tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 9, 2014 1:00am-3:01am EST
legislation. why is somebody from illinois standing on the floor of the house to talk about a bill that affects california? this chart says it all. california crops, 99% of the elements, 99% of the figs go down this chart and you can see how it impacts every single family that i represent in central illinois. 800,000 people in my congressional district. go buy these products in our stores. and the cost of not doing something to affect this historic drought is costing them and their families more to eat these products. healthy products that come from the central valley of california. when you have over 800,000 acre feet of water being released, freshwater being released into the ocean, that is enough water for 800,000 families to use for a year. we're simply asking for flexibility that has a direct
impact on every single family in this country. it has an impact on my families that i represent and that is why i am so proud to stand here and support this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. may i inquire the amount of time left on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has eight minutes. the gentleman from washington has 13 1/2 minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i would now yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. huffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. huffman: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, some of our colleagues from other states may be experiencing a sense of deja vu right now. yes, this is the second time this year that the house has voted on a california water bill that would harm northern california fisheries, tribes and communities, that would undermine state law, that would deprive water managers of the flexibility they need and that would micromanage the complex water system of california. and to make sure we're all dealing with the same facts, i want to remind my colleagues
that the state and federal water export pumps in the delta right now are operating at more than 5,000 cubic feet per second. the only reason they're not pumping even faster is not to protect fish and wildlife, not because of the endangered species act, none of the other boogeymen that we hear as a justification for this bill. no, the reason those pumps are not going even faster is because of standards set by the state of california to protect water quality from municipal and zrill and agricultural and other uses in the system. so the only way that this bill could deliver more water today, well, there is no way it could deliver more water today. and the only way it could deliver more water in other times of the year is by taking it away from other water users and other beneficial uses in our state. with that inconvenient fact out of the way, let's talk about the process that brought us here today. h.r. 5781 has never been reviewed by the authorizing committee, let alone marked up
in open session. nor have we received the input of state or federal agencies who have the responsibility over clean water and finish riss management. nor -- fisheries management. nor have we received the input of affected local water agencies, of commercial and recreational fishing industries, of tribes, including ones that i represent, or other communities that will surely be impacted negatively if this were to become law. the proponents of this bill say that it's the result of bipartisan collaboration. really? those of us who represent northern california's fishing industries, tribes, farmers and communities have been systemically kept out of the room and even kept out of the conversation. last month we learned that members of our state's republic delegation refused to even brief senator barbara boxer if democrats like me were even in the room. this is no way to negotiate something this important. it's a terrible precedent for other states as well. and that's why i'm glad that senator boxer has been so clear in stating her opposition to
it. that it would ignite water wars in california, not solve problems. and i'm glad that over the weekend we received a veto recommendation from the obama administration. now, on saturday the pacific fishery management council sent me a letter about the bill. i asked them how they felt it would affect western fisheries in this country and here's what they said. h.r. 5781 would override endangered species act protections for salmon, steelhead and other species in the bay delta. 2008 and 2009, $158 million in congressional aid was provided to deal with the disaster of the closure of ocean salmon fisheries off california and oregon due to a collapse of this very same fishery. these finish riss are an important -- fisheries are an important sort of -- source of jobs for coastal communities which can't be replaced through disaster relief. without adjustments to this
bill, we feel another disaster could be repeated in the near future. i ask unanimous consent to include this letter in the record at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. huffman: in addition, california's recreational and commercial fishing industries sent a letter on friday. with their concerns that this legislation would, quote, harm potential -- potentially disastrously jobs in california and oregon that depend on the health of the bay delta and its salmon runs. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to include their letter in the record at this time as well. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. huffman: at the rules committee debate, i raised a series of important technical questions about flaws in this bill. unfortunately the house majority has decided that it cannot be amended through an open rule. mrs. napolitano: i yield an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. huffman: if we did have the benefit of a hearing or even just an opportunity to amend through an open rule, we may be able to address some of these. but so far nobody has answered some of these key technical questions.
first, does the bill allow the state water board basically to do its job if we head into the fourth year of a critical drought? doing things like issuing curtailment orders, possibly rationing offereds, these are tough call -- orders, these are tough calls that our state's water referee has to make. this bill does not appear to allow them the flexibility to do that. does the bill, which directs federal government -- the federal government to provide maximum quantity of water supplies possible next year, allow the federal government to do other things necessary to operate the system like filling reservoirs, holding water for public health purposes, or when it might be needed even for other water contractors? does the bill put additional pressure on the trinity river, which i represent, and the tribes that have depended for their traditions on healthy salmon populations for millennia? there are many questions that run answered about this bill. it is not ready for primetime. it's not good policy and i urge my colleagues to vote know -- no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognize. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield three
minutes to the gentleman from california, a member of the resources committee, mr. lamalfa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, mr. chairman for working on this important topic. i'm a former -- farm for the northern california, and to hear talk of the water wars being reignited, it's been a war, but the people in the valley haven't had the weapons to be in a water war. hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water have been diverted for other uses other than what's going on in the valley. you see these folks here. powerful, small people, was how legislators looked at us in the valley. these folks standing here in the unemployment line look powerful to you? do the farmers who have been fighting against this year after
year look powerful to you? this measure here today would help everybody in california, the state water project or central valley project. 20 million people in california would see additional benefit. and here's the concept here, folks. excess water during high flows that now would be just flowing out to the pacific. we're not taking water during the middle of the season any more than what would already be established. this is excess water in flood periods or high flows that do happen, when you have rain flow, the san joaquin river, those high flows. we're taking that excess water and reprogramming it to benefit more people. doesn't take away anything from the fisheries regime or any of that type of concern. so to hear stuff from other side of the aisle that will continue, whether it's been for 40 years or recently, to distort what we're trying to do here, to make
more water for california which is in its third year of a huge drought, as mr. mccarthy said, looks like a 1200 year record for droughts and to stop this temporary measure that would help to cause a little bit of excess water to be retained, to help the people like this to have jobs. we hear we need jobs in california. we need jobs, we talk about immigration bills. help people have jobs to live the dream. what about the people already here? what about the people in that line that have conditions that look like this, with the crops in our state being left fallow. these trees and vines willing stumped and completely pushed out because we can't have a vision because we have the typical rhetoric. i've been listening to as a farmer when i was outside of this place, now today on this floor and probably many more time that says we can't build storage because of this we can't establish, it's a new regime with respect to already
established protocols this doesn't take away the power from the state water board or other boards in place. this bill if you read the bill, you would see in it, those pr visions to be kept in place. by the governor, the water boards, those who have authority over it can step in and say we think this will affect the fish and water regime or any others. i urge that we support this measure today and i ask that we listen to what's in the bill and not listen to the rhetoric and the lies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i have no more requests for time so i am prepared to close if the gentlelady is prepared to close. mrs. lowey: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: i'm ranking member of the committee on water and power, i read this in the
newspaper, nobody contacted me, i had no idea this was going on, the formulation of this particular bill. when we talk about the unemployment, and it's nice to trot out pictures and show what the effect is but i see nothing in this bill that will help the farm workers themselves. nothing that is going to provide more water, create water whether it's recycling, desalination, all the things california has been doing. lest not forget that 80% of the water used in california is for agriculture. 20% is for industrial, commercial, and residential. so there is a little bit of disparity there, my friends. mrs. napolitano: we don't want to argue, we want to make resolutions by working together. that's not happening. maybe it's something that i've said. i'm not sure, mr. speaker. but i'm more than willing to sit down. and certainly between now and next year, when we have this bill come to the light of day,
if this is reintroduced, we can have an honest discussion about the effects it has. also when we talk about california's 35 million residents, only 12 million reside in l.a. county, part of the county i represent. that's not including san bernardino, riverside or san diego. we talk about the voters being in southern california who get the shaft for not getting the water and paying more for the water. so when we are looking at water distribution, i suggest that we sit and actually work openly, transparently. we oppose the secretly written, central scral lee focused legislation. we hope that we are going to continue the dialogue because, yes, california is a donor state and we need to be able to continue providing that for the rest of the nation so we can have better economy and the growth in our agricultural area. mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to oppose h.r. 5781, the
so-called california emergency drought relief act of 2014, which should be called the c.b.p. california emergency drought relief act of 2014. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: let me make a couple of points here before i yield back my time. this has been a very interesting debate. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, i tended -- attended two hearings in fresno, california, particularly on this issue and saw firsthand the impact of what this drought, the natural drought the manmade drought, has done to the san joaquin valley. my friends on the other side of the aisle stated a number of newspapers that editorialized against this mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that a "frezz edtorial resno bee"
of november 6 that says the valadao bill should be passed irk ask that it be made part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: and let me address another issue. we heard a number of times from speakers on the other side of the aisle that there's been no hearing on this bill, it came out of the blue, blah, blah, blah. but what all of them failed to mention, and maybe it's because when my friends on the other side of the aisle were in majority they didn't follow regular order. so just let me say this, maybe as slowly or as plainly as i can. in the last congress, congressman nunes introduced a long-term bill. we had a number of hearings in the resource committee and we marked up the bill in the resources committee and we had it on the floor where there were amendments that were offered to that bill, and finally in the last congress, it passed with bipartisan support. that was in the last congress,
mr. nunes' bill. in this congress, mr. valadao took that bill, dusted it off, made two minor changes, and we brought it to the floor and once again, it passed with bipartisan support. so mr. speaker, that is pretty good example of what regular order is. all we said by the way is, ok, this is our position. this is the house's position. it's if the senate has a different position, pass the bill. nothing complex about that. and to the credit of senator feinstein primarily, there was a bill that passed with unanimous consent. i might add, however, mr. speaker, that there were no hearings held on the senate bill in the senate. there were no hearings held on the senate bill. however, because of the drought in california, many western senators, primarily republican western senators, when asked,
presumably by senator feinstein, if this bill could go by unanimous consent, they said yes. but there are some conditions that we ought to look at before it finally becomes law. and their principle concern was in the -- principal concern was in the area of the endangered species act. in the 20 years i've been here, i've been a vocal critic of how the endangered species act has been implemented and i hope that we have made some movement on that with the passage of three bills that we did later on. but my point is this, mr. speaker. the senate then passed their bill. now the normal process under regular order is when the house has a position and the senate has a position, then you get together and negotiate the differences. there are a lot of differences between these two bills and they, for the last six months, there has been good faith efforts to try to negotiate the difference. well, a week ago, senator feinstein said we can't get it done at this point system of at
that point, my colleagues here in the house, mr. valadao, principally, but the other colleagues that spoke said, i think what we ought to do is put into bill form what we had principally agreed to in this conference, although it wasn't a formal conference, it was an informal conference, and put it in bill form. so mr. speaker, i just want to y, what we have before us is legislation that has been largely agreed to in the informal conference that's been going on for some time with the california water issue. so this isn't something that came out of the dark. as a matter of fact, in the four years that my colleagues controlled this house, there was no california water legislation whatsoever. so to come up here and talk that -- to say that there there are other things and they should be involved. of course they should be involved. they're involved with the senate action on the senate bill.
mr. speaker, i want to say, this is good legislation. it represents a broad consensus that in the informal conference couldn't be done. so i urge my colleagues to pass this legislation, hopefully, hopefully the senate can take it up before we adjourn. the consequences, we don't is we have to start all over again in the next conference. in the next congress. there's been so much work that has been done in the informal conference, let that go and not have some positive action on it, i think, would be wrong for us to do. with that, i urge my colleagues to vote >> "washington journal on the next -- on the next "washington journal." david price looks at federal government funding and after
that a discussion on transparency in the health care law and after that the alleged use of torture in the cia. is live at journal 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on tuesday, jonathan gruber testifies about his work on the health care law and the state program implemented in massachusetts. committee isrsight examining his comments on how the law was written in order to pass. live coverage starts at 9:30 a.m. and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. here are a few of the comments we have recently received. 80's and have been a big fan of c-span -- i want to
complement them on being able to bring together two different ideologies like they did this morning from the institute and immigration policy center. i think you need more programming that way with people who can conduct themselves with a civil tone. i applaud you for that. ideology can be overcome to reach a common ground and i think there should be more programming to that effect. >> i listen to c-span on a regular basis and i find it to be very informative and it is a very good look at all of our different politicians so we can understand who we elect and what is done in congress because it seems to be that congress is undecided or always fighting -- it is important that the
citizens have an outlet to see the things that go on. appreciarte c-span and whether or not it is popular with young people i want you to know that i am 18 and i watch it on a regular basis to make sure i understand what is happening in my country. history touran starting with the battle of little big corn. -- little big horn. i just watched it in its entirety and it is priceless. understande do not their own selves but if they watch american history they can .ee themselves in america
know whate to let us you think about the programs you're watching. e-mail us at comments at c-span.org -- or you can send us a tweet. join the conversation and like us on facebook. week john kerry warned senate intelligence committee chair that the release of a report on cia interrogation tactics by her committee could put americans in danger overseas and as a result he asked that adequate time be provided to prepare for the release. that is expected to occur tuesday. senator feinstein will talk about the report from the senate floor around 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> world rank -- world bank
president jim young kim spoke about climate change priorities. his remarks came at an event hosted by the council on or in relations. this is about one hour. >> welcome everyone. good afternoon. we are delighted to be here today at the council on foreign relations where we have the opportunity to discuss with president kim of the world bank the next steps for international climate action. dr. kim became the 12th president of the world bank in 2012 after a career in development and medicine. he served as president of dartmouth college and a number of medical departments and co-founded partners in health, which now operates on four continents. his work has earned him wide recognition. he was awarded the mccarthur's genius fellowship in 2003. he is one of america's 25 best leaders. in 2005 and "time" magazine
named him the 100 most influential person in 2005. he will be discussing climate change. with that, dr. kim. [applause] >> thank you very much. and i apologize for the delay. we had his royal highness, the prince of cambridge here and was just across the street talking about crups and we had security issues. i apologize but i'm very glad to be here. first, i would like to thank the council on foreign relations for hosting this event and thank you, mark, for your very kind introduction. nature conservancy has played an important role in climate change and environmental preservation issues worldwide and your
leadership has taken it to even greater heights. and given the time you spent in the financial world, you will know one of the themes of my talk today, which is that economic policy is the key to mobilizing a coordinated global response to climate change. i won't be able to travel to peru to travel -- to attend the 20th conference of the parties to the u.n., but i will be watching closely as the delegates set the stage for an agreement to be reached in one year's time in paris that should transform the way we live for generations. at this key moment, i'm pleased to return to the council on foreign relations to share our vision what an agreement would look like. it is a fundamental threat to development in our lifetime. we know if we don't confront climate change, there will be no hope of ending poverty or sharing prosperity. the longer we delay, the higher
the costs will be to do the right thing for our planet and our children. our cities have turned down the heat reports and work on green growth and the list between development and climate made clear that the progress of ending poverty is at risk. last month's points were talked about on the intergovernmental panel on climate change. this unprecedented scientific consensus concludes if we are to stabilize global warming and the international community agrees, we must achieve zero emissions of greenhouse gases before 2100. the international community will have the opportunity to send a clear signal that we, as a global community, are determined to manage our economy to zero emissions before 2100. every country finds itself at a different point in the development journey.
therefore, the pace and rhythm of their emissions reductions and adaptation will vary. nonetheless, we have the opportunity in paris to make clear our collective ambition. that ambition can be for cleaner growth and increased commitment to adapttation. the higher the ambition, the greater demand for programs and projects that will transform economies. it will send a strong message to investors about the demand and possibility of long-term investments and clean energy in transport systems, sustainable agricultural and forestry and new efficient products. paris must be where we make the rallying cry for effective management of local, national and global economies to fight
climate change. many observers expect an agreement in paris to be comprised of a number of essential components. each must reflect an ambition equal to the challenge before us to send a powerful signal to economic actors around the globe. the parties must include binding language that should reinforce our collective ambition and a clear pathway to zero-net emissions before 2100. individual country contributions with policy packages that should address how to use all available fiscal levers to get prices right, increase efficiency and incentivize decarbonization. three, a financial package that recognizes that climate development funds should be used to innovate financing.
financial flow cannot reach the levels we need in the necessary time frame without some form of network carbon market based on the market's mechanism, taxes and environments we are beginning to see introduced all around the world and timely, working coalitions of private enterprises, countries, cities, moving forward with where it must be enhanced. unlike treaties in the past, the paris agreement must speak loudly about transformation. let me me say a few words about effective management and what we hope to see of the intended nationally determined contributions that will set out
each country's commitment at paris and beyond. we understand that many clients face huge challenges and many countries will reach their own peek emissions at different moments. managing the economy to ensure that they can, for example, decarbonize the energy sectors over time and having the energy they need for development, constitutes a challenge no developed country has had to face as it was industrializing. nevertheless, every country can strive to effectively manage its economy and decarbonize and boosting economy. it means strong policy signals that makes clear long-term goals. carbon pricing. and removing subsidies that are harmful including fossil fuel subsidies. all countries should commit to put a price on carbon. it's a necessary if not sufficient step in any journey to zero-net emissions. it can be discovered by taxes,
taxing the good to taxing the bad. to reduce labor and investment taxes and encourage job creation and economic development and green technologies through research and development subsidies. the example of british columbia is one of the most powerful. it is neutral to the taxpayer. it's not an increase in tax. the government promised household it would not increase the tax rate. taxes on labor, for example, were reduced. introduced at the height of the financial crisis in 2008, the carbon tax has risen from 10 canadian dollars per ton to 30 canadian dollars per ton. 300 million canadian dollars in personal and business tax cuts. british columbia's g.d.p. has outperformed the rest of canada's introduction of tax. other instruments need to be mobilized to redirect investments toward clean technologies and sectors. stepping up drivers of energy efficiency is an obvious win-win that can deliver benefits. strengthen performance standards can help achieve efficiency gains in buildings, transport and industry. such measures have the potential to reduce greenhouse global gas emissions by 20. specific efforts are needed to
grid connected. just this year, once the appropriate regulatory form and grid development had taken place, the private sector of the world bank group financed the first solar power plant in the phillipines. and to lock them into inefficient. removing harmful fuel subsidies is long overdue. there is $500 billion in subsidies that primarily benefit the better off by doing nothing to help the poor and the environment. these funds can be used in health and education or subsidize technology that can reduce emissions. removing subsidies are in the basket of leaders' desk. brazil, indonesia and mexico are showing that shaving out fossil fuel subsidies can benefit the poor.
a policy package that includes these components would give credibility and predict that all investors and consumers need to change their choices and behaviors. including these would demonstrate the commitment of every country to play its part to move to a carbon-free economy and lay the pathway for essential work before they come into effect in 2020. effective management of the economy means finding ways to find waist to invest more. the contributions of countries must address adapttation. governments must implement the policies needed to strengthen resilience and ensure development takes into account climate risks. a central government support and encouragement for cities to transform themselves into being cleaner and more liveable can be bringing more rewards.
safe locations and transport planning, improve resilience. and finally, we hoped they will lay out clear policy frame works for our forestry and agricultural. if countries can offer contributions, the signal to economic factors will be strong. but for these efforts to bring us to zero-net emissions we will have to find financing. it is the critical component of a paris agreement. this compelling evidence suggesting that a country use their regulatory capacity to get prices right and use the instruments available to them, they will experience greater investment flows. morocco adapted aggressive targets, lowered fossil fuel subsidies and attractive legal framework sm the country is becoming know as a solar power innovation hub. it grew from $297 million in 2012. other emerging markets such as south africa are following with similar results. a strong demand from investors from green-climate-friendly investments where investors have
responded to the growing market. $35 billion in green bonds has been should so far this year and robust, liquid, green credit market is taking shape. it will be vulnerable. for these countries, public development funds and climate finance will play a critical role. in the future, these funds will have to be catalytic to serve the many needs that exist. development finance has to mainstream adapttation to ensure effectiveness. there is no development outside the context of climate change. investing on the slopes will ensure investments in agricultural productivity as farmers are quick to adapt to more intense rainfall. and investments in educational attainment will be protected as school infrastructure is made more resilient to storms. investing in man groves in vietnam may boost earnings. each of these projects is a development project. each would count as a climate investment. this is where long-term development finance and climate finance comes together. we have taken major steps this year to introduce disastrous screening. it is the fund for the poorest countries. we have developed adapttation plans in 25 countries.
if they are found to be helpful, we'll expand the initiative. it is our hope that such countries can use this planning to develop their pipelines to the green climate fund. we know that climate finance will flow through many channels. we created the climate investment funds to pioneer investments in projects for climate change and learned lessons on how to optimize from grid-connected wind power in mexico to the first at scale concentrated solar power plants in morocco to entrepreneurs in thailand. the projects and programs show how public funds can be leveraged and used by countries and the public sector. it is $8.3 billion to generate another $57 billion in funding for country-led investments.
just last week, the contributors and other board members decided to extend the operations for two years and to ensure we can keep meeting countries' needs. we welcome the fund and the initial pledge of $9.9 billion it received. its impact will be greatest if it uses this capital to get new investment in emission reduction. we look forward to leveraging g.c.f. funds. a strong paris agreement will send immediate signals even though its component will come into force 2020. the other components must address the critical pressing needs to increase substantially our investments in resilience now. the economics are compelling.
for every dollar invested, we can save $4 in relief. for every dollar in early warning, we can save up to $30. the cost of inaction are rising. economic losses from natural hazards from risen from $50 billion to $200 billion in the last decade. along with economic losses, insured losses have increased significantly. insured losses from weather-related events are rising. the gap between overall losses and insured losses has been widening. fully 75% of catastrophe-related losses worldwide are still uninsured. we will use our track record to look for ways to raise a one-time injection of funds and strengthen insurance coverage and not wait until the next
decade. just as we can't wait, we should also not wait to act on other fronts. in recent years, we witnessed a new phenomena. frustrated by the pace of negotiation and the difficulty of finding consensus among 193 members of the u.n., coalition of stakeholders have pressed forward. on issue after issue, government and civil society organizations have found they can override the difficulties. these coalitions have paved the way for wider agreements and picked up the pace of data, evidence-building and action. this is what led nations and stakeholders to move forward to reduce the effort. it has driven the effort to drive out pollutants.
and the development in africa of climate-smart agriculture that keeps emissions low and feeds the world's growing population. the paris agreement will recognize the importance of these coalitions in drifling action forward. partnership in these coalitions has been fundamental in our exploration of new ways to support clients. since i joined the world bank group 2 1/2 years ago, in addition to evaluating all projects, we have begun to measure the greenhouse gas emissions in key sectors and set an internal price on carbon as a guide. we are discussing the discount rate we used to determine how we measure economic benefits in the long-term and begun work. we tallied our finance with other development banks and we
have as a group of banks developed a common way to measure mitigation achieved in our financing. we are about to agree on a common measurement for adapttation. we hope in the near future all of the development banks and the bilateral financial institutions gather in the finance club and will align themselves among common accounting. they make up a robust tool kit to understand the carbon footprint and give us important management information for project choice and design. it will help the international community know that mitigation and adaptation benefits comes from channeling benefits. this will increasingly place a climate lens on our work in support of our clients and can
be a way to support countries in implementing their defined contributions to climate change. at the world bank group we need to challenge ourselves and guided by a believe that our clients must succeed at reaching zero-net emissions. this will be a direction in supporting energy access for all and scaled-up support. it will require continued support for clean transport and the development of the green building market. it means shifting our agricultural portfolio. and further financial innovation to get investments for low emissions investment. in the year between lima and paris, i intend to challenge to become long-term partners of choice in this world.
i offer a spring and annual meeting to increase our ambition with finance ministers. we will support leadership of the g-7 and g-20 to ensure a paris agreement that will send the strongest signal possible. as head of the world bank group, i will drive our institution and capabilities to support the development transition that we must support together to the goal of preserving our planet for all future generations. [applause] i would like to start where you ended.
thank you for your leadership and reminds me that shortly after you joint the world bank you said to me and other folks that after thinking about all of your challenges, i'm a change was not at the top. can you change your personal view of the climate change challenge and how is it going back out your been at this for a while now. you remember in one of our conversations i kept asking what is the plan and we know it is huge and there is very strong scientific consensus and i said all the time when i saw the consensus i was amazed -- i do like there is anything in medicine with that kind of consensus and yet there was not a clear enough plan i thought. so i think we have made a lot of progress. there is a lot of plans. for example, for me, the fact that we are so engaged in climate change and this is new and different and more actors
coming on board. i was extremely encouraged on carbon pricing that we brought together for the u.n. general assembly and the agreement between u.s. and china is an extremely important milestone. i'm much more optimistic than i was even a year ago. this requires so many changes and this is why, today, i wanted to bring home the point that economic management can have a huge role, because if we get this right and align the incentives, the market system will push us towards the targets we need to hit in ways that any amount of conscience or personal conservation just won't get us there. >> seeing market signals and the price of oil has fallen 40%. is this a plus or minus on the climate front? >> we are trying to understand
it. we are trying to understand the impact of the lower priced oil. we work with net exporting countries and net importing countries. the jury is still out. but for me, whatever happens doesn't take away from the very real data that we're getting out. i was reading an article and some of the new data that how quickly the glaciers are melting is very concerning. if you want to dispel any doubt you might have, go to the phillipines and talk to the people there. i think whatever happens with the price of oil, we have to just keep laser focused on what we need to do. if we can establish and move the fossil fuel subsidies and do other things that is part of your plan, climate smart
agriculture and better funding for renewable energy, if we can just keep our eye on those things, the fuel subsidies are difficult but doable. the carbon pricing is going to be controversial. renewable energy and efficiency, these things are no-brainers. we should do this no matter what is happening. we'll keep pushing while at the same time watching carefully the impact these prices are going to have. >> i agree, there is a reason to be encouraged, but sometimes living here in washington, d.c., i find the politics on climate change pretty discouraging. how does the discussion in the u.s. line up with other parts of the world and are you encouraged or discouraged?
>> i think there are enough very strong advocates for taking action on climate change. and i think when they got together and made this statement, that had enormous impact. i was at the g-20 meeting and we had a discussion on issues related to climate change. i think the fact they are leading makes it very important. and i have to tell you the discussions are different in every single country in the world. even when i started in july of 2012, the discussion in china for example has shifted dramatically. so i think things can change pretty quickly over time and i hope they do here as well. >> same here. let's talk about finances. the numbers are staggering sometimes. the estimates for needed funds for adaptation are so big. and how we catalog the funding?
you talked about $10 billion leveraging up to 50. how does that work. how does those initiatives play out in the real world? >> we are looking at -- when i came to the world bank group, one of the first questions was, well, you guys are relatively small players. we are $65 billion but giving the infrastructure needs in the world that are not being financed is probably a trillion dollars. we are very small. we began thinking and always been in trying to do this to see how to leverage funding. something we are calling the global infrastructure facility. we realize that the world bank has a lot of skills, a lot of experience that others don't have.
for example, can we build, for example -- infrastructure that increases renewable energy, for example, in developing countries? we don't have enough money to do it. but if we were able to structure a deal that a pension fund might think of as too risky, but if we do the work and build in safeguards, can we with with a small investment crowd in other investors to get the infrastructure we need. out of the g-20 leaders' meeting we got investment. and that is one example of how we are going to try to use project preparation is a huge example. new development banks that are opening up, but one of the things they are going to face is they don't have people with the collective decades and decades of experience inputting these
projects together. we find that is the key. putting the projects together is one of the most difficult parts. one of the things that the secretary general has asked us to do and by us, i mean myself, christine mccarthy and the other multi lateral development banks, he asked us to put a investment. so the goals won't be financed in the way that the millennium development geels were. they were declared and i thought it was a brilliant move. he said we need to focus. and first financing conference happened two years later. we are working to put together a plan to fund the sustainable goals. but this is not going to be a case where we just think about how to divide development assistance. so many things on the table that we have to be much more creative
and private sector financing is going to be a huge part of it going forward. we are in the middle of doing it now. to give you an example, in the poorest countries, support for health care should be in the form of a grant but should it be fully in the form of a grant? getting their tax systems in place. we are going to look at these different things together so the financing strategy will give us
a shot at achieving all these things. and that will require us to be as innovative. >> that's exciting. let's hear from the audience. we have microphones and we are on the record and tell us who you are and who you are affiliated with. >> i'm with the naval post-graduate school, this is very exciting to hear what's going on. what's your public relations or communication plan to get everyone excited as you do and i assume as everyone now feels so we are behind you and i take this all the way down to children's books. we had our children tell their parents not to smoke. >> one of the things that we realize in the social sector is
we have not been nearly as good in the getting our messages across. there are great examples. i used to be a professor at the harvard school of public health. there was an effort to get designated drivers into sitcoms that led to that becoming part of the discourse. and jay winston and a friend of mine, getting smoking out of television and sending messages and there are a history of messages thatville failed miss rably. -- miserably. this is your brain and this is your brain on drugs failed miserably. but what the advertising industry keep throwing things up and if it sticks, keep going with it. we don't have that same mentality. we have to work on many fronts at the same time to make thinking about climate change and make thinking about conservation in the way that
mark's organization has focused. these things have to become cool. they are not quite yet. they are sort of crunchy counterculture, if you will. it has to be right at the core the way we breathe and the way we live. the big boost is to get the market signals right so they are moving in the same direction. i'm extremely impressed with the private sector's embrace of these issues. wal-mart needs food in order to continue to sell its products. coca-cola needs water in order to continue selling its products. the way private sector companies have come on board has been encouraging. what we haven't gotten yet is their great, great skills about sending messages out about diet coke or whatever else they do. so i think this has to be at the
top of our agenda. we have to be ready for when the next disaster hits. i think what happens, after hurricane sandy, everyone turned and looked at the environmental community and said, ok, we get it and what's the plan? actually, we didn't have a plan. we didn't say here's the plan, one, two, three, four, five. i mean, what we're talking about is not a less prosperous way of life. i think full of promise and joy as one that would be fully carbonized. >> will davis with the united nations development program. happy birthday, president kim. and second, perhaps equally as important, certainly in the process, you are hearing a lot of countries bringing different
perspectives to the table, cbdr, common but differentiated responsibility. are countries reaching some common ground? >> i think that language is >> i think that language isere. still there and has to be there. and i outlined it in my speech as well. you know, i have talked about situations of energy apartheid. i'm just back from liberia and sierra leone, our failure to provide sufficient energy is part of the problem. we did not have functioning health care systems. we did not access to grids or even micro or mini grids. they did not have that. so getting information from the regions where ebola broke out. look at ebola as an example of what it means when we don't take seriously our development
responsibilities. i spent my whole life fighting hiv-aids and i never seen anything as bad as the ebola outbreak. and it's the same problem. we have to get to zero cases for ebola in every single country while talking about zero-net emissions. tackling these development challenges is not just about doing the right thing as nice people. for ebola, not having a structure in place that would have allowed us to immediately to this or any other outbreak, now represents a real downside risk not just to the local community if we can't get to zero. climate change is another area where it represents a real downside risk to the global economy that is not understood. we are saying, look, we talk ar lot about looking at a bank's assets. we are doing these studies of the european banking system, because those we know are real downside risks, but so is ebola and so is climate change. this is what we are trying to do
right now is to make sure that poor countries have energy and we need to make sure that they do because it's connected to things like ebola but at the same time we can push all developing countries and this is what i'm hearing from african leaders. they don't want to be on the side of the question just saying no. no. no. it's not our responsibility. i hear also very different attitudes and leadership from the u.s. and china has had a big
impact. they know that even though we respect their need for energy, if we start saying you have to wait for energy because of climate change, then i think we will have real problems. let's make it as renewable as possible and make sure you can develop just like all the other countries have and talk about your contribution to the battle against climate change, that's a conversation that started and conversation that has to grow in intensity between now and paris. >> thank you, president kim, for your remarks. suppose instead of -- you had the koch brothers and u.s. congressional climate skeptic, what would you say to those people to invoke their self-interest and the commitment you have shown to climate change?
>> i try to this particular issue to say the same thing to everybody. and what i start with is that you have got to look at the science and the science is pretty astounding and the science is one that you really have to embrace it. and then after the science, i would invite them to travel with me to places that have been impacted by what we know is the number and intensity of extreme weather events is going up. i would invite to visit where i visited a while ago. i put it in the same way that david cameron has put it. what he said was, look, the science is pretty convincing to me but even if you don't think this is real and you think that
the chances of the terrible events that we predict are not real, even if you think there's only a 10% chance that this is real, wouldn't you buy insurance against it? isn't that what we do with insurance policies? even if we don't know for sure it's going to happen, isn't it the smart thing to protect ourselves in case it does? that's how he put it. i'm clear of where we want to go, because the science is compelling. i know there are people that don't share that view. i would make those arguments and then see where it goes. >> georgetown law school. president kim, the safeguard policies are the settlement, environment and culture and other things have been redone. 300 n.g.o.'s walked out and stinging critique on the blog by brookings institution.
how do you see this new development on potentially communities. >> that's a great question and let me make clear the safeguards are not yet done. we have just put out a draft and we are in the middle intensive negotiations and i have extended the consultation process into march. so we take this very, very seriously. and let me just say that we have a role, the management of the world bank group has a role of putting the information together, but the final decision as to what these look like are part of the negotiation that
what happens with our board and our board is 188-member countries of the world bank group. i made a commitment not to dilute the safeguards. let me give you an example of how complex this is. communities from latin america are absolutely convinced that even stronger language on indigenous communities are important. when we begin to ask questions of people, we have problems like the ones we had in rwanda. it is extremely complicated and difficult. i don't know we are going to resolve that issue and bring extremely strong opinions that come from different parts of the world with different frames together. but that's the job, not just of me but of the board. so this is why multilateralism is so extremely difficult. you have powerful forces on our
board that are arguing about these things all the time. i will do my best to come to an agreement that projects -- that protects people, the environment. we will do everything to get there. because we have 188-member countries and group of governors, we have to do it within the context and i hope others will be continued to be engaged in the discussion of this process as we go forward. >> i would like to ask particularly in the sustainment of development standards why the bank has not included in the draft documents that were discussed recently, mandatory gender standards? i think without the women of the world, the world is not going to move forward and the bank has been such a sustainer of women's advancement. why is that not included in the draft? >> which draft?
>> the sustainable, environmental and social framework? >> i don't know the answer to the question other than to say that we have been extremely committed to gender equality. we have a new area that spans the entire organization. we have been trying to lead as much as possible. i don't know the answer to that question. rachel, do you know the answer to that question? >> i work here for jim. we are in the consultation, this
is all part of the consultation. i think the question in the safeguards, there is a lot of discussion around this, have you put a gender lens on all of the safeguards, so that would start in the way in which you work with women and social impact assessment. and for my own professional experience, you walk into a forest community and you ask men and ask women, you may actually get two different answers as you would do in the village i come from. so we're aware of that. and how do you deal with the specific issues related to gender and some of the other issues in resettlements, et cetera. do you put a gender lens across
everything or stand-alone policy on he gender. the stand-alone policy has to be upstream. it is a process to make sure you are doing no harm. they have to be accompanied by strategic strategies by the game. and jim has to take a new gender strategy to the board. but let's talk after the meeting. >> if you are talking about safeguards and this is an ongoing argument and there are many -- you can imagine the number of stand-alone safeguards that are being discussed. and the board is where do you get the greatest impact or some way of ensuring that at the end of the day we remain accountable? this is an ongoing discussion
and won't be resolved -- we'll present a final version to the board in the summer of 2015 and the final approval will probably be in the year. >> let's try to revert back to today's topic of climate change and financial matters. >> could you comment -- the special problem of india with its great development needs and use of coal. >> well, i have had now had quite a few meetings with the prime minister and the prime minister has told me that he has worked a lot in terms of increasing solar energy.
great advocate of solar energy. he has an enormous problem in the sense that, he has to find ways to provide energy for 400 million people in india and have a positive impact. in my discussions with him, he has been clear he is very open to having these discussions. the first thing they will say, we need a chance to industrialize and create jobs, we need energy. so i'm hopeful in the sense that the leadership of china and the u.s., i think, was unexpected. and even at the g-20 meeting, every single one of the leaders knew there was a reckoning coming. they would have to state what they are going to do. we are going to do everything we can to help india down a cleaner path.
if we could build more rapid transit systems in india and do more bus routes, that would have huge impact and have gone to natural gas. so there are a lot of things we can do. what the prime minister is looking for and this is our responsibility to him, he said to me, if you can find cleaner ways of accomplishing what i have to accomplish and that is creating jobs for these young people, all these other people that are exiting schools and looking for work, if you can find that, i will choose it. i remain hopeful, but i think the overall discussion is a very complicated one. 400 million living on less than $1.25 a day.
that is also his responsibility. >> time for one or two more questions on the topic of climate change. >> institute of peace. let me offer a dissenting critique on your presentation. you have one of the few positions in the world that gives you the bully pulpit. and what i'm finding is whereas you are talking about 2100 objectives, unless we do something in the next 20 years, there is no prospect of meeting those objectives. politicians think they can postpone the problem. what are you saying that would cause a mainstream politician to develop the political will to take very hard choices within the next 10, 15 years, not 50 years? and i don't see it. what i hear is a summation of things countries can do, should do. we have these people at the bank that can help you and understand
these things, but there's the urgency that the consequences are dire within the next 20 years, not in the time years that 2100 would suggest. you don't have to agree with me. in a world of $70 oil which it isn't complicated. it means it postpones people's incentives to get off of oil. a rush to the resource. >> my mother would thank you for calling me wonky. i have been in a political position now for so long. first of all, i don't think we know what's going to happen to oil prices. there are equal numbers of people that some say it will go, others say down to $40 a barrel. if you read our documents, we have put out a lot of documents at an unprecedented level.
they are very specific about what's going to happen in asia, latin america. we have been very specific about the short-term impact. and our approach to the problem has been that we are not going to limit our activity just to giving the doomsday scenario because in my have you getting a politician to change his or her mind is an extremely important task. but in the meantime there are specific tasks. how do we increase financing for renewable energy. this is something we can work on. climate smart agriculture is a no-brainer. it increases productivity and makes the crops more resilient and feeds important people and good for the environment. and it is not being done at the level where it should be done. that's very clear. so i hope you guys are
successful along with us reading our documents convincing the politicians to change their minds. what about building cleaner, more livable cities? they are not. 70% of the emissions happens in cities, if you can make them more cleaner and livable with all the other things that have been proven to lower the carbon footprint in cities, it's something we should do right now and this has changed about the world bank group that we are not strad willing the fence and saying this is a real problem and just engaging in political arguments, the thing i worried about is everyone would put everything on a binding political agreement. that might not happen. i hope it does. by that meeting we will have worked out how we are going to finance activities for the years forward for the poorest country
and work out a plan for cleaner and livable cities that is much morrow bus and have an impact on carbon emissions. funding for renewable energy. in other words, we cannot wait for the politicians to change their mind. that's our approach and i urge you to read our documents. they are pretty frightening. >> let's close on that strong answer. president kim, thank you for your great remarks. thanks for your leadership. as this challenge is a practical one. your leadership is needed and we appreciate it and thank you very much. \[applause] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org are coming up on c-span, look
at the congressional agenda and the approaching federal funding deadline. then the economist jonathan gruber talks about his work on the health care law. leader a discussion on the ukraine-russia conflict. gruberst jonathan testified this morning about his work on the federal health care law and the state program
implemented in massachusetts. the oversight committee is examining his comment on how the law was written in order to pass. at nine: 30e starts a.m. eastern on c-span 3, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. secretary of state john kerry testifies tuesday about combating isis and possible new authorization for the use of military force. you can see his testimony before the senate foreign relations committee at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> this week on q&a, political reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with senator mitch mcconnell. we have plans for four years before this campaign. the started in 2010 right after he saw what happened with rainfall. rand paul beat mcconnell's
handpicked guy in the primary. at that point mcconnell realized, i have to recalibrate everything i know in my home state. he started to make changes. he hired key staff. he started to build the sophisticated infrastructure, knowing this would be the most difficult race in his campaign. >> they knew they were going to spend a lot on technology. they had to watch the obama campaign in 2008 and in 2012. they watched harry reid selection. they needed to go from this 2008 race -- he was going to have the latest technology. in 2013 andterview said he was going to build the int thorough campaign ever american history. he probably got there. >> sunday night at eight eastern
on q&a, and to mark 10 years of q&a, we are airing one program from each year starting december 22. at the, a look congressional agenda and the federal funding deadline. this is 35 minutes. we want to welcome back emily etheridge to talk about lawmakers returning this week. big funding deadline thursday to keep the government running. what is it looking like right now? guest: we expect that the house appropriators will file sometime before midnight their big attempt at an on the bus spending package. it is a product of all the work they've done all year and a lot of last-minute weekend work by staff and lawmakers. we expect them to file that
before midnight, trying to get a vote and clear through the senate by thursday. host: let's remind people. when you say 12 spending bills, it is for, what? guest: the department of that culture has its own spending bill, labor, financial services, they all have separate spending bills and different committees have worked on throughout the year. this package would wrap them all into one bill to fund all the different agencies. to beties that need funded at the higher level will be included. all these changes in policy would be included in this big package to fund the entire government. host: we talking about discretionary spending, not mandatory. on that, does it include money for the department of homeland security? a lot of the house
republicans want to defund the house of -- department of national security. they are saying fund homeland orurity through february march. it is in response to president obama's actions on immigration. host: is that how it is going to work? guest: we think they are going to give them a short-term spending part in all the rest of the government will be funded through september 30. host: are all up organs on board? -- are all republicans on board? guest: not necessarily. there are some republicans, appropriators, who say the appropriations bill is not the right place to have this fight. let's find a different way to respond to governmentkeep the
funding a separate issue. host: if the speaker of the house decides to bring up an omnibus bill, all 12 spending bills to the floor, how many votes would get? guest: we have seen him reach out to democrats a little bit over the past week. he thinks he might not have enough votes to pass this bill spending -- spending bill. they might be able to push him over the edge. it would be very close to that 218 to pass a bill. he could assemble a coalition with a few democrats. it would not be much more than that to 18 to get him over the edge. if he separates out the homeland security department and only funds it for two months, that's enough enough republicans
for that? would democrats approve that? host: democrats would not get on board with that. there might be a few because everything else in the package they like. that is what he is hoping. he hopes to take that tactic to short homeland security and get some republicans. frome hearing conservatives that that won't be enough. a lot of conservatives in the senate who have been going over to the house and talking to the conservatives and saying this is not good enough for us. they are pressuring house republicans to get as good a bill as you can so we have an easier time in the senate. they would not support it. coalition is that saying to mitch mcconnell? guest: he is sending the message
that we don't want a government such down desk shutdown. -- shutdown. let's not have a crisis like we have had in the past area it does not --. do us any good. let's stay on board here. let's get this done next year. we have the power next year. host: we are talking to emily ethridge of rollcall. this is "the wall street journal" this morning. about ted article cruz. how hard is he willing to push. ? what are you hearing about what he might do? guest: we have seen him try to
model things up in the past. he did a very long overnight speech last year before the shutdown. we are hearing that he might try to force the hand where he has not confirming any nonessential nominees until he changes on immigration. he wants to call a separate vote to block funding for implementing these executive actions. there is some dispute over where that can be done. he might try to build a coalition of the senate and not vote for a spending bill the house passes. that could it lead to another showdown on a thursday night and funding runs admitted night. he wants to pressure the leaders into a green with something. -- agreement with something. nobody wants this, especially in the leadership.
they absolutely do not want that. it depends on how many people ted cruz will get people to rally behind him. saying thatdes are he does not want a government shutdown a. week? thursdayis is the deadline. they want to leave town. when will this hit the floor in the senate? that ithe earliest would hit the floor in the senate is thursday, the very last day. it does not give the senate much time to amend it. time toe very little debate it. we would see the bill sometime today. it will come to the house floor on wednesday. the house passes it on wednesday and it goes to the senate on thursday. they have to vote to pass it by midnight. if they don't, they will have to scramble. they will have to pass something to keep the government funded
for just a few more days and by themselves more time. more time is not going to resolve these issues. that strategy is something people are looking forward to. host: this is the last week in washington for this congress. they return in january and the republicans will take over boast -- both chambers. we are getting your thoughts on the funding deadline. we are talking with emily ethridge. the phone lines are open. start dialing in. besides having to deal with this funding legislation, what else does congress need to do before they leave. the senate will take up an appropriations bill.
there are several public land measures. it includes some things and angered conservatives. it passed by a solid majority and will probably pass the senate. we have several nominations coming up and there are some concerns over extending the terrorism insurance. we need a bill to do that. there are some last-minute agenda items that need to be ticked off. host: that risk insurance legislation, we will talk about that in the last hour. we have a question on twitter. guest: the republicans really feel, they have been telling their members this, they got a huge drop in approval after the shutdown. the only thing that saved them was the failure of the obamacare website.
off them the spotlight and hurt the president and the democrats. can't risk that again. we can't just assume that something else will go wrong to turn the public's attention away from us. they showed the numbers. to rebound in popularity. there was a long rebuilding process. it happened right before the midterm elections. they might be able to make that happen again. reallyublican leaders don't want to becoming into the majority in a congress looking like a group that can't keep the government open. host: we will go to the phone lines in georgia. i have been calling in to c-span for 30 years. we have got to cut spending. we are sending it to great guys up from georgia.
we have got to cut spending and -- am withd -- and the republicans. you are going to love david purdue. host: can i ask you, you watch this closely. what to the republicans do? go for a government shutdown? caller: they need to go with ted cruz. ted cruz, i would go with him and he will get the guys from georgia. i think he is the next president. he is by far the best. host: what's the solution? how do they get out of this deadline? they vote to cut spending and the government shut down is not going to hurt that much. hey one massive elections in this year.
i'm not worried about a government shutdown. obama will back down. the key is ted cruz. he is the best that has ever been in washington. how did ted cruz get so much sway with the republican caucus? we hear some great things, that he has a lot of sway over house conservatives. the democrats like to refer to him as speaker cruz. he has not trying to usurp anybody. there are a lot of people that hislike-minded and support ideas. he does have a lot of support. he can put pressure on the actual leadership in this way. he can cross the aisle and go over to the house. host: how often does he have these meetings? guest: every week when they are
in session. he will come to press conferences on the house side. , not tojust talk strategize or make a plan, just to share ideas and see what is going on. some other senators do the same thing. senator sessions from alabama has been coming over. they vote all is one. -- as one. said to holdz has up the judicial nominees over the executive action. what does leadership say? guest: that is one the powers of the senate has. if they vote to confirm the nominees, they have not responded and said that's a great idea. have been passing a bevy of nominations over the past few weeks. it's a typical year and wrap up.
all the controversial ones are not happening. some of the big positions next attorney general, will wait until the 114th congress. they are not taking any controversial fights right now. it is a mute point. host: texas, you are on the air. republicans, if they caught the tiger and now they don't know what to do with it. there is not a real decision on one way to attack this problem, how to go after the immigration actions that they oppose and keep the government open. there are different strategies. even when they put it out, we still here conservatives are upset with things.
they don't have one big unified strategy. difficultyut the with legislating and what will be the big challenge for republicans next year. they have been in the minority in the senate for years. they will have a republican majority in both houses. what can they get on with a democrat in the white house? it's much easier to stop things from getting past. ed.pass caller: i have dealt with congress over the past 50 years. i am 87. we have watched and imperial congress take over the operation rather than unelected congress. this is a chance for unelected congress to take over. we are only talking about the discretionary spending. the entitlements are still going
on, regardless of what happens. they can pass a bill that says everybody can operate at 40% of what they had before. i would like to know what your 's opinion of making such a bill. there would be a huge outcry across the board. --n with seacrest ration sequestration, there was a huge outcry. some my things were suffering. another problem with that sort of thing is it's not a targeted cut. you're not getting rid of the things that aren't as efficient as they should be are outdated and need to be reformed. are cutting good programs and bad programs at the same level. we need to go back to the appropriations process that they are trying to do with the
omnibus bill. they need to look at what needs to be funded more or less. the agencies and departments say these continuing resolutions really hurt them. everything gets funded at the same level for longer. you don't have a way to make needed changes. host: the homeland security department says if you give us a short-term for just our agency, what could be at risk? we heard from jeh johnson last week. guest: we would not be able to respond to the new threats as we know them now. we had an issue with the child migrants the summer. you would not be able to have more judges respond to that. changeld not be able to the programs that you need that responded to what is happening now. it gives you outdated funding
for your programs. that would be a problem. it would help -- kurt -- hurt a response for people that need help. joe is watching us. he is a republican. caller: good morning. that you were on this morning. i really need few to check on something i read a friday. the president of this country did not sign any executive order concerning immigration. filtered outeing that that was all just a scam. can you check on that? do you know anything about it? guest: that is new information to me. they seem to think that it's real. orneeds to be responded to
ample mended if you are on the democratic side. it has caused a lot of waves. it has shaped the tenor of this debate. texas, rob is an independent. caller: there are simple solutions for the republicans. file environmental impact lawsuits. file racial discrimination lawsuits because the numbers are so overwhelmingly despond and. he is discriminated against asians and blacks. they could shut this down if the republicans would ever learned to use the courts the way the dems do. they could care this problem fast and gain some time until they control the senate. host: what about the prospects
of a lawsuit? guest: they have filed a lawsuit over the health care law. there is talk about adding the immigration to that. a healthd just combine care lawsuit in an immigration lawsuit all-in-one. it has been a little bit successful with the health care law. cases are coming up to the supreme court. it keeps it in the news. it reminds people of the opposition to it. it has worked for them in the past as a tactic. i would not be surprised to see them do it again. host: what is the price tag of this so-called omnibus bill? tag?is a total price guest: we are hearing about $1.1 trillion. it gets split up among the agencies.
that would be the final price tag. host: will it in crude -- include earmarks? guest: no. there will be some directed spending. old-school air marks, they are not be in there. host: are you expecting some surprises us to mark --? lookinge are already for policy writers. rider onht be a abortion laws. there might be one about the legalization of marijuana in washington dc. there can be regulations about the epa, the irs, the dodd frank law.
we are expected to see some of those pop up. we will be scouring the bill. host: how many pages to expected to be? guest: it will be thousands of pages. on summaries and fact sheets that the committees send out. then you go to the text and double check everything. it takes a long time. that is why we won't see a vote until wednesday. everybody needs time to look through it and see what's really in it. complicated language. it's not clear and easy to read. ande are a lot of numbers math involved. have a question on twitter. guest: a lot of republicans have been pushing for that.
they may meet democrats in order to pass this bill. thatage like that, prevents democrats from supporting the bill. if the whole thing doesn't pass, we are stuck with only a few days. host: are you expecting some late nights? tonight, tomorrow night, wednesday. maybe thursday night. we'll be watching. check is in indianapolis -- chuck is in indianapolis. it interesting that when the shutdown talk is brought up, it's always in terms of republicans shutting down the government. it's actually obama who would be shutting down the government by a veto. congress assumes that must present obama with a
spending bill that he likes. doing ifress is really they send up and omnibus bill or aobama might not like piece of spending that he doesn't like his present him with a choice to either sign or veto the bill and then obama has to decide if it's worth shutting whatevergovernment or consequence would follow. house has given a veto threat for the spending bill we are talking about. they say that they have to see the text first. if it doesn't fund homeland they would veto it.
-- homeland security, they would be to it. still control the senate. you have to have a bill that passes the senate. republicans get the blame, they say obama should get the blame. congress rights the bill. it has to get through both chambers. the focus is on them and not the president. host: could the seven it -- senate bring up their own bill? guest: it's a revenue bill, so it has to come up through the congress -- house. the senate can say what they would like to see in it. they did a lot of work on these bills over the years. they have been in negotiations. they have had a say in it, the house has to pass the bill first
before it can go to the senate. democrats have been working with hal rogers from kentucky. they have a deal. one of the operating off of? it goes back to this deal that was brokered by paul ryan and patty murray. they figured out a deal. you figure if the details, these are the marks we're going to hit. the appropriators get together and gave those numbers to their committees. they are close on the numbers. that is what is so interesting. the house and senate are not that far apart on the numbers. they need to negotiate things that are much less than you would expect. host: mike is in a pennsylvania.
caller: thank you for c-span. wanted to make the aboutation and comment what is a majority and super majority. a super majority is defined as two thirds of the vote. what that means is if you get , they're only two times when the congress have had a super majority. 1933, what did the common men get? social security. in 1955, what did the common men get? medicare. in a 1%e interested sales tax on all financial
transactions. at 1000 trillion financialing through instruments, 1% would give us $10 trillion per year. address our revenue shortfalls. our future.ave host: that was mike in pennsylvania. robert is in nashville, tennessee. caller: hi. i want it to ask emily a question. i don't want to make this the same. emily is part the press. the press is more complicit in problems than the allocations are.
the republicans have control of the house and senate. if they want to disagree with , why don't they pop their whip. constitutional ability to bring obama up on impeachment and get it over with instead of law hearing it to death. -- lawyering it to death. they are both complicit in it. the media is the real problem. they won't pop the question. i would like to hear your response. guest: the republicans don't have control yet. they have decided as a party not to go for impeachment. speaker boehner pursued this lawsuit instead. you heard some members float the
idea. that really is not the way to go. way to get the right obama. it's not the most effective tool. then what? we don't have the super majority in either chamber to do something. president clinton stayed in office. policies,o stop his they have chosen different strategies rather than impeachment. host: the tea party lawmakers agree with that western mark --? guest: they are going to have more power in the legislature. they think they can do a lot more that way. nobody is pushing for impeachment in congress right now. nobody is frustrated about not pursuing an appeasement resolution. host: harry is a republican it.
you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the things i am disturbed of is nobody cares about the growth of bureaucracies. it seems the only way these liberals know how to run the country is to expand the government. they need to reduce the bureaucracy and rebuild private sector jobs. we will be a third world country soon. we will be like greece or italy. what are republicans saying? guest: they are making the case that making this appropriations is the best way to cut government spending. you can target the inefficient
programs. you can cut back on things that should not be funded anymore. this is the best way to make an effective government. they want to make the case that don't just give everybody a universal lower spending limit. let's go after things that we don't like. the best way to do that is regular order. writes its own appropriations bill. they vote on it. then they meet and they discuss it. they bring up a final version. it is a lengthy process that is supposed happen. we have not seen this happen in almost a decade. that is what they are planning on here. host: hello, jason. caller: i was interested to hear about the laws of congress. the rules of congress are where
they need a lot of work. the majority or super majority, , it islook at the budget a good idea to have a budget. you might get locked into these little small battles. if the rules committee could rewrite something eight years not guess about who would be in power, they could write rules that everybody would agree are common sense. to the floort bill two months before they need to. why can't they do that? guest: they absolutely could. there rules committees do meet and write the rules for the next congress. you might only have the majority for two years. it could switch.
then somebody else comes in and writes the rules. they have the power to change things. set their own rules within their party for how things should happen and be run. they can set their own goals that way. it will be interesting to see what they choose to do next year. host: have we heard what they are planning to do or changes they might make? changed somereid of the requirements needed to confirm a nominee that is not a supreme court nominee. they called that the nuclear option. some democrats were upset and many republicans were. mitch mcconnell is going to have to decide whether to keep that rules change or to go back to the way things were before harry reid changed it. we have not heard from him on where he wants to go with that. won't be as important as when
you have a republican president and a republican senate. o'connell will still be voting on confirming president obama's nominees. to make that choice and we don't know which way he will go. he may go back to requiring 60 votes on a nomination. joan is in rockville, maryland. caller: good morning. the $18 trillion debt is disturbing me. i have discovered that if the ofernment goes bankrupt, all the savings that each individual american has toward their retirement goes to zero. we can't allow it. what is wrong with the government shut down? what is so terrible about it? social security is going to go to people regardless.
what's wrong with the government shut down? people, you of don't stop everything in its tracks. they are still doing essential things in a short shut down. ass not even as effective making things change. we came back from that and just continued to have the government spend the way it did. it did not change much. it didn't cause people to attack fixing the debt or changing our entitlement programs or looking at making some hard decisions. effective asot as you might think. it does shut down some important things if it goes on for long time. the parks were closed. you could stop some highway and transportation things. the faa was having robbins with -- problemswould be
with how flights would be managed. viewerst's remind our what lawmakers face this thursday. midnight, the current spending bill expires. the government would run out of money. we want to see what lawmakers do to keep the government open and fund the government through the rest of fiscal 2015. this is all wrapped up >> on the next "washington journal," north carolina atgressman david price looks federal government funding, set to expire this thursday, december 11. georgiaat representative doug collins discusses transparency in the possiblere law and the release r