tv Washington Journal Rep. Tom Cole CSPAN November 29, 2017 4:30pm-5:13pm EST
work at the capitol. it takes a lot of people just to make the place work and frankly keep it clean and safe for visitors. you have thousands of them. so they do a great job for us. >> when it comes to making the place work and making the place work better, there is a house vote coming up on training when it comes to antisexual assault training for all offices to make it mandatory. can you explain, why we need a vote on that? why speaker ryan can't just mandate that and "b," how you're going to vote? >> i'm going to vote yell on it. i think it is necessary. it's been really great work by two superb members, jackie speier is right around the corner from me and barbara come stok and she's just a tremendous
member. and to update the procedures. so i applaud them both for their work and it's something i think we'll pass quite easily. >> beverly, you're on with tom cole. >> caller: i have a question. this is -- this is a really upsetting me over the childrens' fund. i have a grandson who is a disabled child. everything that he gets he has to have in order to live. if this fund does not go through, and my daughter loses the funds, my grandson will die. why haven't you all done something? >> the house has done something. the house has passed the reauthorization the chirnz' health insurance program. the senate has not. i think they will. we understand how important that legislation is to people like you and your circumstances and
your grand son so i don't think there's much likelihood that it won't be extended again, but your case underlies the urgency of getting that done. there's a part of it to put peoples' minds at rest. there's no reason for you in my view for you to go through what you're worrying about. i suspect if we have a year in spending deal whether it's a continuing resolution which we just keep things as they are, move forward or what we need is a larger deal that allows us to take care -- i think the children health insurance program is likely to be attached to that, both sides want to approve it. there's support for it on both sides. >> coming back to the tax reform issue as saying that if you don't get tax reform done you'll have a bad midterm? >> we might have a bad midterm any way. no one's had a good one since 2002. expect a difficult midterm. the democratic party lost its
majority in the midterm election ten, we lost ours in the midterm in 2006. they've been roughly on everybody. so that's just the mood of the country right now and you're foolish not to recognize it. but you do have to have something to run on, something you've accomplished, to me tax reform is probably the most important single one of those commitments and we need to fulfill that commitment. >> the house its bill, the senate is working on its bill. when that comes together what provisions will be essential, what will need to be in there to get your vote? >> obviously different provisions for different people. for instance, this doesn't effect my vote but a lot of vote will hing on being able to keep the property tax deduction at a $10,000 level in there. that was a concession that was made to people in high property tax states in the house. i was pleased to see the senate pick it up and it looks like it's going to be in the senate bill. i want to make sure there's tax cuts just for about every
taxpayer that we make america business competitive again. we pay the highest income corporate tax in the world and we remove the incentive that we've got in the tax code now for companies to move overseas. we've had quite a few in the last few years in search of lower tax rates. so we need to bring the rates down, be competitive with other industrial countries. >> line for democrats, doris, good morning. >> caller: good morning. representative, you and your republican buddies decided you wanted to write a tax cut bill that disproportionately gives everything to the rich and the corrupt corporations. in that bill you decided you wanted no democrats in the room, no democrats to help write this bill. this is a tax bill for the entire country. who in god's name gave you and this party the right to shut out
democrats from helping to write this bill and now you want to say, oh, well if the government shuts down we'll blame the democrats? >> i haven't said anything on that. it has to be bipartisan. the two sides have to work together and i hope that happens. i've been part of that process under president obama as well as under president trump. we actually did this in april and funded the government and again with bipartisan majorities on both sides of the aisle. majority of democrats voted for this and tax legislation, the two parties have fundamental disagreements. they're not likely to find much common ground. in the operation of the government, they can. i think you try and do both of these realities. nobody cuts the democrats out. they certainly have votes, but in the case of taxes, if you use what's called reconciliation language you can lower what you need to 51 votes.
that's how the democrats passed obamacare, without a lot of republican support. so there are occasionally issue that are extremely partisan and extremely important to both parties and they each resort to those tactics in those cases. there's other issues where you work together and the appropriations process and frankly where i spend most of my time is very much a give and take exercise with the two parties have to work together to get something done. >> to minneapolis, minnesota, patricia good morning. >> caller: good morning. i don't think the senator or congress should go home until they pass the tax bill, get something done. and the other thing i want to talk about is, what is up with this $15 million hush fund to pay off sexual assault victims? what are you guys doing? how come we didn't know about that? how come you didn't know about that? how come you didn't tell us
about ridiculous thing? if any, congressman is breaking the law, abusing people, they should have it paid out of their pocket and we need to know what's going on and the other thing is, you're right, it takes a lot to keep that place working for you guys, you know, but you aren't working for us. you guys go home at the drop of a hat and you haven't got enough done and what about the idea of cutting spending? we've handed you the house, the senate, the presidency and what do you do? >> first of all, you covered a lot of ground so let me try and reach each one of your points. i couldn't agree with you more about not going home until the tax bill done and not going home until the tax reform is done. congress ought to stay in session until its done. second, in terms of your concern about the what's called the judgment fund, i think, that's
over a ten-year period and it's not all congressman, it settles any kind of disputes and it's not frankly mostly or completely sexual harassment. having said that, again, i think you're right. i think the money needs to come out of peoples' personal pocket, now out of the public purse. frankly, it's a lot more expensive in the private world. i can sit here and name a lot of corporations that have paid more money on a single settlement of sexual harassment case than congress has in ten years and if you really look at these cases. at least so far, there appear to be a whole lot more of them in the media world and entertainment world than there are on capitol hill but one case is one too many. and again, i applaud my colleagues jackie speier and barbra for bringing legislation that will do exactly what you suggest. i think it'll pass with bipartisan support. your final point in terms of
cutting spending, quite frankly, congress has cut spending. where most spending is now, social security, medicare and medicaid make up over 60% of all federal spending. if you really want to get at spending you'll have to go at those things. the part that congress appropriates is about 30% of what the whole government funds and that money has actually come down. when the republican majority came into power, the deficit was $1.4 trillion annually. it was lower to undered 500 billion. that's still way too much money. it's now creeping back up but we're most of the increase is coming is again, not on capitol hill in terms of the day-to-day operation of government but we've got an aging population and medicare and social security expenses continue to rise and they're going to continue to rise. as soon as you sit down and grapple with those parties, i have a bill on social security with my friend john delane yi, a
democratic from maryland running for president, he's a guy that -- i have a lot of respect for personally. we've worked on legislation before. we would go back and do what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did set up a commission on social security. we think that's a solvable problem but we've not been able to interest leadership on either side in picking it up or the last administration, we've introduced this now for three congresses in a row. couldn't get the obama administration interested, quite frankly can't get the trump administration interested in it yet. eventually you'll have to sit down and deal with entitlement spending. that's what they did in 1983 when they extended the life of social security. it was on the verge of going bankrupt. we can do that again. i think we should. >> ten minutes left with congressman tom cole of oklahoma. you've come on the show several times and you've talked about your native american heritage. i want to ask you about the
president's use of pocahontas to reference elizabeth warren. >> i was actually at the ceremony and it was a terrific ceremony. i want to start by giving the president his due. we've never honored coat talkers in the oval office before. it was a wonderful. the coat talkers were magnificent. 90, 94 and 97. the president actually handed the mike over to one of them, the guy that was 90 who gave one of the best addresses i've ever heard. i wish i could talk that good at my age let alone at 90. so it was jaup beat and good and it was meant to honor native americans and i think the president was very sincere in that. he literally turned to mr. mcdonald at one point and said, he had his prepared remarks and he gave them to mr. mcdonald. everything i was supposed to say you've already said and you said it better than i ever could. i thought, when the elizabeth warren thing came up, clearly not in the prepared remarks,
look, i disagree with the president very profoundly on that. number one, pocahontas is a very important historical figure. i don't think her name should ever be used as an epithat the. her descendants are still around. pretty remarkable human being and a very short life. only lived till her 20s. died and is buried in england. she's a pivotal person in frankly the relationship between europeans and native americans in the 16th century. i don't like her name being used in anything other than a very respectful way. i'm not a big believer in name calling in politics. it doesn't get you will far. you have to work with people at the end of the day. i usually find it's easier to work with them if i haven't called them a name before i sat down. >> did you get a chance to talk with the president about the history of pocahontas? >> i did not. it's pretty difficult when you're in somebody's house. because i was there, because i am native american, we got a lot of requests immediately and so,
of course, we've responded to the requests. it's not an opinion i haven't expressed before. i was quoted as saying my recommendation was don't use this language in this way to the president back in 2016 before he was president of the united states. my view on this hasn't changed and look i regret the use of the name and think it's inappropriate. >> i want to get you as many calls as you can. rita, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. yes, i have two points to make here. first of all, on the deficit. why aren't the super rich paying back the money, the tax money that they used from our tax dollars to projects that are for their own self good that makes them richers and the tax paid poorer and they've never paid any of this back and they're worth trillions of dollars in
themselves? number two, the days of bill and hillary clinton on let's make a deal and hold the country hostage until we get what we want are over. tell these democrats they need to get in here, quit holding up the country. it's not good for anybody. and to get things done for the country and not for themselves. >> i'm not sure exactly what you mean about not pay back frankly wealthy people pay a lot more taxes and a lot higher taxes than folks that aren't and that's always been the case in the country since we had an income tax beginning over 100 years ago now. 1913. if you're referring perhaps to the so-called bank bailout and the great recession. every dime of that with interest was paid back. it's one of these cases where the government made about 40 or $50 billion out of money it loaned because we didn't give anybody anything.
we gave them loans and we collected warrants and you got interest on the money. i don't excuse what happened and it was devastating to the country. i think that was the right decision at the time. i supported it because i think you had to stabilize the economy but we were paid back that money. the only place we lost any money was on the loans to the american auto industry and they got about $80 billion, about 80 or so billion dollars of that came back so it wasn't a complete lost. but the net of the entire program, what went to banks and what went to the auto industry, again was a money-maker strangely enough for the taxpayer. it didn't cost them anything over few years period. >> charles, michigan, line for independence. go ahead. >> caller: thank you. first of all i would think that uld be more insulted that that indian ceremony was done under the portrait of andrew jackson. i would think that you would know more than anyone how andrew
jackson treated the indians but my point was on your talking of the 12 bills that you passed and sent on to the senate, and those bills were passioned because of about 20 people in the republican party that you had to made sure that they would go along with the vote but then when the bill is sent to the senate all that is going to be compromised and then sent back to you guys and then you're going to lose those 20 votes so you're going to have to get some votes from the democrat. >> let mel respond to your first question. my great, great grandfather had to walk 800 miles. i'm chicasaw. we were one of the tribes removed from the southeast america and forcibly taken to what was indian territory, what's now oklahoma today.
believe me, i understand very much and my own grandmother wouldn't carry a $20 bill her entire life. i feel that very strongly. on the other hand, you had abe lincoln and washington there. washington was a slave owner. it's just part of the history of the time. >> they're in the oval office in the portraits. >> yeah. you can find a reason to be offended by any president and i'm no big fan of andrew jackson, let me be perfectly clear. i don't think that was deliberately done by the white house to -- other presidents have had portraits of andrew jackson inside the oval office. the democratic party has a jefferson-jackson day dinner, two slave holders, to 2 frankly antiindian figures, if they want to get rid of those that's fine but that's up to them. i think you ought to be careful historically. now in terms about your point
about the appropriations process. the way bills pass originally tends to be out of the house. it's a majority institute. when they get to the senate, because of the 60 rule requirement they tend to become bipartisan and then you have a negotiated process. you're right. we pass something, they pass something, then we go to conference and negotiate it out. it's got to come back and pass each body. it's got to be signed by the president of the united states. in the end, the appropriation process will be bipartisan or nothing will get done. it's just that simple. so this is the opening part of the process. obviously you're going to write bills the way you think they ought to be written. when the point comes when you need somebody else's vote, you're exactly right. that's what we did in april on all the appropriations bill and a majority of democrats and republicans both voted to fund the government. there were some big wins for the president in that, big increase in defense spending, big
increase in border security. there were also some things that democrats wanted or places where we work together or additional money for the national institute of health to find cures for alzheimer's and cancer, that kind of thing, a strong center for disease control that protects you from zika to influenza outbreak. there are important things that are extremely bipartisan in the appropriations process and frankly a majority of democrats and republicans on those committees usually vote for the final bill. >> you talk about needing votes, one person who's looking for votes in the state of alabama right now is roy moore. are you supporting his senate bid now? >> i actually called for -- i think he should withdraw from the race. i think the people in alabama have a very difficult choice because with all due respect, the democrat seems to be a very fine person. he doesn't represent what the majority of people in alabama believe. i don't pretend to know what the issues are with mr. moore but i
do know this, the campaigns not being fought on issues any more. and i think the best thing to do would be to step aside, but in the end the people of alabama are going to have to make up their minds about this and it's their decision, their right to make a decision and then whoever wins the senate will have to make a decision as to whether or not they're going to seat him. a guy that's not from alabama, i don't have a lot to say about that. >> couple more calls. lines for republicans. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i would like to remind mr. cole that in 2000 when george bush came in, we had -- we had money in the could have fers and your tax plan then brought on the great recession and you all acted like you didn't expect it. now mike pence gave away millions of dollars to cower where are to stay in indiana.
we're buying jobs so you guys can hold office. as a republican, i'm totally disappointed with you guys. you're a bunch of spoiled brats. if you realize one thing, we're -- you're going to give the middle income people a 47 to 57 cents an hour raise with your tax break but you're giving the coke brothers a raise. there's a little disparity there. >> first of all, i disagree with you about the details of the tax plan and to be fair they're not finalized yet any way. there's still an negotiation going forward. at the end of the day, americans who pay taxes are going to see a substantial tax cut. i think american businesses that are not competitive and that are leaving the country in huge numbers, you mentioned carriers will have an incentive to stay here and continue to employee americans.
in terms of the congress, there's area i disagree but kro think any economist has ever argued that the tax cuts in 2000 brought on the great recession in 2008. i don't think there's much of a correlation there. what brought it on frankly, was aggressive overlending by wall street and peddling subprime loans to people who couldn't afford them that was reckless behavior but it was much more regulatory problem than it was related to the tax cuts of literally years before. >> i have time for one or two calls. alexander, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, congressman. alexander from virginia. i want to add a topic that really hasn't gotten much discussion at all even the last couple years on this whole idea of our revenues. so last i heard 11 million
illegal immigrants are living in our country. so that means to me 11 million residents of our country are living tax-free and so if we had a program to give the ones who are not dangerous to our country some kind of tax status, well, then, we could have an incredible millions of dollars -- billions of dollars of revenue that we could have, is that ever been considered in congress? >> it actually has been. there's a number of pieces of legislation that show depending on how you structure an immigration deal that you actually do gain long-term in terms of additional revenue. to be fair, most of the 11 million people that are here are paying taxes. and a lot of them aren't getting any benefits because they're not eligible for benefits. if they're working where they get a salary they're paying social security taxes, they're paying medicare taxes, a lot of them still pay income taxes. again, you're still right.
a portion of this people are outside the normal economy. some of them are not fully taxed and if you could regularize the immigration system you probably could balance the sheet. you also don't want to incentivize people coming into the country illegal. it's dangerous. there's a lot of crime associated with it and it's again, the country does have rules and regulations. it has a right to enforce its border. it has a right to decide who comes and who goes. >> wayne, line for democrats. go ahead. >> tom cole, how you doing. listen, you seem like a fair person. this is not directed to you. it's directed to the ones in there that need to hear. what about the special period interest? not only that, why tap social security? don't tap it. the coch brothers don't need no help.
strengthen social security and health care. this is a couple things you can do. and as far as taking away what you can write off on your mortgage -- i don't even have a mortgage but i do -- i can write off my taxes. come on! now, you can't this or that. it's a joke for a tax bill. >> actually i don't think it is. to your point specifically, number one i agree with you about carried interest. i've never been a fan of it. the house bill did not eliminate it but it did increase the amount of time that you have to hold the money before you can turn it into taxable income with the idea that that would limit it to some degree. i think a fuller debate on this is in order. in terms of social security, i think you're right. we do raise the limit, by the way, on social security. one of the reforms made in 1983 was to index the amount of money so the top line eligible for
social security goes up and i think if we had a real commission it would look at that and that would probably be one of the answers. it wouldn't be the only answer. in the past we've raised the age, we've raised the amount you can contribute, we've raised the level of your salary at which you contribute, so i think all those things make a lot of sense, ought to be on the table. social security's much easier than most of these. it's basically a math problem. the system's going broke. we built up quite a surplus in the social security fund from 1983 to 2011 but since then we're now drawing out more money than the social security taxes pay in every year. we're drawing down that cushion. we're not in any immediate danger but by 2032, 33, it'll be exhausted. when that happens under the law, you only can use the revenue that comes in the doors. you'll be cutting peoples checks by 20 or 30%.
thank you for your comment. i do try to be fair. i do try to look at practical solutions. most of my colleagues do too on both sides of the aisle. sometimes, you know, people paying with a -- people paint with a pretty broad brush. i can tell you it's just an outstanding member and great guy. >> i appreciate the setup for earl blumen hour. he'll be here in 25 minutes. thank you for joining us. >> thanks very much for having me. live look now at the u.n. security council just a couple minutes away we think from getting under order -- under way to discuss the latest intercontinental ballistic missile launch by north korea. scientists and spoeshlists say tuesday's 53 minute flight landed some 600 miles later in the sea of japan and the missile has about an 8,000 mile range
making the continental u.s. in its range. it's peak altud was more than ten times that of the international space station. the "the new york times" quotes defense secretary james mattis said it went higher than any previous shot they've taken. the bottom line is it's a continued effort to build a threat that endangers, world peace, regional peace and certainly the united states. so there you see the security council as members make their way in. we're waiting to see u.n. ambassador nikki haley and we'll bring you live coverage on c-span3.
congressman, before we get to the tax reform. i wanted to get your thoughts on yesterday's aborted meeting between the president and house democratic leaders, what you think that means for a potential shutdown coming up next month? >> well, i think it just symbolizes the problems we have not just democrats but republicans with totally unpredictable president who's disengaged with the details and doesn't seem to be concerned that he tweets and insults and blows things up. it's going to be worked out with members from both parties on capitol hill and i don't think we're going to get any help from donald trump. >> you blame the tweet? >> it's just the whole behavior, the notion of not being forthcoming, not engaging, being unpredictable, throwing all sorts of things out that are completely unrelated, insulting some kids' father and getting --
there's serious business here. we're facing a deadline that may prompt another shutdown on capitol hill. i've served with people, many of whom who are still here, who welcomed the last shutdown and have fish to fry. we still don't have the numbers allocated for the appropriations process and i hope that people just get serious and move forward because we might have a real train wreck. >> what does a serious spending deal need to look like for you to support it? what needs to be in it? >> it needs to be balanced. we have an agreement that has been reached to protect both military and nonmilitary discretionary spending. that agreement should be respected. we shouldn't be using this to force through a program where there isn't even support for republicans for it. that's one of the reasons why many of these budgets haven't moved in the past because there are so draconian that republicans don't want to support it.
i think left to their own devices, people on the appropriations committee with a little latitude ought to be able to work this out. we're talking about spending $2.2 trillion added to the national debt, throwing around huge sums of money. we ought to be able to deal with chirnz' health, we ought to be able to deal with the fundamentals of keeping government's going and those shouldn't be partisan roadblocks. >> should there be a deal on d.r.e.a.m.ers included in this? >> donald trump started this. and beginning in march, there's going to be a thousand a day of these young people who are going to be pulled -- >> march of 2018. >> and causing massive disruption for over two-thirds of a million people who are part of our community and the notion that we're going to sit idly by with that sort of disruption and when you add their families you're talking about millions, plus their employers, i absolutely think we ought to
resolve that. it's not going to get easier and they shouldn't be tortured. >> if it's resolved and the deal includes spending on the wall, would you be okay on that? >> there won't be spending on the wall in the deal. it just ain't going to happen. most republicans don't want to do it. it's not feasible. we have much higher priorities. i don't think that's going to be part of it. >> we're talking with congressman earl member of the tax writing committee, the ways and means committee. if you want to call in with questions and comments. as folks are calling in, you voted against the house version of the tax reform bill when it was moving through the committee and house. is there anything you like better in the senate version that's being put together right now that's moving through the senate? >> no. it's interesting that senator corker believes he has some sort
of agreement to have a trigger mechanism. that was -- >> explain what that is. >> if their rosy scenarios don't pan out that this doesn't pay for itself, that the deficit explodes beyond the 2.2 trillion that we're going to have increase in the debt ceiling and interest, my amendment that we advance the first thing in the house was you stop the tax cuts. you don't go further over the cliff. that i think had some encouragement but it has to be real. it's not something that is a bait and switch like we've seen in the past. >> explain the example of a bait and switch in the past. >> what we're talking about right now in terms of people are saying, the temporary tax benefits, the only way this pencils out for some middle income americans for many middle americans next year is by tax benefits that expire, the benefits for the large corporations and rich people
continue in perpendicular constitute but we're watching tax increases on a temporary basis. some of the tax increases start next year in the house and in the senate, middle income people with exceedingly high medical expenses, 9 million people, are going to see their taxes increase dramatically, won't be able to deduct them any more. $90 million worth of a tax increase on over 9 million families. think of it as an alzheimer's tax. there are a lot of moving pieces here. i'm not certain they can put it together. to this point it doesn't look like a good deal for most americans. >> let's talk to some viewers. line for independence, you're on with the congressman. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. this is just fascinating. i truly have not been able to wrap my head around the fact that this could possibly go through until the last couple days when they're coming up with
new things like stop the tax if it doesn't work sort of thing. this is -- this is really getting crazy. i don't think any taxes should be permanent. you just don't noel whatknow wh the road. the idea that we're going to make permanent -- those for the people that don't need them and not for the rest of us is just more of this stuff that has got to stop. also, if there's going to be, you know -- all these tax breaks for the corporations, i thought they were people so why don't they do their thing on a postcard too. tax breaks should come with legislation that requires them to make -- 80% investment in the industry's, in the workers to the american people. if they're so sure it's going to happen then why don't they just make sure that it's in the law
and -- >> let the congressman respond. >> christine's dilemma is nobody knows what's in this bill. it is astounding the largest transfer of wealth in america's history to some most large corporations and wealthy people paid for by increasing taxes on future generations with greater debt and as i mentioned it changes by the day. there's never been a hearing on many of these controversial issues that people are just now finding out about. it would tax the stipends for graduate students as income, making it impossible for them to do their research work. that would be unacceptable in any sort of public discussion and it never would've survived. she's got -- we're facing a dilemma now. every day this morphs and changes, we won't know what's in it until long after its passed,
if its passed and that's just no way to do business. >> for people that don't understand the process, is there a chance for the hearing down the road if the senate passes it and it goes to a conference committee -- >> the last time we did real tax reform and this isn't tax reform. this is tax shift, the last time we did real tax reform we had a republican administration, democrats and republicans in congress. it took two years and you were able to dive in and understand what was in it. to have a hearing after this thing is largely baked would be perfunctory and you're not going to really know some of the provisions that have been snuck in by a lobbyist and a corporation and maybe a senator until long after the fact. >> to georgia, lee is a republican, good morning. >> caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'd like to say first if this is not biassed, how come it seems like sometimes a person will get 30 seconds to talk and get hung up on when someone else gets
three minutes. why shouldn't everybody at least just get two minutes and hear what's being said as long as if we ain't talking in repetition or cussing or anything, just let our words be heard? just because i'm a plain talker. but what i would like to say, shows like this is not a chess game. two parties act like they can't get along. if you say just like the slush fund, everybody that you put on tv says i know nothing about it. and if you say, well prove it, i got 15 lawyers that say i don't know nothing about it and if i say something good that he likes to hear, he will agree with it, every one of you people that you bring on there, if i say something bad he will disagree with it. every time it's the same old thing like a puppet show. >> what's your question for the congressman? >> well, my thought is this, why -- it seems like nobody can get along and the thought is why they can't get along when, you know, you say there's good people on democratic side and good people on republican side
and it's like us people out here watching people on tv, it's like there's so many common sense things that can be done but it's like there's so much small print that the government -- it's always difficult but it's never really difficult. the government's making it difficult so we can stay in this squalor that we're in. >> got your point, lee. >> i think the fundamental notion that i was trying to make earlier, if we actually did this like we're supposed to, if we actually had hearings on individual provisions, if there was an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis, the tax bill in the house, no democrat saw it and frankly very few republicans knew what was going on, there are ways to be able to deal with things that matter for the american public. the fact that the children's health program has expired and its being used as a bargaining chip, this is something that doesn't need to be partisan. overwhelming majorities of both
republicans and democrats would agree to deal with a clean extension of it. we talked about the daca, the undocumented kids. the majority in both parties i think would be able to move something forward if we were given a chance and when you shut down the process, manipulate it, try and predetermine what is going to be in the legislation and not allow other voices to be heard, it guarantees conflict. >> what do you say to republicans that complain that democrats did that with the health care bill? >> i was there. i was on that committee. we had dozens of hearings. there was lots of give and take. opportunities for people to be involved. there is no comparison. you look at what happened in the senate with the play. this is unprecedented. there's never been something of this nature in our history and the stakes could not be higher.
>> baltimore, maryland, line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: i'd like -- the agenda is adopted. in accordance with rule 37 of the council provisional rules of procedure, i invite the representative of the republic of korea to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. in accordance with rule 39 of the council provisional rules of procedure, i invite between jeffrey feltman for political affairs to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. the council will now begin it's consideration of the agenda and at this meeting the security council will hear briefing by mr. feldsman and