the sessions that people can have with the therapist. ultimately, it am cans back to a resource issue, i think. when you are doing trauma work, it is often long and enveloped and over a long period of time. >> thank you very much, thank you for holding the hearing, and thank you to our witnesses. i was a prosecutor for eight years, manage an office of 400, and we worked extensively with the university of minnesota and the police chief. one of the things with the discussions of campus sexual assault, and sexual assault in the military that i have always put forward is that there is trust in the system is key. all of the victim survey, the gold standard is trying the case and getting a sentence, that doesn't always happen. sometimes you can't prove it. i have met with victim and their families and said, we believe you, but we don't have the

evidence right now. we want you to know it will make a difference. this guy will do it again, we will do something then, perhaps your testimony will matter. those are hard discussions, what we found in the survey, what makes the biggest difference, they still feel they can trust the system, is that someone is listening and handling their case seriously. sometimes, when people look at it, it is all about charging, we know that doesn't always happen, it is also about trust. i wonder if you can address that a bit in terms of that trust. maybe you, chief and why that is an important piece of this. >> i don't know if i could say it better. >> that is a great answer. >> you can have the best investigation, the best advocacy, you can have the most will be and energized and in

pursuit of justice because of lack of willing to prosecute. because of concerns about win/loss records, very candidly put. then you can run into a greater difficulty in getting more people to come forward. very much what you said. building that trust throughout the entire stage of the system is parmount. >> very good. one thing we did at the university of minnesota, we do something called take back the night every year t raises awareness. i wonder if you could address the simple idea that sometimes we think everybody knows bl how to prevent this from happening, a lot of times, students are just out of high school. and they show up, at campus, and

they can make bad decisions, and the perpetrators can make bad decisions, talk about how education matters. >> absolutely. what we find at the college level, consent. mostly, in our culture, we don't talk a lot about sex in general, and how to pursue t make sure that everybody wants it, there is a percentage of people who really are just uninformed how to gain consent to have sex. it ends, i think, it was the chief who talked about having education and prevention happening early on in schools, where you are talking about concept from an early age. then, certainly, at a college level. when we do our educative out reach, to students that is primarily what wree talking about is consent. not so much focussing on sexual

assault and rape, students knowing what consent is, how to get consent, and be sure that all parties involved are participating because they want to. chief zoner, we talk about police officers on the front line, i will tell you, i like the idea of having more women chiefs, when i first started as prosecutor, i talked to the university of minnesota police chief, she was going to take me around and introduce me to the where we would eat stake at 11:00 in the morning, how will i know. she said, it won't be hard. she was the only woman. and we greatly increased the numbers, i think that would help personally. higher up, in the police departments, i think that there is best practices that you can recommend to other chiefs, talk about that how to deal with

victims of sexual assault. >> yes, i think the type of person that gets drawn to law enforcement is the type of person who quickly and rapidly wants to get all the facts together and see justice served. allow the person to give particular testimony in a way that make the most sense and gets the most truthful information, the most accurate recollection s a way to reemphasize that a victim-centered approach will go farther in the prosecutorial proceedings, law enforcement officers, and i think that again, you mentioned women in law enforcement. the sentiments of being a good listener, as opposed to looking forward, and trying to get to the goal as fast as you can,

have to be carefully balanced. women do tend to carry on more conversational manner of speaking. whatever level they are in, i think our colleagues can learn from each other, anyone who exhibits good listeners, and allowing someone to move forward should be reinvorced. >> my time is up, i appreciated your commentings, about different sizes of colleges and universities. the issue about time, and how you do that. we will have to, as we look at it, not every college will be able to have full time people do this in a smaller play. you have to look at trainers in the counties and departments as well. thank you very much, appreciate it. thank you for holding this hearing, it is important, i have been involved in helping to

write the bill that it senators and i have done. it provides for better fact finding and on campus, through confidential advisors, and a process of ajudication, all too often, it is adhoc and unfair to both sides. the lack of a process with integrity and accuracy, is what

sis courages survivors from coming forward. this bill gives them more choice, the criminal process off campus or a fair, uniform process with due process on campus, the experience at the university of virginia should reaffirm our resolve. not only to addressing the epidemic of campus sexual assault, but providing reassurance to victims and survivors that there will be due process, and accurate fact finding with integrity and honesty, and services. a commitment to services, so that a woman isn't left standing outside a fraternity seeking help from her friends. she should have support within the system. confidential advisories, services that will illicit the

truth from her, provide means of forensic evidence and preserving it, and a system that avoids the adhoc, sometimes chaotic process, demeaning and discouraging to victims and survivors. bee are unable to draw clear conclusions as to what facts were at this point, should intensify and increase our determination to make this process worthy of the courage of survivors who do come forward. whatever happened to this victim or survivor, should redouble our

determination. let me ask, i strongly believe that we should require schools to provide comprehensive training to individuals who serve on a campus ajudication panel. we should pick people who have the expertise to provide some measure of fairness and due process. >> i think it is important that victims have clear thorough options presented to them. that the options are developed in partnership with all of the appropriate players, that is that any campus officials should be working ahead of time, before incidents happen. the partnerships should be developed. beyond mou, i agree, that is not enough. the partnerships need to be in

place, so that it actually develops into a system where law enforcement does know about every assault that happens. however, the victim needs to be in that driver's seat. the victim the victim should be in charged of what happens, with the prosecution, if that is the choice, or on-campus ajudication, you don't disagree, on campus adjudication should be an option for a survivor. that is the way i hope i didn't, i hope i misread your testimony, i read it as essentially disapproving those on-campus ajudication processes to, use your words, that they don't work. >> as they currently exist, they tend to replace any effective

reporting or investigation or prosecution on the criminal side. so what happens is, in most caseses the most that might happen is an individual who be suspended or expelled. free to go to another institution. given the statistics as we know most of the individuals are serial offenders. >> that is an important point. predators commitment crime after crime after crime. a small minority of college men commitment the overwhelming number of rapes and sexual assaults against women. it seems to me the issue that you just raised, record keeping and record transfers is separate and apart from the existence and integrity and fact finding effectiveness of an on-campus ajudication, support what is in

the bill to preserve and in fact, inhans, many are taking the initiate. my time is expired. i would be happy with the chairman would allow us or allow you to finish your answer for you to do so, thank you. >> would you glaldly do, they don't disagree with you that there needs to be some kind of process as an option for victimos campus. there are a lot of thing that is need to be addressed on campus to support that victim's effective continuation, in campus l however, a lot 6 those processes having been develop what should be on campus, what

should not. what should not happen on campus, and currently, universities, ads min administrators are forced to act as judge and jury. the defendant's rights are violations, we have seen the horror shows on campus after campus. i don't know that we are at a place where we developed effective on-campus ajudication processes, because we haven't worked effectively so far, maybe in some cases we have, with law enforcement. i really encourage this, i know in rhode island, we will be looking at the ashland model. the new kid on the block for all of us in a sense. i think addresses, the concerns that you have, as well as the concerns that we see at in many

cases only the ajudication process are given in a thorough way to victims, that is our reluctance to say, yes we need a good ajudication process. i think they have to be hand in hand with all of the other options. >> i want to thank all of you for your testimony and your appearance here and great work. if i am able to stay for more questions, i will ask them. i wanted to emphasize, for folks in the trenches like yourself, doing this work. the controversy about the university of virginia probably seems like a distraction, it is no excuse for continuing to support the cause of improving the services and the process available to victims and survivors, thank you mr.

chairman. >> i think it is a fair description, i would like to get into that complicated thicket right now. you talked about the importance of assuring victims', survivors, their right to suspend the law enforcement investigation as it goes forward. one might say, if you give the victim of the crime the ability to do that, it will result in less enforcement. i think you have seen that isn't true. >> when survivors are entered into any process, law

enforcement or administrative process, there is a time frame and a rush. what happens for a lot of survivors, they feel catapulted by the process, it is out of their control. and a lot of the time, they don't really truly understand what is going on, mostly, folks don't nld a criminal investigation or the parts and pieces of it and so, what we have actually found is that it has increased not only reporting, but it has increased the cases that go to the da's office. the survivors are given the time they need to engage in the process to understand process and to be real, to map tain the rest of their life. that is another thing that happens, people's lives get hijacked by the criminal justice process. and you know, they are needing to find different shifts at work, if it is a student, impacting their studies, all of those things, another barrier for survivors is informing their

parents, the process they are engaged in it by allowing them to suspend and pause, they can sort of take care of the bits and pieces in a way that they feel comfortable to continue on, in the criminal justice process. >> i would note by formalizing that ru not giving much away. in cases like this, where conse consent, or lack of consent, the it is crucial, all you are really doing is informing and confirming for victims of the crime, a power that they have anyway but don't know. it is a big black box to them going n takes me to my second question.

sometimes everybody in that process has two things going on. one is responding to the event itself. gather evidence. statements, the case, one way or the other. the second, is to educated subject of the offense about that process. those two things in your program, there is a confident advisor exempt from the title nine process. it doesn't tick off the title nine clock when they are spoken to? >> yes. >> at the same time, the police can engage with the victim of the crime without being oblimed to necessarily open a criminal case and proceed with charges. >> yes.

together, and that gives a person who has been the subject of this crime the chance to understand what it is going to be, what the choices are, all of that. before the second process gets triggered. is that a fair thing you are trying to achieve. the make sure the sheft bule moment exits. >> best illustrated by a case example. a woman present, she was referred to me, came to my office and outlined for me what happened to her. so, given my knowledge, which i said was imperative of the criminal justice system, i knew it was in our state a measure 11

crime, there are crimes perpetrated against her would carry a 25-year prison sentence, we are talking about a serious crime. so, i let her know that she was disclosing a crime to me. and at that time, sort of said, here are your options, this is what we can do on campus, this is what we can do with law enforcement. one of the things they think is important to know as well, she was getting my endorsement of law enforcement. sort of, i was opening a door saying you will have a good experience here. i can go with you for that. this particularly woman said, okay, let's do it right now today. i said, okay, i will call and see if there is a detective to work with us today. there was. i had a free calendar, she interviewed with law enforcement right then. i was there. still in that process, i am able to do as a college

administrator, it was another college student, are you safe in your current campus environment. here is what it looks like, the title nine process, here is the time clock, once we involve the other campus people. this woman was okay. i wanted to mention that of course, that is important. we need to access if somebody is safe and able to be a student, be able to live in their environment, all of those things, she was, and was invested in that process. she participated with that support, up until they were ready to interview and make an arrest of him. at that point, is when we engaged our title 9 process on campus, now, nothing the college is going to do will impede the criminal justice system. in a way it helps our case as a college, that this engagement with law enforcement has happened. so, both of those procedures

happened successfully, the student had a plea bargain, he is a registered sex offender and charged and convicted of those crimes, he was expelled from the university. and the last piece i would say about that, there are other parts, i accompanied her to grand jury, i went with her when the sentencing happened, there to explain some of the other bits and pieces of things, crime victim compensation, where is he going to be on probation, how does he get in touch with those peegz. after both matters are closed. just to say about her, she is still a stupidity. she is still impacted. because the two processes have concluded, her life continuing to be impacted by what happened to hir. she is a resource for her on campus. vestibule is a great word, i think of a hub, having the

person who has the knowledge of the systems and can lay out for a survivor what their actions are, is very important. >> second round. >> i think that is a very apt, and articulate discussion of it the way the process can work. ideally. if the survivor chooses to go to the criminal justice system, but not all survivors may have the decisiveness that this woman evidently d law enforcement,

they are taking delayed reports, there is no timeframe within which someone has to report, they won't take a report, they will take them. on campus, we have worked with studen studentsed in title nine process, it is true, there is no longer any physical evidence, when a delay has been made. there are other kinds of evidence that can still be collected. i would say, sort of cautiously,

yet yes, i recommend law enforcement. mostly, i want to do what they would like. with the you have options program, most people i mentioned the 76% of our students, who are reporting crimes have interaction with law enforcement. "america's most wanted" students only report to law enforcement are at least exploring that option, and our police department has the name and information of the offenders, and what i will say, finally s most survivors f they are not willing to go forward for themselves, for the process, they learn there is someone else ofepded against by the same person, they are much more willing to do that just giving the information to law enforcement in the first place is highly valuable. >> you think that a very important point. survivors can be persuaded to

give information, even if they don't go for a prosecution, if the assail apt does it again, they want to corroborate, or pure sue a case against the same person. i have heard that, on fw they go to a hospital, there is likely to be forensic evidence, even if they don't pursue it at that point. i want to shift to an area that was raised at the close to response of my question, the

transfer process. the student records, i am sure you found, even though it was on another coast, the experience recently again tragically and unfortunately, the murder of hanna graham by an accused individual, jessie matthew jr. who has been apprehended, who evidently, committed various offenses at other schools, records were not transferred to schools when he was transfer. i think which would have been useful to them. your testimony state that is if

a student is found responsible and will is expelled, that student could move to another school and offend again. we know that most rapes are committed as we have observed here now but a few repeat offenders, that is not ohm a possible outcome t may be a probably outcome. academy records are protected, prevents the school from which the student is transferred from sharing that information. transferring under some distances, it may have a chilling effect in practice. the law has a specific exsepgsz for this purpose. schools tend not to disclose the information unless they are asked.

this is a barrier. i wonder if you could tell me, maybe the chief may have insight on this whether cornell or southern oregon university have a policy for asking schools from which a student is transferring about the reason for their dismissal, leaving the school, if it is in their record? i know that is a long-winded question, but i would broaden it to all three of the members of this panel. i hope you understand what the question is. >> i think i understand what the question is, to the best of my knowledge, cornell, in the transfer procedures, look into students, not only academic records, but behavior records as well. >> ask for the records from which a student is transferring? >> thank you. your school? >> i am not entirely clear on the process to the best of my knowledge, we do as well.

>> do you know i know of instances, that tuare ferring to where there was a college in rhode island, providence college, someone transferred to i believe it was oregon. and just very situation you are describing. that definitely needs attention in the legislation, i remember that, recommend senator. >> it is critical important. a school may be really happy to get rid of a he is a serial

predator, if he is gone, the school says, we have done our job, we got rid of him. then he is on to another school. schools should be asking the question, when someone comes to them t especially if there is some potential disciplinary problem involved in the original school which very much permiss ible for a school to ask that question.

we are running short on time. i invite chief zoner and miss lanlg hammer to supplement their answers in writing. i want to touch on a couple of things. the bill requires universities to develop a memorandom of understanding with local law enforcement. you suggested that a memorandum of understanding, for memorandum of understanding sake, there are more balanced alternatives in order to have the legislation

how would you recommend that we expand the requirement or redefine the requirement to make sure we are achieving what we recognize we should achieve if a memorandum of understanding isn't the pertinent term? >> i want to clarify, i remember memorandums of understanding can be very helpful and useful in many situations. one of the concerns they have is different campuses have different levels of security and/or law enforcement available to them in their own construct, then may have a single agency or multiple agencies, on the outset. so, when you look at the memorandum of understanding as the only tool by which ru going to commute, it takes a great amount of effort in a lot of cases to make sure that those are signed. again, i will reiterate that

governmental agencies have no obligation, you can sign anything you want. there is no repercussions for someone that doesn't sgnlg in the, the institutions can be left floundering with good intent to try to make things happen. in addition, the law enforcement agencies on campus are responsible employees, so, they have to report and start that title we have a lot of levels of security and law enforcement on campus, a lot of different interactions with edgesas on campuses and off campuses. whether it is true an mlu or other methodologies, hosting

conferences to get local law enforcement together on a regular basis, opening up database sharing, sharing the samp information to talk to ip vest time and money. >> you mentioned that law enforcement agencies are quote responsible officials, that triggers the title nine clock to begin to run.

so there is not interference with the with respect to the quality of life, and protection of the students, and all of that sort of student life management piece can be stopped. has it been a problem for you to have two investigations, basically taking place with the same witnesses at the same time, and bumping into each other? >> yes, it has been problematic. thankfully we have a good relationship with our on-campus judicial administratorors, working with us, and the assistant district attorney as well. we do our best to support the victim, allow the victim to have a sas say in which direction it is going, what is emphasized. there are interests in the

criminal proceedings, to protect a. >> and you said something very interesting, you said, the question is not should colleges be mandated, the question s how do we create a system where the victim choices are the priority, and the process designed to work in the best interest of the victim. what are the hallmarks of such a system? >> i think that first, looking

at the ashland model, having everyone present, the victim knows prior to a commitment i don't have to use your name. that is law enforcement speaking. so, i think all of those options, and i believe they feel

they have choices and they feel like, this we keep hearing again and again, how victims feel. this time frame is being thrown at them. they feel out of control. it is an out of control lack of consent, and revictimization in a sense. when we say a certain thing is not working, we think it is because it is not working in collaboration with all of the systems that need to be at the table, they need to work together that is what a true mlu is, memorandum of understanding, we believe they should be mandatory, we are developing them as we speak with all of the institutions in rhode island day one is. we are about to complete our first one. and it is really been a give and take. we think this is important here at university x, we think this is important. we have been at the table with all of those folks, including their local law enforcement. i believe that is what needs to

happen, how we build an ideal system of response, the victim is part of that team. it is not a duel approach, stralths this process and law enforcement piece, here is a date, here is another date here. i have exams now, the victim should be deciding how the process goes forward and should have her or his eyes open the entire time. >> final question, you spent many years in this area are there lessons we should take, that is a crime that has come up out of the shadows. treated more seriously, in which

does that provide any models for this? >> you know, i think with both issues, and they often overlap, they really do, many victims we see at day one experienced severe domestic violence. anyone interacting with a victim, trauma informed forensic interviewing, so that they learn to understand how that victim is impacted.

very good woshds to end the hearing on, the record will stay open for an additional week. that lead up to it that made it meanful to all of us. i appreciate my seven colleagues who participated in this subcommittee hearing, that is a lot of attention in the waining days of this congress. everybody virtually wildly busy doing things. when i recognize the incoming chairman, thank him for the positive and enthusiastic remarks made at the outset of

the hearing, and his work, with the senator and others as they put the bill together. with that, we will adjourn, and thank you very much. >> i am interesting on the american indian. i didn't watch the whole thing. i came in and found it when i turned the tv on and watched what i could.

for about an hour and a half, two hours. this program is absolutely wonderful. if it is going to be on again, i will give you a bigger audience by notifying all the notifying the geological societies, asking them to spreaded word. something i have never seen before. i do watch a lot of c-span. thank you. >> i am calling from greensburg, pennsylvania about american history tv. i love that channel. every week, i watch it religiously, i love all the history stuff you v please give us more history programs, history in the sense of something observe 1950, or 1960, if tuwant to have these

political commentary type things you know, from the 1970s on, that is fine later, during the week, or something, but not during the history weekend. i really love your history lectures. i like to have another chance to hear that or see it again several months later, instead of this regani it e, on here ranting about how bad the government is. >> i love c-span, i love the nonfiction books and i love it when you have the book fair. i am always elated on the weekend, watching c-span, it is the most fun my son teaching history in a junior college, i never used to be interested in a lot of history. now i am. thank you very much.

>> call at the 202-626-3400 join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. congress has until thursday to extend funding for the federal government. we talked to congressman price how some proposals would affect the budgets of federal agencies, this is a half hour. >> we are joined by congressman david price from north carolina, who serves as ranking member on the sub committee on homeland security. he joins us before the clock ticks down on the current funding bill.

talk about the current proposal to fund all of of the government through 2015, except for homeland security, which would be on a much tighter leash. where do you stand on that plan? >> i think it is a bad plan, aimed at making a political point on immigration, and the president's executive action on immigration. it is a strange way to poke the president in the eye there. what they are doing in effect, by breaking out the homeland security appreciations bill and putting it on automatic pilot, on a continuing resolution, is to in effect, cut helpeds of millions of dollars from the functions they want to protect. what it does freeze in place funding for border security, immigration enforcement. it will certainly delay the ability to make the white house more secure through secret service, and yp on earth when

you are posing as the champion of these functions and immigration and enforcement in particular, why cut off your nose to spite your face. i think we know the answer. it is about spending a political signal, displeased with what president has done, and setting up confrontation for the first of march next year. it is not clear what that will do like. you have 11 bills stitched together for the balance of the year, you will have those in plis, the homeland security omission is crazy. >> for viewers tuning in, it may be helpful to explain the breakdown between what a cr is and what an omnibus is. >> it is washington lingo at its worst. cr, continuing resolution, and ombus for appropriations, the achievement is that option

committees in both houses have pursuant to the budget agreement, this ryan murray budget agreement, have written in a appropriations bills. now, with some of the domestic bills, the numbers are so low that it's awfully hard to write good bills and so we're really not doing ourselves any favors in the areas of health research and so on. but still, you do have appropriations bills that are better i think, almost uniformly, than simply putting the government on automatic pilot and that's what a continuing resolution does. when you can't agree on an appropriations bill going forward you enact a continuing resolution. it means you don't shut things down but you don't make the changes you need ordinarily in an appropriations bill. >> as we have seen in headlines this morning, this gop proposal to fund most of the government september 2015 except for dhs

hit a snag is the headline if "the washington post" this morning. if this bill does get to the floor, would you vote for it? >> i'd have to really think about that because the omission of homeland security and that's a department that i've both chairman and ranking member on that subcommittee, that's the department i've looked out for and we all need to look out for. that's a very major flaw in that bill and puts a real obstacle up for my support but the snag is -- has nothing to do i think with any of this. i mean, the snag apparently has to do with representative jeb hensarling wanting to have his way with a few dodd-frank regulations. isn't that typical? this guy brings in this to try to squeeze out from the process. to move forward we need to get

the terrorism insurance done. >> a topic we talked about yesterday and if viewers want to watch that full segment we did on that. what are your democratic colleagues telling you about this proposal if speaker boehner doesn't have all the votes that he would need to pass it among republicans would enough democrats come over you think and support this measure? >> well, they might and the possibility that they might, that we might, is partly what's driving this. you know? there's some hard liners on the republican side probably not voting for anything. speaker boehner knows if he passes this cromnibus bill, he needs to have the votes and the sure way not to is to leave the riders on the bill that have been put on the bill by republicans in the appropriations process. >> provisions that go with it? >> that's right. his knowing that he needs the

democratic votes had a lot to do with keeping some of the worst stuff off and i'm talking about provisions trying to damage the affordable care act and gut environmental regulations, the sort of things that somehow these appropriations bills tend to attract. if you leave these sorts of things off, if you have reasonably clean bills, if the only major flaw is the omission of homeland security and it is major, but still, the question is, how much could we clean this bill up? if it's cleaned up, stays clean, it will pass. >> we're talking with congressman david price, democrat of north carolina, he's a senior democrat on the appropriations committee here to answer your questions and comments if you have them. republicans 202-748-80001. democratses 202-48-8000. independents, 202-748-8002.

13-term member, just re-elected to his 14th term and serving as i said on the appropriations committee. on that committee, you had the homeland security subcommittee. can you talk more about the practical implications of the keeping homeland security on sort of that shorter leash? what will -- what could view earls see as the impacts of that? >> well, there's the political purpose that's going on here, that's at work here to try to express displeasure about the president's executive action on immigration which was a perfectly reasonable executive action, just exercising some diss cession like every prosecutor does about whom we deport and who we take action against. >> beyond the political maneuvering. >> that's right. they don't like that. they want to show their displeasure. very strangely, the idea is to put department of homeland security on a continuing

resolution, freezing it in place until the end of february next year. so the political implication is that you have some kind of showdown at the end of february next year. i don't know what they think that's going to look like or who it helps but, anyway, has to be something or the department shuts down. the implication in terms of department functioning is something we should worry about. this is a serious matter. this is freezing in place funding for the very things republicans profess to care about. freezing in place border security. freezing in place immigration enforcement. making secret service scramble at best. making them scramble to put those additional protections in the white house in place that we have been -- we know we need. the coast guard has a whole schedule of procurement and shipbuilding that will be thrown into uncertainty. so we'll have to fix that late in february.

>> a shutdown of just dhs happens in mid-february if that debate happens and a shutdown happens, what actually stops happening at dhs? i mean, essential functions at dhs would continue, zprekt. >> that's a good point because dhs is the homeland security department after all and these are essential functions and that's a term of art in government as our listeners probably know. the border security is not going to be sent home but the border security won't be paid. people will have to show up to work with no pay, great uncertainty about what the future holds for their job and for their department. so, i think something like 85% of the personnel of homeland security are deemed essential personnel so it doesn't mean the border will go unprotected but it means the civil servants, hard working people will not be paid or their pay will be delayed. and the whole -- i mean, one of the main problems i think with

government these days is uncertainty. and the unpredictability and just lurching from crisis to crisis. why would we want to do that? why especially with homeland security? those critical functions to do that. it really -- it really is a kind of temper tantrum taking legislate lative form here on the part of the republican colleagues. poke the president in the eye, sure. they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. >> let's get to viewer calls. good morning, david. >> caller: good morning. how are you gentlemen this morning? >> good, david. go ahead. >> caller: i was calling about a comment that representative had made earlier about at the very last moment we get a person like representative hensarling and how it puts a snag in this at the very last minute. my question is, we know from

year to year when the appropriation is due. why is it that it is the very last minute before anything is ever taken up or done about it? we have a group of democrats right now who are going to be leaving office and he talks about the politics of the republicans. but what about the democrats who want to push something through while they're in this lame duck period before the holiday and these -- for a full appropriation bill when senator reid has -- had continuing resolutions for how many years? >> congressman? >> well, the congress as a whole has continuing resolutions for a good number of years and that's what we do when the appropriations bills aren't ready. the full process hasn't played out. and we need to keep the government going for some period of time until we can pass bills. it's a good practice and bespeaks the kind of breakdown

of the normal appropriations process which i think is a great loss for the congress. it's essential, power of the purse, and also a great loss for the country. so, there has been this brinksmanship. i think it indicates that what used to be a fairly bipartisan appropriations process is under a lot of strains from the partisan divisions that have bessette us here in washington. so, we at the last minute which is to say whenever the fiscal year ends or the continuing resolution runs out, we have to scramble to get the bills in place. when's happening this year is a relative improvement on that. i'm not really bragging about it too much but we have had a budget agreement this last year. the so-called ryan-murray agreement which puts some numbers in place that escapes sequestration, the mindless across the board cuts, put some numbers in place that led us right reasonably normal

appropriations bills to too low numbers in a lot of domestic areas. i guess that's the good news piece of this. this omnibus is a stitched-together package of 11 out of 12 bills and they've been written in both the house and senate under reasonably cooperative circumstances. so it's an effort and i commend the leadership of the appropriations committees in both bodies. it's an effort to get back to something like a normal process. now, and we should do that. we should get the bills in place and take advantage of that good work. the monkey wrench that jeb hensarling is throwing into the works had nothing to do with this and the caller's right about this. this is inappropriate. it just complicates life in ways that it shouldn't be we. this terrorism insurance needs to be passed. append it to the must pass measure but to say let's revisit dodd-frank, no.

that's a path to further deadlock. >> let's head out to maryland, jim on the line for republicans. jim, good morning. >> caller: good morning. good morning, congressman. >> good morning. >> caller: there seems to be a lack of discussion about getting the whole federal leviathon under control. you regulate more. make it impossible to run a small business with whether it's obamacare or the mass of federal regulations. there was a congressman tim penny years ago who just said, every year, give somebody one penny less on the dollar. to try and get this -- what was it? up to $18 trillion debt now. how are we going to attack that? it seems that nobody in congress really seems to care. everything is about building the tower of the washington metropolitan area and forsaking

the rest of the country and just throwing more debt on our backs. is there actual discussion in congress about this? >> congressman? >> there's not nearly as much discussion as there should be. we're nibbling around the edges of that problem. you know, interestingly, some of the people who beat their chest the most about the problem you're talking about, the size of government, the way government functions, the need to secure or fiscal future, some of the folks that talk the most about that really do the least about it. i don't think it's rocket science to know that or to figure out that a comprehensive budget agreement is required going forward and the reason it's not too hard to figure out is we did it twice back in the '90s. we had a '90 budget agreement, bipartisan basis. the first president bush and democrats in congress. and then democratic heavy lifting alone produced the '93 budget agreement. the result of all that was a lot of political angst. nobody liked this because they

were comprehensive. they did raise taxs. they did deal with entitlement spending and appropriated spending and everything on the table and something for everybody to dislike. i continue to think those are among the best votes i ever cast because what happened was a four-year period of balanced budgets, surpluses. we paid off over $400 billion of the national debt. and there was a lot of political fallout for both sides but we did the right thing. and that, of course, is what just went in the trash with the george w. bush administration. $2 trillion worth of tax cuts off the bat and then on back into the red ink. how do we get back to the so-called grand bargain, back to a serious budget agreement that puts our fiscal future in place? the republicans won't even talk about taxes. neither party's very comfortable with the entitlement question. and so what the folks running

the house now have done is go again and again and again back to domestic appropriated spending and actually is some of the best investments we make, health research, things like building highways and transit systems. these are the things that build our economic future and it's exactly the wrong place to cut. but what you say is right. that we need to get a hold of this. we need to put in it a larger perspective. not just cutting but making sure government functions well, making good investments. only way to do that is to get a solid budget agreement in place going forward. unfortunately, by the challenges are greater than they were in the '90s, the politics is much worse. >> somebody that's thought about these issues for a long time, was a professor of political science and public policy at duke university before coming to congress, author of four books on congress and the american political system. he's answering your calls.

taking your questions this morning. jed's up next, maryland on our line for democrats. jed, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: congratulations, congressman, from the great state of north carolina, duke, nc state and north carolina in bowl games. >> all in my district, i'll add. >> caller: my comment is it seems shortsighted and just dealing with the continuing resolutions, i mean, this is bringing up budget issues more than once in a year. it seems to be more prudent why not set a budget for three years and have a lot of debate, a lot of discussion, get it established and then the business environment, everybody would know what's there, what they're going to be dealing with for three years. and all of the federal agencies, too. i work for one. and, you know, at times we look at congress and we say, well, that's the arch -- that's the

measurement for us. you know? and we really don't feel that good about it. >> do you want to say what agency you work for? >> caller: health and human services. >> gotcha. congressman? >> health and human services has been a beleaguered agency because of the budget uncertainty, the lurching from crisis to crisis. no function of government that's hurt more i think than health and human services, education, as well, with that kind of irresponsibility that we have seen in the budget process in recent years. listen. i'd settle for a one-year process that works the way it's supposed to. b there have been people as you probably know say two years, three years. with some specific functions we have moved to that. public broadcasting for various reasons is on an advanced budgeting schedule and veterans benefits. there are some areas where we have moved in that direction. i think what you'd have,

honestly, though, if you tried to pass a three-year budget in all of its detail, what you'd have is just inevitable need for supplement aal appropriations, revisions, i'm not sure you'd gain that much and needs responsiveness to changing conditions. that i believe it would be -- it would be a pretty big stretch to try to write a detailed appropriations bill that would cover a three-year period. so we may need to think more about the budget process, you know, we have a five-year frame and ten-year frame for budget planning. we need that and to make it work. i'd settle really for a good solid one-year at a time appropriations process. we haven't had that for years. >> let's go to the tarhill state, jn's waiting in pine hurst, north carolina on our line for republicans. john, you're on with congressman price. >> caller: yeah. good morning.

>> good morning. >> caller: i was just wondering why we keep funding other countries that literally hate american citizens and don't want us there and constantly cutting american citizens here seems backwards to me. thank you. >> which countries are we funding that you're talking about? >> caller: any country that hates american citizens. any country, middle eastern countries, afghanistan, iran, iraq, you name it. >> well, we fund defense operations and global health operations, foreign aid appropriations. >> this is a question we often get it from viewers. >> we did. we fund that in our interest. you know? and that interest may be one of human taryn interest. this is one area, this global health area, is one where george w. bush stepped out and where there's been good bipartisan

support. our military operations, of course, are undertaken in this country's interests. that's not to say all of them are well advised or debate these things. but in principle, we're a global power. the global power and we have a stake in what goes on in various parts of the world and we have to measure that stake and invest accordingly. so, you know, foreign aid per se is far less than 1% of the budget. military operations considerably more than that. but in any case, the measuring stick should be the u.s. national interest. what our tangible interests are and also what we stand for as a people. >> chris is up next, indianapolis, indiana, on our line for independents. good morning, chris. >> caller: good morning. >> good morning. >> caller: i appreciate the time. hey, one of the things that, you know, i looked at is that our

federal government moves and has what i call baseline budgeting with an automatic increase and every time somebody takes away they call it a cut in. i personally, you know, i've been in the private sector a long time. i don't get an automatic 3% no matter what. it seems like that just kind of -- that approach doesn't have responsibility built into it. other thing is having directives. when you pass a budget, tell people what to spend it on. you don't just hand this department and say, hey, spend it on whatever you feel like. you know? every single month in my department i had to be -- i had my budget. i had to have it to the nickel spending on, what i was getting for it and show the value. and i guess that's something that with baseline budgeting and whatnot increases. we don't get that. we had to make our justification and if you could look at the world like we do from business, i think maybe that would help get things realigned.

>> all right. well, those are good questions that often come up in the context of the budget process. so let me try to address both of your -- both of the points you raised. baseline budgeting is a way of projecting financial needs for a department, for an agency, for a program to maintain current services. that's what the baseline is. it's an adjustment for inflation and also for demographic changes or whatever might be involved in trying to estimate what is required in future years. in other words, to buy exactly what you bought in 2014, what would you need in 2015? you want the know that number. because the absolute dollar number in 2014 will not suffice in 2015 to buy the same level of services. so the baseline adjustment is the adjustment in -- to take in

account inflation and other changes. there's nothing, though, in baseline budgeting that requires either us or the agency to propose that. you know? we want the know what it is. but we might appropriate a flat line budget. we might appropriate a baseline adjustment or we might appropriate more than that. there's nothing automatic it in the appropriations process but a piece of information you need to have to do intelligent budgeting. medicare, social security, those are adjusted by virtue of who's eligible for the program and whatever health care costs might be so that's where you do get a kind of hard to control inflationary factor or upward pressure, and but that's not a baseline budgeting problem. the baseline budgeting problem like i say, it's one way of estimaes estimating your budget needs. it's not a required

appropriation. now, in terms of directives, i'm an appropriations committee member and i'll all for directives, believe me. i don't want to try from the congress to micromanage every federal function or every federal department. but i can tell you we write directives into the law all the time. often we withhold funding until we're satisfied a problem is remedied or a certain directive has been carried out and we say you can spend the rest of the money, you know, once this has been taken care of. so the appropriations process is all about directives and as to how spending is to be carried out and it's a legitimate legislative function to scrutinize very carefully the poirpgs of departments and so agoing forward, you know, your money, your level of funding will depend on your straightening things. >> about 15 minutes left with

north carolina congressman price. we want to ask you a question that we asked viewers about today. is set to be the day that the senate is going to release the so-called terror report, executive summary of that 6,000-page report. some concerns about both diplomatic reaction to that report and whether it might put u.s. troops and diplomats overseas in danger. where do you stand on whether that report should be released right now? >> i think it's time to release that report. and it is apparently going to be released with the white house approving the release. yes, there are some considerations that are requiring us to prepare, prepare for possible repercussions overseas and we know that the report is going to -- it's going to embarrass this country. we're going to learn what we really already know i think in general, that what most people

would regard as torture was carried out and that this was a wrong turn that our country took. it's now been corrected but transparency is a good thing in most areas, in most respects. and we certainly need to know what's been done in our name and we need to know when's been done to make sure it doesn't recur. this report needs to be released. there will be appropriate redaxs and they shouldn't be excessive but there's some control there as to the details of what's released but i believe in this case the balance of considerations one has to make, you know, transparency and accountability on the one hand and protecting of security operations and personnel on the other. i think that balance is very much tipped in favor of releasing this report. >> on our next "washington

journal" more about the release of the senate intelligence committee report on cia interrogations. intelligence writer ken dilanian joins us and talking to john bradshaw of the national security network, later north dakota senator john hoeven weighs in on the interrogation report and take your calls on the government funding deadline, the xl pipeline and immigration. "washington journal" is live each morning at 7:00 eastern and join the conversation on facebook and twitter. this week on "q & a," political reporters share stories of being on the campaign trail with senator mitch mcconnell. >> he planned for four years this campaign starting in 2010 right after he saw what happened in the republican primary for rand paul, the kentucky republican senator. he picked trey grayson in that primary and at that point

mcconnell realized i have to recalibrate everything i know about republican primary politics and he started to make changes, he hired key staff and started to build this very sophisticated infrastructure knowing that this would be the most difficult race of his campaign. >> so they knew they were going to spend a lot of money on technology, they had watched the obama campaign in 2008 and 2012. they had watched harry reid's re-election in 2010. they knew that they needed to go from his 2008 race where he won by about 6 points, tough race. he was going to have the latest technology. we had done an interview with him in 2013 and he said he was going to build the most thorough set of campaign ever. build the -- >> in american history. >> in american history and he probably got there. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span2's "q &

a." earlier today, oklahoma senator tom coburn held a briefing on u.s. tax policy and the federal tax code. he also spoke about federal government spending which is set to expire this thursday, december 11th. it's 20 minutes. >> welcome. i wanted to share with you all a report we've been working on for over a year. and one of the things that's in front of the congresses that will follow this one is the tax code. and you hear all sorts of members of congress say, we need to change the tax code. but you never hear them say what specifically we need to change in it. what we tried to do was to go through the entire tax code, almost the entire tax code, and lay out for the american public

what each one of these provisions does, who it benefits, and what the effect of it is. one of the underlying principles that i used and had my staff use as we prepared this is to try to not -- try to recognize when government's trying to influence behavior through the tax code and whether or not that's appropriate. also, whether or not we're trying to do social engineering through the tax code and whether or not that's appropriate. not in terms of whether we think it's appropriate but whether or not the u.s. constitution says it's appropriate which should be our guide. you're going to see some of the areas, as you read through this, where we have made recommendations, and those are my recommendations, that's what i would be voting for -- they're not necessarily the right

recommendation but what we've tried to do is to present a full-fledged development of all the aspects of the tax code. where the money's spent, who benefits, and raise the question that if you benefit a certain group, somebody else is less benefited, and therefore, must make up for it. and so, on balance, we wanted people to be able to go to every section of the tax code and see, this is how much it costs, here who's getting the benefit of it, here's the fraud associated with it. here's the effectiveness of it, and here's what it's trying to do, and what we also tried to do is contrast if you really want to make decisions to try to change behavior, you're much better off doing it with a full-blown federal government program than using the tax code to do it because you have very little control when you use the tax code. so if you want to really influence behavior, and you really want to change things, the best way to do it is have a government program, not a tax credit or tax incentive to do it because there's very little control when it comes to tax.

there's a whole lot of fraud. and utilization of tactics that were not ever intended in secondary causes. so with that, let me stop and take questions. we're hopeful people will use this in the years forward to say, here's where it is, here's what can be done. and basically, as a guide, so that people can actually know. and the american people can know. we're going to spend $250 billion this year paying our taxes. and another $250 billion inside corporate america figuring out ways to get around taxes. so something's obviously -- that's half a trillion dollars. something's obviously wrong, and people know it's wrong. the question is, how do you get members of congress in political dynamic to make hard choices that go against the will of some of their backers, but in the long run, will have capital

formation reign supreme and growth reign supreme? that's the real key. if we really want our country to grow, we've got to change this tax code. with that, i'll stop and answer any questions. yes, ma'am? >> sorry, not related to this. >> let's stay on this first. let's stay on this, and if we have questions other than the tax code, i'd be happy to answer them afterwards. >> i'm from tax notes so i'm sure you can guess my question. so, your stated objective is to change the tax process, and the two gentlemen in the senate and in the house will be probably taking the lead on that process next year, starting next year. mr. ryan and mr. hatch. have you spoken to them at all? >> they knew i was doing this. but i haven't given them a copy. the whole goal is, i want to put it -- what we tried to do is take a look at what we saw from an individual standpoint as an

individual american would look at this, and say, does this seem right, does this seem fair? i think it's really kind of stupid that we give the nfl main office a tax-exempt charity. i mean, i don't know how many americans agree with me. then we pay the guy millions and millions of dollars. but it's through a tax-exempt organization. the same thing with the pga. you know, we've got all these 501-cs, i think it's up to 150 or something, you know, and they're so abused, it's unbelievable, in terms of celebrities creating tax-exempt charities, and then using them for their own benefit, not to help anybody else but themselves. there's just a lot of things we want to change. so the whole purpose was to say, let's look at this as a common-sense. you can read this in english and understand this. and the average american can understand it. and it's just to say, what are the issues that are out there? >> just following up on that very briefly. how do you hope and expect that this document, which i understood took two years to put

together, to influence the tax reform process? >> my hope would be that people like you would put it out to the american people, portions of it, so that the american people can actually see that when you advantage one group of people, like the people who buy very fancy high-efficiency appliances, and one manufacturer gets $300 million worth of tax credit which is most of their profit the whole year out of that out of the federal government, and only the very rich can buy those, that the people that are down on the bottom end of the income ladder are actually paying for that by paying more taxes than what they would otherwise. why not let markets decide whether or not you're going to buy a high-efficiency refrigerator rather than the government decide. and then when the government does decide, it's only the very wealthy that can do that. how is that fair to somebody earning $35,000 or $40,000 a year? so what i want to see is the contrast made where when we want to try to do social policy, what

we do is we do it by really helping the high end the most because they're the ones that can take advantage of it. and they're the ones that need it the least. so all i'd say is, we would like to see those contrasts put out there, so that people -- you know, the real problem is, we need a very simple tax code. we either need a national sales tax or a flat tax. we treat everybody the same and let markets and capital decide where we'll expand. and if we do that, we'll grow at about 2% more per year. the way we're doing it now, we're never going to do that. >> specifically, what would you say were the most surprising revelations you and your staff found during this report? >> just the amount of fraud throughout all the intended -- the inability of the irs to do their job. that's what i take away. i don't think my staff would say the same thing. >> anything specific that you found? >> look at all the things that they don't look at and see if it's being done right. i mean, the way the irs works,

we'd have to have 250,000 irs employees. and it's not their fault. you have this completely -- you can't find a tax accountant that will give you the same return on your taxes in this town. you can't. so that should tell us something. and what our tax code should be fair to everybody. and shouldn't advantage anybody. and everybody should participate. >> you point out some celebrity charities. can you talk about those and the problems with them? >> you know, when -- i can't remember which -- yeah, 5,000 bucks is all she's done through a charity? i mean, why -- you know, that's a tip to her driver going to a concert.

the whole point is, i'm not against charitable contributions. i think they're great. and i'm not against having them as a portion of the tax code. but we've so expanded it, and this is not the irs's fault, this is members of congress doing things parochially like you're going to see in this tax extender's package, doing things that benefit either individual members or individual states or individual industries, to the benefit of the members of congress, not necessarily to the benefit of the country as a whole. so you tell me why race car tracks get a super-fast depreciation. what i'm for is, let's expense everything all at once right now. let's don't discriminate. let's don't pick and choose winners. if you're in a business and you have expenses, get them expensed against your revenue. we're playing this game right now on average taxes, well, i have an accounting degree. the whole idea is to match cost with revenues. but we don't do that.

we take certain industries and don't do that. so if we're not -- let's just let them expense it all. here's what your expenses were, here's what your revenue is and here is what your tax is. they could get rid of about two-thirds of the cpas, and we wouldn't have people running across the pond to invert. for a tax code. we could lower the tax code tremendously. >> one follow-up. the report also takes aim at health savings accounts and the mortgage deduction, two popular tax breaks for middle class families. what's the -- >> that's not true. the mortgage tax deduction isn't for the middle income tax families. we say that, but if you look at the people who actually get it, it's not middle class in this country. it's the upper middle class and the lower upper class that gets 70% of the benefit of the mortgage deduction. so we hear that said all the time, and when you get a chart from finance, they'll show that

chart so it looks that way. but when you break it out, that's not true. and so, all i'm saying is, let's make it fair to everybody. and let's make the benefit of the mortgage tax deduction equal to everybody. so that if you have a small home in the middle of oklahoma, let's make your mortgage deduction, as far as a benefit to your tax right, the same as if somebody that has the average home here in virginia a benefit to their tax right. all i'm saying is, we're raising the questions, and the assumption, just like the assumption you just made, that it's the middle class tax cut. it's not. it is for upper middle income and lower upper income. the vast majority of people do not get a great benefit from the mortgage deduction. but the brokers do. and the real estate agents do. because they think they won't sell unless they've got that subsidy there to be able to claim that deduction.

>> senator, i'm from "baron's" investment magazine. i read the executive summary, and in it you sound the note of clinical detachment in that you criticize conservative republicans for their opposition to tax preferences. can you give us some ideas of the tax preferences that they are opposing that you think are not logical opposition? in light of the condition of the tax code. >> you mean specifically? i don't want to name one specifically. what i would say is, if you really want to clean up the tax code, and you really want to make a fair tax system, and you really want us to grow, and i'm not talking about the government growing, i'm talking about the economy growing, then you will -- the best thing to do in the

world is to sunset this tax code as of july of this year and say it goes away and then start with a fresh look with transition policies with that fresh look. and then make everybody that's scampering around town lobbying to keep their interests in, the well connected and the well heeled, make them justify why that's a better deal than free market capitalism and letting capital flow where it will get the best return. remember, right now with our tax code, what happens is capital doesn't get invested based on the best return. which means jobs don't get created to the greatest amount. which means wealth doesn't get created to the greatest amount. capital gets invested on what the net tax effect is on the investment, not on what the net wealth creation is for america. that's crazy. we're shooting ourselves in the foot. so what we ought to do is we

ought to put a death spiral on this tax code and say it ends now. you've got until then to come out and write a new tax code whether it's be a flat tax or national sales tack. we have this transition golly molly gob but we could write transition rules and get our economy really growing. >> i had -- carried interest deduction, how do you feel about that? >> it's ordinary income. i don't think it's capital gains at all. >> how do you -- >> but that's me. i said when i started this this, these are my opinions. let the congress decide. but the fact is that it's pretty hard, i'd love to get in a debate with anybody on that on whether or not that -- if they had real capital at risk let it be capital but if they don't have their own capital at risk it's not capital gains. i'll debate that with somebody but i think carried interest is ordinary income. >> also, you used a word i never heard before. when's dolly molly something?

how do you spell that? >> it's probably not a word. yes, sir? >> other things here? >> i want to finish on the tax. this is about taxes and then the other. >> you mentioned the extender package. can you preview your voting plans? >> to vote against it. >> procedurally, would you do anything -- >> everything i can. >> following up, very briefly on that, apparently there's a package of -- extenders to make permanent and going to try to uc it over here. will you block that? >> i'll have to look and see what they are. i'll give you an answer when i've looked at it. okay. all right. you get your turn. >> thanks so much. francine keeper from the christian science monitor. i'm looking forward to the next congress and wondering what advice you might have if you were doing an orientation for the fresh men senators coming in, based on your own experience, you own class through here, what advice you

might give them for coming into this congress the next one. >> oh, you're kind of stepping on my closing speech a little bit. >> give me a piece of it. >> i'd say the thing that ought to reign is the constitution. not what party leaders want. not even what your electorate wants. the reason i think our country's in trouble and i really think it's in trouble, much more trouble than when i came here is because we've abandoned the very tenets that made us successful. and i believe enumerated powers are so routinely ignored in this body. they were pretty well destroyed between 1937 and '44 under the roosevelt tutelage and then the johnson tutelage. but think need to be re-established because we can't run this government. nobody can run this government today.

and so i say paying attention to the constitution and really studying what the founders and what they had to say about the enumerated powers and why it's important. and the reason it's important, the reason we have off this fraud, the reason there's $100 billion of fraud in medicare is because it's run from here. you know? the reason we have $400 billion worth of fraud in the federal government a year because it's run -- it's not that people aren't trying to manage it. it's too big to be managed. you can't do it. and so moving government closer to people makes government more effective, more responsive and the thing you're seeing now gives people more confidence in their government because there's a real crisis of confidence right now. and we see it across all ethnic groups. we see it associated with the justice department. we see it with all sorts of things. so my advice is i think the

constitutional ought to reign supreme and you ought to support the tradition, long-held traditions of the senate and i think have not been done which allows everybody to have a voice but they're big boys and girls and when you lose you lose and move on down the road. but to not vote and to not offer amendments and not be able to speak in favor or against things and represent what you think to be accurate goes against the very idea of the creation and formation of a bicameral body and specifically the senate. >> so in the next 48 hours or so we're going to get this interim spending bill presumably from the house. what do you expect to have -- what do you expect to do when it comes to the immigration portion of it and are you going to fight on the floor to be -- >> i haven't thought about the immigration portion of it yet.

haven't even been -- i'm looking at the ndaa with the junk added to it. that's where my first fight's going to be. >> what will your fight be on the ndaa? >> well, you know, we spent -- carl levin and i spent a year looking at the parks. we did a study. we looked at it. and then i ended up putting out a report called park. and we looked at how congress continues to violate the rules of establishing parks, we looked at the $12 billion to $14 billion backlog in the parks to maintain the pristine park us like yellowstone or the grand canyon. i mean, they're falling apart and then 650,000 acres more, take the individual property rights away from americans. in this ndaa. no notice. no nothing. forever can't touch or do things with your property.

it's your property but we'll limit your ability to do things with it in terms of the land, some of the land designations. so my deal is, you want to put a lands bill on the floor, let's have a debate on the lands bill. but for the defense authorization bill, to have this kind of mess in it, and there's some good things in it. i'm not opposed to all of them but the fact is it's a hog going to the -- hog bill going to the trough with everybody getting something on so it's going to pass. but i'm going to make the point it shouldn't. >> with that said, back to the spending bill here, i mean, that's, you know, there's a drop dead date on this. 11:59 thursday night. >> well -- >> there has to be -- and if there's going to be those -- >> there's not drop dead. they always do -- if they need two days, three days. >> would you object to that? i mean, still --

>> look. i haven't done -- like i told you, i haven't spend my time looking at the spending bill yet. and i will. but right now, the first thing coming up my way is the ndaa. what i'm told in there -- i don't know that the spending bill's come out of the house yet, has it? [ inaudible ] maybe. >> less than an hour ago. >> well, they told you that before and they haven't been right. >> they told me yesterday they wouldn't put it out yesterday. >> i don't know. i'll look on it and comment on it when i'm prepared to make an intelligent comment. right now i'm not. all right? good night. happy holidays. wednesday on c-span3, the house select committee on benghazi looks into the 2012 attack on the american consulate that led to the death of the american ambassador and three others working in libya.

live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then 3:00 p.m., the house rules committee works on a spending bill to fund the federal government. you can watch both hearings live here on c-span3 and c-span.com. here are a few of the comments recently received from the viewers. >> i'm very interested in the program on the american indians. i didn't watch the whole thing. i came in and found it on when i turned the tv on and watched what i could for about an hour and a half or two hours. this program is absolutely wonderful. and if it's going to be on again, i'll get you an even bigger audience by notifying all

the local gene logical societies and asking them to spread the word. something i've never seen on it before and i do watch a lot of c-span. thank you. >> i am calling from greensburg, pennsylvania. about american history tv. i love that channel. every weekend. i watch it. almost religiously. watch it. i love all the history stuff you have. please give us more history programs. history in the sense of, you know, like something before 1950 or 1960. if you want to have these political commentary-type things of the -- you know, from the 1970s on, you know, that's fine later or during the week or something, but not during the history weekend. and i really love your history

lectures. i like to have another chance to hear that or even see it again several months later. like today. instead of this reagan-ite on ranting about how bad the government is. >> i love c-span. i love the non fiction books. and i love it when you have the book fair. and i'm always elated on the weekend watching c-span. it's the best thing i do. it's the most fun. my friend teaches history in a junior college and i never used to be interested in a whole lot of history. now i am. so thank you very much. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or a tweet @cspan #comments.

later this month, world leaders will meet in peru to discuss climate change. world bank president jim wrong kim previewed that conference and talked about what environmental measures should be a priority. he spoke at the council on foreign relations. this is an hour. >> okay, welcome, everyone. good afternoon. we're delighted to be here today at the council on foreign relations where we have the opportunity to discuss with president kim of the world bank the next steps for international climate action. dr. jim kim became the 12th president of the world bank in 2012 after a career in development and medicine. he served as president of dartmouth college as well as a number of medical departments and co-founded partners in health which now operates on four continents. dr. kim's work, of course,

earned him wide recognition. awarded an mccarthy world friendship in 2003. u.s. news and world declared him one of america's 25 best leaders. in 2005 and "time" magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2005. we're pleased to have him here today to discuss a huge challenge, climate change. with that, dr. kim. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you so much and i very much apologize for the delay. we had his royal highness the prince -- the prince of cambridge here and was just across the street talking about corruption and we had a security issue and i apologize and i'm very glad to be here. first, i'd like to thank the council on foreign relations for graciously hosting this event. and thank you, mark, for your

very kind introduction. in the nature conservancy played an important role in climate change and also environmental reservation issues worldwide and your innovative leadership has taken it to even greater heights and given the time you spent in the financial world you will know very well one of the themes of my talk today which is that economic policy is the key to mobilizing a coordinated global response to climate change. i won't be able to travel to peru to attend the 20th conference of the parties to the un fccc but i'll be watching closely as the delegates set the stage for an agreement to be reached in one year's time in paris that should transform the way we live for generations. at this key moment, i'm pleased to return to the council on foreign relations to share our vision of what a paris agreement might look like. the world bank group works on climate change because it's a

fundamental threat to development in our lifetime. we know that if we don't confront climate change there will be no hope of ending poverty or boosting shared prosperity. the longer we delay in tackling climate change the higher the costs will be to do the right thing for our planet and for our children. our series turn down the heat reports and work on green growth and the links between development and climate make clear that the progress of recent decades toward ending poverty is at risk. last month, these points were punk waited in the intergovernmental panel on climate change's fifth assessment report. this unprecedented scientific consensus concludes if we're to stabilize warming at 2 degrees kels yus as the international community agreed in 2009, we must achieve 0 net emissions of greenhouse gases before 2100. in a year's time, the international community will

have the opportunity to send a clear signal that we as a global community are determined to manage our economies to achieve zero net emissions before the year 2100. wefr country finds itself at a different point in the development journey. therefore, the pace and rhythm of their emissions reductions and investments in adaptation will vary. nonetheless, we have the opportunity in paris to make clear our collective ambition. that ambition can be translated into long-term demand for growth and increased commitment to adaptation. the higher the bigs the greater the demand will be for programs and projects to transform economies. higher ambition will also send a strong message to investors public and private, domestic and foreign about the demand and profitability of long-term investments in clean energy and transport systems, sustainable agriculture and forestry and

efficient products. paris must be where we make the rallying cry for effective management of local, national and global economies to fight climate change. many observers expect an agreement in paris to be comprised of a number of essential components. each of those components must reflect an ambition equal to the challenge before us in order to send an even more powerful signal to economic actors around the globe. to achieve that, agreements at the 21st conference of the parties must include, number one, binding language that should reinforce our collective ambition and a clear pathway to zero net emissions before 2100. two, individual country contributions with policy packages that should comprehensively address how to use all available fiscal and macro economic policy levers to get prices right, increased efficiency and incentivize

decarbonization as well as address resilience. three, a financial package that recognizes that public development funds and climate finance should be used to cat liz innovative financing for adaptation and mitigation. financial flows cannot reach the levels we need in the necessary time frame without some form of network carbon market -- network carbon market based on the market mechanisms, taxes and enabling environments we are beginning to see introduced all around the world. finally, working coalitions of private enterprises, countries, cities and civil society organizations moving forward where their interests aligned must be enhanced. unlike treaties of the past, the paris agreement needs to speak as loudly of economic transformation as it does of pollution or carbon emissions targets. so let me say a few words of what we consider effective

management of the economy with respect to climate change and hope to see in incd. intended nationally determined contribution that is will set out each country's commitment for paris we understand that many of our clients face huge development challenges and that many countries will reach their own peak emissions at different moments. managing their economy to ensure that they can, for example, decash niez their energy sectorsor time while at same time having the energy they need for development constitutes a challenge no developed country has had to face as it was industrial ooigz. at a minimum, this means strong policy signals that may clear the long-term goals. carbon pricing. appropriate energy pricing linked to efficiency standards

and removing subsidies that are harmful, including fossil fuel subsidies. all countries should commit to carbon, necessary if not sufficient in any journey to zero net emissions. effective prices on carbon can be discovered by taxes, market or mechanism, which ever a country or city chooses a carbon price makes the pollution we don't want more expensive and incentivizes efficiency and clean production. carbon pricing can raise revenue and these added resources can be used to generate more economic and social benefits. we can do this by for example moving from taxing the goods to taxing the bad. by using a carbon tax revenue to reduce labor and investment taxes and encourage economic development or by supporting innovation in green technology, rhett search and development subsidies. example of british columbia is one of the most powerful.

it is neutral to the taxpayer, not an increase in tax. as carbon tax is introduced, taxes on labor, for example, were reduced. introduced at the heist financial crisis in 2008, the carbon tax has risen from 10 canadian dollars per ton to 30 canadian dollars per ton today. the taxes reduced emissions and provided a net benefit of $300 million canadian dollars in personal and business tax cuts. it is worth noting that british columbia's gdp outperformed the rest of canada's after introduction of the tax. the carbon pricing alone is not enough. other instruments need to be mobilized and parallel to redirect investments toward clean technologies and sectors. stepping up drivers at energy aye efficiency is an obvious win/win that can have benefits

from better air quality and lower emissiones. strength and performance standards can help achieve efficiency gains in building transport and industry. such energy efficiency measures have the potential to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5 giga tons by 2020. in addition, specific efforts are needed to scale up renew aable energy and develop carbon sequestration and sequestration technology at a place, at a pace, excuse me, though allow us to reach carbon neutrality by the end of the septemberry. investment and infrastructure will also be required. the electricity grids in many countries can with upgrades achieve much higher rates of efficiency. a huge opportunity for example in india and a renewable can be allowed to be connected. just this year, once the appropriate regulatory form even grid development has taken place, the private sector of the group international finance corporation, financed the first grid connected solar power

plant. public transit investment also urgently needed in the rapidly growing city of the developing world to avoid lock them into o inefficient and polluting patterns. removing harmful fossil fuel subsidies is long overdue. today there are $500 billion in direct fossil fuel subsidies that primary have the better off while doing nothing to help the poor and the environment. these funds can be better used to invest in resilient health education or subsidize technology that can reduce emissions. removing subsidies sat in the two politically difficult basket by leaders desks for too long. indonesia and mexico are showing that phasing out fossil fuel subsidies can be successful and benefit the poor when they are combined with improved safety nets and targeted cash transfers. a policy tackage that includes these components would give

credibility to the transition and provide the confidence and predictability all that investors and consumers need to change their choices and behaviors. including these in indcs be, the country commitment and demonstrate its part go toward a global economy and also lay the pathway for essential work before the indcs come into effect in 2020. effective management also means finding ways to investment in resilience. the contributions of countries then must also address that adaptation. governments must implement the policies needed to strengthen resilience and insure that developments takes into account climate risk p. a central government support and encouragement for cities to transform themselves into being cleaner and more livable can reap huge rewards. rapidly growing cities can have urban planning that drives new

development towards safe locations and into a transport planning improve resilience and achie achieve competitiveness at the same time. and hopefully indcs will lay out framework for how forestry and agriculture can achieve needs of food security, support of rural livelihood and relooduce remisss from land use. the signal to economic factors will be strong. but for these efforts to co-eless and bring zero net emissions we have to find sufficient financing. it is the critical component of a paris agreement. this compelling evidence suggesting that a countries use their regulatory capacity to get prices right incentivize clean investment and use the full range of policy instruments available to them. they will experience greater investment flows.

month y month as a result, the country is becoming known as the solar power innovation hub. renewable energy investment grew from $297 million in to 2012 to $1.8 billion in 2013. other emerging markets such as chile and south africa have policy driven strategies with similar results. but strong demand from investors for appropriately structured green climate friendly investments is reflected in the speed at which investors have responded to the growing green bond market. about $35 billion in green bonds has been issued so far this year and robust liquid green credit market is taking shape. but green bonds will not be the answer for the most vulnerable, especially those in the least developed states. for these countries, public development funds and climate finance will always play a

critical role. in the future, these funds have to be ever more catalytic to serve the many needs that exist. development finance has to mainstream adaptation to ensure effectiveness. what we know now is that there is no development outside the context of climate change. investing and testing on the hill slopes of st. lucia will have investment in agriculture productivity as farmers are equipped to adapt nor intense rain fall. ensuring schools are built to code in nepal means investment and educational attainment as structure is more resilient to storm. investing in mango in vietnam may be cheaper in protecting the coastline than reinforced steel and may boost earninges from risher fishing grounds. even of the projects is a development projects. each would also count as climate investment. this is where long-term development finance and climate

finance come together. so that group has taken major steps by introducing climate and disasterous screening in lending in ida countries. ida is the fund for the poorest countries. we also have adaptation plans to begin with in 25 countries. if they are found to be helpful we will expand the initiative. it is our hope that countries can use such adaptation planning done under ida to effectively develop the pipe lines to the green climate fund. we know that climate finance will flow through many channels. more than six years ago we created the climate investment funds to pioneer investment and traps formative projects for climate change and learn lessons in how to optimize. the first at-scale solar plants in morocco to bolivia and haiti to thailand. the project and programs of show

how public climate funds can be leveraged and used by countries and the private sector. the plan with the leverage is $8.3 billion in assets to generate another 57 billion in funding for country-led investment that reduced emissions and promote resilient development. just last week the contributors and other board members decided to extend the operations by another two years and provide funding to ensure that we can keep meeting countries needs as other funds are established. we welcome the u.n.'s green climate fund and initial $9.9 billion that it has received to date. its impact will be greatest if like the private investment funds it uses capital for new emission reduction and resilience. we look forward to leveraging funds with our own to maximize impact. >> a strong ame