House Republicans put debt offer on table
October 11th, 2013
03:42 PM ET
6 months ago

House Republicans put debt offer on table

Washington (CNN) – House Republicans have made an offer to the President to resolve the budget standoff, GOP sources tell CNN.

The plan falls short of the President's demand to immediately reopen the government, but the GOP proposal would temporarily raise the debt ceiling.

The House vote on a short term debt ceiling could come over the weekend.

Republican leaders are pushing to separate the two issues, allowing a vote to raise the debt limit while continuing talks with the White House over a government funding bill that would end the shutdown. This position is similar to what GOP leaders presented to the President Thursday. The aides declined to give specifics on what kinds of conditions GOP leaders were asking to be attached to that spending bill, but say an agreement to reopen the government could come within days.

Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois, a member of the House GOP leadership, told reporters on Capitol Hill, "Let's do a temporary debt ceiling, then let's concentrate on the continuing resolution."

After meeting with the President Thursday afternoon, House GOP leaders went back to Capitol Hill to come up with a plan that attempted to resolve both issues –the government shutdown and need to increase the Treasury's borrowing limit, which is due to run out late next week. House GOP leadership and committee staffers worked late into Thursday evening, and Republicans sent the offer to the White House and awaited a response Friday afternoon.

There's mounting pressure on Republicans to resolve the budget standoff following recent polls showing the party is getting more of the blame.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner declined to describe any details of the plan and reiterated GOP leaders are working on a framework for a broader fiscal deal.

"There is no agreement at this point on what that framework would involve, and we don't plan to comment on the details of these discussions," Michael Steel told CNN.

When asked about the plan ignoring the President's insistence that the government reopen before broader budget negotiations start, House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy told CNN the GOP is talking about "the debt ceiling he's concerned with, we'd go to budget conference, we'd meet him half way and sit down and start negotiating on the CR."

Roskam wouldn't specify how long it would take under the GOP approach to reopen the government, only saying, "you're going to begin to immediately negotiate on the CR."

It's unclear whether House GOP leaders are trying to include any Obamacare related provisions on legislation that would reopen the government. But one senior House Republican source told CNN they are insisting that Obamacare be part of the bigger budget deal they work out before the temporary debt ceiling increase expires in November. "Obviously any framework on a larger agreement must include the real drivers of our debt and deficits, including the President's health care law."


Filed under: Congress • Debt • Government Shutdown • House • Uncategorized
soundoff (44 Responses)
  1. tom l

    When the govt said they had 7,000,000 hits to the website, it doesn't mean that there are 7,000,000 individuals that went to the website. I think it would be useful to know how many uniques actually came to the site. That would be a more honest and correct assessment. I'm willing to wait to see how many sign up but so far the numbers are not very encouraging.

    October 11, 2013 04:23 pm at 4:23 pm |
  2. 2012liberal

    Stand firm dems. Rethugs dug themselves n2 this hole. End shutdown, end squester and do long-term debt ceiling! Period! We've put enough of this countrys safety nets on the chopping block. Revenue revenue revenue. Jobs jobs jobs!

    October 11, 2013 04:24 pm at 4:24 pm |
  3. Sniffit

    "Doesn't he mean open the measely 13% of government that is closed, but that nobody misses? "

    You guys need to make up your minds. First it's a huge big deal and the most horrifying thing ever to be visited upon the 'Murkin public, all Obama's fault, he's doing this or that to make it as painful as possible and therefore (you theorized) sufficient leverage to force Obama to allow you to destroy the ACA. Next minute, it's no big deal, not affecting anyone, nobody cares or notices, it's only 13% and maybe it should just stay this way because it's just a "slimdown" etc. Then you go to a Teatroll rally and it's the best thing ever, we sure showed them who's boss, fight the good fight, stand strong and never compromise, keep it shut down and force Obama to cave and do as he's told, we're gonna win this thing and the polls already show it, etc. etc. This is the kind of cognitive dissonance I'd expect from someone with a borderline personality disorder, not to mention the self-harming behavior, devaluation of others, etc. that also go along with the disorder.

    October 11, 2013 04:25 pm at 4:25 pm |
  4. tom l

    I heard that BART in San Francisco is about to go on strike and not going to work. Does that mean that BART has a gun held to its head because of the shutdown tactics? Should they not negotiate with the union until they if they shut it down because they are trying to negotiate with a gun held to their head?

    October 11, 2013 04:26 pm at 4:26 pm |
  5. Silence DoGood

    @Malory Archer
    The Reality

    Doesn't he mean open the measely 13% of government that is closed, but that nobody misses?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    If "nobody" misses it, then why is your ilk throwing a tantrum about National parks being closed?
    -------------
    Good call. I find it very amusing that the TeaPublicans vacillate between HORRIBLE when they blame Obama and then it is also NOTHING at all and a made up crisis by Obama.

    That is like the old joke "The food at the restaurant was terrible, and such small portions."

    October 11, 2013 04:28 pm at 4:28 pm |
  6. Sniffit

    "I'd like your opinion on the fact that there was a budget of $91,000,000 to build healthcare.gov. It ended up costing $643,000,000 to build. Let me ask yiou this: how much would you have taken to build the website? "

    It's pretty simple why that happened; 26 red states controlled by the Teatrolls refused to set up the state-based exchanges, which meant the federal gov't had to yet again pick up the red states' slack and do it for them. And no, it's not "just one website so why would that change anything." It required the federal gov't to hire more people, deal with more variations in state insurance laws, deal with collecting data from and interfacing with hundreds of more insurance companies, etc. The cost increase was, in fact, part of why the GOP/Teatrolls controlling those red states refused to do what they were supposed to do and set up the state-based exchanges: breaking gov't to "prove" that it's broken.

    October 11, 2013 04:30 pm at 4:30 pm |
  7. Silence DoGood

    @tom l "This is why I don't want the govt involved in healthcare. I cannot understand how this is even possible."

    Well you haven't heard of Medicare. There is some debate but compared to other government programs, it is very efficient no matter how you look at it. So yes if you actually do some reading, it is possible.

    October 11, 2013 04:33 pm at 4:33 pm |
  8. jas05

    There's a one step solution similar to the action that took place earlier in the year. A 7.5% adjustment for all. All means ALL. If you get money, you get 7.5% less. If you owe money, you owe 7.5% more. If you own securities in the government, you own 7.5% less. You do that until the deficit is zero and continue until the debt is gone. Free at last!!!!

    October 11, 2013 04:34 pm at 4:34 pm |
  9. What's in that tea anyway?

    @tom l

    @Data,
    I'd like your opinion on the fact that there was a budget of $91,000,000 to build healthcare.gov. It ended up costing $643,000,000 to build. Let me ask yiou this: how much would you have taken to build the website?

    This is why I don't want the govt involved in healthcare. I cannot understand how this is even possible

    -------

    Your Faux news and fools talk points night slip is show there Tommy..... The "government involved in healthcare" thingy is called "single payer" What we have today is a compromise in an attempt to bring along some moderate conservatives, i.e. the authors of the original mandate ....."Heritage Foundation" plan. The Individual Mandate was Republican idea....So genius, I know you try to call yourself libertarian because I too would be embarassed to associate myself the Tea Fools. But your demogougery, faux and fools talking points, or ignorance gives you away every time. Ok now go lay down and see if you can get a clue – K?

    October 11, 2013 04:34 pm at 4:34 pm |
  10. tom l

    Does anyone here on the left realize that the ACA was originally supposed to cost less than a trillion dollars per year and that number has now gone up enormously. Why wouldn't we want to look at this again? My goodness. So stubborn on the left that you just don't care how much it will cost the taxpayers. There is a better way.

    October 11, 2013 04:35 pm at 4:35 pm |
  11. Data Driven

    @Tom,

    I'd like your opinion on something: why do rely on information from untrustworthy rags like the Daily Caller? Your information is antiquated. Go to Digital Details to read the retraction from the horse's mouth. Late! :)

    October 11, 2013 04:37 pm at 4:37 pm |
  12. Woman In California

    So in other words, democrats paid the random?

    October 11, 2013 04:49 pm at 4:49 pm |
  13. Sniffit

    "Does anyone here on the left realize that the ACA was originally supposed to cost less than a trillion dollars per year and that number has now gone up enormously."

    Sure, we realize that when you compare the numbers for the first ten years to the numbers for a different ten years, the number changes. It's yet another apples and oranges comparison and a thoroughly debunked, dead, failed talking point.

    October 11, 2013 04:57 pm at 4:57 pm |
  14. Sniffit

    "There is a better way."

    Yeah, we tried to tell you guys that but you threw an even bigger fit over the idea of single-payer or a public option or "Medicare for all." Fact is, you can yammer about "a better way" all you want, but until the GOP/Teatrolls make a proposal saying what they think that better way is, which they haven't, then they're offering NOTHING. "Repeal and Replace"? Replace with WHAT? *crickets*

    October 11, 2013 05:09 pm at 5:09 pm |
  15. tom l

    @Sniffit
    "It's pretty simple why that happened; 26 red states controlled by the Teatrolls refused to set up the state-based exchanges, which meant the federal gov't had to yet again pick up the red states' slack and do it for them. And no, it's not "just one website so why would that change anything." It required the federal gov't to hire more people, deal with more variations in state insurance laws, deal with collecting data from and interfacing with hundreds of more insurance companies, etc. The cost increase was, in fact, part of why the GOP/Teatrolls controlling those red states refused to do what they were supposed to do and set up the state-based exchanges: breaking gov't to "prove" that it's broken."

    You should speak about what you know of. You have zero knowledge of how much it takes to build a website. You're a lawyer. I can guarantee you that if a private company spent $91,000,000 to build 50 websites (although you know it's really not 50 websites because so much of the data is the same) that company would be out of business. You're such a shill and lackey for the govt. Of course you would defend this because it's not really real money to you. It is a travesty. It is disgusting govt waste, just like $5,000 toilets. You are so pathetic the way you think you are superior to others with your juvenile "red state" arguments that are so vapid and so misleading it's pathetic. You are a very small man who has told me constantly how I always respond to you when you don't want my response yet you always respond to my comments. I know you think highly of me so you have to try and mock me and I appreciate that.

    So now I see that it wasn't 643,000,000 and I should have prefaced that I wanted Data Driven to confirm that and now I see that it wasn't that high. Howeva, at $91,000,000 it is still disgusting.

    October 11, 2013 05:10 pm at 5:10 pm |
  16. tom l

    @Silence Da Good
    "Well you haven't heard of Medicare. There is some debate but compared to other government programs, it is very efficient no matter how you look at it. So yes if you actually do some reading, it is possible."

    While Medicare is working well, you must be an ostrich with your head in the sand if yoiu don't think we need to make changes to that or it will drain us. Contrary to what you lefties believe, money does not grow on trees.

    October 11, 2013 05:14 pm at 5:14 pm |
  17. Ol' Yeller

    It is painfully obvious many of the tea baggers and their supporters have very little knowledge about our government and how it is supposed to function. I really believe the republicans want the tea baggers to continue this nonsense and get blamed so they can later purge them after they have served their purpose. The grand plan is for them to weaken the Office of the President as they have finally realized their chances of ever winning that office again is absolutely nil. They need someone to blame and therefore are allowing these pinheads to be the patsies.

    October 11, 2013 05:21 pm at 5:21 pm |
  18. Tampa Tim

    Scott – Almost 13 trillion of our national debt is republican debt. Do you really think all wars and tax cuts ended when Obama was elected? Give it up. You are obviously blinded by the short skirts at Fox.

    October 11, 2013 05:32 pm at 5:32 pm |
  19. Tony

    tom I, your numbers are way off. The initial cost of the ACA was not 1 trillion per year. That number was for 10 years. Some conservatives claim that the cost of the ACA has more than doubled, to 2.6 trillion. That is also for 10 years. Actually, the CBO said in 2012 that the ACA would cost 1.76 trillion in the first decade. That was higher than the initial estimate, because the initial estimate included years in which the ACA was not fully implemented.

    October 11, 2013 05:32 pm at 5:32 pm |
1 2