the republican party, what impact do you think he is going to have on the democrats? and how they govern? guest: well he has already taken the largest social media site in the world or maybe the second largest, i'm not sure how twitter compares to facebook. it's a different kind of media. he's already taken that and swung it hard to the right and turned it into basically a massive propaganda operation. that cannot help but influence both republicans and democrats. so, i am concerned about it. jimmy carter said we are sliding into oligarchy and i would say as of january we will have officially arrived, the morbidly rich, the extraordinarily rich are running our country now and -- the thing that concerns me the most i wrote a book about

this, oligarchy is almost always a transitional political system. when the rich basically run the country. it very rarely lasts. and typically one of two things happen, either oligarchy slip back into democracies as a result of popular revolt. we saw this in brazil for example with bolsonaro or they flip it to tear any in like we saw in russia. where the rich people basically took over the government, put in at the head of them and then putin just started clamping down and saying that is it, no more political conversations. anybody who speaks up goes to jail. and i'm very concerned that we are at the cusp of making a decision which way we will go because oligarchy will not last. host: we will have to end it there. thank you very much thom hartman.

i want to thank everyone who called in today on a and all or podcasts on our free c-span now app. >> washington journal continues. host: welcome back. we are joined by oren cass. welcome to washington journal. caller: thanks -- guest: thanks for having me. host: tell us about your mission at american compass and how your organization is funded. guest: -- what that means in practice is focusing a lot on economic policy, trying to get away from the idea that all growth is equally good and we will make it up to everybody who is left behind. as a result, we are funded by an interesting set of individuals and corporations and a lot of foundations across the political spectrum. host: speaking of the political

spectrum, where would you say your group fits in terms of ideology in politics as well as economics? guest: we are on the right of center. we are identified as a very conservative group. at the same time, it is interesting, we spend most of our time on arguments within the right of center, working on a lot of these fights that are going on among conservatives. like how to move forward, obviously the republican party today is not the same one of john mccain and mitt romney and paul ryan. so, we work with folks like vice president elect jd vance and marco rubio on trying to shape the future direction of the conservative movement. host: you have an op-ed or a guest essay in the new york times. it says trump is about to face the choice that dooms many a presidency. what is that choice and why did you feel the need to write this

now? guest: it's an especially interesting situation for mr. trump. it's been almost 150 years since we had a president who was out of office and then coming back into office. he gets a second chance at doing a first-term. typically, what we have seen when a new president is coming in, they have just spent all of this time campaigning, making commitments to voters, trying to win their support. all of a sudden, now you're the president elect and everything flips. all of those groups and donors, everybody is trying to get your support for their priorities. i think it is a place where right at the beginning, we typically see administrations really struggle. they do a lot of the stuff that the activists really want and the donors really want and the voters look around and say this is not what we were expecting at all. typically in the next midterm election, you see the president's party get wiped out. and so, the piece that i wrote

is to see in mr. trump remember why is that he was elected and what he will have to do to be a successful president or does all of the attention focus to what people are talking about at the mar-a-lago, which isn't the stuff that will get it done. host: when it comes to trump's first administration, how close do you think he got to some of the pro-worker economic policies that you support and in general, what did you think of his economic record? guest: i think his first term was an interesting situation where i like the metaphor of the dog that caught the car. obviously, people were surprised that he won. it was a situation where there was not a lot of work done to develop the kinds of policy ideas to develop the talent you could bring into an administration that was going to do that kind of work.

so, what i think he really saw in his first term was he gets to the white house, paul ryan is the speaker of the house. one of the legislative priorities was a big corporate tax cut. it was trying to repeal obama care. i think those probably were not the right places to focus. on the other hand, in places where thinking had been done in terms of strong immigration enforcement and contracting china -- confronting china, that's where you saw him get more done. especially on trade, ambassador bob lighthizer, the u.s. trade representative who is a candidate for treasury now. he knew exactly what needed to be done and gave him the power and space to go do it. i think we made a tremendous amount of progress on the trade issue with china. host: you mentioned earlier you are working with vice president elect jd vance.

i want to play a portion of his speech accepting the vice presidential nomination in july. >> never in my wildest imagination could i have believed that i would be standing here tonight. i grew up in middletown, ohio. [cheers] >> a small town where people spoke their minds, built with their hands and loved their god, family, community and country with their whole hearts. but it was also a place that had been cast aside and forgotten by america's ruling class in washington. when i was in the fourth grade, a career politician by the name of joe biden supported nafta, a bad trade deal that sent countless good jobs to mexico. when i was a sophomore in high school, that same career politician named joe biden gave china a sweetheart trade deal that destroyed even more good,

american, middle-class manufacturing jobs. when i was a senior in high school, that same joe biden simply the disastrous invasion of iraq and at each step of the way, in small towns like mine and ohio, or next-door in pennsylvania or michigan, in states all across our country, jobs were sent overseas and our children were sent to war. host: oren cass, what is your assessment thus far of president elect trump's picks for his cabinet as well as what you're hoping to see from vice president elect jd vance when it comes to economic policy? guest: i think it is interesting in that clip from jd vance, he's actually paring together two different issues where the republican has shifted. on free trade and economic policy, they were overwhelmingly

focused on embracing free-trade and ignoring places like ohio that were going to be hurt by it. and on foreign policy, it was a parallel process. we have had both democrats and republicans just kind of when around looking for wars to start -- going around, looking for wars to star and not thinking about who would have to fight those wars. i think what you see with trump and vance and the pix they have started to make, it is a different way of thinking about that. so far, the pix have been more on the foreign policy and military side. senator rubio at the state department has been an excellent pig. he's been at the forefront over the last decade of making the case that we need to rethink all of this. we need to recognize what -- that our main adversary is china. that our economic and foreign

policies are entangled. what we do economics is a huge impact on what we do in foreign policy and what it means for national security. i think he will bring much-needed change and leadership to the state department. on the economic side, it's interesting to see those on the pix that have not been made yet. there is still a debate about treasury secretary, who will be somebody that will actually carry forward president trump mission and not just kind of be another wall street banker, which we tend to see, especially in the republican treasury departments. likewise, pix like commerce, labor, these are the issues that are at the heart of our economic policy. as someone like jd vance has spoken about a lot, having a labor policy that is more focused on the interest of workers and having a commerce department in charge of the chips act, which is the investment that we are doing to bring semi conductor manufacturing into this country.

those are the kinds of things i think we still are waiting to see on. but hopefully we get it right because that will determine the direction of our growth. host: we will take your calls and questions for mr. cass. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000. republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. independents at (202) 748-8002. we have talked about what is happening in the white house but republicans have gained control of congress. a big thing on their agenda is going to be taxes with the expiration of the provisions of the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act. you have something about this. the coming tax cuts will not be what you are expecting. what do you think most people are expecting and what should we expect instead? guest: i wrote about it this week.

understanding america, that's what it's about, trying to understand what is going on that a lot of times i think is different from what people are expecting. this tax break is a great example. if you think back to 2017, the republicans pushed very hard on a large tax cut that was not paid for at all. they went straight into a bigger deficit. and the argument was somehow, you heard the phrase it will pay for itself somehow. the reality is it didn't. i don't think there is any dispute at this point that it added significantly to our deficit. as did many of the things on the spending side that the biden administration has since done. now, we have a much worse physical picture. we are looking at deficits of almost $2 trillion a year. even the interest payments on our debt at this point, we are spending more on interest payments than we are our

military. that can't go on. but have been predicting a fiscal crisis for a long time. we are now in the fiscal crisis. i think the interesting thing is a lot of republicans know this. especially in the house of representatives. there are a lot of republicans who have already said if anything, they need to be raising revenue to address our deficit problem. the idea that even with republican control, we are just going to take the tax cuts from 2017 and extend them all, just do it all again and not worry about the costs, i think that is totally unrealistic and does not have the votes that it would need. frankly, that's a very good thing. it means there will be a much more serious look at what can we afford and how do we pay for it? as a result, we will not be able to extend everything. there will have to be a bigger fight about which parts of these tax cuts really were valuable and we want to keep them. there were some good things in

there. a child tax credit that helps a lot of working family. some good incentives to encourage businesses to invest more. there are things that we want to keep. but, there will be a lot more work and a lot more fighting to be done about what this looks like going forward. it's not just going to be a blank check to spend the money and not worry about the deficit. host: president elect trump has suggested tariffs as one way to raise revenue. what do you think of this policy, particularly in terms of maybe 60% tariffs on goods coming from china and 20% across the board? guest: i think it's a very good policy. this is one that we do a lot of work on at american compass. and really focusing on where we started with this question of what does pro-worker policy look like? how do we create good jobs in america for american workers and it doesn't just promise everybody cheap stuff that somebody else will pay for?

in reality, we are putting it on the national credit card. i think that policy is very much needed. especially when it comes to china. the fight that we are now going to have goes all the way back to a fight that we had back in 2000. you heard jd vance mention in the speech at the convention, there was a huge fight over whether we should grant free-trade to china, what is called permanent normal trade relations. and all of the economists said yes, absolutely, this is going to be great. it's going to be great for us and china. and obviously, it has been a disaster for us. what people are now finally starting to think about, it's interesting, it was a bipartisan recommendation of the house of representatives china committee. it's in the republican national platform, saying no, we will not have normal trade relations with china. we are going to treat them like the adversary and the bad actor

in the economic system that they are. china is trying to send a lot of cheap stuff, in some cases, using slave labor with heavy subsidies over the chinese communist party. there will be high tariffs on that. that's not where we want to be buying stuff from. it's certainly not something we want to be dependent on. the good news, to go back to your question a moment ago about taxes, is that tariffs also generate revenue. when we are thinking about how do we pay for the kinds of tax cuts that we want to have that benefit families and encourage economic growth, tariffs can help do that. host: let's go to your calls for oren cass, the founder and chief economist of american compass, starting with richard in augustine, georgia on our line for democrats. good morning -- augusta, georgia , on our line for. good morning. caller: the nobel prize

economists have all said that trump's agenda again will be doom and gloom. i have seen the charts that steve ratner has shown. they have shown how the deficit came down with biden. how can you guys continue to believe that trump is going to provide good cost-of-living wages for american people, support good cost-of-living wages and now you guys want to go back to the doom and gloom of tariffs that stopped the farmers from selling their products to china, which would have helped them make money. such as the poor prices of soybeans and corn and other agricultural products. and then you want to illuminate the people who pick the fruits

and vegetables for this country, that keeps the prices down. whereas they will go up. host: richard, you have made a bunch of things. i will let oren respond. richard is talking about immigration and retaliatory tariffs and lots of things. guest: i would start with a couple of factual points. it is certainly not the case that the deficit went up under trump and down under biden. it went up under both. the problem of too much deficit spending and irresponsible budgeting has been an entirely bipartisan one that we certainly need to address. on the flipside, it is important to say that at this point, the tariffs policy is an entirely bipartisan one. as much as people complained when trump put the tariffs on china into effect, the biden administration cap essentially all of those tariffs. they have put on even more in some cases. this is a place where nobody wants to admit it but president

trump has been proven entirely correct. people are, in general, encouraged by him and supportive of what he did there. on the question of what it means on the immigration front, i think it is a really interesting topic. because, as the questioner put it, we have this sort of mindset in this country that all that matters is cheap labor. that we actually want to be paying workers as little as possible because means -- it means we get cheaper stuff. it's funny that that is becoming a progressive talking point. we have democrats and people on the left saying oh, we need to have these workers earning as little money as possible, when obviously that can't be right at all. that is no way to run an economy. and if we want broad-based prosperity, we need to have a real commitment to saying that the jobs in america are going to be good jobs that pay well and

allow americans to support their families. in an industry like agriculture, that means we need a lot more technology. we need automation and machinery. if you tell farmers we will not just have an endless supply of legal labor, you need to find a way to pick crops with american workers, we have seen this in the past and we will see it again, they will quickly invest in much better equipment that allows workers to do their jobs and support their families. i don't think any of this will happen overnight but i think people on both republican -- on the republican and democratic side need to get over the idea that -- and remember that actually labor workers, jobs to pay a living wage for people in america are

the foundation of our nation. host: this is actually on the front page of the new york times today. how a broken border keeps our shopping carts full. among the statements in here, this year, america's southern border was a flashpoint in the presidential election. president elect donald j. trump pledging to millions of people who he said were poisoning the blood of the country. within days of his reelection, he announced his intention to put hardliners on illegal immigration. this has been an ongoing issue, as you mentioned. i want to go to a question we received via text from kathy in detroit, who asks that you explain how tariffs raise revenue. guest: sure. a tariff at the end of the day

is a form of tax. it is something that is charged to a business or even an individual can something is imported into the country. let's say you want to bring a giant shipment of televisions from china. if there is a tariff on those televisions, you have to pay to the united states government some amount of money relative to how much those televisions are worth. and so, in that respect, it generates revenue directly to the government. for most of american history, tariffs were actually the main way we funded our government. the very first law signed by the very first congress bite george washington back in the founding of the country was a tariff bill. that was how we would raise money to fund the government. i think everybody recognizes that tariffs can be one source of revenue. they are not going to fund the

government themselves but one of the problems with the way a lot of economists talk about tariffs today and do their models is they treat the money like it is set on fire. as if we have made things more expensive and the money is gone. that's not true. the money is going into the treasury. we can use that to cut other taxes to offset the cost. we can use that to offset our deficit and make investments in new factories and equipment and infrastructure and things that benefit workers and families here in america. host: peter is in new york on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, mr. cass. in 2017, when they passed the tax and jobs act, the federal government was taking in 3.1 3 trillion dollars. in 2023, the government was taking in $4.8 trillion.

the inflation or the american rescue plan which was passed in 2021, larry summers, who was obama's treasury secretary said that it would be inflationary. the inflation reduction act was $1.2 trillion. they are spending now 7 trillion dollars and taking in approximately $5 trillion. we have a spending problem. we don't have a revenue problem. under the 2017 tax policy, the average american family was $6,000 a year wealthier than they were before. now, they are $2000 poorer. host: i want to let mr. cass respond to your idea that it is a spending issue rather than a revenue issue. go ahead. guest: i have to agree.

it is a spending issue. as the caller said, we saw an explosion of spending during the biden administration. some part of that was related to covid. it went up and back down again. the problem is it did not go all back down again. even though the emergency is long over, a lot of the spending is still there. democrats were refusing to bring spending down way a more manageable level. i think they are creating an enormous problem for our budget and so, for our country. on the flipside, on the revenue and the taxes, the caller said is incorrect. it is true that in absolute dollar terms, we are taking it more -- taking in more this year than we did 17 years ago. but you have to remember the economy has grown and there has been an enormous amount of inflation. the way to understand our tax revenue and to see if taxes have

gone up or down is to look at how much we are collecting in taxes relative to the size of the economy. what you see when we look at that is because of the tax cut and jobs act, we are bringing in less revenue relative to the size of the economy. before that past, it was between 17 and 17.5%. now, it is between 16% and 16.5%. obviously, if you are ringing in 16.5% of the economy as tax revenue and then you are spending something like 24% of the economy is government spending, that is a huge gap and it has to be closed. it is going to have to be closed from both sides. there is no way to bring our spending all the way down to what our tax revenue is today. there is no serious republican budget proposal that would do

it. to even get close, we would have to do things like cut medicare in half. nobody is interested in doing that and it would not be good. so, if you look at the sensible budget models that republicans and democrats put out, if you could go back to what paul ryan put out as his proposal for a sensible budget, what you see is at the end of the day, you need to get spending and you need to get revenue around 19-20% of the economy. that is where virtually every model ends up landing. if you think back to the days of bill clinton when we had a balanced budget, that's what we were taking in and spending. from where we are today to get there, yes, we will have to do a lot about bringing down spending. we are also going to have to find a way to raise more revenue. in the old republican talking point that we will never, ever consider raising revenue, we will only cut taxes, we just

have to recognize that is not responsible and has not been getting the job done. at the end of the day, that leads to a bigger and bigger fiscal problem. host: i will point out for folks who want to hear more about the 1920's solution as you call it related to spending and revenue, it's more on understanding america than 1920's solutions. mr. cass, what is your opinion of the curve claiming if you charge too much in tesyou will get less revenue? will the very rich move out of the country if taxes are too high? guest: the laffer curve is a picture that was drawn on a napkin by a guy named art laffer , an adviser to ronald reagan. the point he made, which is true

, was that if you charge 0% taxes, you will collect zero revenue. if you charge 100% taxes, if you tell people you will take every dollar they earn, you will also collect zero revenue because who would earn anything, who would do any work or try to earn anything if they knew it would all be taken by the government? so, the right tax rate, the one that actually encourages a productive economy and collect money to fund the government has to be in between zero and 100. you can't keep raising taxes forever and think you are going to keep getting more money. that still leaves the question of where are we on that curve? are we at a point where more taxes bring in more revenue or are we at a point where more taxes actually start to scare people away and discourage them from earning money and therefore leave us worse off?

the reality is that literally every economic study that has been done on the question, certainly for individual taxes, shows that we are still on what i would call the short side of the laffer curve. meaning, if you do raise taxes on people, you will collect more tax revenue. the corporate side is a little bit trickier. back in reagan's days, when taxes on investment and corporate profits were like 40% or 50%, for that matter, individual taxes were 70% at the top, i think you could make the case that bringing those down was actually a way to collect more revenue. but given where it is today after 40 years of tax cuts, that's not true anymore. that's not an argument for raising taxes. we should want to have taxes as low as they can be. we should want people to keep as much of their own money as they can. we should want to be encouraging

as much investment in work and growth as we can. and we should want to be limiting the size of government. at the same time, we should want to be paying for the size of our government. we should want to be paying for what we spend and not running up the debt and leaving it to our kids. that's where we have to have some hard conversations about where can we cut spending, where do we want to spend less? we have to remember that at every level of spending that we want to do, we have to pay for taxes to fund it. that's just the reality. host: just is in north carolina -- jess is in north carolina on the line for independents. caller: i have a question about the to varmint of efficiency, is that what it is called? >> yes. host: let's the proposal. caller: it seems like whenever

we have talk about raising money or trying to find more money for the government, it seems like we talk about cutting programs that help some of the most vulnerable people in america. women and children and disabled people. people that are sick and need help. my question, sir, i would like for your guests to comment. looking at salaries of congress, is it necessary for these people to receive pensions? they go to washington and stay forever, i think they should have term limits. i don't think serving in congress and the senate should be a career where you come and receive a pension. could you just talk about the possibility of the pensions being removed from the

government officials that serve in congress? and also, decreasing their salary? how would that work and what would it look like and could it help with the deficit or trying to find more money to operate the government? guest: it's an interesting question. i would say that is probably not the place to look for savings for two reasons. one is it is a very small amount of money. you can see there is a line item for the cost of congress because, of course, it is the budget for the federal government. it's like the cost of one fighter jet. it is a minuscule amount when you think about 530 something

odd people in congress and the senate. they earn for the most part between $100,000 and $200,000 per year. it's an amount in the millions, it's not even in the billions. there is not a lot of savings there at all. even if you told them they all had to volunteer and they weren't going to pay anybody anything. on the flipside, i would look at it the other way and say we have a problem of probably not funding our lawmakers and congress as well as we should. because it is such a small amount of money and because the decisions they make have such enormous consequences, you think about a few of them sitting around in a room debating one sentence in one law will change our spending more than the entire amount that we spend on that. we are at a point now where somebody graduating from a top law school and going to work in

new york city, they will earn more in their first year than the speaker of the house earns. it's very hard to attract smart, dedicated, talented people to work in these important jobs in congress, both as elected officials and as their staff and people who advise them, if we say we are just not going to pay you almost anything, relative to what you could go earn in a different kind of job. my advice would be to say let's really focus on making sure we can hire and keep talented people in congress. i agree with term limits. let's not let them stay forever. but that's not where i would try to cut. i would cut spending to save money. host: diana is in arizona on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi, everybody. i am surrounded by trump supporters. and they all tell me trump is

going to do something great like rent control, go after corporations for food prices, gouging. they don't care about trump going after the fbi and those things. they want to see some real relief. but they also tell me there is something deep inside trump about the cruelty and the republican voting. every time they are supposed to help the poor or middle-class, republicans always vote no. but like trump throwing paper towels to the people in puerto rico and releasing 5000 taliban people, is he going to do something for the poor and these food prices? is he going to build something this time? guest: i think that is a great

question that was very well put. it goes back to where we started at the top of the hour. we mentioned a piece that i had recently written, looking at this decision that trump has. i think a lot of the things he ran on during the campaign, i think political figures around him like jd vance and marco rubio are focused on policies that would help workers, families, retirees, to make the families much stronger. there is a side of him and some of the advisors around him and some of his supporters who would focus on doing other things that i think would be much less productive. and so, we are, at this moment right now, where that is being determined. who he chooses to lead his various departments, what kinds of policy they choose to focus

on in the first hundred days will determine the shape of his administration. i think realistically, it's not going to be all good. it's not going to be all bad. where it lands in between is going to determine how successful he is and how popular he is. whether his party does well in the next elections. and so, hopefully, the way this is supposed to work is that he and his team think about these things and realize they have to deliver on these promises for their voters. i think we will certainly see some of it. but i hope, and we will have to wait to see if we see a lot of it. host: jim is in winter park, florida on the line from republicans. good morning. caller: good morning, mr. cass. my question is does anybody ever take a look at the bloat of government? one of the things biden talked about during his administration is he has gotten so many people

jobs. hundreds of thousands of those jobs are federal employees. and we just keep adding people and adding people and adding people to work. and their salary is $100,000 a year and there is 200,000 of them. that is a lot of money. and we never stop funding programs that are failures. we spend money over and over again on failing policies that, if we stopped at, we would be a lot better off. we have so many people that aren't going into offices anymore. there is ocean building on top of ocean building on top of ocean building and nobody is working. we are air conditioning, lighting, powering and renting them. why do we have to keep funding? if people are going to work from home, get rid of the buildings. if people are not going to work

from home and get back to work then get back to work. somebody has to look at the amount of money that is wasted in washington, d.c. on policies -- host: i want to make sure we give mr. cass time to respond. guest: it's a great list of the kinds of things that we need the government to look at more carefully. when you think about, the previous caller mentioned this, the department of government efficiency, figuring out as you would in the private sector, what are we not doing anymore, those are great questions. there is a report done within the government that identifies all of the biggest opportunities to find those kinds of savings and then sees how many of them did we actually take advantage of? you will be unsurprised to know that the government does not take advantage of all of the

opportunities it should. the flipside, i think the most important point the caller made is on the programs that don't work. the reality is that we are not adding to the federal workforce. we are not hiring additional federal workers right now. could we save on the buildings? probably a little bit. all of that savings will come in terms of the billions of dollars. the deficits are in the trillions of dollars. what is driving the deficits are these huge programs that spend money, not on workers sitting in buildings but on sending money out to places. paying for health care, providing various benefits. those are things we want to do in the sense that we want to help people who need help. a lot of the ways we try to help people are wildly inefficient in terms of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars.

we don't ever consider getting rid of it, we just add on top of it. when we think about our safety and anti-poverty programs, there is more than 100 of them, spread across virtually every agency, especially if you include health care, spending more than $1 trillion a year. that's where we have to take a hard look and say we are in the programs -- one of the programs that are serving and helping people when they need help? and what are the programs that were made 50 years ago that we keep spending on and we are doing better somewhere else and they are not accomplishing anything. those are the ways that we will get our deficit under control. recognizing we still want to have a strong safety net. we need to have ways to help people. but we need to do that in a

much, much more efficient and cost-effective way and be willing to agree that this program is not working and get rid of it. making that decision doesn't mean we don't care about people. it means we do care about people. and we recognize the only way to help people and have a strong safety net is if we are willing to cut away pieces that are working and aren't doing what they are supposed to. -- aren't working and aren't doing what they are supposed to. >> we are live once again here in washington, d.c. where we expect the conversation on tax policy at a conference hosted by the foundation for research on equal opportunity to start up again here in a minute or two. in the meantime on capitol hill both chambers of congress will be back in session. the house gaveled in a short time ago that you can watch live on c-span. members considering foreign policy legislation through

several bills being considered under suspension the rules including measures banning use government from contracting with any person with business operations with it current venezuelan government. also build of increased transparency of mail in ballots requiring brown envelopes to tracking barcodes. what did you can see the house live when members return here on our companion network c-span. on c-span2 use senate is back later today at 3 p.m. eastern. senators will at 5:30 p.m. eastern to confirm a u.s. court of appeals judge for the 11th circuit which hears that an appeal from district court in alabama, florida and georgia. during their final week of work before breaking for the thanksgiving holiday house democrats are expected to hold leadership elections for the next congress and the elected house members back in washington, d.c. are more orientation sessions including selecting their capitol hill offices by lottery. both the house and senate

continue their talks ahead of another government funding deadline and they must pass additional federal spending legislation by september 22 over a shutdown. you can watch live coverage of both chambers on the c-span now app or online at c-span.org. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible