to solving the problems we talk about all the time and wring our hands about, like controlling health care costs. diseases and disabilities are not diseases are not going to cure themselves or be prevented overnight. it's research that is a deficit reduction strategy. public health readiness is a deficit reduction strategy. so why are we squandering those solutions? i know, you know, the president knows, congress knows, there is a way to fix the budget and it involves tax and entitlement reform and we need smart tax and entitlement reform that doesn't undermine public or private sector medical innovations. to give you one example, cuts to scription drug reimbursement -- to prescription drug reimbursement would undermine this.

prescription drugs alleviate disability. developing new medications is a high-risk proposition and it takes both public and private sectors working hard at it. if reimbursement is cut, though, it undermines the flow of capital necessary to the development of those solutions that we're all waiting for. and for sure, sequestration has to go. now, we look to that conference committee the budget conference committee, address sequestration and to eliminate it. and we and the members of our alliance will be speaking to members of that committee. starving the national institutes of health, national science foundation and other catalysts of american innovation and medical progress simply contravenes common sense and our nation's prospects for economic stability going forward. medical progress should be an immutable, american priority. in our polls, commissioned by

research america, a majority of american says they would pay more in taxes if they knew that would go forward medical research. that's how important it is to americans. stalling that research now through sequestration or the kind of reform that, again, undermines something we have too long taken for granted while other nations are ramping it up, will drag our nation down at the very moment we have everything it takes to soar. the interest group that policymakers are not listening to, i would argue, is the american public. the words that policymakers are ignoring, at our peril, is our nation's future. thank you. >> we do have time for questions, i just want to make one point which i think is the unifying theme that you hear if this diverse group is people want our leaders to govern and we want them to lead. and it is time for them to stop

lurching from one crisis to another and focus on some of the longer term issues. i'll quoters kin bowles who says, we've made all easy choice wembings head ma -- made all the stupid choices and now it's time to make the smart choices. i'd be glad glad to turn questions other to the secretary, to any of the speakers today. >> secretary panetta, you talk ften about sequestration adding to these things. he deal cements the cuts under sequestration. does that mean it's a bad deal? why didn't the senate -- do you feel the failure to press for doing away with those cuts is a failure of leadership? >> the goal was to do whatever is necessary to end the

shutdown. s that double whammy. 17 years ago we were dealing with a c.r. in this situation we had both the debt limit coming due as well as the funding for the government. and so the first thing that had to be done was to do whatever is necessary to try to end the shutdown and extend the debt limits. i understand that, you know, that a fight cuff been done on sequester or a number of other issue bus having been in that institution and understanding the kind of poll techs you have to engage in in order to get things done, enge they made a choice. now understand, that my hope is that once you get into a budget conference, and once you're dealing with bigger issues, entitlement, discretionary, as well as tax reform, that the decisions you make will not only help in terms of debt reduction and putting this country on the right path toward ending the deficit but also will end sequester.

his nator mcconnell said main goal was securing the cuts urn sequester. >> you're going to hear, i'm sure, over the next few days everybody taking credit for what they won and lost but i have to tell you something. you know what, as has been said and needs to be repeated, there are no winners and losers in this process. the american people have lost and now they need to roll up their sleeves and do what's ight for this country. >> my question is this, actually, for the congressman or the secretary, whatever comes out of a budget conference obviously there's going to be fairly major changes in government priorities. one group that seems to have gotten attacked and had to sacrifice is the federal employees themselves. and there have been, for example, in thers kin bowles there was talk about further

cuts in terms of pension changes, what i'm wondering is, do you think at this component some keen of continued reductions or continued changes in federal worker benefits is going to be necessary as part of an agreement or do you think that given what's happening that maybe that will be put on the back burner? >> i would say it's a fair question but it's way too early. enge what we're saying today is that everything needs to be on the table for consideration. the big items that are often left off the table need to be on the table for this discussion. and as so many have said today,s that process. it's not going to completely resolve itself through this committee process. a budget conference can come out with a budget conference report which may in part put in process for further reforms, changes, you know, reductions, increases, getting sequestration off auto pilot and pack onto what we call in

the house and senate, regular order. these are things that i think are important. but your point not only for government workers today, and we all know many of them, they're friends, they're family, but i also think about the -- we are going to lose a generation of public servants. we maybe have lost a general reags of public servants who have watched this process over the last two, three, four years and have just said, forget it. why would i choose public service as a vocation when it should be an aderable -- it's a culling. it should be, whether it's in political office or government service, there are so many good people who don't deserve to be used as pawns in this process. yes, changes need to be made. those changes may affect many workers. but it shouldn't just bh about them. everything should be on the table. >> i guess this would be for secretary panetta. is there any reason to extract

this budget -- to expect this budget conference to be any more successful than the supercommittee was? has anything changed? you still have the major sticking points. >> this is not going to be easy. nobody ought to assume this is going to be easy. the hard work begins now. the kind of game playing that went on over the last few weeks with the shutdown and with the debt limit and you know all of the threats and counterthreats that went on, that's kind of poll techs of this town. the hard work, the hard work is to sit down and walk through the entitlements and determine what reforms need to be made, what savings can be achieved there, look at discretionary spend, lay out a path for that, and look at tax reform. bill frenzel, who is here is somebody who was with me when we sat down at andrews air force base and went through

that process and walk through all the entitlements and walked through discretionary spending and then walked through the whole tax arena and finally came to a borne agreement. but that was tough, it was not easy. but that's what government is all about. that's why we elect people. we don't elect people to simply survive in office. we elect people to make the tough choices of governing this country. hopefully, having been through this experience of the shutdown and the implications of not increasing the debt limit, will be a sufficient enough incentive for them to now turn to government. >> secretary, mr. speaker, senator mcconnell was trying behind the scenes to get a

provision in the deal that emerged in the senate that would give federal agencies more flexibility in dealing with sequestration cuts. as no one needs to tell you, the arbitrary, across the board nature of the cuts makes it very difficult for agencies. how important would that provision have been and how difficult is it for an agency to deal with that? >> it was a crazy, crazy formula. they designed it to be crazy, to basically do a meat ax cut across the board that was going to be so bad it would force them to do the right thing. that was the whole lodge ex, if you call it logic, of why they developed sequestration. they obviously didn't have the courage to deal with sequestration so sequestration went into effect. and it's created havoc across the board. particularly in the department headed.

i would rather have the idea to move money around within the bounds of sequestration, i would rather them deal with the bigger issues in the budget and be able to detrigger sequestration. that would be the more responsible approach. >> if you could get one thing , more flexible. >> right now they're sinking in quick sand, they'll take whatever rope you throw them. >> mr. speaker, i wondered if you'd -- mr. secretary, i wondered if you'd entertain a question on a serious topic of benghazi. >> next question. >> talk about tax entitlement reform, what sort of congressional institutional reforms they propose -- do you propose? >> i'd be interesting in leon's

answer to this as well because we both have been through the wringer when it comes to considering budget process reform and enge it's a panacea. this is the reason i say that. i'm the last person, i believe, who brought budget process reform to the floor and actually had a chance of getting something passed. and i'll -- my reason for saying it that way is that there are some changes that could be made. but the problem over the last seven, eight, 10 years, is that it hasn't been used. my advice to the committee on budget in both the house and senate when they held hearings about this was why don't you try it? first. before you try to reform it. you might find it work, you respected it. if you adhere to the timetables. if you work together in a bipartisan way and in a bicameral way. so really what this process has an opportunity to do is to put that back on track.

i'm not sure it will. but before somebody blames the process, realize that this is a process created by human beings. if those human beings don't open their ears and start listening to one another and getting to know one another and realizing that, just as an example if i'm not mistaken, the president had in his budget this last year, over $500 billion worth of entitlement reforms. now i would bet there are many republicans who either don't know that, or are surprised by that. i would take that as a good starting point, as a republican, to say let's start there, let's bring ours to the table, let's see where we can work out both or differences as well as our commonality. but it starts by listening and recognizing that we're not that far apart on many of these issues if we bother to open up our ears and stop blaming the process and look into our own souls and hearts about what eeds to be done. >> secretary, getting back to

leadership and how this next round will be any different than the supercommittee or anything else, i'm wondering if you can describe what you think the white house could do to encourage the next few months to go a bit differently. you talked about this earlier. >> there are -- look, there are some elements, some base eckelments that are important to make these kind of budget conferences work. and first and foremost is restoring some trust. these people don't trust each other. for a lot of reasons. some are justified, some are not justified. but the problem is, if you get into a room and have to deal with tough issues, you have to trust the people you're in the room with, that they're going to tell you what they think, that they're going to be honest and that you're going to tell them what you think and be honest. and you're going to have that keeped of exchange and not suddenly walk out into a bunch of sound bites with the press. that's the kind of atmosphere you need to have, one of trust. secondly, you really do have to

put everything on the table. you can't say, you know, we're going to study this but we're not going to do this. you need to put everything on the table. doesn't mean you'll do everything. but you need to put everything on the table and go through it and talk about each of these programs. and thirdly, you know, when they work their way through it, they shouldn't agrow on anything until they've agreed on everything. even though they make some tentative decisions, wait until, you know, the end of the road when you put everything together to basically package the deal. lastly on the budget question, once you put those pieces together you decide how do you enforce it effectively. and very frankly, there are some steps. we did it at andrews air force base. it was frankly the heart and soul of not only the bush budget we passed or the agreement that was made but it was also at the heart and soul of the clinton budget when that passed. there were some good elements.

pay-go. some things done with regard to limits and enforcement of limits in terms of spend, etc., etc. those were all very effective tools and they taught to be built into this spro -- process. so if this is going to work if this is going to work, then members up there that have been beeting -- beating each other up and engaging in a sound bite war have to put that all aside and decide to go into a room and be honest and truthful with each other. that's a big step. i can't say it's going to happen. but everything, from president to leadership to democrats and republicans involved in that conference, they have to restore trust in order to get something done. >> thank you, everybody. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> a live picture from capitol hill this afternoon as we are waiting for house minority leader nancy pelosi with her weekly legislative briefing, this will be a first with reporters today after the reopening the government last night. as part of that, the house and senate are starting discussions to -- on the budget. live coverage about to get under way here on c-span.

>> we're waiting for house minority leader nancy pelosi for her weekly legislative briefing. while we wait, a discussion from this morning's washington journal. host: how has the world looked at the last few weeks in washington? guest: there was hope that politicians would reach a deal.

>> good afternoon. it's a weird schedule because of the president's statement this morning which i think was quite an excellent one. i take such pride in our president and i take pride in my house democrats who last night voted 100% to open government and to end the default of our full faith and credit. last night, after america had , ured 16 days of a shutdown a bill came to the floor, 9:20, the rule was dispensed with, the debate began and was over by 9:56. the vote was taken, the bill was sent to the president. in less than 45 minutes, less than 40 minutes. government was opened. this could have happened three weeks ago. three weeks ago, said to the

speaker, we'll give you the votes, don't shut down, please don't shut down the government. take up the senate bill, we'll give you the votes to pass it. over and over again, on october 2 on the steps of the capitol, 200 members signed, not only was it my commitment for 200, we had the signatures of 200 members, 100% of the house democratic caucus, that we would support the republican number, a number we didn't like, a number which the republican chairman of the appropriations committee said does not help us meet the needs of the american people. but in order to avoid a shutdown of government, we were willing to accept. later in that day, the white house made the commitment, publicly on the step -- we said it publicly on the steps of the capitol to the speaker in front of the president of the united states.

but they said no. we kept saying take yes for an answer. over and over on the floor of the house we kept bringing up the motion to accept the senate number. over and over again republicans said no. the senate number, i remind you is the house republican number. they offered it to senator reid. senator reid accepted it. knowing it was a bad number. but again, a path to negotiations. the president accepted the number. the house democrats accepted the republican house number. the only people not accepting the republican house number were the republican house members. why do i go back to that? because 16 days, 16 days the government was closed down. whatever that means to families who are going over that over and over again. workers furloughed, disrespect for our federal work force. many of whom are veterans.

many of them, a large number of the federal work force are veterans. so perhaps -- i don't know whether the republican members of the caucus don't know or don't care about the consequences of their action, i have to assume they do care. so now i hope they will know, don't take it from me. standard and poor's says to date the shutdown shaved at least .6% off annualized fourth quarter 2013 g.d.p. growth. in other words, $24 billion out f the economy. was their temper tantrum worth $24 billion? i don't think so. perhaps they didn't know how costly it would be. who knew the exact figure. it took standard and poor's to tell us the exact figure. but we knew it was a cost, in addition to the cost to the

families, the working families and all of those who depend, i was just meeting with someone who was telling me they've got a direction in their state not to process any food stamp cards for children in that particular state. this was the other day. now the shutdown is over and hopefully they'll go back. but people were not going to be able to eat. they were not going to be able to eat. it was that fundamental. so again, on september 30, we agreed to accepter that number. on october 2 we offered it. n october 5 we had unprecedented, we would forego our right to any motions. the prerogative of the minority in the house. we would forgo that right to remove their fear of their members having to vote on something on the floor. but it didn't. it took 16 dis for the speaker to finally take yes for an answer. this is irresponsible. no, this is reckless. this is reckless.

and then to see last night with 52% of the house republicans voted against their own number, voted to -- voted against opening up government and voted against ending the default of our full faith and credit. what was squandered in that riod of time is not only quantitatively measured in terms of g.d.p. growth, jeopardized our credit rating, eroded consumer and investor confidence. it also diminished confidence in government. in governance. did they know what this irresponsible act would cost? i don't know. but i'm pleases we showed such unity in the vote to reopen the government to end the conversation about -- to avoid the default. and all of the american people

said it's time to stop this and start governing. they may not like government, the republicans, but they're here to govern. and to legislate. which means you have to make compromises and choose instead of going from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. all democrats, i'm so proud of all of them, 100% of the democrats voted on that resolution, not that they accepted the number, as i said last night, not on the merits of this legislation, because the number was too low to meet the needs of the american people and the time for the too that debt ceiling is short but nonetheless it is a path. and while it has little in termses of merit, it gives a great deal, i believe, in terms of hope that we can go to the table and have this negotiation about what budget should be for our country. m pleased that we have our

team, our assistant leader, jim clyburn, our ranking member on the budget committee, chris van hollen, and the ranking member on appropriations committee nita lowey, representing the with the ur country charge from our caucus. to grow the economy, create jobs, reduce the deficit in a responsible way as we go forward. now what i would hope would happen, because we said do they know? do they care? let's assume they care. as an appropriator, i've been forged as an appropriator in the congress of the united states and you have to, working in a bipartisan way and where you have most -- much of the time you're in agreement but where you have disagreements, we always said let's stipulate to a number. let's stipulate to a set of facts. and what seems to be missing

now in their caucus is that -- is a respect for facts. it's like a data free zone. they don't know about this, who said that. they're in a data free zone. all the decisions we make in appropriations should be evidence-based. what is it that we get for this? what is it that is not working? based on evidence. documented evidence. as to what works. we had an expression in appropriations, the plural of anecdote is not data. have you heard about that? i heard about something else. but let's get the facts. so when we go to this table we have a golden opportunity to have evidence-based data supported information, intelligence, for us to be able to make decisions. for example, i think most economists would agree that the single most important way to reduce the deficit, no, let me

say it another way. nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people. early childhood, k through 12, higher education, lifetime learning for our workers. nothing brings more money to the treasury than education. when our colleagues say they want to cut education, for example, pell grants for one, they'd say, we can cut pell grants, they are not only doing a disservice to those people, their aspirations for the competitiveness of our country. but they're increasing the deficit. it's a false economy. so again, let us see what we get our money's worth for the taxpayer. we should subject every dollar spent, taxpayer dollar spent, to the harshest scrutiny. is it working for the purpose it was there for. as many of us working on these initiatives that help lift people up eric want that to

work. we want that to work. so we're as critical, put as sharp an eye as anyone on that. so it has to be about data, it has to be about science. science. we had four words that dominate our domestic agenda, national agenda, it would be science, science, science, and science. science, that means knowledge, data, evidence about how the air we breathe and water we drink, evidence about how we grow our economy through through innovation and entrepreneurial spirit and that's about investments in cience and technology. it's about the health of our country, it's about investments in life sciences. science is an answer to our prayers but some in their caucus seem to think it's one or the other, science or faith.

no, no. science to defend our country, with the best technology possible. when we say we're not going to invest in education, redeuce our deficits, slow the rate of growth of the national science foundation or the national institutes of health, we are doing a grave disservice to our country. so in every way, evidence, science, data, let's know what we're talking about. then again, i, hen back to not that long ago when we would be negotiating with republican president bush in the white house and we would all say, we can proceed down this path if e all stipulate to a number. did they know about this number? probably not. if they knew about it, they would care about it. are they in denial? are they blind? just ignoring the facts? we'll find out. but we owe it to the american

people to put all of that aside and to do what is best. so again, you know, our founders had such a vision for our country. we owe it to the vision of our founders, the sacrifice of our troop the aspirations of our children, to just go into that room in a knowledge-based way about what the decisions are. and not to be driven by an anti-government ideology that says, whatever it is i don't like it because i am here to limit government. well we don't want any more government than we need, but some of those limitations on government are limitations on the aspirations of the american people. and they don't reduce the deficit. so again, we look forward to going to that table but i think it's important for people to know what the terms are as we go forward and that the one a minor t might be benefit, not worth the trouble,

but nonetheless a benefit from what has happened is that the sharpened awareness of the fact that this will take place at a table that hopefully there will be a bright light of -- a bright light schoen on it so people can -- shone on it so people can see what the difference. is we believe the budget the house democrats put forth and the senate democrats and president, that are values based about the future of our country in terms of investment in innovation and education, sensibly reducing the deficit as we create jobs for all americans who want to work hard, play by the rules and achieve the american dream. with that, i'd be pleased to ake any questions. >> it started the same day as the shutdown, people haven't d as the -- had an easy time

enroll, what do you think about the rollout so far? >> i thank you for your question. we are so excited about the affordable care act. it's no coincidence that they want to shutdown government so they can slow down the affordable care act. perhaps we should have chosen a different day for the rollout so that they didn't exploit it for that but after a while, enge they forgot why they shut down government because the reasons changed as we went along. i'm very proud of my state of california where it's going great. most of the states that have their state-run exchanges it's going positively well. there's no question that what's happened, excuse me, thank you, with the system for the national plan is something that has to be improved. they were overwhelmed by the traffic. ok. but now let's see how long it's going to take to have that be fixed. but that's about the technology. about the benefits, about the

liberation of people to life, a healthier life, liberty and freedom to choose their happiness, that all remains. i hope that we would have some answers soon and that the answer will be ok, we found the glitch or whatever it is. it's been corrected and here is a demonstration as to how people, when they approach it now, will be received. so again, i hope that that will be soon. yes, ma'am. >> once people started to read the bill and look through it, there's been criticism about things that were included that had not been talked about, different appropriations for small things. >> which bill? the affordable care act? >> last night's bill. >> oh, last night's bill. ok. >> so there's some criticism about things that were added in, propings, from the death benefit to the lautenberg family to the kentucky laws.

was this crisis the right time to add thing this is that didn't have anything to do with reopening the government. >> my members have some of the same questions, not certainly in terms of the death benefit to the lautenberg family but when you have a c.r., it is an appropriation and this, yes, would be the normal place for them to do something like that. now, we in the house are always suspicious of the senate when they want to go first and what are they doing over there but i think the questions i asked because my members were asking those questions, as an appropriator, i understand, when you have a continuing resolution, it is all of the appropriationers in preceding year and this was consistent with what would be in a continuing resolution. >> but people look at it and say, is this the right thing do do, to add these? >> i think it was just a continuation of what went before. whatever it was, it was not enough to say, we're not going to open up government because

there's something that, what did they say, senator mcconnell put in about a road or something, i don't know what that was. >> the dam. >> apearntly that is something that has been an ongoing project for many years an this was a continueation of that. but i'm not here to defend what that is. i'm here to say, that i didn't like the number, so forget about incidental appropriations, i didn't like the 9 6. i don't like the timetable until february. i have bigger problems than what that one appropriation might have been in the bill. but nonetheless, none of it was a reason not to open government and remove all doubt that we were going to honor the full faith and credit of the united states. >> madam speaker, in the end, you cite your history on this e-- on the appropriations committee. an -- this is not an

appropriation, to have that put in to a bill that is an appropriations bill. >> you know what, what difference does it make? why are we talking about this? we are talking about a a bill, i'm not asking anybody to vote for this bill on the merits. let's focus on the fact that 986 is not a figure that enables government to work for the american people. let us focus on the fact that february is not an appropriate extension of the full faith and credit of the united states. it should be at least one year. so if you want to have an objection to the bill, there are bigger things to object to but the fact is that we had to open government. the ways of the senate on these issues is something that i have my own, shall we say, ongoing concerns about. so when we were going to have the bill first, i thought good, it will be just a bill. when the senate takes it up, the senate is the senate. you have to talk to them about what's in the bill and what its purpose was but what i said on the floor, i'm not pinning a rose on this bill. but i am giving it a vote because we have to open

government and we didn't have to close government, because we made this offer of a bill, a number that we knew was inadequate but at least takes us to the table. >> a follow-up to my question, there's a certain public frustration and cynicism about how congress has been operating. when they see things added in, it can add to that. would you have a message to people? >> the fact is, i think you have to take that up with the senate. that's not how the house works, that's how the senate works. you have to take it up with them. but the cynicism is not about that. the cynicism is about the fact that government was closed for 16 days, the full faith and credit of the united states of america was in doubt. why? because anti-government ideologues in the republican caucus was the tail wagging the dog and everybody describes it, it's just a few. it was 62% of their caucus voted to keep government shutdown.

62% of their caucus voted to default on the full faith and credit of the united states of america. that is what i think many more people are aware of that than they're aware of the particular of that. i don't think any of that should be in the bill. i don't know how it got in there. in fact, i displayed my own dismay at it, only learned of it because i was say, what's holding up the bill? why aren't we voting on the bill? they said, we're dealing with some of these things. i said what are some of these things. that's how i -- you need 50 votes in the senate. i think your question should be directed to the senate. this is nothing we were consulted about or anything it just became part of the bill. >> moving forward, how does ongress -- how much confidence do you have in the budget conference committee to be able to produce an actual, workable

solution? >> i think the more -- if it is a transparent negotiation, i have more hope that if they say, well we're meeting ourselves and then one day we'll have one open meeting or hearing and then we'll come back and meet ourselves. senator sessions and paul ryan did not vote for the bill last night. they did not vote for this bill that takes us to the table. they did not vote for that. so i think it will be interesting to see what that means. what is to be inferred from that. but i think you are the answer to that question. more transparency. the better the outcome. . e more the public is aware president abraham lincoln, the public sentiment is everything. the more the public is awear of what's happening there instead of finding out when the bill is

coming over at the 119, 12th hour, practically, then -- i don't know if these things are a big deal but they are not the issue. the issue is how do you work together, knowing that you're not going to have it all your own way, but how do you go there to influence the decision based on values, respect for what comes out of it? because what comes out of it has to be, again, sold, for lack of a better word, to the caucus us to vote for it. so it has to have merit. the bill last night in my view didn't have merit substantively. it had merit as a path to go to that table. but that table is closed down. if you're excluded from that, if there isn't live coverage, it's hard to see how product can come out of it that we can put to -- present to our members to say it was an honest debate. this is how it came down. and this is how we have to go

forward. and you know what is contingent upon it is reopening government in january and the debt ceiling in february. this isn't just an isolated conversation. >> there are a number of members in the house and senate that pledged to return the money that they earned .hroughout the shutdown i'm wondering if new i have intention of writing a check for a charity or putting it become to the treasury or anything, the money you earned. >> i'm a regular contributor to charity, i could pretend i'm giving this money to cheerity when i was going to do it anyway but i don't intend to do that, no. i don't intend to cut a check to the federal government. >> in november or december will there be a need to consider delaying parts it? >> it has nothing to do with

he program, it's technology. no, i don't think. so i don't think. so >> how soon should federal workers expect back pay? >> well, i don't know that -- i don't know what the process is. i would hope as soon as possible. >> the bill says as as soon as possible but there's been ambiguity on what that means. >> as soon as possible. sooner than that. as with many of you, they have mortgages to pay, they have their contribution to tuition, some of them do it on a monthly basis, they have a life, thank $2.-- 2.1 ain, million federal employees, 800,000 of them furloughed. without pay. but unless, i mean, i don't know if any of you live paycheck to paycheck and a large number of that, of the

2.1 million, 600,000 are veterans. many of them disabled veterans. of the 800,000, a large number are veterans and some disabled veterans. so when they're talking about veterans and all the rest, they put this meager bill on the floor which is so much less than we voted for in a borne way and saying they're helping veterans, but we're furloughing you, taking away your peak, you'll get it back as soon as possible, whenever that is that's how we're helping veterans. i would hope that it would be as soon as possible because it know.people -- we all everybody knows they need their paychecks. they work. and as soon as possible for another way. one of the things i hope that comes out of this as people see what the impact of the shutdown has been, it may not affect everybody in the same way, in the same timetable but it's affected a lot of people.

many of whom don't have strong voices in -- to be heard in washington, d.c. but these workers, they make sure that social security checks are out. they help our veterans. as i mentioned earlier in terms of food stamps for our children, the i.r.s., everything that has government function now curtailed. not everybody was furloughed but curtailed. so again, we thank our federal workers for what they have done. i'm sad about the fact that they had to be furloughed and have this uncertainty in their lives. on top of every other uncertainty in our economy. again, ethank them for their service and i hope as soon as possible means as soon as possible. thank you all very much.

>> as this briefing wraps, defense secretary chuck hagel today released a statement to military personnel on the return of civilian contractors after the government shutdown. he said today we'll be backing all our civilian workers back to normal duty. >> and defense secretary hagel will have more to say about the impact on the -- of the shutdown on the nation's military. that will bin at 1:50 eastern. we'll have it live when it gets

under way. house press secretary jay carney will have a briefing bout 1:30. the bill included a lock and dam project, $1.2 million. fared by senator mitch mcconnell. it cludes money to continue the building of the locks and dam. it would boost the authorization to about $2.9 million from about $1.7 billion. arizona republican senator john mccain offered this tweet on the dam project. he said, i do not believe that senator mcconnell was responsible for the anomaly earmark for the olmsted dam project in last night's deal.

>> again, defense secretary chuck hagel to have a statement in about five minutes or so, we'll have live coverage of that here on c-span. right now though, a discussion on the return of federal workers after the government shoutdown teal was signed yesterday from today's "washington journal." host: joining us now, representative jerry connolly. thank you for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: what are the lessons learned from this. >> i hope one lesson is we're not going to resort to hostage taking to get our way in the congress of the united states that would have set a terrible precedent and taken us down a road of anarchy and chaos, no

matter how noble or ignoble the cause. that's one key lesson. the other one is there's no getting around the fact that we need to work together across the aisle to get substantial legislation accomplished. that means the process involves give and take. it can't just be a set of demands that needs to be met. i think, i hope, that that's a lesson that sunk in, especially for some of the new tea party members. >> do you think we'll experience the same type of situations next year when the deadlines hit? >> i really don't. of course it could happen. and i don't count there'll be some brinksmanship but i think that one of the other lessons learned here is that has very little political payoff. in fact, quite the opposite. it has real negative political fallout. especially since both of the dates we approved last night get us into 2014, an election year, i think most politicians even of the more radical

variety are going to respect the fact that they're in their own re-election cycle. >> a colleague of yours in the house, representative john fleming, republican from louisiana, had an op-ed in "usa today." the headline says, the fight didn't end last night. he said not only were attempts to defund obamacare worth the effort, they are far from over. while the debate is other for the moment, like a prize fight, there are many rounds in this fight. and last night, washington liberals have so much invested in obamacare, they don't care admit its failures. guest: they tried to defund and repeal obamacare outright 46 times. they just shut down the government for 16 days and threatened the sovereign credit of the united states for the first time since alexander hamilton was sec retear of the treasury. over this law. that had three bites at the apple. and that's all you get. you try to defeat it in the halls of congress. they lost that bat.

we passed it, the president signed it into law. it is the law of the land. then you get a second bite yusm challenge it in court. they did that. all the way to the supreme court. the supreme court found it constitutional. they lost that. but you get third bite, that's called leches. nd the man after whom they pejorive -- pejor atively named the affordable care act won that by five million votes. at what point, mr. fleming, do you respect the will of the people? at what component do you respect the democratic process? host: our guest with us in the 9:00, you can ask him questions. federal workers how much comprise the district you

represent? guest: i represent the third largest number of federal employees in the country out of 435 federal districts. it's a profound footprint in my district and everybody was affected by at the the shutdown. when i could get away on the weekends from being in session, i went to fairs and festivals, this is that season in my district, i met with hundreds of constituents and the number one topic was when are they going to reopen? what are they doing? what are they thinking? and stories about the impacts on families. host: what's the process for determining back compensation? guest: in the legislation that was signed into law by the president last night, retroactive pay was provided. so federal workers will be made whole but many of them experienced a cash flow problem, to say nothing of the anxiety of not being able to go to work. and hopefully that will be smoothed out over the next few weeks. but they will be kept whole. host: do you expect it to be a few weeks before that back pay is given?

or a longer time? guest: i would hope that would be an accelerated process so families are not needlessly suffering. i will say however, i also probably represent the largest, the single largest number of federal contract employees in the country and those folks, who were furloughed in the private sector, many of them, unfortunately, there's no mechanism for making them whole. they'll have to eat 16 days or some portion thereof of the shutdown. that suffering is very real. host: here's a call for representative connolly of virginia, caroline from des moines, iowa, you're on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. building 705 feet of free fall when it was destroyed on 9/11 is impossible unless explosives were used. how long can congress ignore scientific reality and pretend that anything other than explosives could have brought down a 47-story steel-framed high rise, not hit by a plane, n 6 1/2 seconds.

host: you should know, organized they've to ask these types of questions. i'll let you answer if you wish. she's don't know what talking about. host:in virginia. caller: in virginia, we say our congressmen usually make commonsense when they do things. but until -- it seems to me there's always 20 guys who took us hostage in this country and i am ashimed sometimes when aisle debating people from other countries that 20 guys shut down the government and they still threaten our country. it's a shame. i don't know how we can explain to other countries that we have democracy when our democracy, i want to say something,

congressman, this -- these guys are not going away. they represent states that believe that obamacare, not only obamacare but they are tissue they have some agenda to attack the president, regardless what you say to them. host: thanks, caller. guest: yeah, i have a lot of reactions to what john just said. fers of all, i, you know, i accept the sincerity of those who have a different point of view. i ran for office to get something done and not to tear something down and not to revel in dysfunction. some seem to do precisely that. others, enge genuinely feel they have to use the opportunity to have -- they have legislatively to make a component or try to shrink the size of government or make up statements about health care. i do think it's very important to note, and i noted your previous guest sort of lauded the 18 members of the senate,

all republicans, who voted against the compromise bill, the bipartisan compromise bill last night. i'm shocked that somebody from "the wall street journal" would think that's a good thing because that vote, whether you want to say it or not, it was crystal clear, because we were going to default starting today. so last night, when you had that moment of truth, that vote was about whether you thought it was ok to default. to have someone on the editorial board of "the wall street journal" actually think that's ok is breathtaking to me. it's not ok. we have a fiduciary responsibility to the country to preserve the full faith and credit of the united states and its standing in the world as the safest harbor for investment. and the strongest currency in the world. and to risk all of that in a reckless appeal to outside right wing groups who raise prop up their

membership by always being a light new england rod is irresponsible and some of my colleagues were responding to that siren call instead of looking at the merits of the case for the sake of the country. host: someone asks about sequester saying it's the law of the land much as you suggest obamacare is the law of the land. leave it alone. caller: it is the law of the land, that's true. but the republicans who say that were just not so long ago, before the election, calling it obama's sequester, a horrible thing, the earth would swallow us whole if we allowed it to continue, it was reckless, it was irresponsible, it was going to do terrible dg to the private sector and it needed to be dealt with. now they embrace it because it has massive spending cuts that

are sort of a hair cut whenever applied irrespective of performance. i find that brankly more than ironic coming from the republican side of the aisle. host: the house and senate will now meet to discuss mats of the budget. how optimistic are you that some type of effort can be made when it comes to dealing with budget issues? guest: i'm always optimistic. i always believe that reasons -- reason given half a chance can prevail, as it did last night at the last minute, but it did prevail. but i don't think that we can omehow paper over the profound differences in approach. it's not just a matter of difference numbers. it is a philosophical gap between, say the ryan budget, and the bipartisan budget put together in the senate. the ryan budget is one of the most radical documents ever put together by anybody in congress in the history of the republic. it cuts $5 trillion in domestic

investment. what does it to with that? it doesn't pay down the debt. the debt actually expands under the ryan budget. it takes that $5 trillion and gives it for another massive tax cut at the high end. so it would reduce the current 39.6% highest tax category to 25%. so he's doubling down on what he had done before and causing enormous dislocation and disinvestment in research and development, medical research, education, infrastructure, for the sake of another tax cut. i think that is unbelievably reckless fiscal policy and would be rues now to the united states. it would hand over the next generation's future to the chinese and other competitors. now that has to be conferenced with a democratic budget coming out of the senate that modestly

increases investments in r&d and education and infrastructure and the like. i don't know how you reconcile those two radically different approaches but it's worth a try. . caller: majority of my family is democrats, i voted democrat. i voted democrat and republican the last 35 years. the reason for my switch, i'll get to my point as well, but the reason for my switch is i can't stand the lies and the muddy waters that the democrats in the house and senate keep carrying. an they carry it to promote

ideology that just isn't working. you say you're for the minorities. and i'm a hispanic. that's one of my backgrounds. you say you're for minorities and for the people, but in reality the policies that you're pushing and carrying in those muddy buckets for this president are taking this country down. you say you have problems in understanding why a set number of republicans are tearing this country down. i ask you, we are $17 trillion in debt, and i'm looking at the bigger picture, we are not handed our next generation a better way of life. what we are doing, especially with this what you call law, if it's a law why are so many waivers being provided. why are because of this law so many people getting pushed down to part-time work because

anything above 29 hours is considered full-time. host: thank you. guest: tony, i think tony's -- the way he phrased his question -- what's happened to our politics in america. sometimes we point our finger to the capitol and say why can't those folks get along. but here's a citizen who has already decided that the other point of view in the other party constitutes lies and therefore they are liers -- liars. that lack of respect from another point of view i think is a problem in our politics today. why can't one acknowledge that somebody can be equally sincere and equally highly motivated and have a different point of view. come to a different conclusion about an issue at hand. share a different philosophy of governance and have a different

world view and set of experiences. all of which are to be respected. and i think we need to restore that among ourselves as citizens not just in the halls of congress, because in some ways the halls of congress reflect that division, that sort of growing lack of tolerance for another point of view. i guess that's my response to tony. i think we -- i think he has verbalized in many ways part of the symptoms that plague us in our politics today in america. host: michelle from houston, texas. independent line, hi. caller: good morning, representative connolly. we miss you in houston. i have like two guess. i think what you guys did was standing your ground is awesome because as everyone knows from houston, well, a lot of people, ted cruz doesn't represent all of houston. let's just make that clear.

but my question is, is the tea party more concerned about higher taxes on their special interest, the guys that's making all the money in the united states, being that with the a.c.a. coming into effect in january, are they going to be responsible for putting all the money that their company makes on their taxes and paying into the system? my question is -- second question is, when february comes, will the tea party try to ld federal income taxes back from the american people as another tactic to try to get their way? i only make $17,000 a year. the a.c.a. doesn't -- hasn't put me in part-time work. being that my children's father passed away, he died three years ago, his $600 i get every month

for my children, it still puts me at the poverty line. the affordable care act definitely helps me. but i'm trying to figure out what is the next strategy? these guys seem like they'll do anything and everything to hurt the poor, because i'm considered poor. guest: thank you. i'm glad the affordable care act is going to help you and your family. i'm sorry for your loss, your husband's passing. i wouldn't venture a guess as to what the tea party's next move might be. i don't know that the tea party a cohesive force or party that exercises discipline. it certainly has influence. a lot of that influence being funded by very wealthy outside direct the o help

agenda if not the actions of its adherence in congress. and i think that has to be watched because if you look at the vote last night, only 87 republicans in the house, unlike their counterparts in the senate where a majority of republicans supported the bipartisan deal to reopen the government and to avoid default on the national debt, in the house a distinct minority,le 7 members -- minority, 87 members -- > live to the pentagon now for defense secretary chuck hagel. >> i wanted to make some brief comments this afternoon regarding the reopening of government. i'm going to take, after i make a statement a couple of questions, and then i'm going to ask our comptroller to take some questions regarding the specifics of the reopening.

this morning i announced that the department of defense is resuming operations now that congress has restored funding for d.o.d. and the rest of the federal government. while all of us across the department welcome the fact that the shutdown is now behind us, i know that its impact will continue to be felt by all of our people. all of them, in different ways, had their lives affected and disrupted during this period of tremendous unsrnt. -- uncertainty. in particular, i'm deeply aware of the harm that this shutdown inflicted on so many of our civilian personnel. all of our leaders, civilian and military alike, deeply regret what this shut down has done to our people, and we'll work to repair the damage beginning today. ecoing what president obama said earlier today, i want all of our civilian personnel to know that the work they do is critically important to this department and

this country. it matters to this department, it matters for the contry. the -- for the country. the military simply cannot succeed without our civilian employees, and the president and i appreciate their professionalism and patience throughout this trying period. now that this latest budget , and has become history we have come to an end, we have an opportunity to return to refocusing on our critical work. but it's important to note that congress did not remove the shadow of uncertainty that has been cast over this department and our government much of this year. like much of the rest of the government, d.o.d. is now operating on a short-term continuing resolution which limits our ability to start new programs. and the damaging cuts of sequestration remain the law of

the land. in the months ahead, congress will have an opportunity to remove this shadow of uncertainty as they work to craft a balanced long-term spending bill. if this fiscal uncertainty continues, it will have an impact on our economy, our national security, and america's standing in the world. if the sequester level continues, there will also be consequences. earlier this year in our strategy choices and management review, d.o.d. explained how the continuation of these abrupt cuts put us at risk of fielding a force that is unprepared due to a lack of training, maintenance, and latest equipment. d.o.d. has the responsibility to give america's elected leaders and the american people a clear eyed assessment of what our military can and cannot do after years of sequester level cuts.

in the months ahead we'll continue to provide our best and most honest assessment as congress works to establish the nation's long-term spending priorities. that is my statement and i'd be happy to respond to a couple questions. thank you. >> you mentioned consequences, it ou look down the road, there already are some it -- how many civilians and how much force reduction overall there will have to be, reductions in force. can you talk a little bit about a as you look ahead what are you warning congress and the country about in terms of the number of forces that you're going to have to cut to meet these lower numbers? the number of civilians you may have to lay off? and what does that do to u.s. readiness and morale?

>> well, i'll leave the specific numbers to bob hail -- hale, but let me respond in a general way to your questions. start with the impact op morale. -- on morale. i don't think anyone questions that the uncertainty that shutting down the government and closing down people's jobs has brought a great amount of not only disruption to our government, to our country, but to their lives, to the civilian personnel whose lives have been disrupted, by this particular shutdown. then you add further to that the uncertainty of no authorizations, no appropriations, and living in a world of continuing resolutions,

continuing sequestration. the uncertainty of planning. in an agency or department, but in personal lives. people have to have some confidence that they have a job they can rely on. i now there are no guarantees in life, but we can't continue to do this to our people. having them live under this cloud of uncertainty. morale is a huge part of this. we won't be able to recruit good people. good people will leave the government. they are not going to put up with this. good people have many options. so that's one part of it. i said many times, the chiefs have said, general democracy has said over the last few months that as we have had to close down training facilities, and our training, we have had to stand down wings, and not allow

many of our wings to fly. the steaming of our ships. we have had to pull back the longer term investments that are required to keep the technological edge this country has always had. these are all dimensions of sequestrations, uncertainty. not knowing or not being able to plan what's coming. sure that adds to impact on our readiness. d sure that eventually we'll -- will present capability issues for us. these are not new issues, i talked about them, general democracy, all of our chiefs have talked about them. that's part of the point the president has made. i have made continually through this process over the last few months. that we've got

to have some certain here -- certainty here being able to go forward. we have a q.d.r. you are familiar with, we are going through that review. we have a budget resolution that we are preparing within the -- this institution, within the white house budget that we will present a budget to congress as we do each year. to try to plan for a budget with this kind of uncertainty alone, how are we going to fulfill our strategic commitments? what impact is this having overseas with our allies? i have been to, as many of you know, some of you have been with me on these trips, the asia pacific area three times since i have been secretary of defense. secretary kerry was there recently. the president pulled his trip down last week because of the shutdown. our allies are asking questions, can we rely on our partnership with america? will america fulfill its

commitments and promises? these are huge issues for all of us. and they do impact our national security and our relationships and our standing in the world. so these are the broad general areas of consequences of not being able to plan and prepare because of that uncertainty that we are living. the specific numbers i'll leave for bob hale. tom? >> on the sequester moving ahead , you spent a lot of time in the senate, you know how it works. in your current position, mr. secretary, is it your sense that the sequester level cuts, those are the new reality rather than uncertainty, isn't that what you should be planning against given congress' will, the will of other people? >> as you know, tom, everyone in this room knows that so-called

sequester, which was a product of the budget control act of 2011, is the law of the land. and we have had to plan and prepare, to your point, with the facts as they are and the realities as they are. if you recall, when i implemented and directed the strategic management review which i noted in my comments here, it was to prepare this institution for different scenarios of different numbers. certainly numbers that we know are there that we have been -- ng with this year rehe reflected under sequestration are numbers we got to prepare for. we plan also for the continuing resolution numbers. and we plan also for our budget numbers. now, i don't know, you started your question to me, tom, about my service in the senate, i

don't know if a compromise can be reached. if some kind of agreement can be reached to deal with these issues. that's part of the uncertainty. so we have to plan for every eventuality here. you can't take an institution like this, as you-all know because you have been around here a long time, an turn these things around in a month, a week. this is the national security of america we are talking about. so it does take thought and it does take planning. we are talking about people's lives. as we bring down and draw down by law our force structure. we know that. and we are planning for that. you have heard me say many times, you have heard general democracy say many times that the abruptness and the steepness of those cuts give us no flexibility to glide it down in

a responsible way to make sure that our resources match our mission, our mission matches our resources, and that we are able to fulfill the strategic interests of this country. >> you spoke a minute ago about morale of the civilian fortress at the department. are you at the point yet that you or general democracy have concern about troop morale given all of this? what indicators might concern you and how are you watching that given you said they are not allowed to train and fly? are you worried about the troops? >> we are always worried about the troops. the reason i noted the civilian personnel specifically is because the civilian personnel were the ones affected by the furloughs and the shutdown. as you know our uniformed ilitary was protected in that.

the same uncertainty, certainly, resides in the uniformed military community. different dimension of it, of course. questions i get all the time from our junior inlisted, officer corps, our senior officer corps, future? i get -- what is the future for me as an e-5 starting a family, for example, i got these questions two weeks ago when i had my monthly luncheon with junior enlisted members of our services, i get these questions all the time. mr. secretary, can you give me an honest answer, in one case last week, two weeks ago, i had one service member say, my wife asked me to ask you do i have a future? do we have a future? these are young men and women who are very proud to be in the military. who want to stay in the

military. they have a purpose to their lives. serving in the military. but they also have to ask the question, when you're 25 or 30 years old, if you have a family, you want to start a family, what kind of a future am i giving my family if i'm not sure where all this is going? yes it affects our uniformed, yes, we are vitally concerned about the morale of our military. but the civilian work force are the ones that have been obviously, touched directly by the shutdown and of course the furloughs that we have seen. thank you and bob hale will respond to more specific questions. bob. >> good afternoon. let me just start by joining the secretary in thanking our civilian work force, all of our workers, but especially our civilians for their patience

through this. and i'd add the seniors commanders and managers has helped me a great deal as i work to help the department get through this. so when i read the o.m.b. message about 2:30 this morning saying government was reopened, i felt like i could stop beating my head against the wall, but i got to say will feel a lot better never to have started beating my head against the wall. with that i'll stop if you have questions. >> i wonder if there is any the te of what costs department of defense incurred as a result of the shutdown, including the workers at the beginning who were not working, and that money was wasted. is there any cost estimate? >> we know at a minimum it was about $600 million of lost productivity, if you will, from at that point almost 400,000 civilians we had on furlough for four days. there were a number of other costs where i can't put a number on them. built up interest payments

because we had pay vendors late. we had to cancel training classes so we had to bring people home on orders and send them right back again. there are a lot of costs of those sort. i can't quantify those. at least $600 million to start with in essentially lost productivity. >> can you take a stab at the layoff attrition? the layoffs coming down the road? >> defer to bob hale, bob hale will defer to the future. because we haven't decided. if we face budgets at the cap level, roughly $50 billion less in 2014, we are going to have to get smaller. i can't tell you how much. yes, that will mean fewer civilians. we will try to avoid reductions in force. we'll keep them at an absolute minimum. we'll look to do this through attrition, but we'll get smaller but i can't say how much. >> you had an entire couple of

hours to pull your numbers together. do you have any idea yet of the programs and on whether some testing has been delayed? that sort of thing? and also just the friction costs o both you and to the company? >> we were relatively fortunate in the government. we had a partial appropriation to pay our military. so we kept that. most of our civilians working, all of our military. i think that limited the disruption, but it was there. i'm sure we delayed testing. i can't quantify it for you. my guess is that we will be able to catch up reasonably quickly for those kinds of delays, backlogs, vouchers we haven't paid. i'm worried about the morale effects of all of our people, but especially our civilians. you have heard that story. i think we all are concerned. it's not just this event. we have had three years of pay

freezes. though i noted the c.r. did not prohibit either of the military pay raise. so far it's still in place. we had the sequester furloughs, shutdown furloughs. my own people are looking at me and asking the question, most of them are seniors so they'll probably stibbling around, -- stick around, but you wonder what the folks in the field are saying? i'm not shire want to work for this government. we need to tell them they are important and need to show it like pay raises and no more furloughs, etc. that's the bigger concern to me. >> do you know of any new starts that are being delayed? >> yes, the c.r. will delay -- going to test my memberry. i i can see the sheet but can't remember. i'm going to have to get back to you. there are no huge ones, but there are a number of smaller programs that under the continuing resolution we are not allowed to do new starts, rate increases, no military, new

military construction projects. perhaps one of the biggest problems is the fact that we essentially required under the c.r. to buy the same ships this year as last year because congress appropriates by ship and we have to repeat last year. it's a groundhog day approach to budgeting. there are lots of disruptions. i can't remember the specifics. they are not in my head, soarry. -- sorry. >> is the likelihood of sequestration informing your improvement numbers now, either civilian or uniformed members, wouldn't the responsible thing be to be slowing down in the recruitment so you don't have to let people go -- >> we are going to start executing at the continuing resolution level or a little lower because of the enormous uncertainty and possibility that sequestration in january if it occurs could take us down to the cap level. i think that will cause us to begin to reduce or think in

terms of reduced size and recruiting. exactly right. we don't want to -- on one hand we don't want to commit ourselves in this period too much in a period of enormous uncertainty in case we are tible do things we think are important, but we do need to slow down. we need to do it at least to the c.r. level and probably a little south of that just because there is so much uncertainty. only three weeks into the fiscal year and we are still plus or minus $50 billion in what we are going to spend this fiscal year. that's not a comfortable position, thrick for our comptroller. it's a challenge. >> so have there been orders issued to the components and services to spend at the b.c.a. level? secondly, with the c.r. is there the kind of flexibility in moving money around in accounts that you need to cope with sequestration? >> we have an issue -- we discussed with the services to

execute at the continuing resolution level and maybe south of t we'll have to work with them on specifics as time develops. what was your second question? >> flexibility. >> no. we have very little flexibility under continuing resolution. it gives us money in budget accounts like air force o urement, and army active and. you can't do new starts, rate increases, no new military construction projects. and you get a little more than 25% of it to cover october 1 through january 15. beyond that, though, we have to look at the fact eventually we'll get some kind of appropriation. we need to be careful where we spend that money. and we can't move between those accounts at all. generally we aren't allowed to reprogram when we are under continuing resolution. so for a while we kind of have to hold our breath and try to look to the future and be as

conservative as you can. if that's a vague answer it's because things are vague. it's not a good way to run a ailroad. >> regarding the doubts on congress reaching a compromise, is there anything that can be said that hasn't been said already by the department to convince lawmakers that this cliff is coming? or is it just a matter of continuing to beat the drum -- >> to help the process along? we'll be helpful in any way we can. we'll work through the administration. the president has a plan. he announced it with a budget in terms of a plan to reduce the deficit and to provide for discretionary spending, which is the level we submit a budget at. we certainly support that plan. we understand there's going to be negotiations and we'll help them in any way we can. i don't think there's any one thing we can do, but we stand ready to assist through the o.m.b., we want them to succeed.

>> the g.i. bill, what happens going forward? what's the situation there? >> i assume -- we will i think pay tuition assistance. g.i. bill is funded in another agency, but the tuition assistance we will pay. i think more or less at the levels that were programmed. we are not planning to cut it back substantially. we continue to look at it in the context of overall budget reductions. there may be some trims. but we know it's an important program. we won't stop t we'll continue to fund it. -- stop it. we'll continue to fund it. there may have been temporary reductions in the shutdown but we'll continue to support the program. we know it's important to our people. >> you had a chance to look at all the services' national 15 proposals, sequestration, how much of an oh wow factor is

there in the alternate proposals? >> i mean there are far-reaching changes, it shouldn't be surprising. it would take about $50 billion in fiscal year 2015 out. there were some funds that were taken out right at the end game by the president. the president proposed some cuts in discretionary spending as well in that budget package we didn't fully accommodate. a pretty good size reductions. force cuts. i won't give you specifics because i don't feel i should, but i'm not surprised, you saw the skimmer and it's often usually in those ranges within the ranges of the skimmer, i'm not surprised. but i think all of us are aware it will be a somewhat smaller military if we have to go through those cuts. we are looking at them actively. and we will be as prepared as we can within the limits of time that we have to be ready for a wide range of contingencies because we know that's what we

face. >> in past years it's been the business practice of this department as you approach the end of the fiscal year to hold some money back. you don't want to overspend your budget accidentally. i'm curious how many tens of millions or hundreds did you end the year with? can you now apply that money in some way? >> there are several kinds of money we get. a number of the operating dollars, military personnel and operation maintenance expire. you can't spend them after september 30. i will tell you something about the real time nature of our accounting systems. i don't know yet for sure what we obligated. i think we will have obligated a great majority of those funds we usually try to. other funds that investment once we get two years, three years for procurement. there i think we would see our obligation rates fairly low. right now for a couple reasons. uncertainty, but also frankly i mean our contracting officers were concentrating heavily on

the one-year money in those last days. we had had to cut back on them because of sequestration. my guess is we pretty well obligated. i don't know for sure in the operating accounts. i don't think that's true in the investment accounts. there are some -- we'll try to pick up the pace as best we can. let's hope there is no further disruption that occurs in january. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] >> today's defense department briefing over. we expect shortly to go live to the white house for spokesman jay carney. he will give the first white house update since the signing of the bill reopening the government. and we'll have that here on c-span when it begins scheduled

for 1:30. not unusual for it to begin sometime after that. and we invite your comments on our facebook page. our question, with the shutdown over, what should congress and the white house focus on next? go to facebook.com/c-span to respond. >> right now we'll have more reaction to the house-senate compromise or reopening government. this is from today's "washington journal." host: steve more from the wall street -- steve moore from the "wall street journal" joining us. lessons learned over the last two weeks from your perspective. guest: one of the lessons for republicans is you can't win this kind of fight against a president when you're not unified. the truth is the republicans were never kind of unified behind this strategy of defending obamacare.

our editorial page had said from the beginning that there's no one in america wants to get rid of obamacare more than we do, but this was not a smart strategy because this president was very unlikely to ever agree to defunding his signature achievement. so our view, and i think it was certainly validated by what happened yesterday, this was a story that was not going to have a happy ending. i agree -- i was listening to the show earlier, in general i would agree with a lot of your callers. there is no real winner here. you can play the political game, the president won because he forced republicans to back down. but the truth is we just passed a huge new extension of oufer debt and we didn't do anything about it. the band plays on. keep whistling dixie as our debt continues to mount. as an economist that's something i'm warrior rid about. host: now we have this house-senate conference to talk about the budget, do you find

any comfort or see any viable way forward -- guest: do you know how many of these commissions i have seen in the last 20 years? no, i think it's laughable. they have created that committee. i want to make sure your viewers understand one important point. you know, they only extended the brett ceiling by six weeks. they only extended the budget for six weeks. it's quite possible and you can could be sitting in this chair six weeks from now talking about exactly the same thing. not sure republicans have the stomach for another shut down fight i tonight think it's likely we'll see a government shutdown. we could see a big fight over the debt ceiling coming january or february. host: holding on not raising -- uest: who knows. they do have one thing the

democrats are desperate to get rid of. the ace under the sleeve. the republicans if this sequester and budget caps and democrats want to spend more money, are eager to get rid of that. or at least suspend it. so you could possibly see some kind of a negotiateation where -- just for example. president obama might say, look, we have know from the debacle of the exchanges for the last 10 days it's not ready to go. ot ready for prime time. possibly one year delay in the mandate for individuals in the penalties in exchange for say, of the budget caps. the or question is serious about these other big entitlements like medicare and social security and medicaid. host: taxes a sticking point? guest: republicans are not going to agree to raise taxes because they make the case, look,

president obama had his giant tax increase in january of this ear. host: steve moore joining us. the numbers will be object your creen. federal workers give your thoughts, too, 202-5 5-3883. joseph, albany, new york, republican line. good morning, go ahead. caller: i had an idea i was sitting here and i'm thinking to myself, since i cash my paycheck -- stick of gum or whatever the case might be. and people have a tendency to sleep -- i'm thinking if you a year times $52

280 million people that's a lot of money. it's not a lot to pay the whole deficit but it's a heck of a start. i would take it frve. i would take it from social security. ake it from paychecks. if you take $52 somebody out of somebody's welfare check, 11 onths to make up that money. host: you could find sources anywhere to get money from. caller: i know in 1992, 90 million cars -- 90% of the people probably got a quarter and they are going to wait for that nickel. if you charge that 25 cents, that five lousy extra cents, add them up, 90 million cars. host: anything from that? guest: i'm not in favor of nickeling and diming americans to death, but i do think this gentleman raises an interesting point. if you were to cut government spending by one penny out of every dollar it spends this

year. then another penny next year, and a penny the year after that, to ould go a long way dramatically reducing this budget deficit. the good news is we'll get this deficit down to $600 billion or $700 billion. a huge number but less than the $1.2 trillion we have. if we could get america back to work and the 20 million people who don't have full-time jobs or no job at all into work. that would do a lot. when you ask about raising taxes, you normally -- we just have to get people working to pay taxes. host: clint from texas. on our democrats line. hi. caller: how are you this morning. host: go ahead, please. caller: i just wanted to make a few comments. i noticed during this fiasco i used to be a republican. i changed it. i'm going to democrat after i seen what they did in the house. one, they changed the rules in

he house from what i believe the speaker of the house was the only one could bring it to the floor. that was wrong. that's close to being a ictatorship to me. the president told people up front i'm not going to negotiate on the health care bill. grant you there's problems with it as far as people trying to enroll in it. however, the hits they had on there show that people do want o get into that program. grant you you they should have had a better set up. ore servers in their system. it was ill planned in the first place. host: thanks, caller.

guest: couple things. one it's interesting i remember when the democrats ran the house and republicans used to complain about the same thing. they couldn't get anything to the house floor when tip o'neill and nancy pelosi ran the house. it's not new you get speakers that run the show. that's the way it works. the senate by the way is very different. any senator can bring up any amendment at any time. harry reid has prevented that from happening. i think both sides are to blame. republicans shouldn't have gotten us into this crisis in the first place. i think the president was irresponsible in not negotiating and contributing to bringing us up to the brink of this potential fangs fiasco. fortunately we have gotten out of there. i'm not so sure we resolved any of the issues here. we still have obamacare. which is not just a really -- the problems with the exchanges and how it's going to increase our deficit, but also as an economist the thing i worry about is what this is going to

do to employment. i talked to employers all over the country. i travel a lot and talk to business men and women. they tell me they are not going to hire more than 50 workers. they are not. some have 65 workers say they are going to cut back. i also talked to a lot of employers, for example in the fast food restaurant, by the way the fast food industry is the biggest employer in meveraget five million or six million people. they say they are cutting back their hours to 28 hours a week. now for people who are lower income, who need a full-time job, that's a real hardship and that's because of the obamacare mandates. host: you're a member of the editorial board. your editorial today deals with ted cruz. what's it about? guest: i know ted cruz very well. i like him. i think he's certainly a senator who has come to town and made a big difference in his first six months here. i would also say, and i told senator cruz this, i think your strategy probably was flawed. that when you didn't have the senate republicans behind you, it was just going to lead to a

division within the republican party. i think he -- his goal was absolutely admirable. not so sure that the tactical way it was carried out was smart. host: "the washington post" picks up on ted cruz in a larger sense -- smaller sense in its editorial. that won't be eeasy going forward because well funded apparatus headed by outside groups standard heinzed cruz faction. -- standards behind the cruz faction. guest: that's the way the political system works. when i started the club for growth 12, 13 years ago the idea was to create more competitive primaries and try to get a change in the bloodstream in congress. by the way i think 90% of americans would agree we need to just totally change the composition of congress. democrat and republican. that these guys did not serve the american people. they are serving special interests. maybe if we -- one thing i have been passionate for the last 20

years, and this -- what happened the last couple weeks is a monument for this, is term limits. these guys should serve six years in the house and be gone. 12 years in the senate and be gone. let a more representative group of people who aren't just awyers be in congress. host: tea party a help or hindrance? guest: the leadership of the tea party has made some tactical mistakes here. i think that it's given the tea party movement a black eye. you know this, you meet the people in the tea party movement, they come here to washington, they are on the mall. these are people from all walks of life, black, white, hispanic. people who just care about the future of our country. we may disagree -- it does trouble me when people say, these are just jihadist the and terrible people and bombs strapped to their backs. you may disagree with what they want to do, but they want to balance the budget, they want to

get back constitutional government. they want to get rid of this health care law. they want a prosperous economy. i think we all want that. host: do you think there will be as much of an influence going forward? guest: good question. i'm not sure about that. i think there are a lot of republicans who say, wait a minute, you're the ones who led us down this path that didn't work out so well. i think their influence in the short term has been diminished. host: back to calls. pat from philadelphia, pennsylvania. independent line. also identifies as a federal worker. go ahead. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: ok. really happy to hear mr. moore say that most people think that our representatives are working for special interests because that's pretty obvious. but then he also talks about the entitlement cuts for the small people. when big business pays very little taxes or none. i'd really like to know what mr. moore's thoughts on that -- on trying to get some more revenue

from companies like g.e. who make $5 billion and pay fog in 2010. i understand there's about 40% of corporations who pay nothing. what's up on that? guest: great question. i guess this is another one of my passions i have been working for 25 years for tax reform in this country. i think everyone, even president obama, agrees corporate tax system is complete nuts. i call it a head start program for every other country that competes against the united states because we have the highest statutory tax rates in -- of all industrialized countries. that's not good for american business. it's not good for american jobs. then as this woman was saying you get some companies that pay nothing. that's completely unjust. i would favor a much lower rate system that gets rid of all the loopholes. all the loopholes. l the credits and de-- deductions. my goodness we could get our tax rate down to 17%, 18% if we got

rid of the spint loopholes to housing, charities, state and local governments, the wind industry, and on and on. host: maverick identifies himself as maverick on twitter, contrast this shutdown with prior shutdowns and tell me how republicans could have won. guest: that's interesting question because i remember in 1995, 1996, i think you probably remember that one, was working for the republicans in the house. so a similar situation. i think what was different then was bill clinton was negotiating. the republicans negotiated with bill clinton. bill clinton got most of what he wanted. republicans got some concessions from the president. we moved on. what was different about this one was the president said i'm not negotiating. i'm going to sit back and just act like a spoiled child. he always thought he had the political upper hand, which he probably did in the end given the fact that republicans caved in. i'm not so sure the republicans -- that the president is a big

winner here. i think a lot of people look just see disgust with republicans but also with the way the president behaved and not coming up with some kind of negotiated settlement that would have made sure that as we write another $1 trillion of higher debt allowances that we are going to do something to get the budget under control. this is one of the first times in a long time we raised the debt ceiling with no conditions attached. host: how much of that also factored into the continuing roll out of the president's health care plan and success? how much of the president's -- the people -- what the people think -- guest: yeah. i think he certainly staked his presidency on the success of obamacare. that's one of the reasons he was not going to cave in on anything that would roll it back. i was always of the opinion, look, if obamacare is going to fail, which i think it will, let it proceed. let the thing roll out.

let the american people see how it works. if in a year or two they liked it, then it's going to be the law of the land. if they don't, i don't know if you remember this back in the late 198 o's, whee this medicare expansion bill, i think it was catastrophic care, and the seniors hated it. it was one of the few times in american history that a new estimate -- time program was repealed because people said we don't like this. there is a good probability as this moves on people see how many jobs are being destroyed. how their costs are going to increase. i can't tell you how many people who -- 90% of americans already have health insurance. their big worry is wait a minute, i'm going to get something worse out of obamacare than i have now. host: roy from new castle, pennsylvania, democrats line. go ahead, roy. caller: on -- everybody you listen to, they tell you that 40% on every dollar is spent by the government is borrowed.

what that tells me being an american is that every government check coming through is 40% coming through is being borrowed. so the president makes over 400,000, $160,000 of his pay could come from china. and every state representative that gets $174,000 over $60,000 of their pay could come from china. the worst part of this is i have been working since i have been 15. and i have been paying into social security. and i finally going to get there and going to apply for it at the end of this year, and over $600 of my money that i paid in and earned all my life could be borrowed from china. and they cannot even take 3% on the sequester? they got to cut that back at least 40%. host: thank you, caller. guest: sounds like a republican.

first of all one of the interesting things that's happened over the last year we have had this sequester cut. 35% cut. you know what? -- 5% cut. you know what? it worked well. there were hardships at the beginning, the president tried to shut down the air traffic control system. but the american people know, 20, 30, 40 cents of every dollar spent in this town is wasted. when we do a 5% cut, which we just are coming to the end of this year, there will probably be a 2% or 3% cut next year, that's not a bad way to cut spending. >> we'll leave this portion of this morning's "washington journal" to go now to the white house for today's press briefing. live coverage on c-span.

>> welcome, everyone. thanks for being here, as ever. we can go right to questions because i have no announcements to make -- although i'm sure i now what you're going to >> i know many of you work with folks in the press office and are glad to see them back because there is no question that those of us who tried to fulfill some of their responsibilities didn't do such a great job. but i also want to welcome back jamie smith, deputy press secretary. great to have her here. i have no other announcements. so i'll go straight to the associated press. >> thanks, jay. congressional budget negotiator kicked off this morning, does the president see a direct role for himself in those discussions? or is he basically going to let congressional democrats do the advocacy on behalf of the budget priorities he would like to see?

what we are hopeful is that congress -- >> what we are hopeful is that congress will seize an opportunity here to return to what has become known as regular order, which is have a budget conference and where appointed members of the house and senate come together to try to reach a compromise budget. each house has a starting point, a budget that was passed, they also have a document in the president's budget that reflects his views about what a budget compromise would look like. his views on the kinds of top choices that he's willing to make when it comes to a balanced approach to further reducing our deficit. as well as his views on the kind of investment we should be making. you heard him speak about some of those earlier today in the state dining room. our engagement with that process

will be what it has traditionally been which is to provide technical assistance, to provide insight into the president's views on matters. but we certainly hope as the president made clear earlier that it is a success. obviously this is a tough business. it always has been. but there is an opportunity here to find common ground. and the president sincerely hopes that members of both parties seize that opportunity. >> the president at the beginning of the year in his state of the union address laid out a progressive, aggressive agenda for things he wanted to see this year from gun control to pre-k, urging congress to act on climate change. today we heard him outline the rest of the year, being able to get a farm bill, a budget. has the president had to scale ?ack some of his expectations

>> i appreciate the question. let me say two things in response. first, i think no one in washington could possibly suggest that getting a bipartisan budget deal, getting comprehensive immigration reform passed on a bipartisan basis, and getting a farm bill passed on a bipartisan basis, would be small or inconsequential. in terms of the achievement. the president laid those out because he made clear those are things that congress can do working together in a bipartisan fashion this year in what remains of this year because there are budgets that have been passed by the senate and the house, and there is a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the senate and is waiting for action in the house. and there was a bipartisan comprehensive farm bill that was passed by the senate that house could act on as opposed to

pursuing the purely partisan effort that they worked on in the past. but that's not the limit of what a this administration will be working on or what can be achieved in the months and years ahead. other issues that are obviously a focus for the president are his belief that a program that ensures that there is pre-k available to you will in this country would be enormously beneficial to our nation. he believes that we can continue to take action on energy and climate issues, and he will do that. he's committed to pursuing commonsense measures to lee dues -- to reduce gun violence as has been demonstrated throughout the year. of course college affordability is a subject that he has highlighted and believes we can, the administration, and congress can act on. he identified those three objectives because those are

three that already have some momentum in congress. they require congress action and he was urging members of both parties to act on them before the end of the year. uphill ing to be real battles and have already -- there is a lot of disagreement to be able to get that through. are you operating under the assumption that following the resolution of the crisis the past number of weeks that the dynamic has changed or the atmosphere is better for making progress on those issues? >> we hope it is. we have to hope for the best and assume the best here because what we saw was that a lot of time and effort was spent ideological sort of pursuit that led to the shut down of government and threat of default. and it achieved nothing except

for the harmful consequences to our economy that the president outlined. so rather than continue down that path, there's an opportunity for congress, including those lawmakers both democratic and republican, who helped forge the solution to the threat of the default in way that moves the ball forward on all these issues. there is no question they are all difficult given the current environment, and some of these, especially the comprehensive immigration reform bill and a budget bill, these are big items and they require bipartisan support. but we have seen that already in the senate when it comes to immigration reform. we have seen it at least in conversations that the president has had with republicans on budget issues. when it comes to immigration reform, which is a big item to be sure, we are confident department if that bill that passed the senate were put on the floor of the house today, it

would win a majority of the house. and i think that it would win significant republican votes, because i think there are many republicans who agree that comprehensive immigration reform would help our economy, would make our middle class more secure, would make us more competitive around the globe when it comes to entrepreneurship and harnessing the talent of immigrants who come here and study and should be able to stay here to start businesses if we properly reform our immigration system, and who are interested in the enhanced border security provisions of the senate bill. there's enormous opportunity here on big issues, and the president is not at all convinced by the skeptics who say that we can't get things done. he refuses to believe that. and that's why he called on congress to take action on these items today.

>> as you know the rollout of the affordable care act has hit the snag along the way. why did the president mention that -- again, i should haveve>> mentioned that in my list. that is something the administration is working on, 24/seven. the items the president mentioned were focused on things that congress could do, working together,. the implementation of the affordable care act, including the effort to address the difficulties and glitches that have occurred on the website. it is important to remember the website is not along the affordable care act.