mr. lankford. mr. lankford: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the and to tates of america the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. in 2009 president obama made a promise his administration had no intention of keeping. if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. if you like your health plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. no one will take it away, no matter what, end quote. today's "washington post" bestows upon this moment of rhetorical splendor and others like it four by folk owes for the -- four pi folk yows -- pinocchios. it

mr. lankford, mr. cole's colleague, who said about the shutdown he and his republican colleagues have imposed, quote, i'd like to end it this afternoon. i say, we can do it. he's right. and just a few minutes, mr. lankford will have the opportunity to vote that way. in just a few minutes. now it's either empty rhetoric or he means what he says. let's do it. let's open government. let's get the people's public servants back to work for them. right here, right now, we can end this shutdown today, this afternoon, in just a few minutes. we don't olleagues, differ, as i understand it, everybody on both sides of the aisle says they don't want to shut down government. mr. cole says that. ms. slaughter says that. i say that. we have the power. to just in a few minutes put people back to work for all of our constituents. urge my colleagues, vote no on this motion, the previous question, we call it, jor began for saying let's move on, and if we vote no on the previous question, we can put a bill on the floor whi

mr. lankford from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. lankford: my support for this bill, to be able to talk about the limited funds that the corps of engineers has. they have very limited funds because the united states of america obviously has limited funds, from where a what we actually receive from the taxpayers. there is a study within this bill itself that's being proposed that looks at the low-priority projects and the things that are not within the core mission of the corps of engineers. that study doesn't need to be a study to nowhere. it doesn't need to be a study to look at the low-priority inventory and then just go in a drawer and say, gosh, we have low-priority inventory that we can't afford to maintain, let's sit closed at and a local municipality can't open it so we need to be able to establish the next step on that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. shuster: if i may yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman. i agree with him. we need to move forward to get these properties off the corps' books so

mr. lankford says he wants to act quickly. we will support acting quickly. let's do it. let's just do it. open the people's government today. not slice by slice by slice by slice. >> there's no doubt this impasse we're at is a problem for the country. this is not the best way to run the most important government in the most important country in the word. the people around here who all they do is focus on politics for every day is election day, they're focused on who's winning, who's going to get the blame, who is this going to help in the next election. i suppose that has a place in politics. let me answer who's going to get the blame, we all are. >> he's probably right on that. let's discuss what's going on. joining us now, democratic representative steve israel of new york. congressman, thanks very much for coming in. a lot of folks are having a hard time understanding why the democrats in the senate won't allow these piecemeal house bills to fund the national institutes of health or fund veterans benefits, important issues. why not at least pass this legislation so th

mr. lankford. >> thank you, mr.chairman. i completely associate myself with comments that the gentlelady just made. this is something we need need -- we do need to establish, a process. the a process. to our template editing furloughed through sequestration. at the same time we have an employee that is getting a quarter million dollars salary well in excess of what is legally accessible and doing zero work at the epa. zero. not even showing up. that is frustrating for the people that are working better and better doing their job. it's frustrating for other people in the federal family, and it's incredibly frustrating to the federal taxpayer who worked very hard and who counts pennies and is very attentive to their own family and what they turn in on their irs forms that goes into working with the federal government. someone is watching how this is being spent. so i do appreciate the work. we have a lot of work still to go. to be able to evaluate some of these processes but i would like to talk about these and pick up what mr

mr. lankford: you know, i hear from folks all the time, we need to have a reasonable proposal to be able to end this. how about this for a reasonable proposal? there are a lot of people concerned about the penalties and the effects that are coming down on them in the next year. people have reasonable questions about how this is going to happen. am i going to sign up right? am i going to have problems? let's take for the first year, just take the penalties away from penalties that if you make a mistake on filing your obamacare or if you have real problems with it, for the first year you won't have toy pay those penalties, just for the first year. also, here's something else reasonable. how about members of congress and the white house have to live under the same rules that every american does dealing with obamacare? is that a reasonable proposal? well, that happens to be the proposal that we have on the table right now. that if someone makes a mistake on their filing of obamacare or they don't want to do it this first year, they won't face penalties the first year. all of members of congr

lankford. what do you think, where we going with this? >> i have great respect for mr. charlie rangel.el in hyperbole as far as the dramatic effects. i think the american people see a government slowdown and not a shutdown in this comment of trying to take down his health care law. you have to look at the last proposal that you put in front of the president and that was simply to things. it was president and the congress have to live under the same rules of the american people and we have to go in with the exchanges in the first year of obamacare, individual shouldn't have to pay a penalty if they make a mistake or if they don't actually follow through on. we should have a one-year ability to get into it. that doesn't seem like we are taking down the law. seems like a fairly reasonable proposal. >> you started with wanted to take down a lot of you didn't get anywhere with that. now you come back in a number of times you try to delay the law, may be delayed this, but each time, no. obviously the democrats are relishing this come including republicans. is up to it up to you, it is up to