tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 17, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST
at 8:20, virginia congressman the one point $1 trillion budget deal and a measure that extends tax provisions set to expire at the end of the year. ♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, december 17. staved offongress another potential government shutdown by passing another short-term federal funding belted the expectation now is that that measure has brought legislators are enough time to pass a $1.8 trillion spending and tax package. perhaps as early as tomorrow. we will get into the details of that legislation on this morning's "washington journal." but first, we'll discuss the federal reserve's long-awaited move to raise short-term interest rates for the first time since the financial crisis. called thehe fed
move a vote of confidence in the economy. this morning we want to hear what you think. has your confidence in the economy recovered since the great recession? how do you expect a rise in short-term interest rates to impact your spending and saving? our phone lines are opening. we have split are from lines along income brackets. if you make under $25,000, the phone number 202-758-7800. -- 8000. if you make $51,000 to $100,000 202-748-8002. if you make over $100,000 -- 8003 is your number. you can catch up with us on social media and twitter and facebook or e-mail us. a very god thursday morning to you. -- a very good thursday morning to. headlines beginning with the new york times. "fed raises rates closing chapter of u.s. recovery." the front page of the "financial
times." "historic gamble for yellen." to the front page of the business section of "the new york times." "shares rise as wall street takes the news in stride.." "usa today." "liftoff" the headline. region an's recovery stork milestone wednesday as the federal reserve raised interest rates for the first time in nation'sdecade -- the recovery reached and historic milestone. here is janet yelling yesterday announcing the rate hike. earlier today, the central open market committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by one quarter percentage point. this action marks the end of an extraordinary seven-year period
during which the federal funds rate was held near zero to support the recovery of the economy from the worst financial crisis and recession since the great depression. it also recognizes the considerable progress that has been made towards restoring jobs, raising incomes, and easing the economic hardship of millions of americans. committee'scts the confidence that the economy will continue to strengthen. host: for more on this decision and what it means, we are joined by gina -- of bloomberg news on the phone. remind us how long this decision has been in the works at the fed. really long times. they have not raise interest rates since 2006. exactly sevenwas years to the day when they went to zero.
this has been a long time coming. host: talk about what this rate means. 5 percent interest rate does not seem like a lot. is not.it janet yellen repeatedly emphasized that yesterday. 25 basis points. credit card debt. but you are not going to see it in the long run. [indiscernible] at the same the 25 basis point increase is an important signaling device. it says what the fed things about the economy. it says, we think the economy is ready to sustain a hike. try to what yellen emphasize during the press conference. she hopes, she said this, she hopes average americans take this as a sign that the economy is doing well and the fed has
confidence that the job market is going to continue to improve in 2016. host: take us to the schedule for increases because she laid out an expected plan of when they are going to go higher than that .25 percent increase. jeanna: we have a very hazy schedule because the fed is insisted that this time around they are going to be data dependent. not expecting to see any sort of 25 basis point every other meeting -- at any rate, the fed isn't. so, they are predicting interest rate increases next year. and those are the prediction and the prices are going to be data dependent. we may not casually get all of them or we will get more. the big open question is what does that schedule look like. take us through more about the practical impact about when
viewers at home will first see this, where they are first going to see it and how it is going to impact their wallet. jeanna: you are going to see it in short-term interest rates. credit cards. anything that is relatively short payback period. with time, as rates get higher, you will see it go to mortg age rates. almost certainly not anytime soon. nextif we get up into 1.5% year, that is unlikely to have a big impact on mortgage rates. before you go, market reaction. one of the headlines we saw from "the new yorkt times." shares irsrise on wall street. took this pretty much in strides. a lot of markets were not that significantly changed as you might expect with a decision of
this magnitude. a lot of the economists attributed that to the fed doing a good job of communicating this was coming. there was no surprise that they did not change their economic forecast very much. they had very clearly signaled that we are going to be getting this rate rise this month. it went off without a hitch. they want to not rattle markets. i think they chalk yesterday up as a pretty big success. host: she's an economic reporters a bloomberg news. thanks for your time this morning. we are asking our viewers to weigh in this morning. do you think you have recovered from the great recession? what do you think about this interest rate hike, the first time since 2006? is it going to impact how you spend or save? our phone lines are split up by income practice -- income brackets. $50,000ake $25,000 to
202-748-8001. we will start on the last line, those that make over $100,000. joe, a frequent cola. how are you doing? joe: i have been calling your great network for 30 years. i have been an investor for 50 years. have been successful. i think it is a good thing. they had to raise the interest rate. the market responded. the market went up big time yesterday but the long-term health of our economy is, we got to get a president there like ted cruz who will cut spending. because the debt is $18 trillion in the unfunded liability is $100 trillion.
although i am a very happy investor, the long-term future of the economy will be based on electing a super taxpayer champion like cruz. and adding a congress that will cut spending and cut taxing and give investors the incentive to invest. i feel very good about it. the market went up 1 1/3 yesterday. i fill great about the long-term future of this country. but we need to elect ted cruz. he is the key to the future of america. host: that election a less than a year away. one you doing with your money today after that announcement? joe: i've always bought blue-chip stocks. chip stock investor for 40 years. i have been buying all along in the market goes down a bit, i buy, because i am a bullish long-term investor. i think the long-term future of the country is fantastic. i'm a very happy investor. if ted cruz is elected president, i will really buy more. i'm excited and i think this is
a good thing yellen did. i think the market will -- if ted cruz is elected president, i predict the market will double in five years. host: always appreciate talking to you, joe. we are asking our viewers to call in. how does this decision impact to? do you feel like you have recovered from the so-called great recession? here's the headline from today's "wall street journal." "fed nudges rates higher." investors took the upbeat message to heart according to "the wall street journal." the dow jones rose 224 points. .28%. little over that. want to hear what that means for you and whether you feel like you have recovered from the great recession. calling in next from rockville, maryland.
on that line for those who make under $25,000. caller: i'm calling regarding that when the fed raise the rates, people like me you're having a hard time finding a job and i am working two part-time jobs still cannot find a good paying full-time job and to have something like this impact me. once again, it is just taking in the face. i am finding it hard to get move this level and further ahead in life because once you impact employers, which i'm working for small employers because that seems to be the only jobs you can find out here. this is not helping me at all. there's no one who is out there answering for people like us. host: let me read you a statement that bernie sanders put up on this announcement. bernie sanders, the presidential
candidate for the, credit party "when millions of americans are working longer hours, the federal reserves decision to raise rates is bad news for working families. when a time when unemployment is off the charts, we need to do everything possible to raise the wages of the american people. the fed should act with the same urgency to rebuild the disappearing middle class as it did to bail out wall street banks seven years ago." that was bernie sanders. what do you think about his statement? he has thehink finger on the pulse of what is really going on. what they have done is taken the consideration of the 1% and said, we are going to help this group. and we are going to -- the rest of society who are making minimum, let them keep ticking along. consideration, other than people like bernie sanders who is out there who understands that a lot of us are really struggling. and considering raising the
asterest rate as she has h basically once again put me in a position where i know i am going timeve either part -- hard to find a better paying position. it is just not out there. and no one's really looking at what we are having to do. be able to put bread on the cures. -- bread on the table. host: we are splitting up our phone lines by income bracket. if you make under $25,000. you can also join the conversation on facebook. gary writes on her facebook page this morning "good, my savings
will finally make some money." is that these professional currency manipulators that work for the government are no better than the hedge fund managers or any other wall street gambler." how are we the people supposed what effect it is going to have on our meager finances?" join the conversation on twitter. where the conversation takes place. here are a few of the comments. ".25 percent is miniscule pretty only thing good about it is it is going in the right direction." aising interest rates is a transfer of wealth for consumers to already bloated banks." use cash.ifference, money faster by investing in tangible opportunities locally." "it's a good thing i just paid off the truck."
getting your thoughts this morning. joe's up next, mount airy would, maryland for those who make over $100,000 a year. joe: good morning. sure, so i'm actually above $250,000. it might make sense for c-span2 have another -- to have another line. i think we you are seeing out there is that most of your callers are right, especially on the low end. once the afford care act came out and had to work more than 20 hours, you had to pay people full-time health care, or pay people health care i think that affected people below. now you're hearing increase of people on the lower end of jobs. i think you only have a split between the haves and the have nots. myself, i am paying roughly 50% and middlee poor
class are right. as long as the stock market goes well, i'll be taken care of. how do you get jobs and things towards the poor and middle class? it is really incentive. right now there is not the incentive for me to hire somebody who is -- i'm going to have to pay health care benefits, because my return of investment is not good enough. for the middle class, i think what i would like to see is a corporate tax rate lowered. if that means you have to raise taxes once again on the higher people like myself, i would be ok with that. but you have to incentivize job creators to create jobs or o nthe low end, for the people who are competing for entry-level positions, make it more attractive for them to work a full time versus getting hit by, get transportation it's -- transfer payments from
subsidies. host: how close are you following this spending bill, compromise that was worked out, the tax bill that is working its way through the end of the week, thee massive packages, spending bill to fund the government $1.1 trillion? billion.ackage $650 is there anything you found out that might impact you? one of the provisions in that obamacare'stpones cadillac tax on expensive plans. are you following this debate? host: caller: yes, i am. on the cadillac plans, what happened there is that you change from plans that had very low deductibles to very high deductibles. now if you have to go to the doctor, your deductibles are higher. an individual standpoint, more expensive. the ones with a lower deductible are the cadillac plans which wouldng -- but someone
prefer. but they are going to pay more money unless this was extended. if we are going to have something like the affordable care act, i would've been fine with the cadillac landing -- cadillac plans being taxed. the problem on that side is we are not getting enough revenue into the affordable care act to make itself funding. somewhere that is point have to break. the most important thing that came out was the export of oil. at least it is allowing us to compete fairly with other cartels and produces in that area. host: thanks for the call from mt. airy, maryland, talking about the lifting of the death eight -- the decades old oil export ban. the budget deal that was released late on tuesday night. the details of that were, came out yesterday over the course of the day.
today's papers filled with details. "new house leader, same messy budget process." noting the 2009 page spending legislation and companion 233 tax bill are the final products of months of sparring between the two parties -- here is a bit from paul ryan's press conference yesterday talking about the spending compromise. speaker ryan: i said i inherited this process. i do not think this is the way government should work. this is not how appropriation should work. we play the cards we were dealt with as best as we possibly could. and inheriting a process i know we need to restore to regular order. and i believe we have made the best of it. letisten to our members, we
our committees take the lead and i am pleased we have been able to accomplish so many things. i look forward to in 2016 just like we have in the last six weeks getting congress working back on the way it should be working. adding back to what we call regular order. that is what 2016 is going to be about, steering this battleship towards working the way the people's house is intended to be working in the first place. host: you can follow the debate over that $1.1 trillion spending 622 billion tax bill that is expected to happen on the house floor today and tomorrow. those bills be combined if and when they are passed and go to the senate for consideration where leaders are expected to quickly clear the package after the house finishes up its business. you can watch all of that here on c-span. for the next 25 minutes or so this morning, we are talking about that fed rate hike, the rise announced
yesterday by janet yellen. getting your thoughts on how that would impact you and whether you think you have recovered from the so-called great recession. jeffrey has been waiting, danbury, connecticut, for those who make over $100,000. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. thanks for the show. i watch it every morning. theirs economic consequences of a rate rise. but 1/4 of a point is not much at all. i think what the fed is doing is taking a page from the behavioral finance field of economics, which is it's a psychological rate increase. when i say psychological, there are parts of our economy, for example, real estate, that have been sitting and really not having any economic activity. and behaviorally it is because
industries feel rates are zero forever, why make investments? why hire, why merge? and for people who want to buy a house, they figure rates are zero, mortgage rates will be low forever. why buy a house? this is going to tell people with a shot heard round the world that rates are going up. now it is time to get off the fence and start economic activity. that is what it is about. will it start a frenzy of buying or refinancing and that sort of thing? caller: maybe not a frenzy right now but it is going to start people thinking and starting to make a move. if i want to buy a house or car. host: is there anything you have been putting off in this process that you might move up the priority list now? caller: actually, i have been thinking about this for a couple of years now. and most recently a put my house up for sale three months ago.
i have a contract on it a month later. versus when i put the house on the market two years ago i had nobody to look at the house. so, this rate, i think these interest rate rises are going to spur not only might buyer to close on the house, but icacan can go purchase a new house because of this. int: richard's up next georgia on the line for those who make between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i think it is a good thing they have raised it man,sei'm a 62-year-old and the first house we purchased we had a 10% interest rate. and i think it does stimulate. goes, itinterest rate also increases the economy because it puts more money out in it. and several things that effects
-- tax cuts. tax money. it also goes back to the economy. so this is a step four. us retirees that were able to save a little bit of money are not getting nothing in the money market no more. it is just flat. used to be you could raise money. you have to put into an economy before you can get anything out of it. host: thanks for bringing up that point. leads to the story from "usa today." you will need $1 million to retire. blame the fed. "free money is coming to an end." "the damage has been done for many retirees and a small rate hike will do little to help retirees. retirees need to save $1 million at they want to get half of their income from low risk treasury investments -- "
near zero for the last seven years. ayesterday the fed is ticking up by 1/4 of a percent. whether you would agree that with the said that this is a vote of confidence in the u.s. economy right now -- whether you would agree with the fed. richard, good morning. you are on "washington journal." caller: hi. i never called in beefore. -- beefore. -- before. thanks for taking the call. it is about time interest rates have gone up. i know the previous caller talked about it spurring purchases and things like homes. i think it actually has the opposite effect. and it had to happen. but the consequences i think are unclear because things like housing prices have raised far
faster than incomes. nnd somebody who is -- needs a affordability equation that will get in the way here. industries needed to go up,-- interest rates needed to go up, auditing the bubble they have created in residential real estate should be seen, the consequences. i watch in my area. construction by a series of, you know, very curious. handfuls of investors buying properties. and building them out and building homes they price at a high price point. that i think with more normalized interest rates will be out of the affordability gap for many people. the consequences are still to be seen. thanks for taking my call. host: terry's up next. greenbelt, maryland, on that line for those between $25,000
and $50,000 a year. good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is not time yet. i'm sitting here listening to these other callers talk about investments and buying homes. my income does not allow me to do that. all i do is work and pay bills. cost a -- apartments lot. the rent an apartment cost a lot of money. then your credit has to be o n par. enoughu have to save money to make a double down payment. my income does not allow me to have that flexibility. i think it is irresponsible at this point. i believe if they work on fixing the middle class, then they should be able to move, make the adjustment to the interest rates. it is just not time yet. the jobs out here are some press of salaries to make up for the
money they lost during the recession. host: you said they need to work on fixing the middle class. what is the best way to do that? caller: oh, wow. that, thatmore jobs increase wages in the area. some people say job training. that may be a possibility, but j -- with lowwill tuition. host: appreciate the call this morning. if you want to join in the conversation, our phone lines are open. we have split our lines by income bracket.
us about how this interest rate hike that his long-awaited is going to impact your spending and saving this morning. we want to hear from you. here is a headline from "the washington post." "how the rate hike may hit your wallet." going through several different ways americans might be impacted by this rate hike announced yesterday. talking about mortgages. increase in short-term rates "could push up field on the long-term bonds -- " auto loans are more directly affected. credit cards, interest rates and other lines of credit may increase virtually in lockstep with the rate hike from the federal reserve.
according to one of those interviewed by "the washington post." their savings rate. after years of near zero yields increase could be the good news that ultraconservative investors have gotten in years. we want to hear from you. how are you changing your spending and saving in light of this announcement yesterday? on the line florida for those who make between $51,000 and $100,000 a year. chris, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a retired bond portfolio manager, and i personally feel like i turned the program on -- i turned the program on and i feel like this is misguided. it is like asking cancer patients and what their treatment should be on whether they went through the chemo and felt awful, so they are
recommending a treatment. even with political influence, janet yellen is highly competent. you have to leave this up to policymakers. i am strongly against any moves to have congress interfere with the federal reserve. i think one of the things that benefits the american people is that you have highly competent people on the federal reserve board looking on an independent, unbiased manner with no political -- generally no political axes to grind -- and they generally have had the american people's best interest at heart. i could go out to the corner of the street and ask what you think interest rates are going? who cares what that guy thinks. it is the people that run huge, vast amounts of money. and let me caution your retirees.
what happens when the federal reserve titans is that short-term rates rise. this is if retirees are and short-term bond portfolios, that is counter to what their interests are. that means they are very susceptible to swings in interest rates. you are actually seeing interest rates, long-term rates, come down as a result of this tightening head inflation expectations are coming down. , what about ask you what this guy thinks it this guy is the chairman of the financial services committee in the house, republican of texas. he put out a statement at -- yesterday saying the real question is not whether the fed should be raising interest rate or lowering interest rates, it is whether the fed is giving the economy sustainable interest rates. he writes our economy would be
healthier if the federal reserve were more predictable in its conduct of monetary policy, more transparent about its decision-making, and more accountable when regulating. and goes through a piece of legislation that he has trying to do that. caller: well, i really think the fed -- i wouldn't say that -- i would say they are unsustainably low and they are in a pickle because they had this huge portfolio that they have to unwind. and i think it would help to make some type of move to reduce that portfolio. somewhere in the $4 trillion area. i think they have been play predictable. i don't see they have been confusing -- well, september they were somewhat confused. host: when they put off the decision about raising? caller: yeah. i would have liked personally to
seem a 0.5% increase, but i think if they are on the path that they are mentioning they in going to raise rates 1% 2016, i think that is a good move to i would like to see them be a little less cautious. is aurse, janet yellen democrat, but i think for the most part they really are trying to do the right thing. they had no control over the federal budget. the american people should be extremely concerned that we have $19 trillion outstanding, and what happens when somebody stops -- other countries or other investors stop lending to us? then you are going to see another greece, another detroit. budget,s not just the it is where the money goes through. host: and the federal government
looking to spend about $1.1 trillion on federal programs through just september of next year if this budget deal goes through at the end of this week. but in terms of the federal fund rate, this key interest rate that we have been talking about, the one that was raised yesterday, here is a trite from the "washington post," showing the rate from the 1990's through the to thousands. you can see going to near zero for several years there. the small rise, that is what we are talking about. we want to get your thoughts on that increase. the line for those who make between $51,000 and $100,000 a year, anthony, good morning. caller: good morning. they raised the interest rates on the american people. this is basically very bad for the middle class. right now in my household, everyone is working and we are
barely holding our head above water. as a retired teamster, i am about to take a 2/3 cut. family, iture of my don't see my family ever buying a house. either one of my sons. and it is across the whole are lookinge they for jobs and they sign onto these trade deals and we lose more jobs. and we lose good paying jobs. they are just putting another nail in the coffin of the middle class. host: anthony in staten island. let's go to missouri, the lie $25,000those who make and $50,000 a year. are you with us? caller: yes, i am. host: go ahead. caller: russia pre-floated the ruble and raised their interest rates, and now they are on recovery. as long as ceos -- they used to
make 40% more. as long as they make -- [indiscernible] as long as there are trade deals , there will not be no middle class. and you have the koch brothers trying to make every state a right to work. so, if they raise interest rates -- i'm 60 years old. i cannot retire because my money in the bank doesn't make any interest. i think with the fed is doing they should have done a long time ago because they created a bubble and didn't put no bankers in jail went. deale -- when trade deals killed the middle class. host: here are a few more tweets. @cspanwj if you want to follow along with the conversation. loansntain of student
keeps me from investing for the next 25 years. since i am selling my house tomorrow, i'm glad this happened after my buyer locked in a low rate. james is in chattanooga, tennessee. the line for those who make between $51,000 and $100,000 a year. having yes, thanks for me on. i think that is the right thing to do. i think they rated -- waited for five years too long. -- four or five years too long. the multimillionaires are the ones making all the money. and what little savings i have, i can't get anything on it. and i just think they are doing the right thing. to start with, i agree with, staffers and. i think the federal reserve is unconstitutional to start with, but of course congress did it. i don't think they were allowed to, but they did it.
they should let the free market control the interest rate. but anyway, i think it should be higher than what it is and they waited too long to do it. host: james, can i ask you, are you retired? caller: yes, i am. host: how did this impact the last seven years of this interest rate being close to zero -- how did that impact how you are living in retirement? caller: well, i have a military retirement, so that helps me. but i was expected a triangle type thing with my investment, social security, plus my military retirement. but it has torn one leg out of my stool for the money that i have saved has just been wasted as far as looking for any income on it. and i think that is wrong. i mean, you just don't hold interest rates at zero. host: thank you for the call from chattanooga, tennessee. headlines and then we will get
to a few more of your calls. judgealtimore declared a hungry. the young man whose death in april prompted the black lives matter protesters across the city and sometimes violent riots. the story noting that prosecutors will retry officer the charges,r on according to congressman elijah cummings, who represents that area. in several of the papers this morning. one other story to note, a topic we have been covering here on the "washington journal" for a long time. prisoners.
getting money from the government for nothing and they have been charging the american people for interest on credit cards and all that sort of things. congress needs to get together and create a tax policy that helps the american people. these people go there, sit down there every day. and i just want to say this. it is a waste of time and money as far as i'm concerned to have that program on after your program in the -- is on in the morning about congress could all those people do their sit there and waste peoples time. this is there every day and do absolutely nothing, and the american taxpayer is being fleeced by the banks and nobody says a word. host: the house expected to gavel in at 9:00 this morning to talk about this spending and the tax bill, the compromises that
have been worked out. we will go to the house at in that :00 this morning. in florida, the line for those who make between $25,000 and $50,000 a year, joe, good morning. caller: is that me? host: that is you, joe. caller: we make under $50,000 a year, and i did a little mini fed,rch on google for the and i probably forgot more than i remember about it, but what i understand, that guy that called and said the fed is unconstitutional, it is. some of theknow -- tax money that comes in is off the interest for the -- for the money that the fed spends. we can't spend money that we
don't have, and the fed keeps printing money. if i remember- fed is notthe appointed by the congress. congress doesn't have any control over them. i think probably the banks have control. my wife and i, every time we go to the store and we see a product and it is raised like instead of a couple of pennies for the product, it is raised so, i don'tlars, know, we anticipate our next move from our condo to a cardboard box behind the supermarket. what is your name? host: it is john, joe. i was going to tell you that janet yellen at her confirmation
hearing in the senate november 14, 2013. if you want to go back and watch members of congress asking her about her leadership of the fed. go ahead, joe. caller: yeah, the leadership -- what issay -- it is -- the word, mute? because the fed shouldn't exist. i do know how it came about. i did some research, like i said. think -- i -- i think the american people are being tooken by the fed. and it just -- it is just going to be a hard road to hoe from now on. host: a few more folks waiting in this first segment.
let's get to hugo in fairfax, virginia or those who make over $100,000 a year. caller: good morning. i wanted to say thank you for taking my call on c-span. you asked one of the earlier callers about -- i think it was jeb and his committee and what some of the callers thought about the output there. balancing both monetary policy, what the fed does, and the fiscal policy of the congress, the monetary policy -- what we are seeing from janet yellen and the fed is that potentially the economy is improving a little bit. so now it is time to raise the rates. they did a pretty decent job of signaling that was going to happen. but then the other side, from a fiscal policy, is what we really need is the help of the congress so that they can have more certainty in the tax code and
the outlook of the future, the budget. because all of these things are having a negative impact on our companies. a commercial entities are sitting on piles of cash. they are doing better than the ever have before, but they do not have the confidence about the future. and the way they get the confidence is there is potentially a lot of talk about changing tax codes and about other types of activities so that they can make good decisions regarding future projects, which could result in higher employment and better employment opportunities for americans across the board. it certainly does not address some of the wage inequality issues that i think some of your callers have raised today. that is a little different of an issue, but i think overall it is generally a good thing. while there will be a little bit of pain in the process, borrowing money will become more expensive not only for
homeowners, but also business. but at the same time, if it puts people on a path of more certainty, they are more inclined to make decisions for the future. host: the "financial times" calling it an historic gamble paid let's see if we can get in bernard from california on the line for those who make between $51,000 and $100,000 a year. caller: how are you doing, sir? host: i am doing good. go ahead. caller: you have had some good callers today. i appreciate you for taking my call. but the federal reserve, they shall not have raised the interest rates. the people are already having a hard time trying to purchase a home. they are raising an interest -- the interest rates. you have all these empty homes all over america that need
people to purchase these homes. you have low wages, people working part-time, it is just a terrible thing. i am retired because i have seen the game young in my life, so i made moves to get out of the rat race. but i just the people not being able to make it in america. hey, when theple, interest rates were low, buy a home, get those low interest rate because they might not come back -- interest rates because they might not come back. we all know the federal reserve is not a government agency. and yes, we are all being played. this is making the federal reserve more powerful. they are making us think they are doing us a favor. they are really not doing us a favor. they are making america be a slave to them.
through their international dealings. so that is where we are ads. unless we make a change, which we are not because most people don't even know that -- [laughter] -- anyway, sir, i appreciate you taking my call. host: that is bernard up early in california. up next, we will talk about a new terror alert system that was announced yesterday by the department of homeland security. bill danvers will be here. he is with the center for american progress. and later, we will be joined by the bill, discussing congress is expected to vote on at the end of this week. we will be right back. announcer: next week is office
week on the "washington journal." a one-hour conversation with you. starting monday, december 21, former mayors a state senator jeff smith on "mr. smith goes to prison." tuesday, december 22, constitutional attorney john whitehead on his book "battlefield america." university of georgia law professor is our guest on wednesday, december 23, talking about her book "how the other half banks." certaina.m. eastern on -- on thursday, december 24, matthew green joins us to talk about "underdog politics." author,ay, december 25,
historian, and lecturer craig shirley discusses his book "last act." be sure to watch c-span's washington journal" during office week, starting december 21. -- during authors week, starting december 21. >> the ragan narrative -- the narrative wasn that he was turning prematurely orange. even with all the successes of his administration, all the historians have consistently rated him low. i believe out of ideological bias. announcer: sunday night, historian craig shirley discusses his book "last act," a look at ronald reagan's life after leaving the white house.
soi grew up in the 1980's, it was the time for us, but i also read about the facts. i don't make things up. and i don't leave enemies or anyone else -- don't believe ed meese or anyone else makes things up. the picture that emerges is of a very serious, deep thinking, consider it, slipped is this -- solicitous man. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: yesterday, the obama administration unveiled a new terror threat alert tool paired -- tool. to discuss that in the current threat environment, we are joined by deal danvers -- by bill danvers, senior fellow at the center for american progress .
first, explain what this new alert mechanism is and why the department of homeland security but it was needed. guest: let's start with what it is not. it is not the same old system that we had that was created by the bush administration, which at the time was a good idea. host: that color-coded system. guest: that is exactly right. i think five different colors. but it was pretty general and pretty bag. consensuse general was that it wasn't as effective as it should have been. so there was a decision made to set up a new system. and that was set up, i believe, in 2011. system basically had two levels -- or not had, has two levels, because the system has not gone away. you have alerts. you have elevated, and then imminent. and they give very specific
details for what is going on. i think geographic location, mode of transportation, threats to infrastructure, steps authorities are going to take to protect us, and steps we can take to protect ourselves. those are the specifics of the two different alert that the ntas system has paid not too long ago, jeh johnson, the present head of dhs, came up with this new system, or the supplement to the existing system. and he puts out the bulletins. the bulletins are sort of communications on development and trends and talk about things that are going on that people need to pay attention to. i think the idea is that if it is too specific, you may never get an alert. to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a formal issue -- alert issued under
ntas. host: and that a bulletin for our viewers notes that we are in a new phase in the global threat environment, which has implications on the homeland. we are concerned about self radicalized actors who could strike with little or no notice. recent attacks and attempted attacks internationally and in the homeland weren't increased -- warrant increased security. how do they go from one step in the bulletin alert to the next step, and elevated alert, and then to an eminent threat -- imminent threat? guest: let me be clear i do not work for dhs and i'm not an expert and this is a very new system, so we will have to see how it evolves. is anhere is amending --
end date. -- is an ending. iness new information comes to continue with it. but in terms of how this affects other things, what this does is, as i understand it, it supplements but it does not replace current the alerts every -- but it does not replace. the alerts are very specific. it talks about a geographic area. it talks about a mode of transportation and things authorities can do and steps we can take to protect ourselves. and media are alerted so people know that there is either an elevated or imminent alert. so the people feel that they are informed, have a sense of what is going on, have a sense of where things stand, but it does
not replace the alert system. host: bill danvers is a former senior director at the national security council. currently is a senior fellow at the center for american progress . he writes about security issues. if you want to join in on this conversation, you can call in. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for (202) 745-8002 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 forindependents (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. guest: i think that is why this system is unique. the alerts were apparently too specific. i don't believe in alert was ever issued, which means that it is not ineffective, but it means
it doesn't reach out to the public in the way that i think dhs and the administration wanted to. so they put in place these bulletins. this whole issue of self radicalization has people on edge. and this is a way to say this is what we are seeing, this is what we are hearing, and we want you to be aware of this. and we want you to be aware of some of the specifics. and then if it has to be elevated, then they can do that as well. host: we are talking with bill danvers. the phone numbers are on the screen. i also want to show the viewers a bit of jeh johnson announcing this new terror alert bulletin yesterday at dhs. [video clip] >> this is the template for able attend, which we -- for a bulletin, which we are announcing today. this is general information for the public about the current threat environment, what we see,
additional details, what your government is doing about it, and how the government can help. with today's announcement, we are also issuing an actual bulletin. the duration for this bulletin and these bulletins should have touration will be six months june 16, 2016 from today. in summary, what we are informing the public today in this bulletin, which will be issued today, is the following: we are in a new phase in the global terrorist threat, which has implications on the homeland. particularly with the rise and used by terrorist groups of the internet to inspire and recruit. we are concerned about the self radicalized actors who could strike with little or no notice. recent attacks and attempted attacks internationally and in increasednd warrant
security, as well as increased public vigilance and awareness. host: bill danvers, the system is all about assessing the threats. in your mind -- guest: assessing and informing. host: as you assess the threats, what do you think is the bigger threat right now, the homegrown self radicalized terrorist or something that has received a lot of attention here on capitol hill potential isis terrace sneaking in with -- terrorists sneaking in with refugees? guest: we can talk about refugees later, but i think the self radicalization piece is a bit more concerning. clearly, the bulletin reflects that concern. the reason i say that is that is something we are not able to track what is closely. system theve in our kinds of methods by which we can sort of tell whether a person is
self radicalizing. that is a little more complicated to get inside of a persons head and find out what they are thinking -- a person's head and find out what they are thinking. in terms of coming in with refugees, we have a pretty good screening system that hopefully can deal with that in a more direct way. int: miguel is up first virginia, the line for republicans. good morning. caller: yes, hello. thank you for taking my call. i wonder whether the system should be incorporated or whether the system that is used to announce a kidnapping of a child -- i don't quite recall what the name of that is -- but if that should be adapted to this new alert system so that, for instance, in the event of an active shooter incident
someplace, people in the general area could be notified that there is an active shooter incident and be aware of that. host: you are talking about alerts that would come to your phone? caller: exactly. .he way they do with alerts i have gotten some and washington, d.c. where i was stepping down the road and i got some alert that a child was kidnapped or missing or something like that. a similar approach could be used potentialpeople of active shooter incidents or something of that nature. host: bill danvers. guest: miguel, a really good point. i have been driving down highways where you will see these sorts of alerts/. i think one point that is worth stressing is that we have an alert system in place.
so the elevated and the imminent alert remain in place. this supplements, it does not replace that. and part of that system, i understand it, is to alert authorities and social media and more traditional media outlets i andt miguel, you and our families can understand what is going on. so i am guessing that if an alert is issued -- and one has been issued -- that this kind of thing will occur, the kind of thing you are speaking about, miguel. i think this kind of alert, letting people know what is going on, probably will occur. host: ohio is up next, rick is waiting on her line for independents. caller: yeah.
ago, 1% controlled all of the wealth -- 41% controlled no wealth -- or 1% controlled no wealth. we are number one in the world in education, health care, infrastructure. then a conservative movement began in this country. you go back to george bush, dick cheney, go back to gerald ford. and what has happened in the last 45 years is conservatism has taken over this country. within the world of globalization, you have the south, the dirty south that is behind all of the wars. all your military bases are down south. you have all the loyal companies down south, and on the east coast, you have the bankers and wall street. host: can you take us to the
terror alert system? caller: i have written books about the bankers of this country that have destroyed this country. did you cut me off? host: no, we are listening. caller: i have written books about how this country was destroyed. you had the banking system. system,ederal reserve which is -- which is going around the world with these currency wars, then the world responds. it responds. and that is what you people call terrorism. so you can go back 50 years when there were no terror attacks. you are amazing -- talking about terrorism. right before bush was elected, there were four episodes on snl. host: we are going to hold off and stick to the terror alert system. one question --
he said 50 years ago, there were no terror attacks in this country. guest: there were certainly terror attacks. if you look at ireland, that was certainly part of the problem they had with their paired and the problems in the u k and issues in northern island. he also had a lot of terrorist issues and problems in europe as well. we had in 1983 a very unfortunate terrorist attack in lebanon, which killed a lot of our personnel and others. so terrorism has been around. if you look at the 19th century, terrorism was very much a part of what was going on in russia. so, no, i think terrorism has always been here. it has become more prominent recently, but it has always been around. i think it is fair to try and connect the two. the idea of inclusive growth and
economic stability. i think those are two key components for that. so dealing with the economic issues over the longer term, i think that is a good thing. it is a piece of the puzzle. guestbill danvers is our for about the next 15 minutes. he is -- has previously worked at the cia, the department of defense. currently a senior fellow at the center for american progress. from pennsylvania, the line for independents. good morning. turn down your tv for us and go ahead. caller: ok. good morning. host: good morning. caller: how are you this morning ? host: x lend. go ahead. caller: good. as far as the terror alert, that
is fine and dandy. my thing is they are not saying who is in our towns. because my town has totally changed. the majority of people in my town now are mexicans, and i don't even know where these people came from. and no matter whether we have that in place or not, we still have to be careful, we have to watch our surroundings. it is up to us as individuals to watch what we are doing and watch our surroundings and just be careful host: her concern stemming from immigration. guest: immigration is i think in many ways ever separate issue from talking about the alert system, but i will add this. we are a country of immigrants. i would not be here if not for immigration. my grandfather immigrated from wales, my wife was born in france. thatieve in immigration clearly works to the benefit of all of us in the u.s. but i
think the fact that we are a nation of immigrants is a good thing. montana, is up next, the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. we are talking about the radicalization of the islamic form in the united states. terrorists aree muslims, but not all muslims are terrorists. it seems that they are all being connected with the mosques, even the issues where the one fellow down in san bernardino left the mosque, that was in the decatur. we are going to have to use the muslims who respect to the united states to identify situations of that sort. how are we going to do that? guest: well, i think that there
is one sort of key point to remember when you talk about islam and muslims in this country. that we are a country built on religious tolerance. the second point is that muslims in this country and globally are very much the victims, even more so than many of us who are not muslims. so partnering with the muslim communities in the united states, working with them to try to deal with these issues. i think that is really the best approach forward. elizabeths go to city, north carolina, the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. ok. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. go ahead. caller: ok. everybody is getting excited about the muslim terrorists, but the terrorists we need to worry
about just as much or more are these homegrown american terrorists, such as the people who are going into churches killing people, people that are going into schools shooting ,hildren, like in connecticut movie theaters. these were not muslims. these were homegrown white people. black people have been terrorized since they have been in the country. from slavery time and on up. government officials were members of the ku klux klan. it was ok as long as black people were terrorized, but now you are scared to death. i am not scared. i have been living here in the south and i have seen ku klux klan marching and everything, and nobody said anything. it is ok as long as the white
people are doing it to other people. one thing we can do is get out of the middle east and stop meddling with those people over there. we have no business telling them what government they can have. overthrew awent democratically elected government in iran. the cia did not pay -- did that. and that is a k. so we need to get out of the middle east. we have one country over there who is occupying people on the west bank. and he comes over here, the leader of israel comes over here , and tells our president. them $3 billion
year, maybe $5 billion a year. host: a lot of their to pick up on -- a lot there to pick up on. guest: i agree with carl in the sense that home-grown terrorists are a big issue. i think we also need to pay attention to the issue of self radicalization, which is what the bulletin that dhs put out the other day. so it is not to be there or, i think it is -- it is not an either/or. we are the leader of the free world. we remain sort of the first among equals in democratic nations, certainly. i think, therefore, we do have a role to play that is not only the right thing to do, but it is also a thing that protects our interests and values overseas. it keeps us safer at home. host: coming back to this terror alerts tool, the bulletin tool
is first the alert. how should dhs balance the idea of informing the public, but not getting to a point where the public ignores these bulletins? how do you balance that? guest: i think we learned how not to do it under the old system, the color-coded system, the five different levels, because people -- it became sort of an object of divers in. there were comics gets about -- comic skits about it because it did not work. we have to see how this is going to work out because no alerts were issued, then that probably means we needed this comment -- this kind of thing between issuing an alert between elevated or imminent. let's see whether or not it is the kind of thing that will keep you and i and our families safer
. because that is part of it, feeling more secure. i think the system is further proof that is. host: just a few minutes left with bill danvers. the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. well, my decision is not political, but basically on the way you are announcing the threats. the president -- host: yes, go ahead. caller: the president, the administration, or they talk about threats, they say there is an imminent threat rate after something happens. -- right after something happens. they ought to stop that whole business of no imminent threat because it doesn't help, it doesn't work. it really doesn't make us feel better. we know these things are happening without anyone inc.
and second, -- without any warning. second, they first announced the terrorists now are no longer doing face-to-face radicalization. they are using the internet. so that is for a simple could win something like san bernardino happens, the administration -- there is no proof that they had face-to-face meetings. what happens is they got radicalized just like the administration says is happening, then when it happens this it is not terror because it happened through the internet. you can't have it both ways. you can't say this is a new method when it happens in a way that is not terror. they have to make up their minds. guest: hopefully the bulletins will help. hopefully this supplement to the existing national terrorist alert system will make people feel a little more secure and
will help people become more informed. in terms of the internet and social media, i think there is a big debate and conversation going on as to how to work with the private sector in dealing with the use of the internet and social media as a way to radicalize individuals. and that the conversation -- that kind of conversation is occurring on a regular basis. i think the government has a role to play, the private sector has a role to play. i believe in the omnibus appropriations bill, which i think is about to pass. there is a cyber security piece, a stand-alone bill, and hopefully that will be helpful to this process as well. but it is nothing that is going to be solved overnight. we live in a new world with this part of communication is a part of our everyday lives. host: let's try to get in one or
two more calls. susan is waiting in south carolina, line for republicans. susan, good morning. caller: good morning. i would also like to ask -- i know the warnings will have to go out first to the first responders, and i understand military because i was in the air force, the vietnam war, and i understand the reason for having clearances. how long will it possibly take for the imminent alert to get out to home personal computers so we can be ready for whatever is going to happen? thank you very much. guest: in terms of timing, i couldn't say specifically. intelligence is something shared with certain officials, but my sense is they will get it out as soon as they possibly can. the good news is we have not had to have an imminent alert yet. host: mike is in las vegas, nevada.
the line for independents. caller: good morning. i like the new warning system. we really rag on every little issue, what we are getting a lot better and we are on a learning curve. and the fact that we run the ship at all is absolutely amazing. but i like ron white. he had his little two states warning system. one is by a helmet. the next one was put it on. [laughter] we need to take things seriously, but we are on a learning curve. and we are doing an outstanding job. and i like what you guys are doing. thank you all so much. host: mike in las vegas. what is the measure of success for this new system? how do you think this will be used years from now? guest: i think confidence in it. people pay attention to it.
i think people paying attention to it, people say, oh, that is good, i feel a little bit more secure, i'm glad the government is letting me know about some issues of concern to it. and maybe as a tool to get more people involved. oh, i have seen this. i wanted to mix or that you knew that. i think really that is the best way to keep ourselves safe is that if everybody is aware and pays close attention. and does that in conjunction with the federal government system. host: they'll danvers -- bill danvers, a senior fellow at the center for american progress. appreciate your time. up next, we will take a look at the spending debate in congress. we'll be joined by dave brat of virginia. that is coming up next on the "washington journal."
announcer: "american history tv ," every weekend on c-span3. eastern,night at 8:00 louisiana state university history professor andrew burstein on the enlightenment era in the united states. whose emphasis with scientific reasoning and ideas that shaped the politics and morals of that generation. 1727 byarts out in unto, theing the j young man's improvement club. this was about improving the community. they would read books and share ideas. and these were young men like himself who are not born to wealth, but believed it was possible to rely on yourself,
study, and get ahead in society. announcer: and sunday morning at 10:00, we look back at the 2000 campaign of george w. bush, his announcement to run well in new hampshire and his visits to a lemonade stand, and a pumpkin festival. bush went on to win the general election, defeating al gore. "why nato." 4:00, 1950, the north atlantic council decided to give to a single commander, general eisenhower, sufficient authority to equip and train an integrated nato force for the defense of europe. the path before him was unprecedented. though each of the nato
countries would see to the supply and support of its own national forces, the supreme commander would be responsible for their coronation into a single force. announcer: and at 8:00, the changing historical narratives of the mary todd lincoln. and why some of her critics have labeled her as crazy. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: congressman dave brat joins us again, a republican from virginia, known for his stunning primary victory in 2014. congressman, you have not had a day to digest the 2009 page spending bill, $1.1 trillion, funding the budget through next september. is it a good deal? guest: not a good deal. this is what happens when you do not follow regular order.
i am on the budget committee, so we had a budget that would balance within 10 years. in the last several months, it tried to make its way through the appropriations process. we passed about four or five bills. then the budget goes out of our hands into the hands of leadership. and now negotiations with pelosi and the democrats and the white house, etc. everyone through in the kitchen sink -- threw in the kitchen sink. we broke the budget caps we promised at the beginning of the year by at least $80 billion over two years. we lost $106 billion in deficit reduction. just on the numbers, ime no vote -- i am a no vote. i taught college kids for 20 years. and secondarily, the biggest issue in the country right now is national security. just across the spectrum, aumf,
syrian migration, lisa waivers from europe, -- these the waivers -- visa waivers from europe, that got in the budget. vetoproof path in the house, and that did not make it in the bill. and today on the front page, you have 10,000 kids coming across the southern border still. and you have isis saying we are going to use the refugee crisis to infiltrate the southern border and -- and earlier in the year we had the in list act, where they were trying -- the enlist act, where they were trying to get into the military. host: as you said, so many of these issues in the 2009 page bill. here is a picture of walter
jones putting a bill on top of it. how many of your colleagues do think will read this thing checkup guest: -- this thing? guest: not. it is this thick in complex lingo. you have two days. and paul ryan, to his credit, he is trying to get us to regular order, which means bills have to go through committee and stay there until we get a product. but this year, we did not do that at all. host: how would you rate paul nine on his first budgeting bell -- paul ryan on his first budgeting bell? -- bill? guest: even he said this is no way to run a budget process. on prior bills over the last few weeks, he has been doing his best to follow regular order. he has the budget set up already for next year so that we will complete it in late february,
early march. we will go to appropriations ahead of time. it looks like he is moving in good faith to make sure that this does not happen again. so i give him a or b on process. but the end product this year is an f. host: we will work through some of the issues in this $1.1 trillion spending bill, not even including a $650 billion tax package. he is here to take your questions and comments. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. we will start on our line for democrats. from salt lake city, utah. caller: good morning. my question is since you are spending all this money, where are we getting the money from? and my second question is -- if i can --
host: apologize for that, congressman. we don't take that kind of language here on the "washington journal." we want to talk about a tweet that you put out yesterday. what those sort of priorities -- this bill does not include a rider to block planned parenthood from receiving funding. as you said, there is no moratorium on syrian refugees. guest: just a whole host of -- you can go down the top 10. cnn for the presidential debate have top 10 issues. terrorism is now front and center. and it works all the other issues -- and it dwarfs all the other issues. jobs in the economy is probably second. and the tax extender package is a tricky one because it is bad
on the deficit, that to be honest, we always pass that at the end of the year knowing that the small businessperson back home -- if they do not get at least, we came clean and were honest on that. that will create a new baseline. it is all in and we show, this is what the costs, and it is not good, but the capital and expensing are important for business. host: does it help or hinder the conference of tax reform effort for some say extend indefinitely or the same process? guest: there are three tranches of them and most are made permanent. there are a couple that are not so hot, but most of them will aid in the more comprehensive tax reform package we have to get done and that is crucial. i did not think there is an economist out there -- we have the highest corporal rate in the
world right now, and we have anheuser-busch, american anditutions, now in europe other firms are leaving by the date because in ireland they have a 15% rate soap there is profitability if you leave the country, and then we are not creating jobs over here. getting the tax ride is hugely important and the corporate rate is important to get marginal rates low for the average person. independents,or dave, good morning. caller: hi, i was curious if the tax extenders included earned income tax credit for single adults. there is still that whole provision in their and there is some maneuvering around when some expire after so many years and what the rates are, but the earned income tax credit is still in there.
part of that on the republican want to useolks that to encourage folks to enter the labor force, so if you design it that way, it can be a good outcome and to get people back into the workforce. the workforce participation rate is at its all-time low since the mid-1970's. we are doing our best to get people back in the workforce. without that, the economic growth is about 1.5% over the last 15 years and the arbitrators 3.5%. if we don't get the economy moving, we cannot pay for anything. host: i want to talk about the oil export band and lifting the decade old export band. a victory byred conservatives and republicans. "the wall street journal" called it a major and rare progrowth victory. your thoughts on the victory.
guest: it is not all bad. we negotiated and got some win, so the oil export ban in texas is huge. i have colleagues and it is hugely important for them to boost their economy, soak finally good news. it is not all bad. host: in california, rate is up next on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, good morning, representative. guest: good morning. caller: i have a question. i am hoping you can give me some insights to whether certain areas of the budget were increased or decreased or neutral. guest: sure. caller: for instance, out here in california, housing for is in a really bad situation. i know of three senior women who are paying rent on a one-bedroom
apartment because they cannot no seniorthere is housing. every place has like 500 people on the waiting list. i was hoping that some or money was going to go into that. the other areas i was wondering of what happens and why the food budget -- food stamp budget is, and part of that provides meals the senior centers. the last time there was a sequestration, the price of the meals went up about 50 cents, inhibitive,ame unfortunately, for some of the seniors in the neighborhood who are on a fixed income and that made a big difference. and the third area i was interested in was in student loan forgiveness. this there anymore money going to be available for that to
expand that? you considered student loan forgiveness, particularly for retired citizens at a certain income level? host: a lot there, congressman. guest: in general, i can say i am not aware of any cuts to any of those. the usual trend across the board is spending is going up significantly more than average incomes are. that is part of the problem we have in the budget, but i am on the education committee and school lunch spending went up. the entitlement programs in the mandatory spending programs, just so everyone knows, we have a fundamental budget problem in 11 years. all federal revenues will go only to entitlement and
mandatory spending programs on interest on the debt in 11 years. they will be used to play for those -- the paper those programs, medicare, medicaid, the scourge and drug programs, etc. if that is, you can go to cbo and the numbers are kept up there, there will not be one dollar left for some of the things you mentioned, the military, education transportation, running government. in 11 years. we will have to deficit finance the budget to run the government. if folks are away with the budgeting process, we only get to deal with one third of the budget which is called the discretionary part. two thirds and mandatory spending, and to care, social security, they programs. if you want to change those, you have to change goes through law. a lot of things the caller asked about are in law. if you want to change that piece, you have to go through the house, senate and then through the white house.
what i just said is that two thirds these will be 100% of the budget in 11 years and consume not 100% of the budget, but 100% of all federal revenues. there will not be any piece of pie left to fund military, education, transportation, etc. that is not a financial crisis, not a wall street-type financial crisis, caller but it has huge invocations for what the is getting that. -- but it has huge implications for what the caller was getting at. localities will have a harder not reform we do those entitlement programs or mandatory spending programs in a significant way, and that does not mean cut, you have to reform them, so people in the next generation, both medicare and social security are insolvent by their own board of trustees report by about 2034. if you do not reform them, the next generation has been insolvent.
expertise is in that area, entitlement reform and in putting solid budgets together, so hopefully we can do that. up thate caller brought senator lamar alexander will be joining our "newsmakers" program on sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. he is the chairman of the house education and labor and pensions committee. how would you respond to salt river on twitter who says that people are not on board with this bill? we sent you there to stop this kind of government abuse, why has gop folded? guest: iran on that and i put my ran onles in public -- i that and i put my principles in public. i agree. that is not why they sent the republicans there. this budget will probably pass with more democrats voting for it than republicans.
the republicans own the house, so not a very good negotiation when we are losing on almost all the big issues and the last caller called about sequestration, and we broke the caps on the military and social spending side by $80 billion or so. i agree. rightyan is making the moves right now in terms of process, so we hope that the process will yield a better product deer, but there is a lot of special interest groups out have been promised strains of government revenues, so that is what we have to fight against every day. host: from alabama, the line for independents, gina, good morning. guest: you are a great patriot. i appreciate all your hard work. you and the freedom caucus are our lifeline. guest: thank you. caller: but this has gone too
far. guest: right. $66 billion and more spending. $650,000 of special interest tax debt and now senators are talking about four times more for more foreign workers. and you are giving obama more flooding into this country of foreigners and they are not of our heritage. follow, in my personal opinion, they do not follow our traditions. they do not believe what we believe in. you all just passed a bill to say, do not do this, do not bring in these refugees, ok, without vetting them, but you are giving him an open pass. does the know what
established party, behind closed doors, say about the american people? the republican party is standing up, we are voting for trump to stop this to say, we send everybody there to stop obama and he did not do it. not you, but the party did not, the establishment did not. so we are voting against the establishment. what does he tell you behind closed doors? i would love to hear that. are they listening to us or not? host: congressman? on "meet the press" a few weeks ago, and the polling data shows that the caller is on the money with the discussion of the net -- they discussed of the average person, especially republicans. 70% of republicans are obsessed with republican leadership, so we have made some significant changes in leadership, so hopefully we get some things going in the right direction, but the distrust, and you say
what did they say behind closed doors, well, they are listening to special interest way too much and not to the american people. we are going to go up to a 400% increase in thesis or the folks coming in competing -- increase in the visa is for the folks coming in and competing and you look at the unemployment rate for youth in inner cities and 50% cannot find a job right now, and the crony big businesses still want to bring in cheap labor. on behindat is going closed doors. you have those of us who represent what is in the best interest of the american citizen, and this issue cuts across parties. the democrats and maybe unions are upset about this as well, and senator sessions at myself on the conservative side, and that is the beginning. on the southern border, 10,000 kids are coming in just this month from mexico, so if you want to get to the bottom of that issue -- i taught economics
for 20 years -- i am not talking about democrats, i am friends with democrats and i'm trying to win over democrats back home, but the far left has categorically rejected free markets and the role of law through the rest of the world. i used to work at the world bank 25 years ago. when you reject free markets, guess what happens? your country does not grow. if the country does not grow, guess where people want to come? united states of america. china and india made good moves toward the free market system and average income went from about $1000 a year 20 years ago and china is up to $9,000 area or capita, so the united states needs to spread that message to the rest of the world. the best thing we can do for the welfare of the rest of the world is not import 7 billion people here, let's make the rest of the world rich and that has always been our goal, but the hard drive, go to any the less -- but
the hard left, go to any less of a department or top school, they rule of law,ut the natural law, free markets, etc. the very things that made this the greatest nation on earth, modern leftist academics are rejecting, and that will have a real-world effect on the rest of the world because they were not get to enjoy the fruits of the very things that made us great, so that is a short summary of trying to respond to the issues you raised. host: the editorial board at "the wall street journal" talking about this and heroes "the new york times" talking about the victories for the democratic leaders. they say it admits hundreds of ideological provisions that republicans coped to attach to the appropriations measure. estrogens on abortion, --
host: a long list. guest: it is overwhelming. the last caller said the voters congress republican and senate, and we're supposed to fight against president obama. unfortunately, he is the product of the faculty lounge, for real, and the product of the left. against?we fighting overregulation and dodd frank, fannie and freddie help set up the financial crisis aiken 2007-2008 -- crisis in 2000 700-2000 eight that we are still reeling from. thinkers are no longer able to do banking. you do not want to do banking. they're supposed to assess your risk and they carry your risk. if i want $300,000 to buy a house, that is their job and they don't even have to assess
risk because they put the mortgage over on fannie and freddie. when no one is in charge of the risk, guess who is in charge of the risk? the average taxpayer forks over the bill, trillions of dollars of losses within a month for wall street losses. the epa regulators have to count every calpine calpine there pastor and in november, president obama's unconstitutional been -- amnesty, he said he did not have constitutional authority 20 times on tv, but not happy so he wants to go forward with it and he did it. run around congress, and we said we would fight tooth and nail, speaker boehner said he would fight tooth and nail and we did not. it is out of sight, out of mind and we just funded it in the budget. the iran deal, the executive overreach, it should've been a treaty and gone through the senate with a two thirds boat to the constitution, and president
obama went around that one. and in the end, we did the corporate framework that required one third of the senate to go along. you are right. we were sent appeared to fight. i am fighting, and everyone can look at my voting record, 100%. i need an army to join me. eric let's go to maryland, on the line for republicans. caller: hi, i wanted to talk about the security bill that was inserted into this budget trashcan of a bill that you guys have created over there. guest: yes. caller: this basically turns every internet provider in the country into a surveillance contractor. debated -- why can it not be debated on the open floor and congress so everybody knows what is going on and not have these little surprises in the middle of the night? guest: you are exactly right. it did not go through regular
order and this is what the american people hate about the budget process, and larry christmas. -- and merry christmas. i agree with you. justin and john, two of my friends, are huge on the civil liberties issues. they are the experts in the go tom caucus, so you can their facebook and they will be posting a ton on that and i will be following it substantially, but my forte is more on the economic side. you are right. we inserted that in. we did not go to regular order on the vitamin bill, which would have put a deposit on -- battling bill, which would have terroriste on the refugee and we did not even put in the weaker bill that had a veto-proof majority in the house that put somewhat of a pause on the syrian and iraq issue, but that is two countries. the bill would have taken about eight countries are not countries of the entire terrorist threat into account
and that was not allowed to come up for a vote because it would have passed during the american people, again, are rightly concerned. back home, i want to do a shout out for my house freedom caucus. "the richmond times" has been mocking us and calling us the no caucus and they have been making fun of us for a year for being the no caps on's and being shrill or something like this, but at the end of the day, we have been successful. paul ryan is going along with what we have been pushing for for years. we wanted regular order, improvements in the steering committee, and we wanted a more inclusive congress that works from the bottom up, so i have been working on those issues, the freedom caucus has been working on those issues. as looks like our entire conference wants to move in that direction. it is interesting how the press back home will give you a hard time, but in the end, there are giving me a hard time year ago
on immigration, so this is not foresighted. now, we have isis and terrorist threats and there will be national security implications to the immigration issue and the paper says this, that, and the other thing not flattering, and it is the number one issue in the country, so sometimes the press gets it wrong and the american people have it all right. we are making cement roads and getting the will of the american people digested in the body of congress, and that will be hugely helpful. host: let's go to houston, texas, pat is on the line for independents. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i would like to know, first of all, so many things, but first of all in the budget, why is it that the first thing you do is to go against low people?nd middle income is first thing you said
earned income credit -- people should realize you must be moneyg and earning less than the average person would take to make a living. that is the first thing. nobody ever says anything about that. you talk about entitlements, social security. i worked over 50 years. every year that i owed taxes, i pay taxes. originallyng when we had to start paying for the medicare tax, so i do not feel that i am entitled. i feel that i have earned. obamalk about president as being a product of the left, the academia, what was bush?
he was a product of the right. the southern strategy-type. host: congressman? guest: i will get to your question. in terms of conservative or right or left, i do not care. i want what is best for the average person. over the last eight years, over the last 15 years, it is not partisan, the average person's wages have been flat or down. the median wages are down a couple thousand dollars over the past eight years. how do you improve that? will government did that? experimentied that for almost all of human history and it resulted in total failure. anytime the central government is in charge of an economy, it will fail. if we do more big government, we should expect low growth rates and that is what we have. we are growing at 1% and everybody feels the pinch. what will make us rich and what
will make the next generation the free market system. the left rejects free markets and are not pro-business. that is what we have to make up our mind on. the academic left rejects business. i think -- they think business are the bad guys. , where they going to make a living? there was only one place to make a living and that is in business, said rk to system at the core, have we made our kids more competitive with the global economy over the past five years to 10 years? status of the only thing that will lift productivity. you cannot make up wage rates, hey, i will pay everyone hundred dollars an hour. everybody knows that will not work because the wage rate is the same as productivity. it is the same line. whatever you produce is your national income and that is when you can pay people. best -- myo do the
goal is to do the best for the low income and average and median income folks and the best way is to education, but it has to be pro-business. kids have to think about their career, you have to help him in the colleges, cap business certificates. and we have to get money from the pell grant program outside of the four-year thing. one thirdust the top of the income spectrum goes to the four-year schools, so two thirds of the country is being left behind and those of the people i am trying to help out. i hope you did not confuse that i am against the entitlement programs or the mandatory spending. i am not for cuts, and i appreciate what you said. everyone is having a hard time living, precisely because the economy is not growing, so we have to do better for the average person. importing labor from the rest of the world and president obama is
in favor of that and that is not the best way to help workers. if you import more people, the supply curve goes up and wage rate goes down and that is eco-101. to go down,wages import more people into the u.s. economy and that is not the way to go right now. host: let's go to new mexico on the line for republicans, norm, to ifo waiting period caller: you are well -- thank you for waiting period caller: you are welcome. when happens with fuel when it is exported and you are opening up new markets for it? what happens to the price of fuel? energy orl and basically any product traded, there is a global press, so it depends on what happens overall total supply. the total supply goes up, price should go down. i do not know if he wanted to drive any particular direction
on that, but i am a free-market guy. that does not necessarily mean that i believe in all this trade bill that we have been pushing. those trade bills should be tied into our national security and our foreign policy and interest abroad, so trade is one of the pieces of ledger -- of leverage we can use when negotiating with china on human rights but also on regulations and copyright nfringements, etc. i am in favor of expanding trade, but it has to be free trade, and it cannot be as our trade ambassador except a few weeks ago, kind of like the kids game with two x. if people want to pick out, the whole thing falls apart and that is a big government international construction. that is not free trade.
free trade is fluid and dynamic and if you pull a toothpick out, no big deal and trademarks. if you have the trade apparatus that is dependent on the million little pieces, that is a government disaster and it will not work, so i hope the kids you some sense of where i am at. host: two or three minutes before the house that was in, but let's get in keith from virginia, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i wish we had a senator like you in our state. security within five years and i will have gone back all of my money that i have put in over the years. why we getderstand so much and everybody that calls in the complaint that the rich people are actually paying a huge amount of their percentage of their money they make because when i got out of high school in
1865, you only paid social security on the first $6,000 a year, and now, these people are paying a humongous amount of money on it. guest: right. point number one, social is insolvent, it breaks down in about 60 years, so you are right on the point. the system needs to be reformed. when it originated, the key point was the average debt base was 65, so it was sound and designed to break even. today, the average person lives to 83, 84, great news except you can see that a pure pain for 65 to 83, -- if you are paying 65 to 83, it will be costly and that is the insolvent part. they will have to be some reform and it is hard to get my democratic colleagues to sit down at the table. some of them have in the past, senator mortar was in the lead
years ago in virginia on that, so maybe we can get some bipartisan agreement and do what is best for the country and make it fair. the budget mass, you do not need a phd in economics to do this, you need ethics and basic fairness so that people are getting out what they put in and it is there to everybody out there. that is the goal and i appreciate the question. host: in fredericksburg, virginia, lowell, make it quick. caller: my only comment is, why -- i am the congress sorry -- and the individual who it is voted in, why not hold them accountable? there is my question -- statement. host: go ahead. that is what needs to happen. i think that is what is happening. you look at the presidential candidates and you have for outsiders making up 70% of the
votes and capturing that outside , so i think we are getting health accountable and that is a good thing. host: who will you vote for? guest: for president? one of the outside is, maybe. , we: congressman dave brat appreciate the time. we now take our viewers to the house of representatives. conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pause in your presence and ask guidance for the men and women of the people's house. that the members take this time to consider far-reaching legislation, give them wisdom and discernment. help them to realize that your congregation is wider and broader than ever we could measure or determine. help them and help us all, o lord, to put away any judgments that belong to you and do what
we can to live together in peace. as we approach this next recess, bless our great nation and keep it faithful to its ideals, its hopes and its promise of freedom in our world. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1,ry demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i
object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be offered by the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. walorski. mrs. walorski: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from indiana rise? mrs. walorski: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. walorski: thank you, mr. speaker. our country is in the midst of a prescription drug epidemic. 50 americans die each day from prescription drug overdoses.
the epidemic is also affecting our nation's veterans who in some v.a. facilities are being overprescribed medications. to combrat this growing problem, -- to combat this growing problem, my home state and other states have collected medications prescribed to patients. it requires doctors and nurses to check patient records in the database before prescribing painkillers. unfortunately, v.a. facilities are not required by law to participate and have been known to overprescribe powerful medications. today, i introduced legislation requiring all veteran administration medical centers to participate in the corresponding statewide drug monitoring program, requiring v.a. facilities to comply will help ensure that veterans are not being overprescribed powerful pain medication. as a member of the house veterans' affairs committee, i take the well-being of each hoosier veteran seriously and they deserve high-quality
health care. and i commend greg zeller for helping us in our state. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. costa: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i rise today to express the urgency to get california water legislation passed sooner rather than later. after four consecutive dry years, drought conditions have become even more devastating. if you look at the nasa photos that have depicted from outer space, the conditions, the drought conditions you see over one million acres that have laid fallow this year. many of us are fearful that the california, if we receive the el neenio rains and snows pre-- nino rains and snows predicted, we won't have the ability to
move the water through the delta which is needed to other parts of the state. and many of our farm communities will continue to end up with another year of a zero, zero water allocation, which would make the third year in a row. it would be devastating. and it is both unacceptable and it is avoidable. we in california can all retreat to our political corners and point fingers and lay blame, but that will not deliver one additional drop of water that is desperately needed. nor will it address the real harm done to the very people whose lives have been impacted and whose jobs have been lost. the fact is we have to work together, and i will continue to work with multiple parties involved in the negotiations to try to bridge the gap and to get california water legislation passed. it's time to fix our broken water system, and it's long overdue. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: i seek unanimous
consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, bipartisan majorities in the house and senate, a majority of the states and two federal courts have rejected the administration's water for the united states proposal by the e.p.a. to reinterpret the clean water act to seize authority over virtually every waterway, stream bed and ditch and puddle in the country. one found it so excessive, so outside the president's authority that it issued a nationwide stay. this week the nonpartisan government accountability office confirmed what we already knew, that the administration not only violated federal law when preparing this proposal but also engaged in illegal propaganda campaign to misinform the public. soliciting skewed comments in favor of the proposal using social media, even so far as comments, general comments on twitter in order to skew their view. mr. speaker, when is enough going to be enough? when the administration spends americans' own tax dollars to solicit and persuade them to
give up their rights, shouldn't that be a wake-up call that has crossed a very bright ethical line? it's time that the administration that this is an illegal power grab. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. gutierrez: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. gutierrez: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i can't vote for the omnibus deal because it doesn't give the people of puerto rico some hope for a better future. the omnibus bill does not provide a path toward budget cuts and services and growing unemployment and the greedy banks and bondholders who demand more and more even as the people of puerto rico have less and less. puerto rico's a colony of the united states. its sovereignty rests here in the congress of the united states, and we will not do anything to help them.
[speaking spanish] the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois will provide a translation. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor chief warrant officer kevin weiss of mchenry county, a u.s. army helicopter pilot, who lost his life in service to our nation. returning to service just after thanksgiving, weiss and his
co-pilot was in kentucky december 2 when the helicopter they were piloting went down killing both men in the crash. weiss dreamed of joining his world war ii veteran grandfather in flying as a pilot for his country and was known by his grandfather's nickname, mose. he was an avid jouts doorsman and flew a tour in afghanistan and earning numerous commendations and decorations. growing up in henry county schools, he met his wife beth through the youth program. he leaves behind a wife and two children, lucas and susan, and extended family and friends. they remember him as a brave -- brave from a young age a shoulder to lean on in difficult times and a caring, loving brother, husband and father. the family christmas celebration will be muted this year, but we are forever grateful for mowsies' service
and sacrifice. i yield back -- moses's service and sacrifice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is ecognized. >> mr. speaker, on december 11, 15, the islamic society of cochella valley mosque was boomed. nine days after the san bernardino mass shooting. the perpetrator is being charged for a hate crime. i strongly condemn violence towards innocent people wlrks they are victims of terrorism or victims of hate crimes, whether they are randomly chosen or targeted for being muslim. and i strongly condemn the hate speech from politicals who capitalize on the fear of the fearful and the hate of the hateful for political gain. as americans, we believe in justice, the rule of law and freedom of religion. destroying terrorists and protecting law-abiding muslim
americans are not mutually exclusive and we must do both because we believe in justice. sentencing the guilty and protecting the innocent. that is why i stand with my ocal priests, pastors, rabbis, imans and law enforcement to denounce the violence, pursue justice and strengthen our humanity. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise during this christmas season to speak about a public-private partnership that has real impacts meals on wheels. two million volunteers are preparing about a million meals to america's most vulnerable, hungry and isolated seniors. i'm very proud of the third district of south carolina for many reasons, but i am especially proud of programs
like picken's county's meals on wheels in south carolina. this is just one of thousands of meals on wheels programs across the country that provide more than just meals. meals on wheels provides nutritious meals, safety checks people and the precious and powerful combination of nutritious and socialization will reduce falls, reduce hospital admissions and readmissions. mr. duncan: this in turn saves medicare and medicaid expenses. it can provide meals for one year less than a cost for one day in the hospital. senior hunger will undoubtedly worsen if left unaddressed. merry christmas, america, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from south carolina yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you and merry christmas. rise today to acknowledge the fact that the american opportunity tax credit is going to become a permanent law as part of the tax extender package. mr. fattah: i introduced, as the proud sponsor this legislation many years ago as part of the economic recovery efforts. it has provided well over $20 billion for millions of families, a $2,500 tax credit and 40% is refundable. over the next 10 years, the congressional research service says well over $60 billion will for families to meet higher education costs. i want to pause and reflect on the fact that the work we do
here can in fact impact many, many lives, and i want to thank my colleagues for their initial support of this program and for today our efforts that we'll be successful to make it permanent along with the earned income tax credit and a number of very important tax credits to american families. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the girls varsity softball team at valor christian high school in highlands ranch, colorado. on winning the 2015 colorado 4-a state championship game on october 25, 2015. the students and staff who are part of the winning eagle team deserves to be honored for
finishing what it already was a fantastic season by winning the state championship for the second time in two years. r. lamborn: -- mr. coffman: the valor girl's softball team proved that hard work, dedication and rseverance is the recipe for champions. the team was led to the championship title through the tireless leadership of their head coach, dave atencio, and his staff. it is with great pride that i join with the families of highlands ranch, colorado, in congratulating the valor christian eagles on their second straight championship. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back his time. . for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, by
direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 82, house resolution 566, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's able the bill h.r. 2029 making appropriations military construction, department of fairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. with the senate amendment thereto and consider it in the house without intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee. that the house concur in the senate amendment with each of the two amendments specified in ection 3 of this resolution. the senate amendment shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion or demand of the division of the question except as specified in section 2 of this resolution. clause 5-b of rule 21 shall not apply to the motion. the two portions of the divided question shall be considered in the order specified by the chair. either portion of the divided question may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule 20. b, the portion of the divided question comprised of the amendments specified in section 3-a of resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ppropriations. shall be debatable for one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. section 3, a, an amendment consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-39 modified by the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules ccompanying this resolution. an amendment consisting of text of rules committee print 110-40. section 4, if only the portion of the divided question exroysexrising the amendments specified in section 3-b of this resolution is adopted, that portion shall be engrossed as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the senate to h.r. 2029. section 5, the chair of the committee on appropriations may insert in the congressional record at any time during the remader of the first section of the 114th congress such material as he may deem explanatory of the senate amendment and the
motion specified in the first ection of this resolution. section 6, on any legislative day of the first section of the 114th congress, a, the journal of the proceedings day shall be considered as approved, and b, the chair may at any time adjourn the house to meet at a date and time within limits of clause 4, section 5 of article one of the constitution to be announced by the chair declaring the adjournment. section 7, on any legislative day of the section session of the 114th congress before january 5, 2016, a, the speaker may dispense with organizational nd legislative business. shall be considered as approved if applicable, and c, the chair at any time may declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution to be announced by the chair in
declaring the adjournment. section 8, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the periods addressed by section 6 and 7 of this resolution as though under lause 8-a of rule 1. shall not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 7 of the war powers resolution, 50 united states code, 1546. section 10, each day during the periods addressed by section 6 or seven of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clausep of rule 13. -- of clause 7 of rule 13. section 11, it shall be in order at any time through legislative day of december 18, 2015, for the speaker to general tain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15. the speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. section 12, the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the house is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of december 18, 015. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. mr. cole: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, gentleman from mass marks mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. cole: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks soin without objection, so ordered. mr. cole: mr. speaker, yesterday the rules committee met and reported a rule for
consideration of the senate amendment to h.r. 2029, the resolution makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations that the house concur in the senate amendment with two house amendments. amendment number 1 consisting of the text of the omnibus appropriations bill is provided one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations. amendment number two consisting of the text of the tax extenders bill is provided one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. the rule provides for a separate vote on each amendment. in addition the rule provides if one or both amendments are adopted the bill is sent to the senate. finally, mr. speaker, the rule provides the standard recess authorities typically given at the end of the first session of congress. mr. speaker, i'm pleased to be presented presenting to the house today the rule which will provide for consideration of two critical pieces of legislation which are the product of long
and hard negotiations between the house, the senate, and the administration. first, mr. speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the protecting americans from tax hikes act of 2015. the path act. this legislation makes over 20 different tax provisions permanent, like the research and development tax credit, section 179 expensing, and the state and local sales tax deduction. many of these provisions have existed as part of the tax code for many years. however, they were often extended retroactively or on a yearly basis, making it difficult for business and individuals to plan effectively. making these provisions permanent will allow businesses and individuals to make more sensible decisions throughout the year, not just during the final 12 or 14 days at the end of the year after congress passes a retroactive extension. this bill also includes extensions of other tax
provisions, like the new markets tax credit. bonus depreciation, and the work opportunity tax credit through 2019. additionally, there are other provisions that are retroactively extended for 2015 and through 2016. in addition, mr. speaker, the path act includes a number of program integrity measures designed to strengthen the integrity of the tax code programs that have high rates of improper payments, fraud, or abuse. finally, mr. speaker, this bill includes a series of reforms designed to rein in the power of the internal revenue service and better protect the american people. like firing i.r.s. employees who take politically motivated actions against taxpayers and prohibiting the i.r.s. employees from using personal email accounts for official business. in addition to these critical tax extenders, the rule also provides for consideration of the omnibus spending bill for the fiscal year 2016 at the
funding levels agreed to in the bipartisan budget act passed earlier this year. there's much to be proud of in this 2,000-page bill and accompanying explanatory statement, but as i have told many of my colleagues, if you can't find something you don't agree with in the bill, you must not be looking hard enough. that being said, mr. speaker, this omnibus spending measure is a compromise and and reflection of divided government, but it also demonstrates a commitment by both sides to restoring regular order to this house. while i could provide a long list of things i wish were included, this bill still maintains key republican and conservative priorities. for example, the bill keeps e.p.a. staffing levels at the lowest level since 1989. in addition, it terminates dozens of duplicative, ineffective, or unauthorized programs. beyond the numerous cuts and restrictions on the executive branch, this bill also delays additional onerous obamacare mandates.
for example, it delays the cadillac tax on health care insurance for two additional years and imposes a moratorium on health insurer excise tax in 2017. in addition to these important changes, the omnibus also reveals some of the programs that republicans value and frankly democrats value as well. included in this legislation is a $2 billion increase for the national institutes of health. likewise, it increases funding by 9.8% for the v.a. while strength yening the restrictions and oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars will be used more effectively. in addition, mr. speaker, this legislation includes a repeal of the crude oil export ban. repealing this ban, which has been in place for the past 40 years, has the potential to create more than a million new jobs across the united states at $170 billion annually to our groast domestic product and lead to still lower gasoline prices.
this provision is a victory for the american people. i'm sure that many of my colleagues will speak about other portions of this legislation, however, in closing, i would like to recognize the hard work of chairman rogers, ranking member lowey, and speaker ryan who were able to lead us to this necessary compromise. this is the second year in a row that we will have been able to complete a vast majority of the appropriations process before the end of the calendar year giving us the ability to begin the process anew when we return in january. it's a couple lation of hard work -- accumulation of hard work of members and staff and should be worthy of all members' support. i urge support of the rule and underlying legislation. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from oklahoma, my friend, mr. cole, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, here we are again. it's the end of the year and once more we have come to the brink of a government shutdown. it's sad to say but this has become routine. we need to return to regular order. where we pass appropriations bills one at a time. and not end up with a 2,000-plus page bill at the last minute that nobody has thoroughly read. and in all candor, the excuse it's all the senate's fault is a bit disingenuous. of the 12 appropriation bills, the government must pass each year, wenal considered six in the house. -- only considered six in the house. we stopped considering appropriations bills because some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were more interested in protecting the confederate flag than in getting the people's business dofpblet we have a deal before us that if passed would prevent us from heading toward a government shutdown and damaging our economy.
americans cannot afford another manufactured crisis, something that my friends on the other side of the aisle have become good at. the so-called deal that we will debate today and tomorrow reflects the imperfect process that produced it. i'm grateful to my colleagues who work to get a product to us that hopefully can avoid a catastrophe. i'm especially grateful to the staff who worked around the clock these last weeks to get us to this point. truthfully, we should be apologizing to the staff for putting them through this ordeal . this is not the way to run congress. there are two parts to the underlying legislation, amendment one -- amendment 1 and amendment 2 known as the tax extenders bill. the omni must appropriations act is by any measure a mixed bag. but importantly it does begin to undo so-called sequestration which has done great damage to our economy and great harm to our people. in my view, sequestration
represents an all-time high in recklessness and stupidity. we need to reverse it. and this bill begins to do that. in the omnibus, there will be necessary increases in funding n.s.f., head start, pell grants, job training, state and local law enforcement, programs to prevent violence against women, energy efficiency programs, fema, our national parks, v.a. medical service accounts, the mcgovern-dole international school feeding program, a re-authorization of the land and water conservation fund, and a host of other programs. . and i am grateful for these increases. and this bill includes a 75-year extension that supports health care for the brave 9/11 first responders who risked their lives at ground zero to save others and became ill as a result. these are true american heroes
and i'm pleased that congress has finally done the right thing by ensuring they will be able to get the care that they deserve. one of the things, however, that concerns me about the omnibus appropriations bill is that it contains a controversial cybersecurity measure that many of us feel falls short of safeguarding americans' private information. quite frankly, a provision like this does not belong in an omnibus appropriations bill. and last night in the rules committee, i offered an amendment to strike the cybersecurity provision. every single republican, every single one voted against my provision. and mr. speaker, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a dear colleague that was sent to all of us from representatives lofgren, amash, conyers, farenthold and polis in opposition to the cybersecurity measure being part of this omnibus appropriations bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: and one additional concern for me and for many others is an awful provision, and i stress the
word awful, in this bill which constitutes a big giveaway to big oil and could lead to an increase in gas prices. big oil gives big money to campaigns and sadly big oil is getting a very big return on its investment with this bill. this provision could intensify climate change, have devastating environmental impacts and does nothing to save consumers money on energy costs. i will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question and that the previous question is -- if the previous question is defeated, i'll offer an amendment to strike this outrageous provision. compromise is never easy, but in a divided government, it is essential if we are to move forward. one of my biggest critiques of this republican-controlled congress has been the total disregard for americans who struggle, those stuck in poverty. time and time again in this
chamber, poor people have been demonized and disparaged while those who are well-off and well-connected get one tax break after another after another. so i am pleased that in the tax extenders package there are provisions to protect millions of struggling americans from a tax increase and boost family incomes by permanently extending essential improvements to the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit for low-income working families as well as the american opportunity tax credit to help low and middle-income families pay for college. all of these improvements to these tax credits were originally passed as part of the 2009 recovery act. and each has played a critical role in fueling america's economic recovery after the financial crisis. making these improvements permanent would be among the biggest steps congress can take to reduce poverty and without action these credits would expire at the end of 2017. every year these improvements are expected to lift about 16 million people, including about
eight million children, out of poverty or closer to rising above the poverty line. simply put, making these improvements to the eitc and the c.t.c. permanent will keep more children out of poverty than any other federal program. the real-world impact can't be overstated. a single mother with two children who works full time it at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and makes $14,500 a year would lose her entire $1,725 child tax credit without congressional action. for a family on fixed income, this would be a terrible setback. additionally, making the american opportunity tax credit permanent would ensure this program continues to help millions of low and middle-income families pay for college every day. in addition to the millions of families these provisions would help, this legislation before us takes important steps to bolster investments in education, job training, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure and research while also strengthening
national security. i'm especially pleased that this deal includes a provision that would make permanent a tax parity for commuters who takes mass transit. for far too long the tax code has allowed employers to offer their workers more and free parking benefits than mass transit benefits. parity between parking and mass transit benefits was first established in the recovery act and has been extended on a first-term basis since then. the bill before us would establish permanent parity for mass transit benefits. it's a fringe benefit that employers can offer their workers and offers significant savings to employees who rely on mass transit. it's important to my constituents in central and western massachusetts who take the train every day into downtown boston. mr. speaker, by averting a government shutdown and passing this deal, we will be able to bring certainty to small businesses as well as companies investing in the united states while extending important incentives that supports hiring and investing in low-income
communities. following the historic international climate agreement reached in paris this past weekend, i'm also pleased this deal would extend tax incentives for investments in wind and solar energy, helping drive significant reduction in carbon pollution and other dangerous pollutants and provides investments in clean energy. investments like these would not be possible without the recent budget deal which reversed about 90% of the cuts that sequestration would have made to nondefense discretionary programs in fiscal year 2016 with parity . tween defense and nondefense one major concern is that house republicans tax extender bill would provide hundreds of billions of dollars in special interest tax breaks that are permanent and unpaid for. such massive giveaways to special interests like bill oil are a step in the wrong direction. as our economy continues to recover, we have a responsibility to the american people to pass legislation that
helps to grow the paychecks of hardworking families and make the investments that will build the bright future that our children deserve. i'm especially troubled by the fact that the tax extenders bill continues the misguided double standard of financing tax cuts with budget deficits while insists on offsets for any increases in domestic spending. quite frankly, this is dishonest, coming from my republican colleagues who so often claim to be focused on reducing the deficit. so many american families are working hard to get back on their feet and give their children opportunities they deserve. continuing this double standard on holding back on investments, we could be making -- we could be making -- that we could be making now to help more of our fellow citizens is inexcusable. so extending hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the most powerful interests when our country needs much stronger investment in jobs and economic growth for all is a troubling and sober reminder we must do
more to put hardworking families first. and quite frankly, i think it highlights the difference between the two parties. democrats have long championed the importance of investing in our infrastructure, investing in our people and investing in our economy. mr. speaker, the omnibus spending bill and the tax extenders package before us today is not perfect and members on both sides of the aisle are going to have to decide for themselves whether the good outweighs the bad. clearly there are some good things, and there are some bad things. and hopefully in the future we will return to regular order and do our business in a more thoughtful and effective way. and at this point i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to begin by agreeing with my friend from massachusetts on a very important point but perhaps adding a little bit of nuance.
i celebrate probably as much as anybody in this chamber my friend and his side of the aisle's new found commitment to regular order because when they were in the majority here they certainly didn't practice it. as a matter of fact, in 2009, i think only one or two appropriations bills reached the floor, and during that period, the right of having an open rule where every amendment could come down here -- every member with an amendment could come down and offer it in the house was taken away by my friends. again, i appreciate that. now, my friend and i will disagree what happened this year, because indeed we did begin down the path of regular order. we did bring six bills across the floor. we did bring all 12 bills through the committee, but as my friend said, the senate did not do that. and frankly when regular order breaks down on one side of the rotunda in the capitol building it breaks down the other as well. you can't do it when the other side won't bring bills at all. you're casting a lot of votes
that frankly become meaningless. but let's put this behind us. i actually agree with my friend. i think because of the bipartisan budget agreement, my friend supported and i supported as well, we now know what our spending levels will be next year. we now have an opportunity to do exactly what i'm sure he wants to do and i think every member, regardless of viewpoint or party wants to do and that's bring all 12 bills to the floor and give members an opportunity. second thing i would like to make is sequestration. i agree with him and he's been a consistent opponent of sequestration, but we ought to remember this about that proposal. sequestration was president obama's idea, suggestion in the 2011 budget agreement. there's a lot of imperfections in that budget agreement. one of the things was a supercommittee was set up that was supposed to work these things out and sequester was never supposed to happen. for whatever reason, that committee was unable to actually do that.
but sequester did save a lot of money. our deficit is considerably lower than it was. and speaking of deficits, my friend raised that, his concern about deficit spending, i share that concern too. now, i think it's worth pointing out that the last four years that my friends on the other side were in the majority, the deficit rose every single year. peaking at about $1.4 trillion. while we may disagree on particular provisions, the truth is for the four years and now five that republicans have been in power in the house, the deficit has gone down every single year. i think that tells you who's committed to deficit reduction and who's serious about cutting spending. indeed, we're spending less money in this omnibus spending bill in discretionary accounts than we were spending when george bush was president in the united states in 2008. so that's a pretty serious reduction. i would invite my friends to work with us on the real driver of the deficit and that's the
entitlement programs, which desperately need reform. medicare, medicaid, social security. and that's something that can only be done in a bipartisan fashion and frankly can only be done with presidential leadership. and in this case, sadly, the president of the united states has been awol in the effort to actually rein in entitlement spending. my friend raised the oil export -- the lifting of the oil export ban in his remarks. and on this we simply have a different point of view. i come from part of the world that has produced energy for this country for over 100 years and exported it. you know, we think this is the key to sustaining the growth in the industry. and frarningly right now, $38 -- frankly right now $38 a brl means thousands of layoffs in texas, oklahoma, louisiana, other energy-producing states. so the productivity of that sector, which benefited every american, would lower energy prices, lower gasoline prices has also created a lot of
difficulty for them. you know, we are the only country on the planet that does not allow for the export of petroleum. the only one. and frankly, i think this is a case where we ought to listen to other countries around the world and we ought to recognize some basic principles. willing producers, willing buyers, free markets are good for everybody. that always gives you the best product at the lowest price and creates the most innovation. so i think this is an enormous step in the right direction, and i'm very proud that the two sides compromised and made this a tough call. i know for some of my friends. i think the right call long term for our country. finally, i would just like to conclude, mr. speaker, by noting in my friend's remarks, while he certainly made what i think were some excellent points about process, certainly had some points where we differ, certainly made some fair and legitimate critiques in what is a very large bill.
as i said earlier, you can always find something to be critical of in this legislation. but my friend also pointed out a lot of the very many good things in this bill, and frankly, some of those things that he likes, members on my side don't necessarily agree with. that's a product of a real negotiation between the two sides, the two chambers and with the administration. there are wins and losses, if we want to call them losses, but i think there's a victory here for the american people. stability, certainty, some really key national investments, no government shutdown and i think this year the foundation, if we pass this legislation, for regular order, which i know my friend very much wants, next year. we moved a long way from where we were several years ago, frankly under both parties, to where we are today. i actually give both sides considerable credit for this because i think there's a genuine yearning from members of both side to get to regular
order, to make sure when we bropet everything is down -- appropriate everything is down here transparent. in the spirit of the christmas season, we can put aside maybe some of our differences here. i think we'll pass ultimately a very good bipartisan bill, and i think we can make a commitment, a new year's -- early new year's resolution that next year we'll go exactly where my friend wants to go and where i want to go and frankly where i know the speaker wants to go and that is regular order where each bill comes to the floor, receives due consideration, every member has an opportunity to participate, things are more transparent and frankly things are more orderly. that will be possible because we came to a bipartisan budget agreement this year early that set the spending limits for next year. i think that's a very good thing. so with that, mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to say to my colleague from oklahoma.
i appreciate his commitment to regular order and reminding us that speaker ryan has committed to regular order as well. but aim' little septical. i'm not going to hold my breath because i probably won't make it until next year if i do that, but i would just remind him that the previous speaker, speaker boehner, promised the same thing. and we never saw it. in fact, we have the most closed congress in the history of the united states congress. with that, mr. speaker, as i mentioned earlier, i'm going to urge we defeat the previous question. if we do, i will offer an amendment to the rule that would strike the provision in the omnibus that lifts the ban on exporting crude oil. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: to discuss the proposed, i would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. norcross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes.
mr. norcross: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm urging members to defeat the previous question because i'm not sure that the majority has fully considered the permanent damage to jobs and to national security if this is not properly transitioned and implemented. it was not too long ago that many of us in this room remember what we call the odd-even days where we were waiting in long lines just hoping that we could get gasoline. we have come a long way from there through technology and the ability to extract more oil. we made a strategy strabbling -- strategic investment in american energy. we had refineries on the west coast, east coast, we had them in the gulf. that's critical to our national security. because oil without refining simply doesn't work. so here we are today looking at lifting the 40-year-old oil ban. but what this really means is jobs. in particular, this means jobs
and a strategic disadvantage to the east coast where we will be losing many of our refineries. when it comes to very difficult times in this country, we need that compass capacity. we have the natural resources called oil, but if we don't have it in the refining sense or the east coast, west coast, and in the gulf, we will be putting ourself at a very strategic disadvantage. those long lines remind us of how critical it is to have that capacity. those skilled craftsmen who work in the refineries day in and day out. what this bill is doing is picking winners and losers. we are trading jobs. i absolutely believe in that. we are taking those east coast jobs and shipping them overseas. we only have one chance to get this right. this is like creating a dam that's been holding back the water. instead of letting it out slowly and transitioning, we are just simply breaking that dam.
we need to make sure that we implement a transition for our refineries. the 199 is a step in the right direction for those transportation costs, but we need more. mr. mcgovern: yield additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. norcross: this refining capacity we cannot lose. this is about our nation's security. this is about jobs. we are urging our colleagues to vote in favor of american jobs and independence for the strategic national security by defeating the previous question. i thank you. yield back my tifmente the speaker pro tempore: -- time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. cole: i want to respond quickly to my friend from new jersey on the refinery issue because i have two refineries in
my district. not all refineries are located on the east, west coast, and the gulf. there is quite a few of them in the historic middle part of the country as well. i'm always keshed about those -- concerned about those jobs as well as my friend suggests they are extimely important and he's correct when he says producing oil is not enough. you have to refine t i also say sitting in oklahoma is over 250 million barrels of oil can't be refined because there is not sufficient capacity for that particular kind of oil in this contry. i'd also suggest that it's not fair to people to say you can only sell the product you produce one place. nobody else in the world does that. nobody else says you can't sell your product to any place in the world in any market you want to. only we do that. while my friend -- many people might want a captive audience, that's not fair to the people at the other end of the process. they ought to be able to sell
their product, particularly when in certain kinds of crude, there is not sufficient capacity. i would suggest over time if we just have faith in the free market those things will be worked out. and we'll eventually have the appropriate balance and supply. again, i want to agree with my friend from the importance of the refining industry, but i also want to agree in the importance of free markets and the right and ability of people that produce products make substantial investments to sell their product any place they -- to any market they care to do that. we are the only country in the world that denies that privilege to people that produce -- find and produce oil. i think if we remove that, frankly, we'll have moreau bust domestic industry -- more robust domestic strifment this is an industry that needs to be commended because it's been their innovation that's increased production. we have increased production in the united states by 85% in the last five or six years. that wasn't done with any government program. that was done by hardworking
entrepreneurs and workers in historic oil producing areas and new areas being opened up in states like pennsylvania and ohio. this was a good thing for the united states. we ought to take full advantage. their productivity has also brought them record low prices and they need the opportunity to market their product any place in the world that he think they can get a decent price. in the long term, that will preserve the industry in the united states. to my friend's point, i care a lot about jobs, i would be happy to take to you my state and show you how many thousands of jobs we have lost in the last few months, last year and a half. how many -- it's not just a question of oil field work, it's also machinery and production and that sort of thing. frankly those losses will reach into the manufacturing section of our country that produces much of the steel and pipe and concrete that are important. those jobs aren't just in our part of the country. they are all through the country.
again, i want to work with my friend. i agree with his observation there were efforts made on good faith to the refining industry. if that's not sufficient, i'll be happy to work with my friend to try and do more in that regard. to do is is a balanced the right thing. trust free men and women producing and selling the products they choose to make as widely as possible. that's what's made the country great. that's certainly been the key to success in the energy industry. this is a step in the right direction to make sure that we not only maintain but expand that principle. with that, mr. speaker, i eserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: fair oaks mall. distinguished member of the ways .nd means committee the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman from organize john is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. this has been a difficult process with this package. i commend speaker ryan, leader pelosi working with the white house and friends in the senate to put together a package that actually may secure passage from support from people on both sides. tomorrow we are going to consider an omnibus bill. that on balance i think is a very fair compromise given the composition of this congress even the challenges that we are facing. i'm particularly interested in the support, unprecedented support for neuro science, something i have worked on for a long time. the significant funding for the land and matter conservation fund. a priority of people on both sides of the aisle that has been bottled up. we'll be talking more about that tomorrow. as relates to the bill we are going to have before us in a few minutes, i wish that it had dealt more aggressively with the
question of the revenue needs of this country. something i have consistently supported before i joined the ways and means committee, and what we are going to have to be addressing in the future. but it is important to focus on the elements, i think, in the bill that warrant my support for it. first and foremost, it provides certainty for provisions that are important to a wide variety of our constituents and interests that ultimately were going to be funded one way or another, but it harkened back to the saga we had of the doc fix, the s.g.r., sustainable growth rate, that we force people to jump through hoops year after year. in this case we are going to provide some important certainty for areas that invest in the future that i have spent a long time working on in terms of wind, solar, the new market tax credits, the shortline railroads. my friend from massachusetts
talked about a project we worked on for years, transit parity. being able to settle the books on that and move forward i think is very, very important. even a little start on energy efficiency for commercial buildings that i hope we can do better. emerging industries like american produced cider get a tremendous ben knit fifth incorporating the sider act i have been working on -- kreider act i have been working on. i would call attention to something my friend referenced that is the provisions in this bill that relate to low-income working americans. the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit were set to expire in 2017. is impacts 16 million people rising them above poverty, at least getting them to the poverty level. including half of those were children, eight million children. n my state, it's 164,000 families.
some of oregon's most vulnerable working poor. now, leaving this out until 2017 i think, plays russian roulette and would be a mistake. no better deal is likely. i think it's important to move forward on it and protect it now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. the gentleman from oklahoma has 13 minutes remaining. mr. cole: i thank the speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he consumes. mr. cole: i want to thank my friend from oregon for his hard bipartisan work on ways and means on vare yause parts of the package that came here. i thank him as well for the kind remarks he made about the omnibus and interest in research. i know that's genuine and he's been a champion of that. i look forward to continuing to work with that. finally, i know my friend would think this, too, we are all concerned about the deficit. someday if we get serious about entitlement reform we'll sit
down and do it. i believe that can only be done in a bipartisan way. i invite my friend some time to look at the bill mr. delaney and i had to begin the process of perhaps reforming social security in a bipartisan way. so, again, i look forward to that. appreciate my friend's good work. with that, mr. speaker, i yield -- reserve the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 13 minutes remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> this is a special time of the year and we have our traditions in washington. one of them is under way at this moment in the house. it's called the ceremony of the stuffing of the silk stockings, and we do it each year and we do it generously. this bill is even referred to as a christmas tree bill.
mr. doggett: because special interests get special presents, all in ornaments on this tree. much of the focus this year has been the fact that the direct spending bill and the tax spending bill are considered under this same rule. the press has focused most of its attention on the direct spending bill, the omnibus. but it's really, while there have been some debate over some of the policy provisions, it's really been the side show here. what has driven the length of debate on this are republicans and some democrats who have enabled them, unfortunately, determine to get as many permanent tax breaks for those who've been waiting for this christmas tree as possible. they have added hundreds of billions of dollars of permanent tax breaks onto this bill, and they have put all of it, i must say, like many shoppers out there, they put it all on the credit card.
it's just that it's your credit card. we're borrowing from the chinese, from the saudis around the world in order to pay for tax breaks that not a penny has been paid for those. total fiscal irresponsibility. and to cover this wrong of borrowing and adding more and more to our national debt, they've reached out to put in a few good provisions. i happen to be the author of refundability for the higher education tax credit. i'm delighted to see it extended permanently, but it does not even expire this year, as is true of some of the other tax breaks that are boasted about this morning. the real threat from adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt has been clearly identified by my colleague from oklahoma and candidly and that is that social security and medicare are the next things up for consideration on the chopping block. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield an