tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 11, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST
can't get through on the phone lines, someone will make a comment, try social media. facebook.com/c-span. finally you can send an e-mail. we'll begin taking those calls a few minutes. from the hill newspaper this morning congressional leaders deal to being unveiled on monday. congressional leaders. legislative text of the year end omnibus spending bill to be released monday. they say it will likely be linked to a major deal on taxes. the current projection is for the house. and the omnibus on monday voted on it by wednesday. john corbinding to the republican. senate negotiators say that likely to meet several tax break and place a
two obamacare taxes. both seem to be linked, i can't tell you whether it's one vote or two votes. therly they're part of overall negotiation. orin hatch who is involved, sooner or later we come against of having to act. i think when that happens, happens, ween that can get this done. days.k it's a matter of the text of the omnibus will be unveiled monday. wednesday andte meet speaker paul ryan pledge to three day waiting period. passed a stopgap measure until next week. senatetico it says the delay taxes could stall the budget. it's not just sticky policy writers and spending levels.
the senate is battling an old enemy when it comes to funding the government. uppers nothing really the chamber can do until the house sweepingst on a $1.1 trillion spending bill. it's likely speaker paul ryan's chamber won't vote on it until until least tuesday. provides barely any time ar senators to take up spending bill unless a another pass term extension congress. from u.s.a. today this morning, signs no child left behind rewrite. president obama reverse course on federal education policy signing a bill to curtail the federal government fromin education kindergarten through high school and instead allow states to set
their own standards. call the bipartisan every student succeeds act a christmas miracle. obama said the law would give states more flexibility in raising student achievement while maintaining a federal role to ensuring all students have to get a quality education. the law's turn around from 14 federally directed education policy that began with president george w. bush's the equally bipartisan no child left behind to raisefort performance, hearing emphasis on testing and accountability. it became known for excesses they teach to the test philosophy and produce punishing consequences for low performing schools. the new law prohibits the education department from modelng the common core which wasn't required by no child left behind but often a certifieshrough of federal waive -- series of
federal waivers. in u.s.a. today this morning. on u.s.a.ditorial -- if you've been watching the house this week, lot of the democrats have been going on the floor talking about if you can't fly you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. this has been a pretty week bynt message this the democrats. write abouta. today that issue. buy?d no fly mean no not until the list gets better. surface, the issue does seem like a no brainer. complicated.re obama former professor of constitutional law should know that. course allowing terrorist to buy a gun is crazy, the real question, though, is whether the list is the right tool. until the federal government thens up the list and process, the answer is no.
understandable way to try to prevent more terrorist -- -- froming getting on the plane after 9/11. presumes our guilty until proven innocence. america's most important constitution guarantees backwards. last year federal judge found government management unconstitutional. rule that the way citizens get the list with no notice and no meaningful way to get off it. they're on by mistake, violated the fifth amendment guarantee of process. that forced the administration to begin changing thing. little bit from u.s.a. today's opinion. let's hear from you now. from news calling in york. carl, you're on the "washington journal," go ahead. morning.ood since we having open phones, i you.a question for it is an important question. i would like an answer.
you don'to claim that have a liberal bias. caller says barack obama is a muslim you immediately go saying, no, he's a christian. says that donald trump is like adolph hitler, you say nothing. now, by you, i mean every one sit every host that has sit at that table. question. if you don't have a liberal you, explain to me why defend a democrat who is merely called a muslim and not defend a republican who was compared to of the most evil mass murderers in the history of mankind? that's my question, explain that. oft: are you a supporter donald trump?
caller: at this moment, i'm not supporting anyone. ted cruz andards carly fiorina. democrat whofend a is called a muslim and not defend a republican who is adolph hitler? host: i appreciate your point. is in ports smith, new hampshire. democrats line. caller: i'm the lady that goes restaurants on christmas. you? yes ma'am, how are caller: how are you? got.n, this world has very bizarre to this 82-year-old lady. worse.tting worse and i'm beginning to think that some of the things that are going on do with a movie with al
dog" it'sled "wag the a movie to scare the public. i really think that's what's happening now. enjoyingrey, are you there?mary season up caller: i'm for bernie. host: have you been to any rallies? caller: no, because i'm partially paralyzed. i'm disabled. i don't go to these things. know he won't win. i know hillary is going to win. whole thing is trumped up with trump to get hillary in. my opinion. deals blow, the pack.c trade
mitch mcconnell dealt a significant blow to obama's global trade agenda thursday. declaring that a sweeping pack to congresse sent for approval until after the 2011 elections. until after obama leaves office. mcconnell who previously efforts to enhance obama's trade negotiating signaled he was undecided he would vote. theas clear that transpacific partnership would sent toted if it was capitol hill next spring or summer. julia is another democrat. this one from greensboro, north carolina. your mind? caller: i want to say, now we spreading hate around mr. donald trump and he's the one that's dividing american people.
cruz, bothp, ted need to leave the country. thank you and have a good day. you give an example how you say they're spreading hate? caller: well, they said that buta was spreading hate look at donald trump. what is he doing everyday. what is he doing everyday. -- the reporter. now he's on the muslims and mexicans. say?else can you host: that's julius in greensboro, north carolina. a republican in virginia. thisr: how are you doing morning? downsomment, everybody donald trump. what he's doing, he's not the president. more to iran this
country than anyone in my lifetime. old.0 years my comment you say he's a goestian man but he asinst what the bible says far as homosexuality. how can you be a christian if believe in jehovah? as far as terrorism, he's given iran $100 billion to support terrorism. thing.another hillary clinton also had power to send the military to help over there in benghazi. but all theo it channels are reporting on donald trump and not her? why can they get away with anything? everybody is down on him because makes a except about keeping country untile everybody feels safe to let the come in?
mr. trump?ou a supporter of caller: i'm not into politics. vote.t i just have the comments. i'm a republican. a democrat. host: thank you sir. tonight, 7:30 p.m. eastern time at the iowa state fairground, live campaign rally trump.ald that will be on c-span's road to the white house program tonight at 7:30. clyde is a democrat in new jersey, good morning to you. caller: good morning. you?re my comment, i'm really tossed up primarys election, this thing. run.e to see leon panetta host: why? caller: i think he's a smart
man. i met mr. panetta when history -- when i was working for the government. that's all i have to say. calling in. for florida,nter haven, independent. you're on the "washington journal." mind? on your caller: i just would like to say everybody wants to hate on usesd trump because he poor choice of words. he is a good businessman. he can get us out of the deficit. not only that, he's gotten my bestren's future at interest. do these people not understand we're at war? in the bible. it's tell us right now. here.ocalypse is we need somebody to fate for christianity and stand up for americans. if they see us as a bully, they would leave us alone. i believe that if trump is not in office, my children's future stake.
host: from the "washington page, rudyinion guiliani called islamic terrorist by their name. unfortunately, mr. guiliani writes, this confusion between those whoon and pervert's its meaning is exacerbated by the obama and othertion miss prominent leadership engage inwho euphemism and misdirection. make it seen they see no connection wean the terrorist interpretation of islamic teaching. write that the failure to speak bluntly about terrorism opens the dares that can steer the debate totally counterproductive
direction. the idea of excluding all unworkable. it will soon disappear. obama is clear that the administration's refusal to face up to the nature of islamic tororism is never going change. that is more than foolish. it is also dangerous. comes from george, a republican in greensberg, pennsylvania. hi george. caller: hi. to say that i think if we were to pick a we all should be very of theive of the facts individual running. to study. need i don't think we should be with -- i true believe
of the holyp spirit, bring religion. higher power to help you see the truth. with the truth. in my opinion, donald trump is capable of being a good president. he brought up a lot of things, i think he's welcome presence but and let theep aside pros take over. choice would be ted cruz or cruz would bed chris christie. all thenitely have aspects that donald trump has are not exaggerated but just strong enough to do the theness to do the work of
president. thank you and god bless you. host: that's george in greensberg. there's an article in the des moines register this morning, bob blander chose cruz over trump. rubio and carson. a group calledf "the family leader" very influential in republican politics. pamela you're in the suburbs up marlborough, maryland. democrat. caller: thank you. like to say of all the new events. chickens have come home to roost for the gop and the conservatives. is just a complete revelation of all of their their hate, their bigotry and racism. why your station doesn't defend when says something about donald trump and comparing him to hitler and someone compares the muslim.t to a the fact of the matter is, if in
country, the president has been muslim. the president, barack obama is president in presidential history who has been required to show his birth certificate and he is a u.s. citizen. attacked orhas been these fronts by the likes of trump, the gop the conservatives. they've all called -- win it to defending the hisident, they don't defend rhetoric. donald trump, we must remember of those who required for the president to show his birth certificate. none of the candidates that are running today, none of them came orthe president's defense said anything about that. now with donald trump's rhetoric, being unhinged and out control, now they have something to say. all of them are dangerous. host: that's pamela in upper
marlboro maryland. richard in prairie grove, arkansas, independent line. caller: good morning. give me a minute here. i will get this out. you married? do you tell your wife what to wear and what not to and who to talk to, when she can go and when she can't? is the muslim religion. shia, sunni, it doesn't matter. koran teaches that women that property. whoever.married off to they can come home and beat their wife because the koran can.they this is a clash between religions. rightsre the women's organizations? they say nothing. totallymen are suppressed. our president is standing up there talking about slavery and freedom and he's importing slavery because the muslims
slaves.eir women like it's just mind boggling. this is the clash that's going happen in this country between these religions. speaks of it. thank you. newspaper,the hill gop preps broker convention amid trump's success. than 20 gop officials dinner on a a strategy of a brokered convention. rnc chair reince priebus argued that the establishment must lay work for a floor fight if trump storms through primaries.ntial the sources said priebus and were mostly silent didng the deliberation and trumpgnal support for
effort. for possible peace negotiations with the syrian government next year. including a two day meeting in the saudi arabian capital, representatives of the political opposition agree that president asad. positiveees the outcome of the riyadh gathering. startinging us closer negotiations between the syrian party. new caller is shirley in castle, pennsylvania on the republican line. what's the issue on your mind this morning?
caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i hope and pray that the people up.his country wake we are at war and it's the muslims that we are fighting. as far as donald trump is got the backbone and the guts to stand up and say us think that don't about.e guts to talk our only hope and prayer is we get donald trump in the white house in 2016. done.re all thank you. times,rom the washington the fiancee visa program continues during federal review wall street journalo is this poll. opinions on donald trump's proposal to ban muslims from
16% stronglyu.s., 9% some what favor and oppose. opinions on muslims 29% say unfavorable. 79%cratic primary voters favorable. muslims,ry opinion on 39% favorable. from gleeson, tennessee, democrat. caller: good morning. a democrat and i told the young lady, i voted for gore and voted for perry and voted for mr. obama twice. voted for a republican.
i will be a supporter this time. all been watching politics of my life. timestched the news three a day everyday. my old grand daddy was a momma was and democrat. politicians not only in my lifetime that ever suffered from my point of view. the man is suffering. you know he is. can take this much heat. calledch abuse to be what he's been called and still other said, have it.guts to take tv.en him on i understand what it's like not person.e most popular i never seen anybody do what he's doing. for takingery much
my call. host: ken is in jackson, line.sippi, independent caller: i was just trying to polls on donald trump. they're having him double digit leads. i know these people are educated, i can't understand how they can say they would support a racist.e's plainly race baiting everybody. i just find that hard to believe this day. banning muslims, that's not the answer. am a christian. that would be like what's the next step, ban another group just because you don't agree them? i find that hard to believe that registered tore
vote and they've got to see through this. is not a reality show that he's running here. you like in 2016 so far? caller: i'm undecided. like bush pretty much. i usually vote republican and i voted democrat. i'm an independent. true independent. caller: yes. host: that's ken in jackson, mississippi. ken in lancaster, north carolina. theer: this is a message to black community. when bush was president, i was thelled about some of whites following him. he was running this country in the ground. about president obama, on his immigration policy, he get considered no
blacks for the supreme court justice, all of that immigration the black community. you can be compassionate to a default. suffered more than anybody under this president. openntinue to want borders. the middlents of class and the poor going to college and getting engineers degrees and computer science and we have microsoft and facebook, they're taking jobs. for the discussion, people will our who going to pick vegetables. is pickingne percent fruit. policy, president is a chaos.ya
they was warning him about the iraq.uprising in host: all right. ken we'll leave it there so we and articlescalls in from abc news this morning. isis may have passport printing machine and blank passports. american authorities are warning the terror groups followers may infiltrated american borders with authentic looking passports. printed itself with its own machines according to a intelligence report. 17 page homeland security investigation intelligence issued to law enforcement last week, isis likely has been legitimate looking syrian passports taking over the dyer last summer. hope home to a passport office boxes of blank passports.
the report notes that the primary source for the information was rated at moderate confidence, the second source rating given for assessment. next caller is penny, a democrat , missouri. caller: the president is a christian. he has said that over and over again. he was born in he's -- hawaii. trump was called hitler like -- some of the callers saying we're worst off. we were under two unpaid wars bush. we were inheriting 500,000 jobs a month. gaining 150,000 a jobs a month now. haven't looked at the
numbers, that should tell you a lot. i get tired of people mongering the fear. more thousands of times likely to die because we didn't medicaid explanation in -- expansion in our state. over in paris, the u2 band, the evils of death metal, they playing. there we stoke this fear so much. it.st don't like host: past penny in missouri. ken an another independent in catskill, new york. caller: i called because i my sense ofess dramatic drop in the political argument. certainly hold that c-span is
one of the few beacons of hope for this information. know the audience is small. area ofn a rural wonderful people. they had been completely been news, franky fox luntz. that whole group in makes a the truth.orting saygoing to sign off and thank you. host: there's an article this morning. up of folks have brought donald trump and that -- ken mentioned frank luntz. thee's an article in washington post. why attacks on trump don't work. is david waggle writing. luntz focus frank
group that he held and some of the reactions that he heard from people. in the washington post if you want to read it for yourself. david from new jersey, republican, we're listening. morning.es, good peter, i've been noticing for months, probably four to six months, the frequency with which wild of wonderful, sea of , boring file clerk, fishing sam and others are on the program. we have no knowledge of who what they'reare or background is or why they call so frequently. to me that perhaps "washington journal" might just finding out a little bit more about them and payrollshem on the since they take up so much air time. host: david in beach haven, new
jersey. those are some our twitters followers that he was mentioning. they do tweet in regularly and probably regularly get on. the same system phone call.and for thanks for that, david. touche. louisiana, dale, democrat. a 20 year military veteran. come out, isis has been terrorizing america. comet the military to back, it's still the same thing. world -- you got all the guns. now i got children that are sheriffs.
i'm worried more about another deputy or another policeman profiling and killing them. this thing goes from generation to generation. willie in sly dale. white house meet with koch officials on criminal justice reform. valerie jarrett met with koch industries mark holden in an effort to bolster a rare coalition pushing to overhaul the criminal justice system. melinda in sarasota let's hear you. republican. caller: thank you for taking my -- i wanted to make comments. american women have some of the most amazing rights compared to countries, especially islam. i have a friend. i can't say her name because she she found jesus
and became a christian. ine a christian bible that's arabic. there is a total difference compared to today. he'sgentleman called in, right, women are treated like animals. no rights. [indiscernible]. hisld trump, i love some of ideas. we need a businessman. wantedsaying he $5 million for the wounded that sounds healthy. nobody come up with that stuff. businessman. he's traveled all over the world. i think he'll be a great president.
>> this weekend on c-span, saturday night at 9:00 eastern, executives from pandora and spotify on how technology impacts the entertainment business. from this year's aspen forum certain parts of the day where music is not the only thing you want to listen to. one commute is the hypothesis we're testing. if you're in your car, maybe you don't want only music. maybe you want news, weather report. i want to see if you're on the subway, like a clip of jimmy fallon or something like that. content you other want to experience during that period of time. hypothesis we're testing to seeing if people are interested. at 6:30, gopning presidential candidate, ohio
thernor john kasich at counsel on foreign relations on rebuilding international alliances. >> thanks to my 18 years, i knew many months ago only way to solve this problem is to call for international coalition to isis in syrian and iraq. allies andjoin nato allies in the region to organize coalition tonal defeat isis on the ground and to deny them the territory that to survive. know with long experience that an air campaign on its own is simply not enough. >> for more schedule information go to our website c-span.org. roadspan takes you on the to the white house and into the classroom. students, our documentary contest ask students wantll us what issues they
to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's road to the get alluse coverage and the details about our student c-span.org. >> wan-- "washington journal" continues. host: ray lahood if you searched the internet for your name and stories that come up this.ke obama advisor, found disappointment. those are the stories that come your new book, "seeking fair?isan" is that guest: i don't like that headline. i believe bipartisan is in the president's dna. believes ink he bipartisan. he practiced it when he was a in illinois.
mepracticed it when he named secretary of transportation a long time republican. the story that peter baker wrote in the "new york times" was pretty accurate. probablyhe headline didn't really reflect my feeling about it. host: in your book, you do talk about the fact right off the aside?u felt shuttered guest: not really me. i just felt that the president presidents -- has a core of people in the white relies on.he really , -- obviously george w. on rove and andy car. i been around here long enough. you a -- nixon relied few others. every president does. by that.too surprised
on some of the things that the president tried to get done on, they asked me to make calls and to try and intervene. part of the inner circle. the inner circle are really the people who helped the president that job. host: you have chapter in here, some pages on an actual cabinet meeting that happened. bit.t to read a little this was a memo that was passed out. referring to the president, call on each member of the cabinet to report two minutes each on highlights from their department. you will call on the cabinet in order in which their departments were created, then you will call on the cabinet and then theals national security advisor with the chief of staff included. minutes, you write, i focused on department initiatives in promoted economic recovery, the president brieflily reporters follow the
meetings, he told them he delivered three messages. the work,as proud of second we have to take extraordinary steps to shore up the financial system. charged us withgirardeaued bringing out more efficiency. one of the meetings were much highly scripted than i anticipated. candidortunity to give advice to the president was nil. the meetings suggested how president was from those who did not fall within circle.r guest: well, i think that was an reflection of that particular meeting. in the beginning when we came in in, in 2009, the focus was on getting the economy. we were in a terrible recession. work.y people out of we were sort of assigned as a stimulus,economic
$48 billion to spend it within two years and put a lot of to work. secondly, really the idea that president wanted to get out of iraq. cabinet meetings were revolved around those two bigs. time, the president was spending in the oval office meetings was, how do we how do economy going and we get out of iraq. the part about getting the gotomy going, we $48 billion in economic stimulus that we had to spend within two years. assignedthe president vice president biden to kind of process.hat entire i developed a great relationship with vice president biden. he's an endeering friend today because of all the time we spent peopler on trig to get to work on transportation
projects. reflectionshapter on a career of public service. my 35 years in politics and public service often with a front row seat on history, i did not ponder the meaning of passing. time slipped by too quickly. as i move to the sidelines to of my career, however, i'm struck by two intertwined principle qualities politics that concern me persuasive, partisan and the absence of leadership. question. no notwithstanding that congress just passed a transportation a very bipartisan way. they passed an education bill to fix some things that were wrong in ano child left behind very bipartisan way. prior to that, over the last two years, each seen a government shutdown. we've seen people elected to republicander the banner. although they're tea party people who don't believe in government.
here to vote no on everything. stalemate. terrible people really came here with the one goal their number was to do everything they could make progress. pervasive.k it is the partnership is very pervasive. i was pleased that the congress passed the transportation bill in a bipartisan way and the president signed yesterday an education bill to fix some with no child left behind. so, now the congress is working on trying to get out of town and passing omnibus. hopefully that will be bipartisan. speaker ryan and leader pelosi that.king on host: i want to show some video from 1994 and see if you this.er is ray lahood.
from illinois, you don't pronounce the s. pronounced illinois. i'm from the 18th district of illinois. our freshman class introduced today tod a resolution a passporte work of that study congress over a period of two years and the committees of congress. as you all know, we have three committees the district of columbia, merchant marine and post office and the of our resolution today was to continue the work of a thet committee on reorganization of congress. to establish a task force that will use the information that the joint committee has available, to add at least five freshmen members to include the
of our conference over a period of time to study committee structure. to determine if there's duplication and to report back to the conference no later than end of september our results therewill be whether should be further elimination of committee. host: that was almost exactly 21 years ago. just turned 70. i wished i looked that young. right after your first election. what was that like to be part of republican congress? guest: it was extraordinary. a congressional staffer for 17 years and worked staff bob michael republican leader. i knew a lot of members of congress. i worked on the house floor. all the people in leadership. i knew speaker gingrich and tom
army and all the people we elected. there weren't any surprises in that regard. the thing that i was surprised about on election night, republicans won the majority. worked for bob michael who served in the minority for 38 years, i never dreamed that could come back into out inority after being the wilderness for 40 years. because newt nationalized the and put the contract with america out there for a lot ofpeople and that.s ran on it was exhilarating time to be to have theity, opportunity to vote on all of i talkedms that people about as part of the contract with america within the first days all of the reforms that we had talked about. so, it was exhilarating time. numbers one way the
the screen we'll begin taking for ray a few minutes lahood. you were in the chair presiding livingston decided not to run for speaker. you write about it. guest: there's a chapter on impeachment. the reason we wrote about it clear thatwas speaker gingrich announced that not going to stand for said whoer . the staff will chair the proceedings, he said ray lahood. because i developed a good style chairing the house. a style of fairness and bipartisan and making sure that rules and we didn't -- host: you knew the rules. rules.we knew the that was very helpful. when the speaker staff called me speaker gingrich wants theto indicator -- chair proceedings, i thought this my
one minute of fame. bobhe second day, livingston from louisiana who already run for speaker and was known to have the votes to be right after the proceedings was over, we were going to elect him. because of disclosure about infidelity, not similar to speaker gingrich's disclosures came about earlier, he came to the house floor and was first speaker. said i'm not going to stand for speaker. i'm going to resign from the these proceedings are over. chamber.ent out of the i did not know. no one knew. i said, democrats and republicans were scrambling around. pretty full that morning. i think people recognize this
day, this was the day we were going to vote on the of impeachment. the people wanted to hear what the new speaker had to say. boom, he was out. in the halls of congress, there members like tom others who were scrambling trying to figure out who the speaker will be. tom delay orchestrated the illinoisof hastert of to be the next speaker . that came about over a period of four hours. or six bob livingston made that inouncement and as i write the book, a democratic member, the chair. a democratic member comes up to and say -- up to me and says
says, mel white, who's no longer the house. if ime up to me and said, can put together the votes, some talking, if i can put together the democratic votes, would you consider of standing for speaker? said no, that's not going to happen. there are already people on my the aisle deciding who the speaker will be. it's not going to be ray lahood. that talk about how people viewed me as somebody who friendsrtisan, who had on both sides of the aisle. who had an ability to really reach people on both sides. ultimately, on, denny hastert got to be speaker. the other thing that happened that i wrote about in the book, is another democrat came up and me in the chair and said, should we suspend what while we tryere and figure this out? i made a decision. i didn't check with leadership
the speaker'swith office. i didn't talk to the parliamentarian. was suchdecision, this a historic day after all that on.gone we needed to proceed with the to takes that were going place on the four articles of impeachment. proceed. democrats walked out as we called for the first vote and came back in. we finished the day up. one of the things i'm proud of, peter, after everything was over, all the republicans met in rooms there in the capital to talk about what the speaker was going to be. this was after the all the votes taken and the house had adjourned. went to that meeting, speaker gingrich started the meeting off saying, now you know why i picked ray lahood to preside over impeachment. it was done fairly.
their say and people voted and they gave me a standing ovation. fact very proud of the that we carried it off in a way that distinguished house of in a verytives controversial historic time in house.tory of the host: you quote dick gephardt in your gook. destroyingstop altar of people at the morality. all have our imperfections. we've got to look at the fact president clinton was elected. he had his imperfections. obviously, then leader gephardt's point was, these were not impeachable offenses. that was not the judiciary concluded. it's not what the house conclu
concluded. host: "seeking bipartisan" is name of the book. congressman from illinois. first call is henry in clyde, new york, democrat. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. , everybodyed to say keep talking about obama is not strong president. strong president. the head of the said, he will make obama a one term president. a box andot obama in obama can't do nothing about coalition together to fight. won't vote him. him to go toon for
war. those people over there like france, they don't want to help obama unless they know countries are behind him. host: henry in clyde, new york, thanks for calling in. a box.sident is in guest: well, if you look back at the nature of the presidency and you look back at other presidents, they face very difficult decisions. i agree with henry, i think strongnt obama is a president. i think his legacy will be what his firstabout during campaign. implementing national healthcare, getting us out of iraq, although obviously we're lesser extentto a than we were in 2009 when he presidency. i think there are a number of have things that he will as a strong legacy. what he did as president
is what no other president was able to do. that's to pass national healthcare. he also brought a very lousy bad of a tailspin. we're in much better shape today in 2009.ere he helped the automobile industry. the american automobile industry. he put a lot -- he helped put a lot of people to work. he put a lot of emphasis in the suremic stimulus on making that our economy could come back and be strong. they deserves a lot of credit for that. host: however, you are critical give nancysion to levers to legislative work with the republicans. guest: during the first two was a democratic majority. though rahm emanuel really reached out to people on
and really made the effort to say, we want to be bipartisan. think the president wanted to be. i think in the end, they made a get the that we got to economy going. we got to get this economic stimulus. this got to pass $870 billion bill. i think speaker pelosi said, we it.the votes to do let's go for it. theink that hurt president's. not to his own instincts, his own bipartisan instincts which i believe are really there. i say in the book, they're in dna. left up to him, he would have -- let's try to continue to get republican votes. sense ofd, there was a urgency about getting the economy going. speaker pelosi said we got the let's do it. on ourverett kentucky republican line, go ahead gary. caller: thank you very much for
call. my i have a couple of questions. feel that before healthcare was enacted, wouldn't been a good feel that before hh care was enacted, wouldn't it to lift thegood try ban from state to state and open for up between states insurance company in california to sell insurance here in kentucky check of and the economy -- kentucky? any economy here in my state, we are a coal state. the second question. everyw everybody -- butsident tries to be -- president obama has done to more
than any president in history. host: gary, thank you. he uses the executive orders when he can get congress to even go along with introducing legislation or having debates on rails. i think that has certainly been the case for president obama. when congress has been stubborn about their willingness to debate issues that the president thinks should be debated or to put the bills in the hopper and have a debate, i think he feels that his only other alternative is to sign these executive orders. other presidents have done it. so it is certainly not unprecedented. houseyear, the white tried to work with republicans. i know senator baucus, who was at the time the chair of the finance committee, tried to work
very, very hard with republican senators on getting their views on national healthcare, on implementing national healthcare. in the end, they made a decision that they just couldn't come to a compromise. and so the congress ultimately passed it. could there have been a better way of doing it? could they have included issues that you raise about the commerce clause and states selling insurance? probably. but i think there was a sense of urgency that they needed to pass national healthcare. from florida, the independent line. caller: good morning. what is the host's name? guest: peter. caller: nice to talk to you. host: thank you, sir. caller: first time caller. i will give you a little bio of me.
i was raised in a democratic family. raised by nuns. i tried when kennedy was killed everybody up to reagan camethen mr. along and i noticed, you know, the guy was tough. people were scared of him. personally, myself, i am laid up in a hospital bed in front of the television. and -- host: joe? joe, we are kind of losing your here, so if you could get to your question or your point for ray lahood.
i'm sorry, we lost joe. let's take that opportunity, if we could, and go into present-day politics. he was recounting his transitions throughout the year. would you think about 2016 and the race that is going on currently? caller: i have been watching this kind of activity for 35 years. seen, certainly on the republican side, a process like we have now. i think the fact that we have such a celebrity like donald trump in the race who has never and isvolved in politics using the most unorthodox methods to get elected to get the nomination. are a wideertainly range of candidates on the republican side.
it looks like hillary will probably get the nomination, and all these presidential campaigns, it will be very, very interesting. host: have you endorsed? guest: i like jeb bush. i do. i think he was a very strong governor in florida and i like his positions on many issues. and so i like jeb bush. host: going into a democratic administration as a republican, are you suspect of both sides of the aisle now? guest: i don't know about suspect. i think people have always viewed me as being bipartisan and i don't think anybody was surprised when president obama nominated me for secretary of transportation, which has always been, very bipartisan agency. and so i don't think people really look at ray lahood with a
jaundiced eye or with suspect. i think they look at me as more someone who has worked on both sides of the aisle. but i have been a republican all my life and i will continue to be a republican. i couldn't have gotten the job with president obama had i not been a republican because he was looking for a republican. and our friendship, obviously, in doing since we left -- endured since we left the job. host: my worst day on the job. guest: that was the day of the air crash -- host: in buffalo. guest: in buffalo, new york 149 people boarded the plane with the idea that they would arrive in buffalo safely. andbecause of pilot error very bad conditions -- icing on those 49 people pierced as a result -- perished.
as a result, we implemented new rules. both of these pilots had flown from the west coast to the east coast before they started flying the plane. so innate our flight. then they are expected to get in the plane and fly it. and they were poorly trained. they did the wrong thing when the plane i stop, and they -- iced up, and they crashed the plane. -- particularly those that are flying these regional jets, which a lot of communities are using now. host: amtrak funding. a new formula written into the bill. do you supported? guest: i'm glad congress passed a transportation bill. we need a vision. i like the idea they included a provision that if there is a profit on the northeast
corridor, which is really where they make that money, that money gets plowed back into the northeast corridor rather than being used for other lines like in illinois or other corridors. i like that idea. i think it is a creative way to make sure the northeast corridor, which does make s at annd ridership ai all-time high, the money will be there for it. and then i noticed in today's paper that they included a provision in their to raise the to raise thehere limit, particularly for those who were injured or killed in philadelphia for the liability. i think amtrak is -- is doing well, and i think we are treated very fairly in the transportation bill. host: margin is in richfield, wisconsin. -- martin is and where it's
healed, wisconsin -- is in richfield, wisconsin. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, ray. thank you for your service to the country. guest: thank you. caller: with your obvious large depth of knowledge of american politics and having served their country, you mentioned the tea party, you mention some positive things and some not so positive things about barack obama. how do you think history is going to view barack obama? in my opinion, he is really the father of the tea party with his partisanship he exhibited with his administration. everything with what happened his first two years. i don't think we would have the tea party in the republican party right now if not for him. interested in your take. guest: i do not agree that he is the father of the tea party.
i don't think he would agree with that, either. i think that the tea party came about because of -- and the leadership of the tea party came about from people who were antigovernment, who don't believe in government, and helped elect people to come here to washington and shut the governments down. they ran speaker boehner out of office. as i said, a year ago, they shut the government down. they vote no on everything. and that certainly has nothing to do with president obama's philosophy. and i don't think he would associate himself with the tea party or consider himself to be the father of it, and i don't, either. host: is john boehner a friend of yours? paul ryan? guest: very much so. i served with john. he will go down as is bigger who worked very, very hard to get things done and make things speaker- go down as a who worked very, very hard to
get things done and make things happen. he had a group of people in the republican conference who came here to be obstructionist, who came -- obstructionists, who came here to do everything they could to stop things they didn't believe in. and they had some ability to do that. this is the tea party crowd. the crowd that basically shutdown the government, ran john out of office, but he did a good job. he was a good speaker. he is a good leader. paul ryan i have known since he came to congress. and i admire him very much. i particularly admire him for stepping up into this very important leadership vacuum and filling the vacuum. and doing it in a way that i think really distinguishes him and distinguishes the speaker's office. i think paul is going to be a very strong speaker. in my book, i talk about one of the real pillars of leadership
is listening. and i think paul is and will be a good listener. he is already doing that. and part of listening event is carrying out what people have to say. and i think paul will do that. i'm very high on paul ryan is and he is the next -- paul ryan, and he is the next generation of leadership in the house of representatives. the house of representatives is very fortunate that someone like pauline is willing to step up -- someone like paul ryan is willing to step up and fill the leadership. sacrifices. great he and his family both make great sacrifices. in fromrbara is coming pearl, mississippi. republican. caller: yes, hi. how are you? theuld like to know from
republican you have on today, how easy would it be for the president nominee donald trump to become -- if he becomes the next president to pass on the initiative he has been talking about with immigration? and what can be done to fix the health care laws pertaining to people who have insurance because i know prior to this law we always had great insurance. but after this law was passed, we wound up with very high deductibles. a $6,000 deductible. insurance through your jobs, your pay $100 a month for insurance plus you have an $8,000 deductible. it is very high. how can those issues be addressed? host: implementing policies by the president.
guest: well, it is difficult because under our system of legislation passing, it has to come before congress, which is an equal branch of government separate from the administration, separate from the executive branch. and we have seen how difficult it is for president obama to enact some legislation that he has wanted to do. if you just take the issue of -- of whether, you know, there is global warning and clean air legislation and so forth, it has been very difficult. but i give the president credit. he did pass national healthcare. he did get us out of iraq. he is working very hard on a trade bill. he has supported the education reform, the transportation bill. done, but it has to be done in a bipartisan way. house of the 435 in the
or 100 senators gets their own way. when congress salsa big problems, when the address issues, they are almost always sound in a bipartisan way -- always solved in a bipartisan way with compromise. that is the beauty of our system. to the issue of can trump get anything done, i don't think donald trump will be the nominee, and i certainly don't think that he will be elected president. but whoever is elected president will have to work with the men and women that come here from around the country elected by the people and -- and reach compromise and work in a bipartisan way. 435 of yourom the all, you would hear candidates a i am going to do x. would you all look at each other and say good luck to you? guest: i think what people would say is not only good luck, but,
no. and talk to us about it -- but come on up and talk to us about it. host: does talking to congress really make it th -- make a big difference? guest: it makes a big difference. retreatsed a couple of , and our whole notion was if you know somebody, it is much more difficult to criticize them. if you know their spouse, much more difficult. our first bipartisan retreat, we had over 200 members of the house, 150 spouses, and what hundred kids. first time a congressional kid ever met another congressional kid. when you know somebody, then you develop friendships, then you develop the opportunity to talk to one another. and that kind of report and that kind of relationship building can go a long way to really people talking to one another.
carroll's read robert book, he would invite people to the white house, he would have them over for drinks. and frankly, president reagan did the same thing. bob michael was leader then, and he would suggest if you democrats to invite down, and president reagan would do it. know, talk to one another, get to know one another, boom -- they would begin to work on issues. and that is -- that is very, very important. relationships are very important in trying to pass legislation and solve problems. host: want to ask you about two trends. maybe you don't think they are transparent automatic pilot -- they are trends. automatic pilot up in congress, lesson less significant of the president's cabinet. guest: the president's cabinet,
i think, plays an important role with certain committees. you look at the homeland security committee now and you look at the director of the fbi or how wery johnson are dealing with these terrorists, so they play an important role. if you havenk that a strong president, then obviously congress is going to look to the president. and the cabinet perhaps plays a lesser role. but some of these issues, they play a dominant role. i think duncan played a big role in this legislation that was signed yesterday on refining no child left behind. i know secretary fox played a big role in the secretary -- in the transportation bill the
president signed. i think our trade ambassador has played a big role in working with congress on the straight legislation. it depends on the issue, but i think evident members come in and out -- i think cabinet members come in and out as the issues bubble up to a certain extent. i don't know if i know enough about that to really comment. host: but you know the continuing -- with the cr -- guest: yeah. ryan wants to get back to regular order. he has come in late here on this particular budget, this particular cr, and this particular omnibus. i think next year he will tell the budget committee, give us a budget. then the appropriators hold their hearings, pass their bills paid been those bills come -- pass their bills. then those bills come to the house floor. i think that is really what paul ryan wants to do as a news bigger.
that would be quite in the compost made because that hasn't been that around here in decades. host: mike is in pennsylvania. he is a republican. caller: yes. mr. lahood, thank you for taking my call. guest: good morning. caller: good morning. i disagree with your characterization of tea party people. they do believe in government, they just believe in limited government. and i think our federal government has gone far field of what the founding fathers ever intended. my question is -- you can comment if you like -- but my question is the davis act. restrictse fact priorities and it keeps from hiring policies in our construction projects. and also, i think it keeps artificially high the price of public service construction jobs.
feel about the davis-bacon act because i think it should be repealed. guest: i supported it when i was a member of congress. i think it does really help those people who build roads and bridges earn the wages for very, very difficult work. these people are limited in the number of years they can work because of the hard work that they do. and i think davis-bacon has enabled many of these folks to earn a good living and really be able to take care of their families. the reason that i say -- you know -- i take your point about tea party being for limited government. my point is when i say they don't believe in government, they are the crowd that shut the government down. and that is my point. if you don't believe in government, then shut it down, we don't need it. what i take your point unlimited government and at think it is a good point. -- i think it is a good point.
host: i had begun my four and half years in cabinet, you're right, with four expectations. the administration did not use my experience and network of relationships to build republican support. even when they tried, which was not often, the results were makes. neither did the white house consult me -- with me on strategy for obtaining such support before taking legislation to the hill. too many times i came late to the game or the inner circle did not let anyone into the game at all. guest: i think, again, you look at what president obama was facing in 2009, several recessions, focusing a lot on the economy, and relying on just a handful of people to really give him the kind of advice to get us out of the economic mess that we were in. and my point on that was when they put the economic package
together, $48 billion is a lot dot, butthat came to then the assignment when elsewhere. so i did have that relationship with vice president biden on economic stimulus. when it was all said and done, they wished they had put $480 billion in because of all the people that went to work. we want really consulted that much -- were not really consulted that much on what the figure would be. if i had something to say, it would've been more than $48 billion. so i think, again, when you are president and you are dealing with these tough issues like the economy, like a terrible recession, like trying to the automobile industry back on its feet, like try to get out of iraq, then your time is limited and the number of people you can talk to is limited. but that is the way it was. host: why did you leave congress? guest: frankly because i felt
that i had done everything i could possibly do. i was on the intelligence committee for eight years. term limited off of that. i was on the appropriations committee because i wanted to get things done for my district. atried a little venture leadership and didn't make that. i felt that after 14 years it was time for somebody else. and we had accomplished a lot. and i like the idea of going out on top. i think it is public service jobs, you are not lifetime jobs. there is only so much you can do. and after 14 years, i felt it was time to do something else. i had no idea i was going to be secretary of transportation. i had no idea this rare privilege would have been offered to me, but it was the best job i ever had in 35 years of public service because ethically made a difference. host: bought michael, ray lahood, who represents -- bob michael, ray lahood, who
represents these days? guest: he is our oldest son. we have four grown children. in ran in a special election. he worked very hard. he had a tea party opponent. and he did very well. he got 70%. and now he has been sworn in and is representing the 18th district. and i know he will be a great congressman. and carry on the long, long tradition. our district was once represented by abraham lincoln, bob michael, ray lahood, and now darin lahood. host: in those 35 years you have been here in washington, have the parties gone this way? they used to be quite a mix in the middle. guest: yes, there was. i think the parties have gone to their own corners. the republicans have gone to the
right and the democrats have gone to the left. maybe a because it is -- partisan party maybe theies to elect more extreme people in the parties. illinois isrict in a conservative district, but illinois at think is still considered a democratic -- i think still considered a democratic state. it is a way for the parties, i think, to reflect the more extreme points of view. changing insee that the near term. host: al is in watertown, vermont on our independent line. you are on with ray lahood. caller: thank you for taking my
call. ray would think i am an extremist because our like to see the constitution and the way we have the republic set up or have two-year terms for congressman and there is a lot of turnover, what he is advocating for is an incumbent party where families send their he calls thats -- bipartisanship when you can get in a cozy little party and cut deals. really what should happen is the debate on policy should happen in public. past without all to me seeing it. i never even had a chance to call my congressperson on that. the citizens don't know the relationships when you have a cozy little parties he is talking about. in terms of shutting the government down, yeah, i think it should be shut down occasionally when you are spending more money than you are taking in. guys like ray lahood are responsible for it.
host: got your point, al. all,: well, al, first of members of the house to serve two-year terms. if you only want them to serve one two-year term, if that is what you are suggesting, that is a pretty dumb idea, frankly. i do think that if you are on social security or if you are a veteran who has served our country enters it -- and is receiving veterans benefits, i do think you think it is a good idea the government shuts down and that those people are out of those benefits. and our government provides a lot of good services to a lot of wonderful people -- and a lot of wonderful people that work in the government and serve the american people. and we need to -- we need to think long and hard about, obviously, the opportunities that our government provides to
our citizens. host: joe in phoenixville, pennsylvania. the democrats lied. caller: well, i would like mr. lahood to talk a little bit more about his ideas of bipartisanship, starting with the question: when obama assumed anice, he was confronted by opposition party that vowed to do everything they could to defeat tim. and they have never stopped to that effort. how do you expect that he would have been able to reach across the aisle and get those people to work with him in the face of such an attitude? and what did you expect them to do to overcome that -- him to do to overcome that? guest: i do think the president made some very strong effort. i think his chief of staff i know for sure made a lot of effort. and i think the press did, too. it kind of fell on deaf ears and
that was not helpful. so we are where we are. host: how is ron doing in chicago right now? guest: he is struggling, but i think the fact that he admitted there is some real issues in the police department, he fired the superintendent of police, he has asked for a committee of outstanding citizens to do an investigation, he has accepted the idea that the justice department will do an investigation, he went before the entire city council and apologize to the citizens of chicago, i think he is -- has recognized that he needs to get really haveility to the confidence of the people, the citizens of chicago that voted him in office this year. host: have you spoken to denny has to it?
-- hastert? guest: i have not. i know people have reached out to him, and i don't know of anybody except for maybe a very small group may be in the yorkville area where he lives in illinois, but i don't know anybody around here or anybody in illinois politics that has spoken to him. host: and how is your new republican governor in illinois doing? guest: yeah, bruce is doing what he said he is going to do. he said he is going to stand up to the 30th of democratic control of the illinois general 30th year of democratic control of the illinois general assembly. we have an unbalanced budget. we have huge deficits. the state does not have a budget now because the governor has said there has to be changes. we have to make reforms in our state government in order to
really -- in order to really make these changes. and so our state is in a stalemate right now, but i do think he is doing what he said he is going to do. and i think people need to give him his due for that. and i certainly do. many of us support what he is trying to do. lahoodver the years, ray has always come over here and taking calls from our viewers. we appreciate that. bipartisanship" is the name of his autobiography. the house is coming in at that :00 a.m. this morning, but coming up next, niels lesniewski of "roll call" helps us break down some of the spending issues.
democrats believe in equality. republicans want equality of rights. democrats want equality of outcomes. it is the point of view of the criminal underclass that this way of looking at american politics is complete and total nonsense. announcer: he examines america and american politics in his newest book, "stealing america." and sunday night at 7:30 p.m. eastern, former democratic presidential candidate and author lawrence lessig talks about his experience running for office and campaign finance. the central theme of his book, "republic lost." >> we are supposed to have a democracy where we as citizens are equal participants. but members of congress spend 70% of their time raising money from the wealthiest 1%.
they can't help but be more focused and concerned of the interests of that tiny 1%. so that is a system where this basic equality is denied. announcer: watch booktv all weekend every weekend on c-span 2. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now to talk about the omnibus spending bill congress is working on, we have niels lesniewski, a staff writer at "roll call." good morning. thank you for joining us. guest: good morning. host: let's start by taking a look at what paul ryan said yesterday. [video clip] >> we don't want to rush legislation, especially big legislation. this is something i have more or less inherited from the last regime, and i don't want to rush through things here. we have always had the third week of december on our, under
as a big week that we would potentially be in session. calendar as a big week that we would potentially be in session. >> what was that -- [indiscernible] >> it really wasn't a tripwire. only that i wasn't going to allow the summer 11th to be an arbitrary deadline. host: niels, talk a little bit about that deadline. deadline,l, the new once the anticipated the house does today in fact clear the next stopgap spending bill, which is a five day continuing resolution where we are running the government from day to day at a time this point, that puts the new deadline on december 16, which is wednesday in the middle of next week. that is not necessarily an easy deadline to meet the way this is shaping up because we heard thursday from rogers, the
chairman of the house appropriations committee, and others that there is a lot of work to be done still through the weekend in order to have texts of a catchall omnibus spending bill that would fund the entire government through the end of next september. that needs to be written by the beginning of next week, but rogers is not sure that can necessarily be done. host: remind viewers who is doing the negotiating of this big bill. is two separate pieces in these negotiations. there is both -- actually, three, really. there is the funding levels themselves, which is how much money is being spent on various departments and agencies. and that seems to be pretty well straightforward. the appropriations committee did much of that. there are a separate set of issues called policy riders, which are provisions that are designed to be attached. the republicans want to hamstring the obama
administration. they want to stop the obama administration from doing all sorts of things. that is the second basket. -- aspect. -- basket. and there is a third basket we don't always see, which is the expired tax provisions that need to be revived -- revised. those provisions also have lapsed, so that seems like it is getting bundled in with the same package this year. host: let's go to one of our callers, on the democratic line, from west virginia, you're on with niels lesniewski. hello? ?o we have the caller there caller -- caller: hello. host: you're on with niels lesniewski. caller: good morning. i want to ask you all a
question. you are appeared talking about what we are going to do now with the appropriations. why doesn't all the media condemn the people in the senate and the house for waiting till the last minute just so they can get all of these writers -- riders in here to make the president signed what he doesn't want to sign? you know, this happens every time. why don't all the media get together and condemned the house and the senate for doing this trick? why do they have to wait until the last minute? you all should be speaking out about this instead of praising what they are going to do now. host: let's give niels the chance to answer. guest: this situation -- i will take the caller's comments and say that one of the issues this year that led to this particular standoff -- this particular standoff was in some was generated by the democrats
wanting a bigger budget agreement on numbers for how much would be spent. we started the cycle with a disagreement over the spending levels themselves. and so the democrats, in fact, in the senate united to preclude the majority from advancing appropriations bills, which is something that is the prerogative of the democrats. they said to me have enough votes to do that. once that happened, however, and once there needed to be a big negotiation on budget numbers in the fall, that led to the obvious situation where we were going to have one of these omnibus spending bills come december. so this go around, certainly if there is blame for the process not working, but blame goes in every direction. it is not either party necessarily that gets all the blame. host: niels, talk a little bit about what the sticking points might be. guest: sure. one of the things that we think
-- and these are all behind-the-scenes negotiations, so are reporting indicates that there are any number of sticking points, but a couple that viewers might be most interested in, have the environmental protection agency under the obama administration has issued also to regulations. some related to him and waterways. -- related to insulin waterways. there is also the clean power plan. these are things the republicans had wanted to block from being implemented. so there is clearly fights that have been going on about that. one of the big fights that has emerged in recent weeks -- or at least become more public and weeks weeks -- in recent was campaign finance reform. desperately,ll really, i would say, wants to
change the way the campaign finance laws are structured so that party committees and campaign committees like the national republican senatorial committee and the democratic senator a campaign committee gets more coordination rights in terms of how they can deal with candidates and empower the committee's versus outside money -- the committees versus outside money. the third one that i will throw in because it became a firestorm a couple of days ago is there are some questions about what they are going to do regarding abortion and access to reproductive services and reproductive health coverage. this is not the same as the planned parenthood debate we saw a few weeks ago, but it is related to that. host: let's go to our next caller. on our republican line, we have peter from valley college, new york. peter, are you with us? caller: i have a question. guest: go ahead. caller: ok, you hear me?
host: yes, we hear you. caller: mitch mcconnell just used budget reconciliation to defund the affordable care act. and when you use that, you only need a simple majority of 51 get that-- to legislation to the president's desk. i was curious why mitch mcconnell did not use budget reconciliation to pass his defunding bill of the sanctuary becausen california apparently the legislation could pass because they couldn't get 60 votes. why heyou explain his -- didn't use it for for that, and if he could have? thank you. get one bite as a practical matter is one reconciliation process a year.
the procedures are derived from the budget, so in order to use this procedure that allows you the simple majority vote, you can really do it once. it has long been established by senate republicans, and i suppose house republicans as well, that they were going to use it to sort of a band the all theacare -- sort of upend obamacare. but regarding the sanctuary cities questions and other questions come in the senate there are a whole different set of rules that govern when you can or cannot use reconciliation, and for which you can use it for. and the purposes have to be primarily budgetary in nature. it is possible, i suppose, that there would have been a way to craft a reconciliation bill that would've addressed sanctuary cities, but that seems like a fairly narrow use for it to be able to have the desire to budget. host: what about the syrian
refugee program, are we going to see something about that attach to this bill? guest: i have been hearing that the republicans, particularly a group of house republicans, would very much like to attach the syrian refugee issue to the omnibus spending bill, but it is one that just a couple of days ago senator richard durbin, the number two democrat in the senate, was making very clear to reporters that was what democrats would sort of pushed up against in particular. there may be some room for more flexibility when it comes to the visa waiver question. a separate issue, although somewhat related because we are talking about people from other countries into the united states. and countries that don't require visas to come into the united states. there seems to be bipartisan concern about that program, and there might be an attempt to
clamp down on that. next let's go to our caller on the democratic line. go ahead, peyton. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: yeah, i have never heard anyone discuss our national debt as it relates to our national assets. relate toat might similar comparisons. for example, ibm or apple -- you know -- the equity ratios, etc. one of when it comes -- the advantages, i would say, quickly, is that the u.s. federal government has, when it comes to earning ratios or whatever it may be as opposed to a private company, is, of course, that a private company
cannot print money. there is no such thing as an apple currency. they may want one, i don't know. pay,ng -- there is apple but there is no actual apple currency. certainly, there is no real good apples to apples comparison to a company and the federal government in terms of its bookkeeping. host: our next caller on the independent line is jennifer from north port, florida. jennifer, you're on with niels lesniewski. caller: good morning i am just curious if you have any information about the extension. how is that looking? host: talk a little bit about what that is. guest: excellent question. roga act provides funding for long-term health care needs and/11 first responders,
people who on september 11 and in the aftermath with the cleanup of the site of the world trade center were affected negatively with all sorts of terrible health consequences of the fumes and particles and everything that was going on there in lower manhattan. what we are hearing -- some of you probably may know -- jon stewart has been coming on and off the hill to talk about that quite frequently. what we are hearing right now is that -- i found out again yesterday that the speaker's office told me that he has assured members and he is afraid people that this is going to get done -- he is assuring people that this is going to get done. they were not saying through which vehicle it was going to be an, so whether or not it is in the omnibus spending bill or
whether it hitches a ride somewhere else before the money runs out. speaker ryan says it is definitely going to get done. and when i think -- i was talking about a week ago to pete king, a congressman republican from long island, and he was saying that he has been sort of on speaker ryan's case about this just about every day, and that -- you know -- when you are in the new york metro area, it is a really serious issue. and it looks like that is going to be something that is going to get done. host: we are talking with niels lesniewski.cif you like to join us , (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. our next caller is on the independent line. james from montgomery, west virginia. caller: yes, i would like to in westorruption
virginia court system. i may or may not have a case coming up, but -- host: james, do you have a question about the omnibus spending bill checkup -- bill? caller: yeah, about reducing money. they gave west virginia money to do testing without going through congress about it. id i send him a list of stuff wanted him to look into about this case, and he got on there sometime in the first term and got up there -- he was in the yellow room, i guess they call it -- and made a smart remark. host: james, i'm sorry, i don't mean to interrupt. we are talking about the omnibus bill now. unless it is a question directly for that, i'm not sure our guest can address the west virginia
issue. let's move on. what is the next step for congress now in pushing this bill forward? guest: once we get past today, where the house is going to gavilan at 9:00 this morning -- gavel in at 9:00 this morning, and then we will see them advance the stopgap measure, what is going to happen when the bill itself, the bigger bill, the omnibus, is a substantial piece of legislation that will run somewhere north of 1000 pages probably. and what you will see happen, if you are a c-span viewer, is that there will be an announcement that will be made at some point, probably on monday if not sooner, maybe later, of what the agreement actually is. and then in theory, there is supposed to be about 72 hours before the house can vote on that.
so that would set the vote back until wednesday. but one notices the december 16, the date the funding expires, happens to be wednesday. so all of this is getting pushed every minute we go. we are pushing back further. on the other thing viewers should know is that someone who focuses specifically on the senate, i can tell you we are already at the point where any senator considers the disrupt. because the way the house rules committee instructed, they don't have the power to do that. any senator can seriously interrupt the timeline, particularly if the bill does not arrive in the senate until tuesday, wednesday. there may need to be another stopgap bill to prevent it from being shut down on, say, thursday or friday of next week. host: on our democratic line, we have george from ohio.
caller: yes, i am. host: go ahead. caller: i have a question. if donald trump gets to be nominee, howard that affect the senate? -- how would that affect the senate? guest: there is certainly concerned among republicans that -- and sort of republican operatives as well as, i think, lawmakers themselves -- that if esther trump or someone like him -- if mr. trump or someone like him is the nominee for president, then it makes it much more difficult for the republican party to hold control of the senate in the 2016 election. if you look at the electoral map that is facing the republicans for the senate in 2016, the places where the have incumbent republican senators running --
looking at places like wisconsin, illinois, new hampshire, ohio and pennsylvania -- these are places that often skew more moderate to liberal when it is a presidential year. and so those are vulnerable senators to begin with. the fear is that if you have someone like donald trump , that you the ticket end up with a down ballot problem with more people coming out to vote for -- for the sake of this argument -- hillary clinton with the democratic nominee. if you had a hillary clinton versus donald trump general election contest, there is real fear among republicans about how the senate map with turnout. ok.: up next on our independent line from massachusetts, we have ken
on the line with niels lesniewski from "roll call." caller: well, i can understand why the republicans are cutting back on all the money when they want to increase the defense budget. it doesn't make sense. they are saying we are broke yet they want to start world war iii and spend money on defense. i have a defense agency right next door to us. it is all wrapped up and ready to go for the republican party as soon as they get in. they can start making weapons of mass distractions. the same thing where going to war with. i cannot understand why this country is so divided. united we stand, divided we fall. i'm seeing it fall right in front of my eyes. it is said. this is not the america i was born in. i was able to get a job the same -- i was able to get a job. the same day, i quit. now, good luck.
i'm sad to say all this stuff to people, but we've got to get -- just focus on a certain group of people. the mexicans, the kkk, it is all bad. host: let's give niels a chance to respond. guest: thank you, ken. how much is of going to be spent on defense spending versus nondefense discretionary spending is always, of course, up for debate. where at a moment to now the particular spending bill that is hopefully going to do next week. that question was resolved in the previous budget negotiation. it reached a two-year agreement on the top line spending levels that allow them to develop what they call the budgetary allocations so that they can go
forward with writing actual spending bills. now where at a point there is going to be a debate over how much of the money goes to the pentagon versus how much of it goes to the department of health and human services or any other agency. that question was resolved. but they are still working through this question of riders. we shouldn't have another debate about military spending levels at least for about another year and a half. host: on our democratic line, we have kate from maryland. kate, you are on. caller: yes, the guest there just said that term limits are done. hear himidn't correctly, but i don't understand that. if the guys on the hill had the exact same term requirements as the presidency, after their two terms they are out of their and
we are able to get some fresh ideas, some fresh perspectives up there on the hill where people have the opportunity not to decide on the same pool of -- host: i don't mean to interrupt you. i think you are referring to our last guest. right now, we are talking about the omnibus bills. do you have a question about the omnibus? caller: oh, no. i apologize. that really resonated. host: that's fine. guest: i assume the caller was talking about secretary lahood, who was on here earlier. i would say the term of a question, when it comes up and it does come up from time to time, generates sort of a degree of controversy. generally the sentiment of and therelawmakers -- are longtime lawmakers of the a not going to like term limits -- but longtime lawmakers argue
that when it comes to thing like a spending bill, you need to have people who are experienced enough in knowing how the government actually operate on capitol hill -- operates on capitol hill and over to oversee capitol hill and over to oversee host: niels lesniewski from calls" thanks for joining .s today we will go to house coverage from c-span. ieve to be right and true and just and to do so in ways that show respect for those with whom they disagree. send your spirit of peace upon our nation. endow the members of this house and all our governmental leaders with the wisdom to respond with whatever policies and laws might be needed to
ensure greater peace and security in our land. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval. journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.
the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross. mr. norcross: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. on saturday, november 28, residents in yadkin county gathered for the annual small town christmas celebration at the east bend fire station. although east bend is a small community, its citizens know how to start the holiday season off right. the firefighters and lady auxiliary group worked hard to
get the station ready in their efforts for-r were appreciated by everyone who attended. the event began with a devotional and lighting of the christmas tree. while the chicken stew and pinto beans that followed were delicious, the focus on faith was the real draw. its easy to get distracted during the days and weeks leading up to christmas. so it was uplifting to see the community of east bend once again take time to reflect on this season of grace and let the lord's infinite joy fill their hearts. it was a pleasure to be a part of their celebration. and i commend them for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon seek recognition? does the gentleman from oregon seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: yes. mr. speaker, this sunday friends, family, admirers of kate mccarthy will gather in
the shadow of mount hood that she love they'll share stories of young kate as a young free spirited woman educated at portland's reed college working on mount hood's historic timber line lodge the day it opened in 1937 with president roosevelt. her family will regale with tar heels of challenges of managing four interesting children, shall we say. the central narrative will be her knowledge, stewardship, and love of special places like the columbia liver gorning, or add vow a cancy for leadership in sound land use. she challenged me to focus on the entire responsibility for protecting that mountain, leading not just to 120,000 acres of wilderness, but enacting a comprehensive vision for its protection. she was a passionate, committed visionary whose influence will be felt and seen for generations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to
address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. secretary kerry has been pressuring the israeli government to relent in its opposition to u.s. funding for unesco. it's a shame secretary kerry isn't using the full weight of his office to hold abu mazen and the corrupt palestinian authority accountable for their incitement to violence and their continued efforts to delegitimatize and isolate the jewish state at the u.n. while pursuing unilateral state recognition. but with all due respect to the israeli government's new-found position, which undoubtedly was achieved under duress, this is a matter of u.s. law and congress' clear desire to force fundamental reforms at the broken u.n. system. our laws are clear. no taxpayer dollars can be used to fund any agency at the u.n. that admits a nonexistent state
of palestine. unesco did so, therefore no u.s. dollars. i urge congress not to relent, to stand with me, and defend our jurisdiction and continue to uphold both the letter and the spirit of the law. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from nnlnnl is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. these are very anxious times here in america. with good reason. we have an urgent national security issue at hand that allows somebody who is on the terrorist list to legally purchase firearms. mr. norcross: how can somebody who pledges allegiance to isis be allowed to purchase a gun here in america? we would never give a set of keys to somebody who is drunk
to get behind the wheel. how is it that we allow a licensed -- license to go and purchase a firearm. we allow them to go and purchase a firearm in this country who are on the terrorist list. would the same fight be taking place if they wanted to get on an airliner saying hey, let's let him or she on. they are on the terrorist list. i want them to fly with me. that's the insanity we are dealing with. over the course of the next few weeks, we have the ability to make a commonsense, simple approach to reducing the chance of terrorism here in america. that's to keep those who are on the terrorist list from purchasing a firearm. let's come together, bipartisan, and pass this approach. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, in may, 2014, the president
shocked the world by announcing that he had negotiated with terrorists to secure the disgrace sergeant bergdahl's release from the taliban. yesterday the house armed services committee, led by chairman thornberry, issued an in-depth report dealing with the president's secret negotiations. the report verified that the transfer violated several laws. the american public was misled about the efforts to arrange the terrorist pardon before it took place. senior officials within the department of defense that were best equipped to evaluate the national security risk with the specific transfer, were excluded from the process. the president failed to take significant precautions to eliminate the risk posed by the taliban five, putting all american families as targets of more murderous attacks. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget
september 11 and the global war on terrorism. we should all appreciate the six american heroes from the fourth brigade combat team airborne, 25th infantry division killed in action while searching for bergdahl to leave no one behind. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. r. crowley: mr. speaker, the the 9/11 victims health in compensation act is up for renewal. surprise to everyone. passed five years ago with a five-year limit to be re-enacted in this congress. what has happened? absolutely nothing. we keep waiting. we were told that the 9/11 victims compensation bill would be on the transportation bill. it was mistearously withdrawn at the last moment. we don't know when this bill will pass.
what has happened to this place? what has happened to the spirit of bipartisanship to get this bill passed? how can we -- how can you on the republican side go so low as to use this bill as grease to pass other legislation? that's what's being done right now. the 9/11 victims act is being used as grease to pass other bills. it's outrageous. it's disrespectful to the men and women who gave all to serve this country. people who have stage four cancer today and are dying. it gives them no more so lace -- solace to know their country is not standing by them. we continue to say never forget. yet we continue to forget in this christmastime, holiday season, those who are suffering. give them peace of heart and mind and pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is
recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to the life of mag who fought a hard battle against mesothelioma. i met meg in my office which came to share the story of her to er who lost her life mesothelioma. meg shared how it tragically impacted her family. claiming the lives of mary joe and father and leave meg and her sister with undiagnoses. i vividly remember meg's frustration about lack awareness of mesothelioma. she was a tremendous advocate for finding a cure for this disease. she was instrumental in the introduction of legislation named in her sister's honor which would create the nation's first mesothelioma patient registry. i'll continue to champion this legislation in congress now in memory of both mary joe and meg. meg lived with hope and grace and she left this world with
grace. they are in our prayers. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman ask for unanimous consent? did the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. polis: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. r. polis: sandy hook, colorado springs, san bernardino. how many mass shootings or terrorist attacks will it take for congress to act to reduce gun violence? we are not talking about infringing our important second amendment rights. no gun registries or privacy valuations. we are talking about commonsense reforms to make it harder for terrorists and criminals to get the weapons that allow them to kill people. universal background checks. closing the gun show loophole. making sure that people on the terrorist watch list can quietly assemble arsenals -- can't quietly assemble arsenals to do the american people harm. no congressional action can end
gun violence but we can reduce t we can save lives, prevent mass shootings, prevent terrorist from assembling the weapons they need to kill innocent americans. enough is enough. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. well, they are at it again. earlier we saw the administration work to deny veterans because they may be on an arbitrary list for having sought financial help services, be threatened as incompetition to exercise gun ownership rights. now with the left seeking any excuse to deny second amendment rights to americans, there is much effort under way to use a no-fly list or select elist to not only deny travel and flight rights to american citizens with little or no due process for removal from that list, but extend denial of gun ownership rights as well. the no-fly list can be a good tool for protecting against terrorist strikes, but needs
revision for due process for those wrongly listed to have an open chance to face their accusation. as it is now, first, fourth, and fifth, let alonet second amendment, are in change danger of being denied for those citizens that are falsely listed. because their name sounds like the name of someone actually who bears being watched or in the hands of an aggressive gun control administration, the use of i.r.s.-type tactics against people the powers that be don't like. such lists are dangerous to basic liberty. first fix the process for how the no-fly list tool is used d revised before adding more restrictions, one that would not have even captured the san bernardino shooters. this list being added to the democrat gun control christmas or holiday period list. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 80, house resolution
560. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill h.r. 644, to re-authorize trade facilitation and trade enforcement functions and activities, and for other purposes. . all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. the conference report shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate, and, two, one motion to recommit if applicable. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 2250, making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes, with the senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the house, without intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee that the house concur
in the senate amendments. the senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. mr. cole: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: during consideration of this resolution, mr. speaker, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cole: mr. speaker,
yesterday the rules committee met and reported a rule for the conference report to accompany h.r. 644, the trade facilitation and trade enforcement act of 2015 and the senate amendments to h.r. 2250, a continuing resolution which runs through december 16 of 2015. the resolution provides a standard conference report rule for consideration of h.r. 644 with one hour of debate divided pursuant to clause 8-d of rule 22. in addition, the rule makes in order a motion from the chair of the committee on appropriations to concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 2250, with 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member on the motion. in addition, the rule provides for one motion to recommit. mr. speaker, first, this resolution allows for consideration of the conference report on the customs bill. i think it's important to put the work of this house in perspective. as speaker ryan noted yesterday in the entirety of the last congress, only three conference
reports became law. however, with the passage of this conference report, this congress will have passed three conference reports in 10 days. i am pleased that speaker ryan's commitment to regular order is already bearing fruit. this conference report is a good product. one provision, especially important to me, is the establishment of new tools for the customs and border protection, the c.b.p., to effectively act against the evasion of anti-dumping and countervailing duties. i was first introduced to this issue in 2009 when chinese dumped literally tens of thousands of tires in the u.s. market, leading to devastating job losses at tire factories across america. i helped to lead the charge at that time to ensure the department of commerce would impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties. the enforce act language included in the conference report provides a mechanism and incentive for the c.b.p. to properly investigate and apply
appropriate duties to ensure that u.s. companies can compete on a level playing field. in addition, i'm encouraged that conference report includes language which permanently bans states and localities from imposing a tax on internet access. initially acted in 1998, this prohibition has enabled greater access to interset services and information. it's estimated that if congress fails to continue the ban on taxes on internet access, consumers could end up paying more than $16.4 billion annually. this moratorium has been in law since 1998 on a temporary basis. i'm pleased this conference report shows our intention to make it permanent. in addition to the customs measure, this legislation contains a five-day continuing resolution to allow the appropriations committee to continue its work towards an omnibus appropriations measure. it's a simple, straightforward -- it's simple, straightforward and extends funding for all
government agencies through december 16 of 2015 at current funding levels. i urge all members to support this short-term c.r., which allows the appropriations committee the time to conclude negotiations on a full year funding measure with the senate counterparts and the white house. i'm encouraged by the hard work of chairman rogers and ranking member lowey whose leadership cannot be overstated. one of the preeminent responsibilities we are tasked with as members of congress is to ensure that government continues to function. while the c.r. is not the ideal vehicle, the alternative, a government shutdown, is not what we've been sent to washington to accomplish. i urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition. i might add reluctant opposition to the rule on two important bills that really shouldn't be controversial. the senate amendment to h.r. 2250, that's a short-term concurrent resolution, shouldn't be necessary. this body should have acted, but given that the body has not passed through regular order an appropriations process to keep government open, that bill's necessary. and the trade facilitation and trade enforcement act of 2014. h.r. 644, which is often called the customs bill, is a bill that needs to pass in some form. i want to see it passed. i voted for it to go to conference. it has a lot of provisions that are extremely important to many members, to our economy, to even americans traveling casually overseas. it allows -- it increases finally the amount of items they can buy as gifts for their friends and bring back without having to pay duties. but looking at the version that
we are considering today under this rule, which does not allow amendments, i think the body would be better taking individual votes on some of the provisions. there's a lot of good in this bill, but there's also a blatant attack on climate science, on environmental protection and really items that serve no purpose in a bill written to facilitate trade. they even put a separate item, preventing internet sales tax, which i support the bill separately, and somehow this wound up in the customs bill. a totally unrelated measure from a different committee that wound up in this bill at the last minute. wasn't in the house or senate version before. i think we need to give members a chance to be on the record to approve or not approve these items individually and i think that would be the open process that speaker has committed to. the second item under this rule, the senate amendment to h.r. 2250, our short-term continuing resolution, is
straightforward and is necessary as we near the shutdown of government, which would otherwise occur december 11. today would be the last day we would fund government so of course we have to act. the objection is why does congress wait until the 11th hour to pass these kinds of bills? it doesn't make any sense. you don't wait until the day before government shuts down to say, ok, we give ourselves a five-day reprieve. will we complete the omnibus in the five days? i don't know. will we be back here next wednesday doing a three-day or five-day c.r.? i -- there's no particular reason we're doing this. nothing new -- no new information about how to better construct funding bills comes to us next week or the week after than we had last week or two weeks ago. i don't understand why we didn't do these bills last month. passed the other bills, the
hardest things about figuring out the appropriations bills and spending is what levels are you going to spend. we agreed on that. house, senate, president agreed. why didn't we do that within a week of that and be done with it? it makes no sense. so this bill would make december 16 the new deadline to finish congress' appropriations work and keep government open. i do think members and the public are anxious for us to complete our work. it's also critical we get a good product. now, the majority has -- the republicans have previously shown this country their willingness to go in a shutdown, so i hope we take this new five-day period to avoid in shutdown permanently rather than do it three days again and again and again. hy aren't we sending a bill on appropriations to the president today? from my point of view, it seems like it's nothing more than partisan politics. i think the votes are here. has been here.
we were here a month ago, a week ago for a commonsense bill that meets the budgets that we've already agreed on, that doesn't have completely unrelated christmas tree policy riders that were put together in smoke-filled rooms rather process the new speaker committed to and it's up to this body to put together an appropriations bill that passes overwhelmingly which i think can absolutely be done. nearly every single member of the democratic caucus has said no of the controversial riders. the pick and rollses bills are not place for them. you don't -- the policy bills are not a place for them. if you don't ban the e.p.a. from keeping our air clean, we're going to shut down government, those are -- you can have those debates. you can have those discussions. but it's not appropriate to do that with the threat of shutting down government. didn't the republicans recently sign some sort of pledge to
have no extraneous or legislation or must-pass bills? what about taking on the president's attempt to protect clean air standards? if republicans want it, debate it, pass it. you want to defund planned parenthood, debate it, pass it, but not in a last-minute closed package with a threat of keeping government -- the threat of closing government. compromise is what we did on the highway bill to pass long-term authorization. it worked great. didn't have what every single member wanted and we had to make tough compromises but we could live with it. passed overwhelmingly. compromise is what we did yesterday when i saw the students succeeds act, passed overwhelmingly in its final form in the house and the senate. now, compromise is not seeing how many partisan stocking stuffers you can jam into a must-pass bill before we head home for the holidays. moving to the customs enforcement bill, h.r. 644 is for the most part a very
positive bill. the customs bill is about giving the administration the tools they need to make sure we're fighting the fair fight when it comes to trade, to update and eliminate unintended consequences of other trade laws. i heard ranking member levin testify in the rules committee yesterday that the key of enforcement on trade issues was the willingness of the administration to act. and the final step of enforcing our existing and future trade agreements will always fall to the executive branch, but they can't fight those fights with the right tools in the toolbox and that's what the customs bill does and this bill has a lot of high-quality elements that we'll likely send to the administration before the holidays. it has the full enforce act, which would require immediate action to investigate and address trade cheats and stop measures to stop those who continue to circumvent the policies imposed upon them. and the trade enforcement center which helps agencies find trade cheats and -- put
americans out of work. and it establishes the trade enforcement fund which would provide critical and dedicated resources to enforce our trade agreements and help with capacity building, an important issue which would help our current and future trading partners to comblment environmental standards that we push -- implement environmental standards that we push. trying labor, we are to end this abominable practice on a global scale. it also includes bipartisan language which gives the executive branch new tools in evaluating and consulting with partner countries who may be manipulating their currency. if we want to be serious, the enforcement provisions in this bill is a step forward. we may need to push the executive if we feel they're not using these tools, but having these tools is a critical step. it gives a leg up to american small business. the bill makes commerce at the border more efficient. it modernizes the operation of
the customs and border patrol and something i fought for for many yearses, it raises the minimum threshold from $200 to $800, which is important to all americans who travel overseas. being able to have smaller items cross our border duty-free is a major win for small businesses and consumers, especially in the ecommerce base, on the commercial side but also for casual tourists who travel overseas. what that means is when you're re-entering this country, if you fill out one of those forms, if you come back from mexico or canada or europe, the minimum threshold was $200 and you were technically responsible for a duty above that. it raises it to $800. so you can truly bring back friends -- gifts for your friends and family. this is important for individuals. it's important for businesses. the bill makes important technical corrections that are important to companies in my district, like adjusting tariff lines for outdoor and footware. and i'm excited to say as
co-chair of the napal caucus, it includes the napal trade preference act, a very important benefit that for napal's re-- nepal's recovering economy. nepal suffered a devastating earthquake on april 25, 2015. over 9,000 people were killed. 23,000 were injured. the earthquake triggered a series of avalanches on mount everest where 29 people, including one of my constituents, which was the deadliest day. and despite the trying circumstances, nepal has remained resilient. on september 20, i'm proud to elected mocratically assembly passed a constitution, a remarkable chapter to a country that was marred in civil strive. and i'm proud to include the
nepal trade preference act, and the bill pa fill states capacity -- facile states capacity building. i'm grateful for the hard work of my friend from florida, mr. crenshaw, and the effort that's been taking place in the senate under the leadership of senator feinstein. nepal is a very important and strategic ally between global powers, india and china, and cooperation with america to help build capacity and build the nepali economy. in addition to being an economic benefit to the american people. . i'm heartened to see this act which attempts to do that is included in the cuss tops bill. now, with all these great things, why would anybody oppose this bill? unfortunately, like anything, it's not that easy. and i join my democratic colleagues in voting against the customs bill when it was on the house floor last summer.
despite knowing that it needed to be -- to get done, i was simply unable to vote for a bill that contained extraneous unnecessary attacks on climate science and environmental protection and immigrants. these are some of the things that needed to be taken out in the conference committee. they should have been taken out in the conference committee. if they were, i would be proudly, 100%, supporting this bill. if i could in an open process, i would be amending the bill today to take them out. so that this bill could enjoy broad democratic support. the only positive thing i can say is that emerging from conference this bill is less bad than it was. included in the underlying report is a renegotiated provision on greenhouse gas emissions and the role in international trade agreements that certainly is not as bad as the version that originally passed the house. and many argue would not have any significant legally constraining role on agreements negotiated by the chief exec tifment the house negotiating objective that would have
prohibited ustr from pursuing trade agreements that obligate united states law or regulation towards global warming and climate change was stripped. it was relaced with an equally nontopical but somewhat convoluted provision. we use new language to bar trade agreements from including agreements from altering u.s. law regulations surrounding greenhouse gas emissions. international trade policy will not the stage which the united states establishes and implements strong and thoughtful climate change policy. that's what congress is for, that's what states are for, that's what our local governments are for. that must be done. i think we all agree that won't be done through trade agreements. in that sense, the language was only added to speak to a deeply held fear by my republican party colleagues to even acknowledge the climate change exists. to my colleagues on the other side, i say this is simply not the place for that kind of ideological statement. further, the language contradicts itself by explicitly allowing ustr to
seek provisions, including those related to global warming and climate change if doing so would fulfill another negotiating objective. so we bar negotiators from discussing the environmental policy objectives and then flip, allowing them to do so if it meets another objective. so not only is this language unnecessary, it's a messy convoluted, contradictory type of compromise that nobody really even knows what it would mean. and is really rife for lawyers on both sides to be debating it for years or decades. the entire world is in paris right now talking about specifics on fighting climate change. here we are today with the only political party in the developed world that still questions the existence of climate change in their very platform, attaching this ridiculous provision to an unrelated customs bill. embarrassing our own negotiators while they are in paris. we get t you don't agree with the rest of the world on this. you don't agree with scientist on this. you don't agree with the majority of americans on this. we get that. next year, feel free to pass a
resolution that says we don't believe in climate change if that's what you want to do. put it on your letter head. don't put it into an unrelated custom bill that's important for our economy and the american people. stop trying to muddle good bipartisan bills with this sort of divisive, unscientific language that, frankly, not only threatens the environment but also embarrasses our contry. these kinds of provisions have no place in bills like the customs bill and should have been taken out in the process. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i appreciate that, mr. speaker. first, i want to begin by agreeing with my friend on the other side on a number of areas. i, too, have concerns about the process by which we operate. and would have preferred a number of these items to come, as my friend suggests, separately. but the reality is we are late in the year. late in the session. we have got significant work to
do. and this, i think, is the best way to proceed. it's worth noting that the conference report itself is a compromise. the democrats and republicans were involved in putting that together, and indeed this entire bill has considerable democratic support as we work toward a larger compromise on the omnibus itself. it's also worth noting why we ended up in this situation. frankly, the appropriations committee in this house accomplished its work, all of its work, for the first time in a long time early this year. all 12 legislative bills passed through the appropriations committee. six of them across this floor. so to suggest that anything has been done in the park or backroom, frankly, ignores that fact. what happened was the united states senate chose not to allow any appropriations bills to come to the floor. they didn't do that as a body. my friends on the other side of
the aisle in the senate, the democrats, chose not to allow any bills to come to the floor. now, to be fair to them, they so completed every appropriations bill through the full committee. that's the first time that's happened in many, many years in the united states senate. but our friends, until we got this larger agreement, the budget agreement, which i was happy to vote for. i know my friend on the other side also voted for, until we reach that point, the appropriations process in the other body didn't happen. some point that affects what's going on over here. they are not moving bills. we stop moving bills because it's a waste of time to do that. so if you've got complaints, you should talk to your colleagues in the other body on your side of the aisle and tell them hopefully next year they won't try to keep bills from moving to the floor in a normal way. but again i'm proud that this body moved all 12 bills through the appropriations committee. i also want to make a couple of other points in terms of where
we are now in trying to reach an omnibus. this puts me a little bit at odds with my friend. i don't think that is a closed process. frankly, it's a pretty normal process. there are representatives involved in these negotiations, both democratic and republican, and from the administration, they are working very hard in good faith to try and do something that's extremely difficult. writing a $1.1 trillion omnibus bill takes a lot of time. and there's multiple items to be negotiated. i think both sides is negotiating in good faith in this legislative body and i think the administration is participating in good faith. my friend and i will also disagree that riders on appropriations bills, as they are called, is somehow unusual. when they were in the majority, they certainly had lots of riders on appropriations bills. this is not an unusual thing. there's obviously give and take on these things, but congress exercising the power of the purse is a perfectly
appropriate constitutional tool to use n this case, where we end up will indeed be a compromise. the omnibus bill cannot pass either chamber and certainly has to be signed by the president of the united states. so, republican congress, our friends, with the appropriate tools and votes that they have, the president of the united states who has the ultimate veto pen, all of these parties will have to be placated. again, that negotiation is long and complex. we are making good progress. all parties are represented there. and eventually a bill will be presented to this body, hopefully in the next few days, i share my friend's concern. i would prefer not to be here, but if we have to be here next week, and have two or three more days for the process to work out, so be it. the lessons i think we ought to draw from this and that we have a chance to implement next year are that let's do a normal appropriations process. we already have an agreement now for next year's spending
numbers. that's a step in the right direction. and actually says a lot of good things about both parties and all concerned that they were able to come to this larger agreement earlier this year. so we have no excuse in my view not to move all 12 bills across the floor under regular order. under open rule so every member can come down here and participate. i know that that is certainly the goal of chairman rogers, the chairman of the appropriations committee. i know that's the goal of his ranking member, the distinguished lady from new york, mrs. lowey. so i think the hard work this year has set us ep both for a fruitful compromise here in the waning days of the calendar year and the legislative session, and actually laid the foundation for something we have not seen around here in a long time, regular order next year. in the course of that regular order, all of us will be forced to compromise. we still live in a divided government. republican congress, a democratic president.
we still operate in a system of checks and balances that our constitutional forebearers set up over 240 years -- 30 years ago. that system has served us pretty well over the course of our history. i think it will continue to. it will continue to demand compromise. we have seen a little bit more of that lately. i know my friend, his concerns, some of which i share, but i'm pretty proud of a congress that has, number one, produced the first unitary budget since 2001. where the senate and house agree. that for the first time since 2006 has moved all appropriations bills through the appropriations committee of both chambers. that actually in recent days and weeks passed landmark legislation, as my friend referred to, the re-authorization of the education act where i know he played a role in that. and certainly the highway bill that was recently passed.
this conference report, which i know my friend has some concerns with, but in fairness, speaks well of him, pointed out a lot of things that he liked in this conference report. if we sit here and wait to pass things where we all get 100% of what we want, nothing will ever pass-through the united states congress. certainly in a bill this large when we reach the omnibus, that's going to call for many compromises, this bill before us has called for many compromises. but people have found a way to work in good faith. my friend is perfectly in order to oppose the rule. pretty normal position for each side to take. minority and majority. i never have any problem with that. i think we'll pass the rule. i would hope he looks at the entire bill, the funding of the government, the customs act where he has some concerns, but also had many things to point to that he thought were appropriate and good. the internet tax prevention that we now make permanent
where i know my friend has worked very hard for many years to do that. and, yes, there will be some things in this bill that he doesn't like. there are some things in this bill i don't like. but i think if you look at the merits of it, the permanent end of taxes on the internet, the customs legislation, my friend very ably pointed out has many good provisions, finally the emention operation of government for the next -- emention operation of government the next few days. the negotiation for both my friend's party, my party, and the administration can arrive at a deal. i think there is a lot of merit in the underlying legislation. i would just ask that we be realistic. again, my friend is perfectly within his rights, perfectly within his rights to oppose both these measures, the rule and final bill. and i certainly understand his concern about the rule, where the role's reversed, my concerns would probably be similar. i hope he looks to the underlying legislation with that vote comes and says, you know, there's a lot of good
things here. there's a lot of give and take by both sides. there is real compromise. we have done a lot of that. in the last few weeks under speaker ryan. i think we have the opportunity to do more next year. so let's pass the rule, pass the underlying legislation, get to finishing our business in the next few days, hopefully, give the american people what they deserve, some peace, quiet, certainty in the christmas season. then come back here next year with an opportunity to build on this and do some tremendous things in a bipartisan way. that's what i intend to work for. i know that's what my friend will be working for. so with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like yield five minutes to the gentleman from oregon, a senior member of the ways and means committee, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman's
curtcy. -- courtesy. i'm here to speak in support of the customs bill that we will be facing later today. it represents significant progress over the version last summer that i opposed, and part of this progress is due to strong bipartisan support from the senate and bipartisan give and take with some of my colleagues on the ways and means committee. i appreciate having worked with then chair ryan and chairman brady to see some of these elements move forward. . i think it's important to recognize that the bill before us is substantially better. i know there are concerns by some of my friends about currency manipulation, which i share, and we've been pushing for stronger provisions. in the customs bill, we have
elements that represent the give and take of the legislative process, working with the administration and the provisions, while no one would suggest they're perfect, are substantially better than the situation we have right now. we have better off with the currency provisions in the customs bill. it contains many provisions that i fought for that are important to my constituents. businesses in the pacific northwest dealing with unfair and outmoded tariff provisions, ealing with performance outerw wear. it's important to the businesses we represent and constituents we represent that value that equipment, the shoes, the performance outerwear, making to more affordable. but beyond the elements of customs e that the
system works for more appropriately, there are important things all of us can point to and be enthusiastic about. mentioned s have the end of importation of products that are made by child nd forced labor. strong provisions here that keeps it out of the stream of commerce. my friend from oklahoma referenced the enforce act, and there have been problems, tires, solar panels up in my people cheat had and do so with impunity and incorporating the provisions of the enforce act gives us the tools to go after the cheaters, make them pay and protect american companies and their employees. it permanently establishes the interagency trade enforcement center to centralize and
enforce trade enforcement. this is an area that i have been working on throughout this process in the ways and means committee. i introduced the stronger act with my friend and former -- and fellow northwesterner, senator maria cantwell from washington, to deal with ways to better enforce our agreements. today, trade agreements are complex. trade enforcement take a long period of time. they're expensive, and frankly, we're not equipped as well as we should to do the job of protecting americans by enforcing these agreements. this legislation includes the trust fund for enforcement and provides for up to $30 million a year. may not seem like much when we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in the
federal government, but when you consider that budget of the united states trade representative is less than $60 million to do all of the things with which they're charged, being able to have a $30 million a year enforcement fund is a very significant advancement. ow, i'm mindful of the extraneous climate provisions. i think they're unfortunate. i think my republican friends in the future are going to be embarrassed by doing things like this, particularly when the rest of the world is in paris working to try and help deal with the crisis that is carbon pollution and climate change. but as a practical matter, again, the result of working with the administration, people in the senate, the provision that stuck in the bill, yes, confusing but it is better and i'm convinced doesn't change
the status quo at all. the optics are bad for my republican friends, i think. i believe they'll rue the day for doing this, but as a practical matter we are not going to solve our climate problems -- one -- mr. polis: additional 20 seconds. mr. blumenauer: through international trade. this doesn't change that. we couldn't pass those combause of the composition of the senate and republican opposition, we couldn't pass those things when we were in charge so we're going to do it through other mechanisms. this custom bill does not prevent that. i strongly urge my colleagues favorable consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you. first of all, i want to thank my good friend from oregon for coming to the floor and frankly more ablely explaining the customs -- ably explaining the customs program better than i
could. i want to commend him and his colleagues for working in a bipartisan fashion to improve a bill that had passed earlier this year in ways i think broadly make it more acceptable to a larger percentage in this body. he's to be commended for that, so are his colleagues on that committee on both sides of the aisle. so is the administration, which i know has been heavily involved in these deliberations. again, i think my friend makes an excellent argument for the passage of the underlying legislation, and when you combine that with a permanent prohibition on internet taxation, something i assume my friend also supports, and the necessary continuing resolution to give us a few more days to negotiate a bipartisan omnibus spending bill that frankly both parties will need to contribute votes toward and the administration ultimately will have the prerogative of signing, i take these to be hopeful signs. some of the things that happened in the last few weeks
in a bipartisan transportation bill, a bipartisan education bill, what i'm convinced is essentially a bipartisan conference report here today, what will be a bipartisan omnibus bill, sounds to me like significant progress and something that leaders on both sides of the aisle can take some pride in as long as we get done hopefully in a timely way next week. and then come back here and build on this progress for all of next year where we can move under regular order. but, again, i want to thank my friend for his hard work on the customs portion of this. i also want to thank him for giving what i thought was a very thoughtful constitutional lesson in give and take. there are some things that we might all like to achieve but just simply aren't possible given the distribution of political power, the checks and balances in our system and the fact that people do have indeed differing opinions and perspectives.
but the fact we've gotten to this point, i think, demonstrates we can produce a good product, even within a complex constitutional system, a rather polarized political environment, and the hard realities of divided government. so, again, i'm pleased we made the progress that we have made. i thank my friend for his participation in that, and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentleman from colorado. let me thank the gentleman from a thoughtful discussion and the tone of which you offer. i think all of us certainly are interested in coming to a place next week that embraces really the values of america and all
of our concerns. and obviously riders that are toxic are obstacles in which we need to continue to discuss. let me just indicate that in my district i've got senior citizens with blue tarps on the tops of their homes. blue tarps that have been there since the terrible hurricane ike, and obviously we need the housing and urban development to have funding that not only addressing affordable housing but senior housing repair. comes down through community development. and the manner in which we're going through this, we're looking for that kind of funding to make sure that plus up of $80 billion that came about through the budget agreement that it gets evenly distributed, if you will. what happens is that extenders and tax provisions that are unpaid for, the blue tarps in my district continue to exist.
seniors have roofs that are falling in. so i think that's an important issue that many of us will be looking at through this weekend and looking to the appropriators to do what is right by the american people. we wrote a letter regarding the minority hiv-aids program, which was gutted out. mr. speaker, let me tell you that hiv-aids is resurging, resurging among young people, among minorities. this is not a time to zero out that funding. so as we go through that process we're asking the question whether you're putting in toxic riders but not focus on funding that's needed. the clinic in my district needs the minority h.i.v. funding. i know my good friend, both mr. polis and mr. cole, are certainly interested in making sure that transportation funding matches the funding that came about through the bill. and then certainly i hope that as i listen to the calm discussion, mr. polis, that we can find a way to eliminate the
prohibition from the centers for disease control to not do their work. why are we preventing them from discerning gun violence's impact on suicide? gun violence's impact on the young people committing suicide? we have done research on drunk driving. we have done research on cancer. we have done research on diabetes, and we have done research to move the country forward in a healthy manner. why are we blocking the c.d.c. from assessing what is the impact on gun violence? and then let me say this, as a member of the judiciary committee, i now understand that the internet tax freedom act is in this legislation and it's in this legislation permanently. there was no hearing. i remember this bill on the floor of the house in june when the -- can i get 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i have a number of letters that i'll ask unanimous consent to put in the record. ne from kerr mcgee, one from
n.r.f. and afl-cio. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: even though there is a four-year lapse -- and my home state of texas will lose $120 million. ohio $65 million. south dakota will lose about $13 million. the point is, are we going to replace those moneys from the federal government? what are we going to do to the retail industry that has bricks and mortar? so my friends, i'm going to support a c.r., but i do believe we should work together to do things that impact us positively and not negatively. get rid of the riders and help our states who have a need to have this internet tax provision lifted up. with that i yield back. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: first, i want to thank my friend, the distinguished lady from texas,
for coming down and raising important issues. i'm not involved in the negotiations where h.u.d. is concerned, but be my hope that her concerns would be addressed, quite frankly. and i think with the additional funds that are a product of a bipartisan negotiation in the budget act, which i know my friend supported, there's certainly a prospect that will occur. so the negotiations that are going on now are indeed bipartisan. i have no doubt in my -- my friend's point of view is ably represented by her democratic colleagues in those negotiations and by the administration. hopefully we will arrive at a product in the next few days that will address some of those concerns. but i also, again, want to reinforce my friend's remarks about moving in a cooperative way. again, not every piece of legislation we're going to agree on every part of it, but i think the underlying
legislation we present today is a product of bipartisan cooperation and compromise and give and take and it's my hope that many people on both sides of the aisle will be able to support that. these three important elements of the customs proposal, which my friend from oregon earlier laid out, the many virtues. and frankly my friend from colorado has extolled many parts of. the internet -- the prohibition of taxation on the internet, i think something, again, we've routinely passed through this body since 1998. it's usually not been a particularly contentious issue, it's something we agree on both sides of the aisle. making to permanent makes a lot of sense, and i'm hopeful that many of my colleagues who've worked so hard on that will see that as an advantage. frankly, i don't think we disagree on a short-term continuing resolution because we know that our representatives on the appropriations committee, certainly chairman rogers and ranking member lowey, are orking really hard to find a
bipartisan compromise. i will remind my friends, we're not going to agree on every part of this bill, and there will be elements, so-called riders that are in them that probably some of my friends don't like. there will be democratic riders in this bill, not just republican riders. that's just the process of normal legislation, and congress has every right to use the power of the purse. you know, i don't know any executive branch, be it republican or democrat, that ever likes congress, you know, getting down to the details of this. they just expect us to write a check for whatever they ask for. well, that's not the way our constitution is set up, and while the executive power -- executive branch has a range of powers and authorities that are unique to itself, at the end of the day we do fund every single activity that they engage in and at the end of the day we have the right to say, well, we agree with you hear, hear and here but we disagree here and we're not writing -- we're not fu