanted to make the point about the debt ceiling. 800,000 people on a fork with the shutdown of government, many more people affected in the private sector. this is very bad for our country. to default on the full faith and credit of the united states should be out of the question. why would they sabotage a good- faith effort from -- effort? all of these issues can be debated at the budget table or can be taken up under the regular order of the house in terms of legislation where we

may find some common ground, but not to hold the full faith and credit hostage. as i say, it is a luxury we cannot afford. -- i don't know where they have the votes. it seems to me that those who are acting in good faith to say they would like to open up government and with the debt ceiling, maybe they are the ones that are resisting, or maybe it is those on the far right that don't want to live the debt ceiling. is, the only conversation i've had with the speaker on the subject was yesterday when i called him and said, if the senate bill materializes, why don't you take that up immediately? you take it up tomorrow, send it to them, and under our procedures, they can take it up in a much more rapid form been if they originated the bill. that is the conversation. when the speaker talks about working in a bipartisan way, i don't know who is talking to. >> the sticker was here just a

bit ago. he pulled back from the plan. let me play devil's advocate -- >> isn't that your role? >> you are familiar with the internal pressures he faces with a certain wing of his conference, but that said, what is the responsible thing to that -- from >> no, thank you for bringing up tarp. tarp helped democrats say the country from going over the brink. he could not deliver the votes than from his caucus when it was his his own private -- when it was his own president of the united states, president bush. what the speaker has to do is get the job done. he can let them vote any way they want. let them. they will vote any way they want. bring it to the floor, and let a bipartisan vote come together to end the shutdown of government, with the debt ceiling, and take

it to the budget table where we can discuss any and all issues. it isn't about, it depends on their 218 votes. there are 435 members of congress. his responsibility to the public is to bring this bill to the floor. what you heard we all heard. what you heard was a plan to default on the full faith and credit of the united states of america. by design, that is their intention. make no mistake about that. do my colleagues want to say something about that? [indiscernible] , thesaid to the speaker quickest thing to lift the full faith and credit -- to remove all doubt and to open government

is for us to act because the house procedures that move much more quickly than the senate, as the world is finding out. he indicated that was a possibility, but they might have other possibilities. it wasn't a very clear response, but nonetheless, without going into that, obviously instead of taking the easy route -- which, again, is middle ground -- i think the debt limit is too short -- nonetheless, willing to accept, and i would say we would have an overwhelming number of house democrats. i'm going to yield to the distinguished whip who counts these votes to respond further, , there must be 38 republicans who might vote on this? that is all that voted for sandy aid. that was a different piece of

people are there not 49 -- nine of those lived in pennsylvania -- >> 19. >> it depends. let's not get into that. let's just say it wasn't even 25% of their caucus. again, this is a very big deal. this is the full faith and credit of the united states of america. the whole world is watching to see what happens here. a vehicle is moving in the senate. this is an effort to sabotage it, which means delay, but not only that, to undermine it in the senate so that we don't know where the end of the road is on this. it is reckless, irresponsible, radical. no words are adequate to describe how out of the question what the republicans are trying to do here. we extend a hand of friendship. we are willing to accept some of

the terms of the bipartisan bill in order to get things moving. steny? >> first of all, the responsible thing to do for the speaker is to do what he says he wants to do all the time -- let the house work its will. let the american people's representatives vote. let them decide whether they want open government and whether they want to make sure america pays its bills. there was a lot of talk about young guns. guns are causing harm to our country. let me tell you what they said -- we pledge to stand on principle to lead as adults, and most of all, to serve as responsible stewards of the public trust by listening to the american people. the american people overwhelmingly, in poll after on theter poll and

november 2012 poll, as mr. clyburn ported out -- pointed out, said they want this country to move forward, they wanted to pay its debts, and they want their government (the responsible -- government open. the responsible action for the speaker to take is to do exactly that. mr. rhine is specifically quoted in young guns as saying, washington isn't interested in simple up or down votes. i guess they wrote this book in 2009. well, mr. ryan, urge the speaker to put the bill on the floor, open government, let the american people see who is for voting for opening up government and paying america's bills and going to conference to discuss further commonsense solutions.

that is what the speaker ought to do. that is what i urge the sticker today. much more importantly, that is what the american people are urging the speaker to do. that's the responsible thing to do. >> do they have the votes to pass their plan? >> i have no idea. >> i would like to weigh in on that. this is what i do. i know the speaker. i saw a speaker who did not have the votes. i guess they said they were having a press conference. they should have one. they didn't come out and say what their proposal was. -- they not come out are still working on it. for some reason, they said they were working in a bipartisan way. i don't know to what they were referencing. again, on the right, they had resistance. i think the moderates in the caucus are going to have to have a moment of truth. are they going to continue to be

enablers to this behavior that is sabotaging a good faith, bipartisan effort, that is hitting the american people right in their own pocketbooks while damaging our national, global economy? are they going to continue to enable the speaker to do that, or are they going to do what they know is right, which is to and this? mr. van hollen? point, to reinforce that you've got a lot of self- proclaimed moderates on the republican side in the house who, back home, are telling their constituents that they want to have a vote or down to immediately open the entire government and want to make sure that we pay our bills on time. the question for them and their constituents is whether, when they are here in congress, they are going to do as they say they are going to do that at home. maybe this is a moment where they are finally standing up to the tea party faction of their caucus, but the jury is still very much out on that.

we hope they will do the right thing. >> i want to go further about my analysis of their votes. reid.roposed to senator he accepted it. the president accepted it. we accepted it. i don't think they ever had the votes when they propose that. that is why they had to back off. we would have given them the votes, but they did not accept that offer. they brought at 123 times to the floor. secondly, they didn't have the votes for what they propose to the president over the weekend. they made a proposal to the president. they didn't have the votes for that. that is why they thought -- they backed away when the president said no. they don't have the votes for what they have today. they have their own internal combustion which is going on. the conflagration from that is very harmful. leader on they rating agencies

are talking about downgrading the united states as early as tonight. you have any information? senator reid. >> we do know that it will cost billions of dollars just in anticipation of a possible downgrade. i will remind you that two years , but thedn't downgrade threat -- we did not default, but the threat of defaulting br ought a downgrade upon us. >> have you been warned of the downgrade as early as tonight? >> i haven't been warned of that, but i do know it is possible. we discussed how much that would cost -- it would cost billions of dollars, just the discussion of it. this really should be an off- limits subject. -- thishe reasons why is for debts incurred. a lot of this debt is the bush era -- bush administration-era debt. they don't want to pay those bills.

is about the bills that have already been incurred. how do you walk away from that? you can just say, i will pay china first, and the rest of you can wait? i don't think the american people want that. >> the shutdown in the debt ceiling deadline were the topics at today's white house briefing. spokesman jay carney took questions from reporters for about an hour. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. before i take your questions, i just wanted to note that earlier today the president was briefed by senior staff on the effects of the lapse in appropriations, the so-called shutdown, and among the items that he was

briefed on was the fact that small businesses are feeling the impact of shutdown as key federal efforts to support small business has been halted. shutdown, as you know, now in its 15th day, the sba cannot approve new guarantees of loans provided by banks to small businesses. in a typical month, the small business administration approves loans to more than 4000 small businesses. halting these loans represents over $1 billion in lost loan assistance to small businesses, thereby jeopardizing thousands of jobs. again, another consequence of a wholly unnecessary, completely manufactured crisis that is doing harm to our economy, harm to our small businesses, and was brought about by one faction of one party in one house in one

branch of government making ideological demands and thereby shutting down the government. with that, i will take your questions. >> i just want to get a sense of the state of play. is it the white house is understanding that there is a deal in the senate that has been finalized between harry reid and mitch mcconnell that would lift the debt ceiling and reopen the government? >> the president is pleased with the progress we have seen in the senate. it is important to note that the process that has been undertaken in the senate is bipartisan, that senators reid and mcconnell has been engaging each other. democrats and republicans have been engaging on this issue. it is built run the fundamental premise we should not have shut down the government, that we should reopen the government, and we must ensure the united states pays its bills on time, as it always has. congress should take those actions in a way that does not have partisan strings attached and that ensures the kind of

stability for our economy and for our middle class that they need. we are pleased with the progress. i would refer you to senate leaders for the status of those discussions, but we certainly believe that there is a potential for a resolution to this unnecessary, manufactured crisis that can allow us to get back to the important business of helping grow the economy and create jobs and taking action to improve the lives of middle- class americans that elected officials were center today. >> is the white house confident that the resolution could pass both the senate and the house ahead of the thursday deadline for the debt ceiling? timing --gressional >> you guys know the state of play. >> there is no question we are very close to a very important deadline. time is of the essence.

so, i think that is why you see some very serious-minded efforts being undertaken in the senate, and we would hope that the house would also approach this important deadline with the same understanding of how serious it is. >> in 2011, the u.s. credit rating was downgraded just because the government got so close to a default. if the white house for treasury hearing from any of the rating agencies now that we are again very close to the deadline without a resolution? >> i would refer you to the treasury department for those kinds of conversations, if they are taking place. that wouldn't be something i would brief on from here. experience thest difficult lessons learned from 2011, that the serious thatation with default house republicans engaged in two

years ago led to some pretty negative consequences for our economy, including, as you know, the united states being downgrade for the first time. the briefings jack lew is getting everyday, is he getting anything from these officials about how the ratings agencies -- >> that is not something i would brief on from here. obviously, they are issues that have to do with market sensitivities. last week, the president said in a worst-case scenario there are things to do. what if thursday comes and there is no deal? has the white house started implementing any of those contingency plans already i had -- already? >> i would not go further than what the president or treasury secretary have said about that. the treasury secretary jack lew testified, as you know, last , where broadly this issue was discussed, but we are obviously focused on working

with members of congress, leaders in congress, on an effort to do what we said was essential all along, which was and makegovernment sure the united states pays its bills by extending the debt ceiling. do that in a way that we don't simply put us on a trajectory to re-create this crisis again in a few weeks. we are encouraged by the progress we have seen in the senate. we are far from ideal at this point. we hope that progress continues. >> what is it about the senate deal that wouldn't re-create the crisis in a few months? what is in it that means we won't be doing this again? >> there isn't a bill for me to analyze right now. >> the legislation that is pending. >> i think every participant in this exercise would totally understand that it should not be

not in a few weeks, not in a few months, and when it comes to the fundamental responsibility of congress to ensure the united states does not default, not ever. that is certainly the president's view. that is why he has been so insistent that we cannot engage in a process here that then acomes normalized, where minority in congress, a faction of one party in one house, can threaten the full faith and credit of the united states if it doesn't get what it could not get through the normal legislative process or through elections. those are the stakes when it comes to the essential responsibilities of congress to ensure that the department of treasury can pay our bills. are there strings attached and the deal as it appears to be developing?

what does the white house make of those strings? >> i'm not going to analyze details of a bill that we haven't seen yet and has not emerged yet. brianna?-- >> it seems a key part of the senate bill, the reinsurance, the income verification -- president obama said, nobody gets to threaten the full faith and credit of the united states to extract political concessions. if you are open to that, isn't that a concession? >> again, i think what we have seen in the process thus far that senator reid has engaged in is a proposal that would reopen the government and remove the threat of a first ever u.s. default by raising the debt ceiling. we don't need any more self- inflicted wounds. the economy is already paying a

outside analysts have noted. there is already a cost to the economy, and therefore, to growth and jobs, from this behavior. it is important, as i think so many americans believe, that it stop, that congress simply fulfilled its basic responsibilities, to open the government, to fund it at levels that were set by republicans, so that we can get about the business negotiating in good faith over longer-term budget proposals. provisions --re you are talking about a short- term increase in the debt cr.ing ncr -- and you are talking about a short- term debt ceiling ncr provision. even if these are small fry gives on obamacare, doesn't it violate the principle that the

president set out there that he will not negotiate on obamacare? a proposal that has emerged from these negotiations in the senate, i'm not going to analyze it with you piece by piece. what i can say is we have been encouraged by the progress. we believe and the president believes it is very important, when it comes to the debt ceiling, that we not do what a previous effort in the house would have done, which is try to create a scenario where budget negotiations and the renewal of government funding are once again tied directly to the essential responsibility of congress to pay our bills. holidays, which would be a terrible outcome to this process, as every business owner will tell you. of them have told you, and many of them have told the representatives in congress. negotiate when it

comes to obamacare on the full faith and credit of the u.s.? >> he has made clear to things, as you know. he is willing, within the context of broader budget negotiations, within the context of serious-minded and earnest discussions about how to improve the affordable care act, to look at any proposal that might do that. that is true on broader budget issues. with some of the ideas we have seen this morning, when it comes to demanding ransom to try to rally tea party members in exchange for opening the government or raising the debt ceiling, that's not acceptable. it has not been through the slow process. boehner, real quickly -- is there nothing in the banner proposal that is acceptable to you? >> reopening the government and extending the debt ceiling, that is acceptable. >> the obamacare provisions? >> two things -- one, as i

understand it, there is not a proposal in the house to talk about now, based on the press conference given by house republican leaders and based on some of the reporting i have seen since then. they are now going back to try to add some sweeteners for tea party members. the better course of action is the one being undertaken by democrats and republicans in the senate. instead of trying to once again craft a measure to ensure full republican support in the house, why not work on a measure that could get bipartisan support in the house, the way that republicans and democrats are trying to do in the senate? that is certainly what i think is best for the american people. it is the kind of process that the president supports. regards to proposals that we haven't seen, it is hard to -- >> aren't you cherry picking

what parts you will talk about. -- talk about? you will talk about a short-term increase in the debt ceiling. >> talking about the shutdown and the need to raise the debt ceiling, yes, that's what we've been talking about for weeks. we have said all along that we want debt ceiling increase for as long as possible because of the need to remove uncertainty from this process. the very uncertainty that has been created by this manufactured crisis is what we need to avoid as an economy going forward. what washington needs to avoid. it is already causing harm to the economy. it is already causing uncertainty among americans, which, in turn, has been making decisions about how they spend their money, which has a negative impact on potentially the economy. that creates a cascading effect that can only be bad, which is

, why congress needs to fulfill its basic responsibilities, reopen the government, and make sure that the full faith and credit of the united states is upheld, as it has been in the past. >> what exactly is the deadline? >> for? >> raising the debt ceiling, for default? >> those are two different things, as we have been clear about. on october 17, at the treasury secretary has noted many times, the united states runs out of borrowing authority, and beyond that point, we only have cash on hand available to pay our bills. the treasury secretary has testified to this on capitol hill and is far more an expert than i. i would point you to his testimony and public statements about that fact. as everyone knows, in order to meet all of our obligations as a country, the united states needs borrowing authority. in order to make sure that all of our bills are paid, all of

the obligations that congress has made, all of the bills that congress has incurred will come due, and if we can only pay those bills with cash on hand, that is a problem. >> everybody has a countdown clocks going on, counting down to midnight tomorrow, but is it midnight tomorrow when the calendar -- >> i would refer you -- as much as i would like to improve the quality of the countdown clocks, i would have to refer you to treasury on the minute an hour. >> when does congress need to act by? do they need to pass something by tomorrow? can something pass on thursday? will the skyfall if it doesn't pass on friday? when is the deadline? is it tomorrow? >> john, the deadline for avoiding uncertainty has passed. the deadline for not shutting the government down has long since passed. congress has already failed to act in a timely fashion. we hope that congress will act

quickly to resolve these issues now. >> when it's too late? i just tried to figure that out. >> i'm not sure what that means. they need to act as soon as possible. what is absolutely true is that everyday we are in a shutdown, there is harm done to hundreds of thousands of americans, and indirectly, to many more. there is direct harm done to our economy. every day that we get closer to the point beyond which we have never been, which is where the united states does not have borrowing authority, creates economy and for our uncertainty globally, which has a negative impact on our economy. >> there's a lot of anxiety in the bond market. ken bondholders be reassured that they will still receive their interest after tomorrow? >> those are the kinds of questions that i think our best rectitude the treasury department. what is unquestionably the case is that when people talk about prioritization, they are talking

about default by another name. when people talk about paying some bills but not others, they are talking about entering a realm that this country in this government have never been in, which is picking and choosing who gets paid and when they get paid. tremendous negative consequences for our economy, not all of which are knowable be on the fact that we know they are better. >> do you have a game plan? is no longer hypothetical. there is a real possibility congress doesn't act. do you have a game plan of what to do? was obviously something that the treasury department would have jurisdiction over. i would refer you to treasury. >> one specific question, this idea suspending the medical device tax -- i believe it has been referred to as a ransom payment -- the speaker's office is saying that his idea was by white houseed staff in negotiations last week. is that true or not? >> that is not true. what we have always said is that

the sessions of the medical device tax or other elements in the affordable care act that lawmakers want to talk about in an effort to improve the affordable care act, we are willing to have. but not in the context of or as ransom for opening the government. that is why a provision like that appears in the latest proposal that seems to be going nowhere from house republicans, because it is an effort to try votes from tea party republicans who shut down the government in the first place. >> they are not telling the truth about that? >> the conversations that have been had here about the medical device tax have been about our willingness, as the president said, in a broader context, not ransom for opening the government, not ransom for congress doing it job to pay our of thebut in the context president's willingness to hear ideas about ways we can improve, as opposed to undermine or dismantle or defund, obamacare -- we are willing to have that.

we are not going to pay ransom, the president is not going to pay ransom from the american people to the tea party in order to open the government. >> i would like to follow that a little bit. i want to pin you down closely. thursday, the speakers spokesman said specifically that a white house official asked for the repeal of the medical device tax. >> that is just not the case. simply that it was asked for by the white house. >> separate from anything, the white house proposed a change to the affordable care act -- obviously, that is not the case. the issue of the medical device tax has been obviously in the air for the last several weeks, and when i have at us question and others have made clear that we would be willing to talk -- lawmakers that want to address that provision as well other ideas that lawmakers

might have about making changes to the affordable care act that strengthen it or improve it. when it comes to the medical device tax, i think it is important to note that those who portray themselves as paragons of fiscal responsibly and discipline often oppose making that change without acknowledging the fact that it would raise the deficit. that is an important point to it knowledge. that, we have never said we would agree to paying ransom, making changes to the affordable care act, simply to placate the -- placate tea party republicans who shut down this government over their opposition to the affordable care act. i think i've answered this three times. >> nobody here asked for the repeal of the medical device tax? >> correct. >> there are people on wall street and in washington who speak openly about the real

crunch point being november 1 as opposed to thursday, the 17th. >> on october 17, as was made clear to congress in a letter from the treasury secretary, we cease to have borrowing authority. we only have cash on hand. as everyone knows who understands how this process --ks, that means we do not there is a scenario by which we will not be able to pay all of our bills. because of the fact that we need to borrow money in order to pay our bills. these are bills that congress has incurred. these are obligations congress has made. this is not new debt. this is not new spending. there is a lot of misrepresentation of that by those who claim that they came to congress with a mandate never to raise the debt ceiling. that has nothing to do with spending. ok? to do with a feeling that obligations, like social

security and other payments, come due on november 1. >> what i would tell you is we have a huge number of payments as a country that need to be made everyday. there is a series of obligations that the united states government has to. fulfill. we have seen a lot of talk from debtits -- not deficits -- limit deniers and default and iris -- deniers. they have been roundly shot down by experts in the field, financialceos and industry experts, including many of whom, i think, tend to have the ear of republican lawmakers. it is absolutely not the responsible thing to do to allow us as a nation to enter territory we've never been in before, which is to not have the

authority to pay our bills. >> thank you. nice to talk to you. i want to ask you about the president's role in the final hours. yesterday, there was a meeting with leaders in both parties. today, just democratic leaders could senator mccain -- he has been critical in recent days of his own party and has said they need to come to a deal -- a short time ago, he said it was a mistake for democrats to reject speaker boehner's latest proposal. my question is, does the letident plan to congressional leaders work this out in the final hours, or does he see that his role in the final hours, because this is so critical, as you say, that he will play some direct role in trying to force a deal? >> i have no doubt that the president will be in contact with congressional leaders of both parties as this process continues. we postpone the

meeting yesterday because of the progress that was being made in the senate. the president's intention, reflected by the meetings and conversations he has been having with leaders, as well as the fact that he invited every member of congress to the white house last week for discussions on this issue, is to engage directly with lawmakers as they try to resolve this issue and try to do it in a way that hopefully reflects the bipartisan spirit we have seen in the senate process. we continue to hope that that will bear fruit and will produce something that can come in the end, lead to a resolution that opens the government, provides the authority to the treasury for the united states to pay its bills, so that we can focus on some of the bigger issues that we face as a country instead of getting distracted by these manufactured crises that only do harm to the economy, only do harm to the american people.

apparently, according to a lot of republican commentators, does a lot of harm to the republican party. we need to get beyond this for the sake of the country. >> some of the big issues were talking about -- nsa, another revelation today that they are ,ollecting e-mail contact lists not just of foreigners, but of americans. how do you justify that? >> as you know, i'm not in a position to discuss specific tools or processes, but as you know, the national security agency is developing intelligence about the valid foreign intelligence targets such as terrorists, he went -- human traffickers, and drug smugglers. they are not interested in personal information about ordinary americans. they operate in accordance with rules either approved by the attorney general or the foreign intelligence surveillance court, designed to minimize the acquisition, use, and dissemination of any such information. here is topurpose

discover and develop intelligence about foreign intelligence targets. that is the mission, and that is the purpose of the various methods that the nsa employs. >> you said they are not interested in the private information of americans, except the "washington post" said they collect telephone numbers, street addresses, business information of americans. it doesn't that contradict what you are saying? >> in fact, they are not interested in the personal information of americans. intelligenceoreign -- their targets are terrorists, human traffickers, drug smugglers, and the like. they gather foreign intelligence. there are minimization procedures in place that are approved by the attorney general and the fisa court. minimizedesigned to the acquisition, use, and dissemination of any such information, information that might be collected as part of the effort to target terrorists. >> your predecessor, robert

gibbs, had some interesting things to say about health care rollout yesterday. he said that it has been botched, and he said that when it gets fixed, "i hope they fire some people that were in charge of making sure that this thing was supposed to work." how do you react to that, and since republican senator pat roberts has called for secretaries of elliott and he fired, does she sought the full confidence of the president? >> the secretary does have the full confidence of the president. she, like everyone else, is focused on our number one priority, which is making the implementation of the affordable care act work well. people are working 24/7 to address the problems and isolate them and fix them. is the president wants these matters addressed. he wants to make sure that americans across the country have the best possible consumer experience as they look at their options and plan available to

them -- plans available to them and see the fact that for so many of them there is affordable health insurance out there that was never there before. i think it is important to note that, even amidst this early stage of the enrollment process, even though there have been website,s with the there are americans across the country who are, through call centers and through the website and through the states, getting access to this information and making choices, seeing what choices are billable to them, and enrolling if they are ready to enroll. that includes a woman in illinois who bought health insurance for her family with hundreds of dollars in savings. in mississippi, a woman skipping medication for years was able to enroll herself and her husband for a plan that will cost $60 a month. anoticed last week in utah father and a family of five,

small business owner, who said it took half a dozen tries over several days, but he was able to strike gold on saturday -- with familyally -- health coverage purchased on the affordable care act's online exchange. after plugging in particulars about his family of five, the salt lake city business owner was able to compare 30th plans and apply for tax credits to put towards his monthly premiums. he settled on a silver-level plan that retails for about $850 a month. after tax credits, his family will pay just $123 a month. "it is a great deal. i'm thrilled to have coverage." this is why we are doing this. these are the people we are focused on helping. committed andis has instructed his team to work 24/7 to resolve the issues that have arisen when it comes to implementation. is to providere

benefits to those americans who have struggled for so long without access to affordable health insurance. >> without litigating the of the countdown clocks, i want to ask you about october 17, if i can, and some of the urgency associated with that date. when the sequester went into effect, there were predictions from this podium about long lines at airports, about special education funding. without denying the impact of a default, does that in any way undermine the white house or administrations credibility when it says october 17 is some form of the d-day when come in fact, the 18th, 19th, 20th may come in the sky made it -- may not fall. what is the risk of that? >> i would simply say that there is nobody in this field who understands how financial

markets work and understands what the impact of default would be on the global economy who accepts the absurd position taken by the debt limit or default deniers. this is a serious matter. we have been through this, and i have read quotes to you from numerous financial industry experts, numerous ceos, president reagan, among others, who noted the importance of maintaining the full faith and credit of the united states. what we know is that on october 17 we cease to have borrowing authority. that means we can only pay our bills with cash on hand. we are the largest economy in the world. we have a lot of obligations. ourobligations exceed income. that is why we have to ensure the treasuries able to borrow be able to -- in order to able to pay our bills.

>> i'm not jack lew, so i don't know the exact hotels. there might be a $6 billion payment on october 31. and $11 billion payment close to that. we could go 5, 6, 7, 8 days and nothing happens. isn't that a potential risk? flirtingsk is even with the idea that we should try to wait until the very last moment before a bill comes due that we cannot pay. this is the united states. the idea that we are going to send a signal to the world that it is an acceptable proposition -- this is what some republicans on capitol hill seem to be conveying -- that we can cross that threshold and just hope that we can resolve this before we have to delay of payment. to that once you get deadline, you've entered territory that we've never entered before. that sends a signal, i think, globally that there is

the fidelitybout here in the united states or the principle that we always pay our bills on time. that is why this line has never been crossed. it ministration after administration, both democratic and republican hama -- republican, have taken the position that we should not cross this line. it is why businessmen and women, ceos who understand the impact that this would have on what they do and on the american economy, have called on congress to quit even flirting with the prospect of default. again, for details on what would happen if we were to cross that line, i would refer you to the treasury department. we are focused on working with asgress to prevent that, every member of congress who cares about the american economy should be focused on at this time. former defense secretary leon panetta said when

you are operating by crisis, i think there is enough blame to go around. does the president agree with one of his closest allies in the recent past that he should also bear some of the blame for the situation we are in now? >> here's what i would tell you -- there's no question, as we discussed in the past, that there are no winners in a situation like this, not the working people, not the economy, and not members of either clinical party -- political party. playolitician looking to this as a game is making a mistake. the president's position has been crystal clear -- don't shut the government down. reopeney shut it down, the government. he is asking for nothing in return. he is making no demands on congress. insisting on nothing from them in order to sign a bill that would reopen the government with no strings attached. the same when it comes to the

responsibility of congress to raise the debt ceiling. there is only one party that has been saying, we would flirt with default, we would even allow default, if we don't get what we want. we are in the 15th day of the government shutdown, the first shut down in 17 years, because one section of one party in one house of congress decided it was so opposed to a law that had been passed by congress, signed into law by the president, upheld by the supreme court of the united states, and litigated in a president campaign in which the candidate who took their position lost, that they shut the government down over not achieving their aim, which was to do away with it. the president's position has been that he has demanded nothing in return for congress simply keeping the government open and simply doing its job to ensure that united states does not default. >> an op-ed from the china's state news agency -- i will read it for you -- they said, among

other things, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a dwe-americanized world. what is the white house's message to the >> i would simply say it is an important fact that the full faith and credit of the united states, the principle that has existed for centuries that this country pays its bills and pays them on time and that includes paying investors from around the world, the principle that this economy is a safe bet and the safest bet that investment in our country is as safe as any investment anywhere should not be compromised. and those who would compromise it are flirting with something are risking something that has immense value to the nation and to the american people.