they didn't think that these muslim countries would ever join the united states in effort, but yet we have fighter pilots from the uae and from jordan and from other muslim countries in the region who are flying along side american pilots and dropping bombs on isil targets. that demonstrates the success that this president has had in strengthening our relationship with countries in this region, this volatile region of the world, but also in building strong ties with other countries around the world. we have also gotten significant cooperation from other more traditional al like allies likew france, the uk, belgium, the netherlands, canada, australia and denmark. these are countries that are actually flying combat missions over the skies of iraq, again, alongside american military pilots. that is an.emy indication that have strengthened our relationship with countries in the region and around the world and we have done so in a way that significantly benefits

american interests around the world. >> so, is it beyond the possibility to think that the president did or will reach out to some of these leaders for discussion and/or apology? >> well, if he does, i don't anticipate that it will be the kind of conve:á=> okay. lastly, on detroit, this week, it's expected to come out -- the city is expected to come out of bankruptcy. what do you say about that, particularly as they are coming out of bankruptcy and still they have a debt into the billions of dollars? >> well, the city of -- the obama administration has worked closely with officials in the state of michigan and the city of detroit, as they have worked through the significant financial problems plaguing that city. we certainly are pleased that they appear to be nearing the end of their -- this bankruptcy period, but there is significant the administration will continue to work closely with offings in michigan and officials in the state of detroit -- city of detroit as they continue to

recover from the significant financialt6ga problems that the have had. there's no question that that region of the country has benefited significantly from the efforts that this president undertook to rescue the auto industry. and again, it is thanks to the grit and determination of american workers that that industry has come roaring back, that we are seeing record sales. we are seeing record revenues from those companies and we anticipate that that will continue to have a positive economic impact on the city of detroit and on the broader state ofe%m michigan, but that's not only way. we are going to continue to see the administration, whether it's the department of education, the department of housing and urban development and other core agencies working closely with city officials in detroit to help that community recover. >> should say they have come roaring back, using your words, they still again have this major debt. >> the auto industry. >> i know. i know. that's different than the city of detroit. the financial position of the

auto companies. >> but the city benefits from the auto industry. they do >> yes, that's what i'm saying. but the city still has this major value. are you still concerned -- >> we continue to be committed to their recovery. major? >> josh, let's -- delicate fiction you have create around the cr. it is not a 1600 bill you are aware of? >> not a particularly charitable -- yowza. >> you know what it's in it, negotiated on the hill for two and a half weeks. mckulski is not a stranger to this white house. so, because it's the only piece of legislation that's operative to avoid a shutdown, just tell us the truth, you're he not going to veto it right? >> we have not reached that conclusion. it is possible you can veto it? >> we are going to continue to review the bill before we passed judgment. >> nothing you said this morning is a discouraging word against all the things that are encourage and generally satisfying to you about this piece of legislation? >> at the same time, i'm trying to be honest, we do anticipate things in this piece of legislation we do not like.

>> right. not the same as it becoming vetoed? >> that is correct. >> why air not going to veto it, are you >> withholding judgment on this peas of legislation until we have had a chance to review t >> when will that be? >> 1600 pages long. >> yes, that's factual truth but 1600 pages you don't know anything about. you know everything about this bill. >> i didn't say that either. >> and you did work in consultation with the relevant key players, democrat and republican, to put this thing together, did you not? >> that is true. but what is also true is that this is -- as somebody who covered capitol hill for a very long time, you understand that there are i think legitimate expectations that members of congress have about being able to exercise their own authority to reach these kind of agreements, so, what i will -- i guess the point is, the white house was not at the table with every conversation. we certainly have been kept in the loop by people on both sides, but we do not have the kind of granular knowledge about what's included in the

legislation that members of congress -- >> one way or the other would jeopardize its passage in either chamber? >> no. >> [ inaudible ] >> well, again -- >> come to the desk -- naunchtsd i do not want to be in a position -- [ overlapping speakers ] i do not want to be in a position of -- there are other things that i privately thought would pass the how many times that ultimately didn't. so, i'm withholding -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> i hope not, right, 'cause we certainly don't want to be a government shutdown. hopefully, they will take the action that's necessary to prevent the government shutdown. >> john brennan would not lie about something as important as what naufd would he? >> well, as somebody who, again, as somebody who got to know -- >> [ inaudible ] >> it is. as somebody who got to know mr. brennan when he worked here at the white house, had the opportunity to take a couple of trips with him when we were traveling with the president together, and he is somebody who i think adheres to the highest ethical standard that you would expect of a government official,

and i -- i don't think there's any reason for anybody to question. >> [ inaudible ] >> correct. >> explain to all of us how the moral authority of the united states is advanced when there is public accountability but absolutely no judicial accountability. >> well, i will say a couple of things about that and i mentioned this in the gaggle yesterday and i think this bears repeating, the president alluded to this -- actual lish the vice president alluded to this yesterday, too. it's difficult to imagine, and

and of our detention process. and to demonstrate clearly that this is something that's never gonna happen again and i think that is uniquely american, in terms of our willingness to stand up for our values in that way. and i don't think anybody on other side of this debate and there is a very robust debit and i think worthy arguments to be made on either side of it but nobody argues about the fact that this moral authority is one of the most important elements of our arsenal in protecting the interests and the people of the united states of america. >> [ inaudible ] you need not prosecute anyone?

>> i think fessing up, as you described t >> you d -- it. >> you did, too. >> to be transparent about the shortcomings does a lot to rebuild our moral authority around the globe. that is why the president ended these techniques in the first place. it is why he put in place these reforms we talked about earlier and it is why the president has strongly supported the release of this declassified version of the executive summary. last question. we have got a lot of questions about benefits and costs and risks. is the united states and its diplomatic posts, its intelligence, military facilities at greater risk today than it was yesterday, before the release of this report? yesterday the social media and the jihadist networks were crackling with outrage, indignation and calls for either more risks before yesterday before this report was released generally and is that risk worth this advancement of moral authority that you just

described? >> well, let me -- let me say a couple of things, the first is that there was an assessment that was reached by the intelligence community, that u.s. facilities may be at higher risk as a result of the release of this report and as a result of that assessment, this administration, at the direction of the president of the united states, undertook necessary efforts to make sure that additional resources were necessary, were dedicated to ensure the protection of u.s. facilities and u.s. personnel around the globe. what is also true, so i guess the conclusion is this, is the president did decide that the benefit of releasing this report and taking a significant step to rebuild our moral authority was necessary and does overall strengthen our national security and does more to protect our

interests around the globe based on the fact that we can also take necessary steps to protect against any sort of increased risk that may occur. okay? kristen? >> josh, thanks. i want to go back to the question of bin laden and just try to clarify the comments that you made in response to jim's question. you said it's impossible to know a counter factual, impossible to know been able to kill bin laden if you hospital had these harsher interrogation tactics if they had been outlawed at that point. are you essentially acknowledging that they did play a role? >> no. what i'm acknowledging is that it is impossible for us to go back in time and determine whether or not some of the information -- about whether some of the information that those who believe that enhanced interrogation techniques yielded information that was critical to the success of the mission could have also been obtained through other measures. it's possible, and unknowable,

actually, whether or not that information that they say was critical to the mission and was obtained because of these techniques, could also have been obtained if a more conventional interrogation technique had been used. >> acknowledging that those tactics did, in fact, help lead to bin laden? >> no it's not. >> so, did it play any role? >> well, again there are people who are engaged in a pretty vociferous debit on both sides of this issue. >> it sounds like you're not ruling out the possibility that -- [ inaudible ] harsher interrogation tactics may have played a role in finding bin laden. >> i'm acknowledging this there are good people on both sides of that debate. and the president comes down on this, regardless which side of the debate you are onning the need to strengthen and enhance our moral authority around the world is paramount when it comes to this question. >> president obama had to have seen the intelligence when he approved the raid, so, doesn't he have an opinion about what

role this intelligence played? >> well, the president did receive an intelligence briefing in advance of the raid, but that intelligence briefing doesn't necessarily provide a detailed account of how that intelligence was obtained. the point is that, again, for -- when it comes to the commander in chief and when it comes to making policy decisions, the president, i think, has spoken unequivocally about his view of this matter. it is his view that the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques did not serve our national interest, it does not make us safer because it undermines our moral authority and our moral authority around the globe is critically important to protecting and even advancing american interests around the globe. >> let me ask you, secretary kerry said yesterday that he was testifying, he said that an aumf should not prevent use of ground

troops, saying "congress should not bind the president's hands when it comes to an aumf." given that the president doesn't plan to send in ground troops, very clear about that, why shouldn't the legislation prevent these ground troops? >> i believe the secretary got into this. the reason is simply this, it's impossible for us to imagine all of the contingencies that could occur. the president's been very clear that he does not envision a scenario where he is going to commit substantial u.s. ground troops in a combat role in iraq or in syria but as some people have pointed out, there actually is one reported instance where the president did commit ground troops in what i think everybody would describe as a combat role in syria. earlier this summer, the president ordered u.s. personnel to go into syria and to try to put boots on the ground and to

try to rescue american hostages that were held in syria. if we were to include in the aumf a provision banning the use of combat troops, the president's hands would be tied and he wouldn't be able to order a mission like that and that is what we are seeking to avoid and that is why we believe that that doesn't constitute, you know, a responsible limitation on the president's authority. >> but he still stands by the statement that's not putting boots on the ground in this current conflict? >> that is absolutely correct. >> if congress does authorize an aumf that includes the possible use of ground troops, what's to stop this president, the next president from engaging the united states in an ongoing endless war? >> well, these are policy decisions that are made by the commander in chief. the reason the president would like to see the passable of an updated, right-sized authorization to use military force that actually reflects the conflict that we are engaged in right now is an indication that

this president is eager to move the united states away from a permanent war footing. secretary kerry made reference to the fact yesterday that he supports that this administration continues to support the repel of the 2002 aumf. the president has given at least one high-profile speech on this precise issue. and you know the other thing that i think is relevant is the american people are going to have some bearing on this, right? that we have a civilian in charge of our military. we have a civilian commander in chief that's elected by the people of the united states of america to make decisions about whether or not to take prolonged military action in a way that protects our national security interests and we entrust the commander in chief that's elected by the american people to make these kinds of decisions. so i guess the point is, the president took office, vowing to get our troops out of iraq in a responsible way, to deal with the situation in afghanistan and

wind down our involvement in that effort, that to move us off of a permanent war footing, these are all things that the president catch pained on and was strongly supported by the american public. so, i guess the point is, those sort of what-if provisions are things that are going to be -- are outcomes that will at least be heavily influenced by the american public and that's the way that it should be. okay? jessica? >> josh, i want to go back to what you were talking about with moral authority and potential impact on american foreign policy. if you acknowledge that the u.s. has lost moral authority, how does that impact u.s. foreign policy, especially when calling out other countries for human rights abuses? >> well, i will say a couple of things about that. first, think we have made substantial progress in rebuilding that moral authority since that -- these -- these actions were implemented. and i think are a couple of reasons that we can assert that the first is the president did take these steps in early 2009 to put in place a task force

that later in 2009 announced significant reforms to the way that u.s. personnel interrogate and detain individuals that happen to be in the custody of the united states government. so, that's notable. i think the second thing is the president was very clear in outlawing these techniques. he was unequivocal in doing so and that, i do think, substantially rebuilt a u.s. credibility and moral authority around the globe. and we have evidence that this is -- that the -- that this effect is having an impact on our ability to protect american national security interests around the globe. if the u.s. moral authority had been substantially diminished, we would not have had so much successes in building a coalition of more than 60 countries shall including many muslim majority countries in the middle east joining us in the fight against isil. so, we have made substantial progress but the president believes there is more that we are going to continue to do precisely because u.s. moral authority is one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal

for protecting and advancing american interests around the globe. >> [ inaudible ] as we have seen in russia, china, north korea about human rights abuses. will we see any backing away or backing off of the condemnation of the practices in other countries? >> absolutely not. this administration remains as committed as ever to these basic universal human rights. >> react to the chinese foreign ministry's statement on the reform or the report, excuse me, that china's consistently opposed torture, we believe that the u.s. side should reflect on this, [ inaudible ] respect and follow the rules related international conventions? do you agree? >> well, i think what i can just say as a factual matter is the president during his second full day in office took steps to unequivocally ban the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by u.s. personnel and he did that because he believes that it undermined our moral authority to continue to implement those techniques and

he believed that it would make the united states stronger and safer to do so, okay? tam ron, i'm going to give you the last one. >> i have a couple of questions, hopefully they are short. >> doyle my best to answer them. >> chris van hollen, the leading democrat on the budget committee and the house while you were speaking has announced that you should take the internet away from us, that he has announced that's going to be voting against the [ inaudible ] because he is very concerned about it lifting champaign finance limits and also about the dodd frank roll backs that are in there. does the white house have any feelings about how democrats should vote on this measure? >> well, as always, we believe the democrats should vote their conscious. they hud should make those kinds of decisions for themselves. the president's decision about whether or not to support this legislation is certainly something that he will do based on his own conscience. as the leading budget -- as the leading democrat on the house budget committee, mr. van hollen

has more immediate and detailed no, ma'am of this proposal than we do here at the white house so far. but we are endeavoring to review this and hope we can have a clearer position on this specific legislation soon. >> and you had said that it is 1600 pages and you have only had is for 16 hours, not even 16 hours. can the president veto this? this is, you know, must-pass bill, three most powerful words in washington possibly. is the president -- >> like commander in chief. but that's all right. >> must-pass bill. >> i might have a jaundiced perspective on that. >> must-pass bill can make a lot of things happen. that is true. i would concede that right away. and by having so little time to review this, does the president really have an option here? >> yes, the president always has an option and the president, as i anticipate that we are going

to spend some time talking about over the next couple of years, does have a veto power that is endowed in the presidency by the constitution. so, but because this is such an important piece of legislation it is good morningering the kind of attention and thorough review you would expect from the executive branch, folks literally up very late last night and very early this morning reviewing these specific proposals and trying to understand what impact they would have on policy. so we are gonna give this piece of must-pass legislation the kind of thorough, detailed review that it deserves. does the president believe that bad policy ever comes out of bipartisan, bicameral agreements? >> yes. because the nature of these kinds of agreements is that they are a compromise, which means that there are things that republicans like that are included in it, that democrats don't like, there are going to be some things that democrats don't like that republicans don't like included in it, i would describe those latter things as good policy, usually,

but again, i'm not exactly unbiased, but what i can tell you is that we will -- we do acknowledge that there -- this is a compromise proposal, as certainly possible that the president could sign this piece of legislation even though there are some things, maybe even many things in it the president doesn't like. we need to have a full accounting of that before we can render our judgment about whether or not the president would sign it, but again, something they are hard at work on and we anticipate that we will be able to give you a more definitive view of that legislation soon. okay? i don't have the timeframe yet, we are working on it, it is must-pass legislation, we are hard at work on it. >> hey, josh, before you go, one more factual question about the interrogation, are anyf those who were involved in the questionable interrogation tactics still at work for the cia? >> john that's a question you should direct to the cia. >> should they still be working for the cia? >> again, you should direct those questions to the cia.

thanks, guys. >> joran earnest there taking several questions today on the cia torture report released yesterday by the senate intelligence committee. we are continuing to follow that story. the "washington post" reporting today that the killing of osama bin laden in may 2011 was hailed by current and former cia officials as the crowning justification for the use of harsh interrogation tactics. high--value detainees when subjected to those methods provide intelligence the officials said helped lead the spy agency to a mysterious courier and ultimately, to the terrorist leader himself. the senate intelligence committee report released tuesday up ends that version of history, providing an alternate case study that revives questions about the agency's account. the report has urged the role of harsh interrogation techniques was greatly exaggerated, that

from the "washington post." you can see all of our coverage of the cia reported posted online any time at c-span.org. the house rules committee will be meeting today, a little over a half hour from now at 3 eastern time on the $1.1 trillion federal spending bill that republicans filed last night n that bill, almost all of the federal government is funded through september of 2015, except for the homeland security department, which is funded just through february. live coverage coming up again starting at 3 eastern time, live here at c-span3. until then, we will show you as much as we can of an arting interview on the cia torture report with north dakota senator john hovan from "washington journal." it's 45 minutes. welcome back to our table, senator john hovan, a republica of north dakota. sir, let's just begin with this cia report from the democrats ot senate intelligence committee. do you agree with the release oi it and what did you make of it? >> well, i don't. only ha

i've not had a chance to release the report, i've only had a very high-level briefing from some of the republicans that are members of the intelligence committee, l saxby icchambliss, the ranking member on the republican side. as you know, there was one republican that signed onto the report. clearly, i think there are problems with it i need to readp through it andoi concerned abou the release from the standpoint of what it means from in terms n of the future security of the country as well as the ability to to have ciad, t officials th can operateto effectively on ou behalf that said, the role of the intelligence committee is to make sure things are done right and that the law's followed but i think that there's some serious concerns and problems with theur report. floo >> your republican colleague, ar senator john mccain and lindsey graham came to the defense of releasing the report saying americans need to know, they need to know what happened in their name. ranspa how do you respond to that? >> we want transparency, we want accountability, we want to make sure the laws follow the roleleg the intelligence committee iss,o

do all those things and i understand that. and to theia extent there were cases where thene cia exceeded their authority, those need to be dealt wit sham properly, the needs to be accountability. but at the same time, we are r t engaged in a war on terror against people who want to kill us, want to harm our nation and harm our people and who employ very, very ruthless means. so, we have got to be able to defend this country and to be defend our people. -- are they ws necessary? will have to see why the people do not in a few any of the cia officials involved. hard to understand of -- there is 15 members the committee -- a democrats and 7 republicans.

why is there not one single republican on the report? host: another issue for you this morning is that there has struck in the house on $1 trillion spending bill -- calls the ngton "omnibus bill". it does not fund the homeland security department for the whole year. funding st temporary for that agency because of what president obama did on immigration. in support of this strategy? guest: yes. and if it passes this measure, it will pass the senate, in my opinion. of homeland nt security -- is only a resolution. that is being done specifically because a president exceeded

his authority aand issuing, you know, his executive order in immigration legal in this country. that needs to be addressed. opportunity to n address that very important matter that goes into checks and balances in our government. host: this is a little over $1 trillion. tell our viewers what are the highlights. is roughly level with last year's. when i started with the senate spending discretionary was $1.4 trillion. now it is down to just a little over $1 trillion. so we are working to find but these are the discretionary funds -- things like social security, medicare, medicaid. those are mandatory programs.

those are two thirds of the budget. this is the one 3rd of the budget that is discretionary funding. money for ebola -- all the things you would think of as typical discretionary spending. are 12 appropriation bills. those are combined into this omnibus. what we want to do as republicans -- when the new congress is seated -- is make sure each one of those 12 bills goes to the committee, and across the floor, and this past individually, rather than passing all these bills at once. so that there is a much more transparent, open process. we want to change the way this is done in the future. and go back to the way it has always been done historically. host: one of the big-ticket items is defense. the bill includes $5 billion in new money to ccombat the islamic state terrorists.

this administration $5 billion without authorizing him, the president, to be fighting isis. this is also -- that is addressed in that legislation, and it requires ninety-day reports on the progress that the administration is making. one of the things we will address in the new congress is what is the administration's strategy for combating isis. that we no question need to combat, you know, this terrorist force. but the administration still has to bring 40 strategy so can be know we successful -- bring forward a we can y so that we know be successful. we want to make sure that it is a strategy that can succeed. host: will you give the

president flexibility? guest: i believe we will. look, the commander and chief does have the n ability to prosecute the war. be a strategy that is well-defined, well thought, and can succeed. bring that to congress. host: other issues are so-called policy riders. the washington times says that the republican said that they care in nding for obama the bill, aand included some of ions to prevent obama's administration's environmental policies from taking effect. chief among those is restrictions on expansion of the clean water act -- which could let the epa regulate farm operations.

of s that harm the prospects his getting past when you add things like that? guest: in my opinion, it enhances the prospects of getting it passed. the administration has gone too over regulating virtually every sector in our economy. so we are trying to cut back some of that incredibly burdensome regulation. that will strengthen the package to pass -- it helps getting both republican support. go to our viewers. hi, mary, you are on the air. caller: yes, i'm interested in border security. now, this is what really gets me. about border king security 1st.

okay. 9/11 -- right after 9/11, george w. bush did not secure our borders. the floodgates were opened. i don't blame the illegals, but they were pouring in. there was no security at the border. now, obama -- as far as what he has done with his executive to do that -- but just like everything else he the rited from bush, back ration message -- go and look -- even after the 9/11 commission, they said that al in our as interested open borders, and the bush administration still do not do anything. guest: i believe bush did send national guard troops to the border, in an effort to better secure. but i think that addressing the immigration issue starts with border security. we have to secure the borders. people want that done. the border is

secure and the american people are comfortable that our laws are being enforced will we be able to take the next steps. her point is that the board needs to be secure, and i agree with that. omnibus der this spending bill, though, you freeze spending. it does not include funds to combat illegal immigrants. guest: and remember, that is the portion of the omnibus that is a continuing resolution because we intend to take that issue up in the new congress. host: tom, from leesburg, virginia. caller: i just wanted to make a couple comments. as far as border security -- what everyone is to give her is that border protection on their re money

infrastructure technology, as far as it goes and pretty much anything else within the customs and border protection bureau. one of the reasons why the not secure the time are being funds that sent in is funneled out to each bureaus -- it is actually being snatched up, pushing their information and keeping ystems those afloat. as far as the report goes on my point is that, listen, it is impossible for us to come as americans, believe is the only scenario that the united states has been involved in. have special operation units that are stationed all around the world, conducting in and day out, that no one, no civilian, knows

about. these are things that have been happening for years. we worked hand-in-hand with israel. we do all different types of operations throughout the world. host: okay, tom. guest: 1st of all, making the just that it is not border patrol agents on the border, and that is correct. it means not only border security on the border with technology, it also means enforcing workplace laws. enforcing the visas. have a real problem with visa overstays. in addition, we have to make sure we have entry and exit systems at all our airports and seaports. i think he is making that point.

it goes more into border security than just having defense, technology, and border patrol units. those things are important, but so are the other things that identify the secure border and take away the incentive from coming into the country illegally. on the 2nd issue, again, i think he makes a valid point. the cia, as well as our military, has to combat people who are trying to kill us. congress provides authorization other e cia and these agencies to act, then we have to make sure the act within the authority they are given, but at the same time we have to recognize that we're dealing with people who are trying to kill us. this is a very difficult business. and we have to make sure that the people -- whether they are a covert litary or operations -- have the ability to give a safe. again, the accountability, but at the same time recognizing to t it takes tough measures defeat a violent group. to the democratic line.

you are on with senator hoeven. caller: one other thing to toss military served in the for 26 years. if we are going to be the shining city on the sea, you know, i didn't sign on for that. want to know -- if this was europeans, with this happen? with this happen if it were europeans instead of arabs? guest: 1st off, thank you for your military service. we appreciate it. far as torture, no. under the bush administration, was given authorization for enhanced interrogation techniques. and they follow those, according to the time.

there were instances, according to the report, where they exceeded authority. to be obviously, has looked at. and it is the role of the to make ence committee sure that the cia and the other agencies under their jurisdiction follow the law. i get that. have to understand that going back eople are and saying what was the enhanced interrogation technique at the time. then the obama administration changes the answer, no, that is torture. so that is a changing standard. but you have people who are following the authorization that is given. so we have to be careful as to what is the authorization, what do they do at the time. the final point he said, well, if this was europeans versus look, we have to -- the objective is to protect our of who it is dless

that we are fighting the war against. so, again, i think the role of is intelligence committee to make sure that the laws and the authority are followed properly, but i will remind you, this is a tough business. dealing with a terrorist and you are trying to get information and save lives, we have to be realistic about what we are dealing with and what we tried to do. host: let's go back to this trillion dollars spending bill. the "washington post" headline -- leaders have agreed to a deal. when do expect this to come to a vote? guest: i expect the house to vote sometime on thursday. and we would get it sometime friday. we may be able to vote friday, depending on whether we can get what is called consent agreements. or it could get pushed into saturday. i think it will probably get done by saturday, but it could go longer. host: adam reporting for the "washington post" found in this the most one of

notable changes, including dramatically expanding the money that political donors could give national parties. drastically under parting the 2002 landmark campaign finance overhaul. top donors would be allowed to give 3 times the annual a national party donations. is that appropriate? guest: so, that is a provision i'll have to look at a more detail. some of these negotiations came down to the wire. host: you served on the appropriations committee -- guest: understand, i negotiate certain parts of this. once we have done those negotiations, it has to go up to the leadership. than the leadership conducts negotiations to make sure they have enough votes to pass the bill. from the point of a committee member, you know, my work stops.

then we provide leadership the opportunity to provide they can get enough votes, which means they do enough changes and add some things, again, to try and make sure it passes. host: do think you will have enough time to read it before you vote on it? guest: again, this is not the way i believe it to be done. each of those 12 bills passed should be individual, in order. that is what we're going to try and do next year, when republicans controlled the senate. that is what has not been done with senator reid and democratic control of the senate. so i do not think it is a right but at this , point, if we don't move forward on this basis, we are in a situation where government is not funded. host: we want to let viewers also know what is in the spending bill. it would also allow the benefits of current retirees to be severely cut. part of an effort to save some of the nations most distressed

pension plans. the bill authorizes a 1% pay raise for military service members, and allows a 1% pay raise for federal employees. lawmakers banned or limited certain agency conferences and awards. 5% discount on tobacco products all that military exchanges. to some of the provisions in this lengthy 1600 page bill coming in at over 1 join dollars. paul in ohio, go ahead. i was just wondering, tthey were talking about this campaign where no one ask he died. but entire families are being killed with a drone program, yet this in the think that that is okay. i was wondering if you could tell me how they justify that. thank you. guest: i think we're going with this is that one of the problems with this report and the way it was done is -- at

cia no int does the longer have the ability to people that we capture and try to get information so that we can be against groups like isis? just killing these are in a cause they situation with the rules changed on the line? very u are making a important point -- we need intelligence from enemy combatants that we capture. if we are not able to interrogate these people you this information, are we our people at risk? tthat is something that has to be thought about very carefully and consider very carefully this is put t like out in a partisan way. you have to ask yourself, why were they not able to get republicans, as well as democrats, on the report? why did they not interview the cia officials involved? so it is not just looking back

what was done then, it is, what are the ramifications going forward? i said we have to have accountability, we have to make the laws are followed. we have to make sure that we can use a covert operations to get information's so that we cannot only be successful, but do everything we can to protect our men and women in uniform. host: we'll talk with marcel next. republican. caller: i am disappointed with senator lindsey graham for him release of the detainees. that is it for me. 300 girls were kidnapped. young girls were kidnapped and they are raping them. they want them to get pregnant so they can have their kids.

they are killing egyptians. they are spending -- talking about the cost of the senate report. she disagrees, basically, and what was done with torture. citing other references that are more in line with torture. to share the same question. $40 million and you haven't anybody that wed was involved? host: in their defense, they do say they look at 6000 documents. guest: and you don't interview anybody who is involved in carrying out the operations? i think she has some very valid questions. as to her comment about the

people in egypt. yes, we are fighting people -- other terrorist groups -- they kill people indiscriminately. they are beheading americans, they are raping, they are torturing. they want to kill us. we have to be realistic on who we are dealing with. host: you are also on energy and natural resources community. get your thoughts -- eemboldened by keystone, critics are delaying new pipelines. given the example of keystone, projects in north america proposing $15 billion more and stretching miles have been delayed. guest: thank you for bringing that up. i think it is a very important point. talk about keystone -- a huge project, moving oil through a pipeline instead

of railcars. now, people say, well, yes, it is a big project -- 40,000 jobs 1,000,000 barrels of oil, but it is just one pipeline project. we need infrastructure, which and other pipeline pipelines -- to move energy to market as efficiently and safely as possible. infrastructure pipelines, railroads, and roads -- we need to do a highway bill next year in the right mix so that we can move energy efficiently and effectively as possible. be t: this is the oil will diverted overseas -- 2 markets overseas. guest: i think i saw the average price of oil is down below $3 a gallon.

the produce 1.2 million barrels a day, 2nd only to texas. look at what is happening. more supply is printing presses down at the pump. talk about building pipelines, you know, it is creating more supply. supply and demand. more supply helps give consumers more choice and lower prices. the obama administration's own department of energy were produced a report in 2011 oil from canada -- that we get to keystone -- would be used in the united states. host: following oil prices, saudi arabia and opec decided to let them slide in hopes of go after the shale. what are you hearing from your constituents? other concerned about this --

dakota to get hit because of saudi arabia's decision? guest: sure, it will have an impact on the short run. what is going t on. will slow down development in the short run. think about what's going on. we're producing more energy in country. we're working with canada to get more energy, which means we th- don't have t- get our energy from the middle east or from countries like venezuela.markets what's opec doing? they're worried now about their market share. saudi arabia's worried about the market share because what do seu they see happening?r rgy our country becoming energy independent, energy secure. isn't that what we want?y th and that's why they're pushing back. and i want to build the infrastructure that helps us beu more competitive in energy, not less competitive so that we can compete in a global market, andn our country benefits economically, with jobs, with economic growth and with national security. teamed >> you teamed up with senator mary landrieu on this. she lost her re-election bid, so where does your legislation stand? this?

and do you have enough votes to override a presidential veto? ? >> i'll reintroduce the bill after the first of the year. it's a bipartisan bill, every republican is onboard with it, that's 54-- we've had on the order of nine democratsin t that are still in senate. we had more ratsdemocrats, actu, but as you say, mary landrieu e and some, of 6course, are gone now. so we're over the 60. . . . issue, the issue as you say will be a presidential veto.we my expectation is i'll bring the bill back, we'll move it across the floor of the house will pass it, no problem. and we'll see what the president does. if he vetoes it, then we may ayv have to combine it with some other legislationegis either a broader energy measure, anothero energy measure, and i've already made overture to the white house them t about it what they're interested in doing or not interested in doing. but we could tie it to other ucn energy legislation or an bring appropriations measure in order to make sure we have the 67 and bring it back, you know, again. >> what are you willing to give?

pás in >> look, i'm making the argument on the merits. the things we're talking about, you know, making our country energy secure creating jobs, economic growth. it's a national security issue. the publicom supports it overwellingly.te 60% to 70%.s some i'm going to continue to make doe argument on the merits. if the administration has ideas on something we can do that make it work in terms of a energy aye plan, we'll talk about it, i'm going to continue to work on it. >> caller: hi, i just want to tell you first that i think you seem like a nice man as opposedr to some people from your party who, you know, argue about things and don't know. i would encourage you, the hea-e

of homeland securityrm testifie. he said that the short-term money for his organization, he cannot work with that, and i think i understand what he was saying. he needs the lump sum in order to not only help with the borders but also to provide dena security for the presidential race which he was going to have to start doing. and also, i8d i would encourage you to read research going backs to torture, read research on the effectiveness of using torture and getting information. because i think most of the that you thank ow don't get important information from torture. so it doesn't work. >> okay. >> thank you. senator? >> i understand your point on torture, and i understand that, you know the concerns you express. as a matter of fact, i've talk-- to senator john mccain about itt very directly and gone through

torture. he was tortured when he was held prisoner in vietnam. and i -- saw -- i understand what you're are saying and i sp significant time talking to senator mccain on that subject. on the funding issue, again, we did not reducen funding for the department of homeland security. we sustained funding for the department of homeland security the be working on this right away after the first of the year. it's not a situation where we're putting homeland security in a situation where they can't do their job. in fact, we're trying to make sure they do their job and more as far as border security and ay border enforcement. >> next two calls here from columbia, tennessee. we'll begin with taylor a republican. go ahead. >> caller: thank you and appreciate your program. i would just: thecia like to sa senator, i think you're on the . right track on the budget thing. and i hope that will pass both

houses. secondly, on the torture report, it was a very long report headed up, i think, by jay rockefeller leaving office.- and ms. w feinstein who is stil very agitated at the cia over some of their eavesdropping and so i think this report would have been much more accepted by the american public the day before this president took office with much more sympathy through what was taking plac ae and hoping to be accomplished through this program. and i just think the american public has gone through this several years ago. nothing but political timing, bad political timing, i might say, and so, i think it should have been judged in the when it took place

and not based on today's date everybodye know about and how this war's going. >> all right.you senator? do you agagree? >> i think he expressed concerns that i share. and i think he's trying to est:i create some perspective on the s report and what's transpired t and , i think, you know, that's important. i've tried to express some of those same concerns. and, again, we've got to keep this country -- we've got to be in a position to protect this country. war. fighting a we're fighting against a foe vet that kills peoplo e indiscriminately.llig we've got to followen the law, have oversight.uld be the intelligence community has a role. but that should be done on a bipartisan basis. and we've got to make sure that our men and womenwe in these agencies and in the military are in a position to protect us.eryg and we've got to do all we can to make sure our men and women uniform, when they're on the front lines, can succeed, and that we're not putting them in a

position where they're at pueater peril rather than putting them in a position where they cantt execute a strategy tt wins. and we have fewer casualties. >> senator, i want to show you o this t headline in the "washingn times." >> sure. >> president obama yesterday in a tv interview saying his successor won't undo immigration reform. because if they do, let's say it's a republican, even. it would be a bad political move. >> you know, the realities of this. and this is something we've - talked to the president about a leading up to the election and even after the election before he issued his executive order. we said, look, the right approach to immigration reform is a step by step process. allow the new congress to be seated and allow us to start - moving bills, starting with border security so that people p can seeeo what's in the bill, tt they're smaller, manageable bills that people have a comfort level that the law's going to bo enforced and the congress and t. the administration are working together. give us a chance to do that.

instead, he went ahead unilaterally with this executive order which exceeds his authority. so now we have to respond in order to protect the constitutional responsibilities of the separate branches of asvernment as well as address what we think is a very bad s wh decision on his part. we'll do that as we've talked about, but we will also then move forward in a step by step approach, as i just described. >> if republicans in congress are unable to stop the president's executive action ane a republican takes the white house, do you agree or disagree with the president here?us >> what i'm saying is we're actually going to start next year before the next president comes in to not only block the president's action, but start ap step by step approach to address the illegal immigration in the right way so that should be well underway, i hope, before the new president comes in. will s, ins new president work with us instead of taking

unilateral action. >> independent line. will, columbia, tennessee, go ahead, will. >> yes. good morning. >> morning.ller i wish to tell all ofyou, h you happy holidays. to all of you.- >> same to you, will. >> christmas is quickly on its way. and so, what i'd like to ask our senator this morning, having to do with the torturing of, you know, terrorists or any other agent going up against the american people. you know there are three examples i can give you that i a think that can help us out and thinking about whyer there's go to be some form of -- way of deterring terrorists. number one, you know thater 1 t scripture says you're supposed to bring up the child in a way it can grow. and to do that, you've got to use the rod. you've got to discipline that child. the other thing is we have, i

evink, a capital punishment in america. it's a deterrent for all of those evil doers out on the streets even as it is today. getting away with a lot of different forms of criminal acts. but the most important thing -- >> we're running out of time here. will, we're running out of time with the senator. your third? >> caller: can i have one other comment? >> your third thing, if you could. >> caller: okay. third thing. this is it. god created man to be obedient and that is why he created hell, too, along with heaven. there's good and evil and it's got to be rewarded in punishment. thank you. >> all right. senator? >> well, the first thing, i guess what i would say is we've got to be able -- and we've talked about this a little bit, we've got to be able to interrogate detainees, enemy

combatants. to get information from them. if we're not able to do that. if the cia or other agencies are not able to operate, then we're essentially in a situation where our forces just kill the enemy and that's it. now, is that the best solution? does that get us the information we need to prosecute the war on terror? so that's the balance that we've got to hit. how do we make sure we're doing in line with our values? and how we think things should be done as americans. at the same time, how do we make sure that the men and women that are employed in these agencies aren't going to be second guessed when they're trying to follow their authorities? again, i want to be careful to say where that authority is exceeded or there's a problem, then, yes, the intelligence committee has oversight responsibility and that has to be properly dealt with. but, again, it should be bipartisan. it shouldn't be either republicans or democrats. particularly when they haven't

interviewed anyone involved and actually, in the actions that were undertaken. >> good morning to you. >> good morning. what i can't seem to understand, i really wouldn't want the senator's job because he's -- they're kind of in a hard position. the american people will look to the government to protect them from outside terrorists, but at the same time, tell them that they only have so much they can do to protect us. but yet, when something goes wrong, they blame the government for not protecting us. but when the government want to put certain things in place to protect them, they say they infringing on their rights. you can't have it both ways. >> you know, i think you make a really good point. i think you said it very well. so obviously we've got to hit that balance, you know. and i think that you've described that balance very well. how do we make sure that we're

doing all we can to protect this country? i mean, the first responsibility of the government is to protect its citizens. and then do it in the way that americans want it done. so i mean, that is the balancing act. but i guess what i would say, i think you laid that out well. that's why it shouldn't be a partisan report coming out. there should have been some ability for the intelligence committee on a bipartisan basis, make sure that the actions that were taken were proper and to take steps to address them. and i think that is the underlying problem. one of the, maybe the biggest underlying problem in how it was approached. >> senator, i'm going to get in one last phone call for you. comes from linda in columbus, ohio, republican, hi, linda. >> hi. i agree with most of the callers and most of the united states of america. that senator lady feinstein that put this out in the open with

our over 3,000 of our best marines on the ground over there in big jeopardy already and her making it worse on them is absolutely unexcusable. and she shall pay. they will get hurt over there even more now. >> you know, maybe the point i could emphasize here and the point she brings out is we've got to remember we have men and women in uniform in harm's way. and think about it. they're over there putting everything on the line for us and for our safety. we've got to make sure we do what we can to help them do their job, help them do it safely and come back to their families. and so i appreciate that important thought that she brought forward. and i want to wish all your viewers a very happy holiday season and a merry christmas. >> welm, thank you for being here. we've got just in this last minute, i want you to tell our viewers sort of walk through

what senate needs to deal with before you can leave town. >> all right. okay. as we've talked about, the funding the government, so we don't have a government shutdown. obviously, that's very important. that needs to be done. we've talked about that. then the defense authorization act. again, very important. that's all about giving the support to our men and women in uniform that is just so critically important and we admire them and thank them. for all they're doing for us. the third thing is the tax extenders legislation. and that's important for our businesses across the country. that's vitally important. we're at the end of the year. they need to know what those provisions are in order to do the tax return. and so we don't get that done. that hurts our economy. and that hurts our ability to create jobs. so that's the third piece that's very, very important. >> there is the terrorism risk

program, it's been taken out of the spending bill. are you in support of that program? >> yes. and i think it has broad and strong support. what happened was, there's a difference of opinion between republicans and democrats regarding dodd/frank. provisions republicans wanted on dodd/frank to be included. democrats proposed there not be on that. that's why it was left out of the bill. it is something that needs to be passed. and it will be passed. it will be passed very soon into congress. there's strong support for it. >> of course, we can watch all of those debates on c-span 2. senator, thank you for your time. appreciate it. >> thanks, greta. >> we're live on capitol hill, the house rules committee this afternoon, meeting today on the $1.1 trillion spending bill that republicans filed last night. in that bill funds almost the entire federal government funded

through september of 2015. just the homeland security department accepted is only funded through february. pete sessions is the chairman. he's on your screen. the ranking member, the meeting should get underway in a few moments. live coverage on c-span 3. >> good afternoon, welcome to the rules committee. today we're going to consider the senate amendment to hr-83, which is the mechanism by which the federal government will be funded through the consolidation and further continuing appropriations act of 2015. as you know, government funding is set to expire by the end of tomorrow, tomorrow night midnight, december 11th. this bill would fund the government through 2015. for all agencies and departments

except the department of homeland security. it is a result of negotiations that concluded earlier this week, and it will -- it is designed to make sure we avert a government shutdown. i will have more to say as we have our panels, as we go through them. but i want to, if i can, up front thank two people in particular. the young chairman of the appropriations committee from kentucky, mr. rogers who negotiated this bill, i believe, in good faith and has spent a lot of timeoñaa5 doing this. it involved a lot of staff time, thousands of calls, i know, between members and your staff and also ranking member, she has always been not only a participating part of this process but has always showed up as a full member and opportunity for you to work together.

and i'm delighted that you are here again today to do this. and i'd like to welcome you. i also know that we're going to have two other members who are here to give testimony about a part of the bill. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. klein, the chairman of the education workforcest"tq also te gentleman, mr. miller who will be retiring this year george, i'm delighted you're here. and i'll tell you, during my years of being on the committee, i've enjoyed your testimony, your hard work, and in particular, when you did show up to work with both sides. when you were chairman and when you were ranking member. and i'm delighted you're here. also note that what we're going to attempt to do today is -- as we always try to do in the rules committee to make sure we listen to each other that we're clear about what we're here to do, that we maintain the decorum that is necessary. i note that we have a full

house. and i note that there are a lot of strong opinions in this room. i will remind each the panelists that the committee members that are here have been through hours and hours and hours over the last few weeks. and we've tried to prepare for you. we've tried to ready ourself with the substance and the policy that is being submitted. but we're going to count on you and your testimony and your opportunity to brief this body as well as many members that are here and others who are listening. so i want to thank you. but have you know that your clarity and yowill be much apprd by this committee. before i defer to the gentle woman from new york, the ranking member mrs. slaughter, i'd like for you to note anything you have in writing will be entered into the record. and making sure you make sure

the green button is on the microphone and that will help us all. i'd now like to yield to the ranking member, the gentle woman, mrs. slaughter. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we've all looked forward with some anxiety to this very moment. and we were going to see whether we were going to have a government shutdown, or not. and i -- there's some things i think i really have to say about this. mostly process. 1,600 pages right here. released in the middle of the night. not one member of the committee's been able to read all the way through it or anything of it, i suppose. no opportunity for public input. no committee hearings, no committee mark-ups, and no time to adequately consider $1.1 trillion in spending. perhaps the house majority spent less time trying to prevent people from getting health care or investigating the nonexistent scandal in benghazi, we might have had time to put together a proper budget.

this process goes against all of the transparency pledges that house republicans themselves have made. as we quote again, speaker boehner as we were so proud of him when we said in 2010, quote, i do not believe that having a 200-page bill on the house floor serves anyone's best interest, not the house, not the members, and certainly not for the american people, end quote. so once again, we see the recalcitrants leading us into another manufactured crisis, angering the american public, scaring people to death if they're not going to be funded, damaging our reputation around the world and coming once again to the brink of shutdown and this is no different. for reasons i'm at a loss to understand of the bill undercuts the department of homeland security. and our members on homeland security have said this is at great peril. they need to be training people to be alert for what's going to

happen. but we're going to make sure they can be in existence until the end of february. at that point, i don't know what happens to them, nor do they. now, we've heard a lot of talk that you are dependent on the votes from my side of the house to pass this. and, frankly, we're always willing to do that when legislation comes up that we can support. but in the dark of night there, two things happened that are really hurting us being able to do that. and i honestly think before it comes to the floor these two may go away. certainly my hope. one is, rolling back the regulations on the risky behavior by big banks. since 2008, we've been going through this nightmare. we allowed megadonors at the same time, the people with all the money to donate ten times the current limit to political parties without any discussion again, completely undermining

the mccain/feingold bill. and then, what we've done, as i mentioned before, the banks completely as we know and probably we will see the end of dodd/frank very shortly because banks don't like it. let me quote from a statement that barney frank a former congressman as you know who is the frank we referred to in the title released a statement today and said, quote, the provision inserted into the appropriations bill is a substantive mistake. a terrible violation of the procedure that should be followed on this complex and important subject. and a frightening precedent that provides a road map for further attacks on our protection against financial instability, said frank. ironically, and this is the most important part. ironically, it was a similar unrelated writer that put into the debate -- i misspoke there.

a similar unrelated rider put without debate into a larger bill that played the major role in allowing the irresponsible, unregulated derivative transactions to contribute to the crisis in the first place. why in the name of common sense would we be willing to risk that yet again? the damage done, it's taken years to try to get over and lots of people will never recover from the loss of their homes or jobs. this is still congressman frank, a question about responsibility can differ. and the subject of what banks should be doing in this area is a legitimate subject for debate. but not for nongermane amendment asserted with no hearings, no chance for further modification and no chance for debate into a mammoth bill in the last days of a lame duck congress. those who have consistently

opposed any significant financial regulation should be willing to put forward their proposals to cut back on the rules adopted in response to the crisis in a manner that allows full open discussion and members supporting the retreat should be required to do so by their votes without the cover of an appropriation not subject to amendment, frank concluded, end quote. this bill also concludes significant reforms to pension programs that would impact thousands of retired workers in my district and yours, as well. for provision, it would impact so many working families should have been considered through the regular, transparent and open legislative process. now, i recognize this process is extremely difficult. and i want to note that some harmful riders were removed. and for that, we're extremely grateful and i imagine a lot of hard work went into that. but on one other positive note,

we were able to include an important ban that included the processed poultry products from being served in school meals because that is an issue of food safety. and congresswoman and i asked that be done and we're happy it's there, but it's not enough, the negotiations on this bill are not enough. it doesn't serve the american people nor does it serve the institution. and i yield back. >> yields back her time. i want to thank the gentlemen for comments. in fact, you'll probably hear during the time we were here there was some legislation that was discussed and talked about yesterday and continues to be on the floor today and it's a really good reason why each of you are here to help clarify these things. mr. frank was offering his comments as a former member of this body. and i'm very interested in what this current membership is going to say and so i'd go straight to

our lead witness, mr. chairman, thank you very much, hal rogers for being here. i don't know if we want to move that water in front of you. we put it there but i want to make sure we don't get it in the way of your testimony. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ms. slaughter. thanks for having us here today. on behalf of the amendment to hr-83 that we submitted that includes the bipartisan house and senate agreement to fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal '15. i come to you to request an appropriate rule to provide for prompt consideration of this important measure. our current funding mechanism as

you've said, mr. chairman, expires on december 11th tomorrow. to avoid a costly and damaging government shutdown, we must pass this legislation before then. the funding measure abides by all the terms of the ryan marie budget agreement providing a total of 1.103 trillion. it includes full year appropriations for 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. weighing each agency and department individually reflecting up to date budgetary needs and prioritizing the most effective, most useful programs. also includes a short-term funding mechanism for the department of homeland security which expires on february 27th '15. this funding for dhs programs at current levels to maintain

essential security programs on our home front. we've gone to some of the highlights, national security is a top priority in this legislation. the measure provides $554 billion for the department of defense, including $64 billion in overseas contingency operations, funding to support our troops in the field who combat isil, to train and equip our iraqi allies, and to counter russian aggression. it also cuts more than $345 million from the i.r.s. and $60 million from the e.p.a. from last year's levels. the legislation provides no new funding for obamacare and holds the line on funding for the agency at hhs most responsible for implementing this law. it prohibits funds for the army corps of engineers to act on two regulations that could have

serious consequences for american industry. changing the definition of, quote, fill material, quote, and regulating water and certaining a agricultural areas. protects farmers, ranchers and other job creators from onerous regulatory burdens by amending dodd/frank swaps pushout rules and by adopting the house promise to stop the epa from placing the sage grass on the endangered species list. and it helps to put a stop to improper behavior at federal agencies. prohibiting the irs from targeting groups based on political beliefs from determining the tax exempt status of an organization and from holding inappropriate conferences. the bill also preserves the sanctity of

in the federal government, and will allow us to start with a clear deck in the 114th congress to hopefully complete our appropriations work for 2/16 on time. the ranking member of my committee, shares my desire to return to regular order next year. and i want to thank her for her

fairness throughout this process as well as her hard work bringing the bill before us today. the legislation is the result of weeks of hard negotiations between the house and the senate. it reflects conservative priorities, but it's also a compromise, a bipartisan bill that can and should have wide support from both parties in both the house and senate. i hope we can pass it in short order and send it on to the senate tomorrow, eventually to the president for quick approval, as well. the american people deserve the stability and certainty of a functioning federal government. it's high time we provided that to them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much, each time that mr. rogers comes up here, he's always accompanied by you. and while i don't presume there's a 100% agreement, i do know there's 100% teamwork.

and hal has, i believe, always dealt fairly with me and as a colleague. and i know he would do the same for you. and we're delighted that you're here. the gentle woman's recognized. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. for the opportunity to be here today. i'm very pleased to be here with my friend and my partner chairman hal rogers with the spending package before current funding expires tomorrow night. i'm deeply relieved that we seem to have avoided the antics of last year when a vocal minority in this body was able to hold the entire government hostage for reasons they couldn't articulate. it wasn't fair to the american people. i hope we'll never have to go through it again. throughout the process, my goal has been to avoid another costly shutdown. make adequate investments to grow the economy, enhance our

security and protect the most vulnerable. i am disappointed, mr. chairman, that a decision was made by the house majority to leave out the agreement reached on the department of homeland security. this bill could have and should have been included in this package. it was left out as a part of a political calculation on immigration policy, not over differences our subcommittee had in developing this bill. i believe my chairman was right when he rebuffed efforts to restrict the president's executive orders on immigration on a must-pass appropriation bill. but forcing these important agency customs, border protections, the u.s. secret service, the federal emergency management administration, the transportation security administration, forcing them

into a two-month continuing resolution was unnecessary and unfortunate. the short-term cr creates uncertainty, will limit the department's ability to make important decisions on procurements, hiring, and on new initiatives which we all support. we're already 70 days beyond the actual start of this fiscal year. should the homeland security agencies really have to wait another two more months, i strongly support ranking member price's amendment to restore full-year funding to homeland security. the 11 other spending bills included in this package are a mix of wins and losses. i was very pleased most of the worst were dropped. including those on the affordable care act, the clean air act and those preventing

full implementation of new reforms to the federal school lunch programs. statutory budget caps essentially kept all discretionary programs at a hard freeze. but i'm pleased we were able to prioritize a few key items such as the national institutes of health, food safety at the food and drug administration, another very modest but very important increase is provided for after school programs, many of which suffered steep cuts under sequestration and have still not made up those shortfalls. i'm also pleased the final agreement provides $500 million for the department of transportation's tiger program to fund major surface transportation projects including bridges, transit and passenger rail.

to keep firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't possess them, the national instant background check system will receive an increase of $14.5 million. this important investment was achieved because members on both sides of the aisle recognized how crucial this money is for states to improve their submission of records into the background check system. the final package includes much of the administration's request to respond to the deadly ebola crisis. we must ensure that all those tasks with being on the front line fighting this disease from local hospitals to federal agencies have what they need. we all recognize how the ease of international travel has changed the way we must respond to contagious diseases. i have confidence in our health care system, the center for disease control and the

fantastic hospitals that stepped up to take and treat the patients with ebola. but we should do whatever we can to stop the disease where it is the most deadly. the funding provided will allow research to ramp up to treat and hopefully develop a vaccine for ebola. i do have an amendment, mr. chairman, before the committee to strike two sections. one that amends dodd/frank to include the swaps pushout language and the other that multiplies by ten, the amount of money that wealthy individuals can give to a political party. together these provisions stack the deck for special interests against middle class. in closing, i'm pleased the appropriations committee has come together on a package to fund 11 of the 12 spending bills. i will reiterate that it

contains many things i wish had had a different outcome. i would have wanted more for key investments like the national institutes of health. i wish all of them had been dropped. and i need to see whether the rules committee makes changes to this package before making a final determination. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. it's very clear, not only your participation, your wishes, some of the things that you wanted, some of the things you didn't get but working together for the benefit of the team and i appreciate you very much. chairman klein, perhaps a new submission but not a new idea. one that's a bipartisan idea and one i believe is good for us to know about and hear about is your hard work with mr. miller

on pensions. obviously our country has gone through five years of a very difficult time, and the average american that gets up and goes to work plays by the rules, does the right thing, they should not find themselves on the bad side of just because of timing. time to include this. and i'm delighted the gentleman's recognized. >> members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the klein/miller amendment. i don't know how many of those there's been, george, but i'm pleased to be here today. this bipartisan amendment provides a legislative response to a growing crisis that's now facing millions of americans in the multi-employer pension system. for more than a year, mr. chairman, in fact, for over two years, but for more than a year, the committee has been working intensely to take a proposal put forward by business and labor and turn it into a bipartisan solution. this bipartisan agreement we've

reached will protect taxpayers by putting the pension benefit guarantee corporation, the federal backstop for defined benefit pension plans on a more sound financial footing. protect employers by helping to address the pensions, liabilities crushing their businesses and protect retirees by giving the trustees of trouble plans the tools they need to avoid insolvency. this isn't a perfect solution, mr. chairman, i suppose there aren't many, but it's a good solution that deserves our support. we cannot let this opportunity pass by. hoping we will get a better deal in the future. further delay will make this harder, not easier. backing now we can prevent a bad situation from getting much worse. by acting now, we can deliver retirees greater protections that may not be available down the road. and by acting now, we can begin to address a tough issue with strong, bipartisan support. our urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan

multiemployer pension reform agreement and its inclusion to the spending bill. thank you. >> thank you very much. by the way, your inclusion of mr. miller should be said back to you and thank you for be participatory with him. it takes two sides to get these things done and i'm proud of our chairman. welcome. you've been to the rules committee 4,000, 5,000 times over your career. you've been here as a vigorous advocate. i've seen you win too many and then your record up here is better than losses. i'd like to have you grab that mike. she'll share it with you. make sure that green light is own. i enjoyed watching you, seeing you and your opportunities to work all the way back with john boehner when he was in the committee. and i know that you have been a strong leader in the field of education. gentleman's recognized. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman for your

kind remarks and thank you to you and ranking member slaughter for allowing mr. klein and myself to come before the committee. based upon a proposal developed two years ago working together to find a path for severely distressed and failing pension plans. this amendment will give planned trustees, labor and management the tools they need to avoid pending collapse of multiemployer plans. they will also provide new funds with a premium increase for the surcharge with backing up these plans which is also facing bankruptcy. the klein/miller amendment is the only available option and it is the last chance for labor unions and their members and their employers to gain some control over the future of their pensions. i expect today that -- i expect this is my last time before this committee. throughout my 40 years in congress, i have worked to strengthen pension protections and expand retirement security for all americans. i have fought for workers and i

have fought for their benefits. when wall street was siphoning money out of workers' 401(k) plans via hidden fees, i fought to make sure people could make an informed decision about the retirement savings. i fought to protect workers from conflicted investment and advice that could be put -- could put their retirement security at risk. it is my commitment to workers and the retirement security that brings me here today. we have an obligation to reform the multiemployer pension system so we can protect the retirement security of workers nationwide. the amendment before you today, which is backed by business and labor, which will secure the multiemployer pension systems for millions of current and future retirees. it includes important consumer safeguards that give the participants in these plans a voice to protect their most vulnerable, the most vulnerable of the retirees. it will also provide critical flexibility necessary to keep workers from losing everything.

employers and employees would have the option, this is the option, there's nothing here mandated. they would have to make a decision that they want to take, come together and try to -- try to design the best rescue plan they can so their pension plan can survive for a longer period of time and with a level of benefits that can be sustained. and i think that's an important right to grant them. many of these multi-employer plans have already tried to work this out. but at the end of the day, they were prohibited by law from cutting pension benefits. they've already made a decision that's the only way they can rescue their plan. but the federal law stands in their way. we remove that impediment. if they choose not to take advantage of it, that's their choice. if they choose to take advantage of it, a sustainable pension plan for their members without going into bankruptcy and then going to the pbgc, increasing the liabilities and the snowball continues downhill.

thank you for your consideration, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their consideration of this amendment. it's not a new idea that's been kicking around, we've had two years of hearings of this last congress on this matter under chairman klein's leadership and we've had numerous hearings in the committee before on this exact provision. i think its time has come. thank you. >> thank you very much, before my deferring to the gentleman from texas. i would ask unanimous consent that would be called fy 2015 which has been prepared by the appropriations committee without objection that will be entered into the record. that provides not only factually based information, but if anybody needs a record about what was included, that will be there for them. the chair would now recognize in reverse order dr. burgess. gentleman has no questions.

gentle woman does not seek time. gentle woman from north carolina. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i want to say thank you to our colleagues. i do know that our colleagues, my colleagues, particularly on the education workforce committee have worked extremely hard to get these pension reforms done having been on that committee for some time. i agree with them and know this is a critical time to get these provisions passed. and i want to lend my support to the comments that they have made pension reform is never easy as we have found out over the years. but we're particularly at a critical time. i want to thank the -- i want to

agree with the chairman of the appropriations committee that doing this through regular order, one bill at a time is the best way to do it. and we have done it. we've spent many hours in this committee, this past year hearing from our colleagues about appropriations bills. we spent many hours on the floor. and as i sat here and listened to the chairman and the ranking member, it sounded to me as though, and i guess i could put a little bit more water in this glass, and i would say this that what i heard, i heard the chairman saying that the glass was half full. and i heard the ranking member saying that the glass was half empty. we're looking at the same glass of water. and that's what struck me particularly when congresswoman was speaking that she emphasized things we didn't do, the chairman emphasized things we

did do. and so that image struck me. and i want to say this is the way it gets done with legislation, particularly why we don't like the bills. but i want to thank everyone involved for your hard work and say nobody is probably terrible happy, completely happy, therefore i learned long ago in state legislature if nobody's completely happy, then it's probably the best legislation we can get done. and with that, i yield -- >> yes? >> the reason we're here, with an omnibus bill, 84 hours of debate and amendments, seven bills completely through the house, 300 and something, i think it was.

we sent those individual bills, then, to the senate. and they're supposed to take them up like we did, individual. but they didn't. not only all yearlong they didn't take up a single one of the appropriations bills that we sent over there. consequently, we have no choice then at the end of the year to come together and try to put together a funding for the entire government because the senate simply didn't act. so that's why we're here. i have preached and still am preaching to do individual bills, house, senate, conference them separately, do it the right way. and that's the aim that i have that i've been trying to do this for four years now. i think, perhaps, things are going to change now with a change in the senate where we can take up the separate bills as it ought to be done. >> well, i appreciate what the chairman said, mr. chairman. i wasn't going to bring all those things up myself. but i -- i'm glad that you did because as has been the history

of this institution for a long time, the problem is over in the senate not in the house. we're able to act, able to do our jobs, we did, and i want to say i believe this other saying is appropriate, too. you are preaching to the converted, mr. chairman. thank you. >> gentle woman yields back her time. gentleman from massachusetts recognized. >> well, i hope i'm not causing that. you okay? i'll just speak this way. >> yeah, good. >> that's all right. first of all, i want to thank everybody who is here testifying for the hard work that you've all put in. on so many issues. but it is frustrating to be here with an omnibus bill that is 1600 -- actually, 1,603 pages long that, i think, we can all

be honest with one another that nobody here has fully read. and with each passing minute, i find out there's something else in here that gives me ingesti indigestion. and i think the process is lousy, and i appreciate the fact that the chairman and the ranking member have tried to bring appropriations bills to the floor on their own. but i think there have been five bills we haven't brought to the floor. and even if we have to get to this kind of process at the end of the session, we ought to build in an extra week or something so that people have an opportunity to be able to look at it so we're not all kind of going through all this stuff. and i'm concerned about a number of things. i'm concerned about the fact that we continue to fund wars that congress hasn't authorized. there are provisions in this bill that weaken the child nutrition act. there's this crazy campaign

finance adjustment in here i didn't know about until a little while ago that increases the limits on individual contributions to a party by allowing a person to contribute a total of $770,000 per year. >> thank you very much. you know, maybe i paid attention to it and somebody else didn't, but i believe what happened is we have taken away funding by the federal government for conventions. the federal government's not going to pay for conventions anymore. and yet conventions still need to be paid for. a lot of security and a lot of other things. and so that is what this is here for. >> my advice would be maybe to seek out people who don't have $770,000. we ought to be -- the trouble -- >> and i'll yield back to the gentleman. but you've still got to pay f for -- >> you know, you could fund it -- >> even for both sides, thank you. >> for both sides, absolutely.

and then, you know -- >> would you yield on a moment on that for a second? because it is not just for conventions. it's for housekeeping accounts and you know what housekeeping accounts are for political parties. go for almost anything. >> but i don't -- you know, and then there's a provision that, you know, that repeals, you know, truck driver safety rules that will make our roads less safe. and none of these things belong, most of these things don't belong in an appropriations bill. and certainly not in an omnibus bill. i also associate myself with the remarks of ranking member and f of -- i mean the repeal of the dodd/frank provisions in this bill are awful. and i want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the entire statement of congressman frank. and i also want to associate myself with remarks of the

senator from massachusetts, elizabeth warren on the floor in the senate today asking, i think, a fundamental question. and that is, who does congress work for? does it work for millionaires, billionaires, giant companies with their army of lobbyists? or does it work for us? this provision is not a technical fix. it's a big deal. and, you know, and it -- it would -- and the provision that is about to be repealed requires banks to keep separate a key part of their risky wall street speculation so there's no government insurance for that part of their business. i mean, i -- i don't know why we're doing this and i don't know why we're doing this in a bill like an omnibus bill. just one question for mr. klein and mr. miller, i appreciate the fact that we have to do something about pensions. but i have to tell you that this provision is controversial to say the least.

i mean, i've got a -- a statement here from jim hoffa, the general president of the teamsters who says that basically this would result in cuts to pensions for his members. and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the letter to theóçpáh r committee. but concerns from other unions from the aarp and there's some unions that have written in support. i guess what i'm a little concerned about here is that -- since we're going to take this provision up that it be taken up as a separate vote. and it not be part of a self-executing rule where you pass the rule and this and 100 other things become part of it. i don't know enough about this to be honest with you to tell you whether it's a good deal or a bad deal. i just know a lot of people i trust tell me they have problems

with it. it ought to have adequate debate. and i hope whatever we decide here won't be something that is, you know, some self-executing mechanism that we often do around here. but, anyway, i don't want to belabor this. you've been working on this for an awful long time. i think there's got to be a better way to do our business than this. and i get it, we're at the end of the session, but there's nothing that says -- and i'll tell you, i'd be willing to stay here a couple ofjzvñ extraytqzñ it mfdj]g opportunity to go throughwe review5kov this. i don't think anybody here with a straight face can say they know what's in this bill. and with that, i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back his time, thank you very much, the gentleman from utah's recognized. >> let me, if i could, just say a few things very quick li without a prepared statement or questions coming in there. first of all, to the gentleman

from education workforce, if there is a klein/miller amendment, this either has to be the best damn amendment ever written or the biggest mistake we have ever done. i don't know which one it is. but the fact that you have brought forth a bipartisan amendment says a great deal right there and probably should be left at that. secondly, i think i echo what everyone has said, especially the chairman of the appropriations committee. this is a lousy way of doing business. sad element is it's not the first time i've ever seen business accomplished in this way. it's not the first time i've seen self-executing rules accomplished. hopefully probably unfortunately, it may not be the last time. but that i want to emphasize in your defense how much i have appreciated you bringing the other bills, the house has done to us as we have discussed them. i appreciate you bringing them up to us. and had the senate actually done their business, then this would not be the process we're going

through. that is what is extremely frustrating of two years of going through these games. and unfortunately, it's not the issue alone. i was part of the negotiating team for team for the defense authorization bill. it was the exact same problem there. we did the bill in a timely and efficient way yet the senate has not had hearings on it. it's a process none of us like. i'm not trying to shift the blame over there, i am shifting the blame over there. what i am looking forward to come january is the chance to start with a fresh slate and do it the right way. that includes comments about writers in this bill. yes, it should be done in authorization measures. come january, i hope to be able to do that. since come january, i will not be able to speak to you from this forum, it will be in a different way where my time limits will be limited.

let me say a couple things. i appreciate what you have done in the area of land issues in this bill. i appreciate what you have done on the riders deal with allowance. however, coming forward, again, we are going to talk to you again about fees. fees really are, in my estimation, a tax and they should not be at the acquisition of the executive branch to do them, it should be a legislative function. there are fees dealing with not just grazing fee, but other fee that is are done on public lands. i want to work with you to make sure they do not come throughn8 the appropriations. we authorize the fees and the legislative body looks at the fees. i appreciate what you have done with pilt and the pilt payments. srs is not here. i'm going to come back and say yes, we need to do the same thing with payment in lieu of taxes but find a unique way of funding those that will be a constant source so it is not

done in a haphazard way and the same with schools, there is, can be and will be and the house identified potential funding sources to make sure these programs will have a secure force of funding. we can do it in the long term. finally, i appreciate in here you have, once again, a one-year prohibition on sage grass. there is no potential endangered issue that could have the greatest and most serious impact in the west and midwest as this species does. the fact we are not allowing the states to go through and come up with a program that fits the geology and geography of the individual states and looking at a court ordered mandate is one of the problems. this is not something i blame on your committee. this is where too often policies are dictated where people have some kind of say, but judicial

proceedings where they were done in a settle approach. it's the wrong way of doing things. you have given a one year moratorium in here for us to look at it. as we talk about this issue, one year is not enough to find out the viability orreth ka si of programs out there. they need a chance to go forward with it for their own areas and they need five to ten years to find out if the things can work. they are issues we are kochling back here. i appreciate the fact that your committee made progress and addressed the issues. i'm going to talk about those in the future. there are issues we need to do the appropriate way through bills. i thank you for your hard work. i am sad that we are doing it this way. but, to be honest, all of you, your hands are tied. you didn't have a lot of options in the way you came about this. thank you for the hard work and thank you for bringing

bipartisan bill, bipartisan amendment. boy, that's weird. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you there chairman. i thank all those that are presenters and friends of all of us and do remarkable work under the constraints that we are allowed in this body. i don't think that my friends on the republican side can honestly say that they want to fund and run government responsibly when, in fact, what we are passing with this omnibus funding package only funds it department of homeland security until february. it's my hope and i'm sure the hope of67/w all of us that no

significant or matter of harm will comeogt>ñ to any of us and citizens that we represent, but the agency with the mandate to protect the borders, these are the same border that is many of my friends, particularly on the other side continue to focus on. i think rightfully so. it is an ongoing concern. what we are experiencing right now in the final analysis on this subject is a blatant political stunt, just trying to satisfy those who are the extremists of the republican party. now, they are entitled to all of their views, but i find it ironic that despite these efforts to appease republican extremists, house republicans

are still going to have to rely on democrats to pass this bill. both now and when it comes up again in february as it pertains to homeland security. i can assure you the same extremists won't be any happier this time in february because barack obama is still going to be the president and still be in office and my view is, we need to grow up around here and stop my good friend for whom i have the greatest respect, harold the greahe seven ect, harold measure that is have beensptñ(zd and that is commendable, but i would argue that those funding bills were the easiest of the funding bill that is you and the appropriations committee had to

undertake. the five that would have involved hard choices have not been addressed, so, pretend thag all the blame rests with the senate and a lot of it does, let me be clear about that, for not passing their bills, we have to recognize and realize the partisan bill that is cater to the extremists in the republican party isn't a viable option. all we have achieved has been shifting of power from the house and committee floors to back rooms with fine young staffers who do extraordinary work and are terribly under paid, in my judgment in this institution. 1600 plus pages and she pointed to the fact that none of us have

read it more importantly, none of us have read it and few of us really understand it. that's where the rug is unlikely to come. i kind of am certain this is a prelude to the next congress, but once again, we are busy removing restrictions on big business. and their ability to pollute and destroy our natural resources. i don't know when my friends on that side are going to come to the conclusion that just letting giant corporations have their will because they are going to do the right thing. there's no clear evidence that they have done the right thing and i don't know how many more oil spills or burning rivers or factory explosions it's going to take, polluted food and damaged

people before we realize that we do need a strong and accountable regulatory system. now, mr. chairman, i would have been prepared, sight unseen, not having had an opportunity to review every aspect of this bill, i, you and all of us voted on measures a lot of times that we didn't understand. but, this one comes with two of the people bringing us a measure, alluded to by my good friend, mr. bishop as the best or the worst when george miller and john klein wind up teaming up. but, i couldn't fundamentally disagree with my two good friends, john klein and george miller more, when it comes to the matter that they are addressing and more importantly,

the process under which it's taken. i hear you when you say that discussed before. but, the arguments following on and echoing the setments of my friend and colleague of jim mcgovern. the arguments are many who oppose this particular measure comes down this way that they have not had ample time. some of them, one of the unions, the labor international union actually participated in the group that put together the program to try to address what all of us recognize as a crisis, but most of them, and i would ask unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to include the machinist international and aerial space workers a letter in opposition