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 to this measure. >> objection. >> united steel workers.

>> objection. >> the labor international union. >> objection. >> boilermakers, black smiths -- >> objection. >> and something a lot of us belong to, the american association of retired person. >> objection. >> who say the following, in their third paragraph. the lengthy and complex proposal has not been introduced. this letter was written on the third of december. the legislation has not been considered by a committee or subject to a hearing and the language has not been reviewed by members of congress and the public and those retirees who will be affected have had no opportunity to consider the impact of this legislation. yet, the proposal may be atta attached to the fiscal year 2015 omnibus and enacted without

further scrutiny. that was written on the third of december. i know they are not pres yent, so they were tracking, as others do, the progress of the legislation. i didn't include the pension rights center and i ask their letter be included as well, mr. chairman. the machinist put up a picture that everyone may not be able to see of a safe that has u.s. pensions in this huge safe. it's evidently on a wooden floor with a saw, sawing the pension safe from under there. then they write the following, which i ask mr. miller and mr. klein to respond to. in a stunning betrayal of america's highly vulnerable retiree community, members of

congress and their letter was written on the third of december as well. preparing legislation for the lame duck session to overturn the key senate for the income act. we know it as arissa, and allow drastic cuts to the pensions of current retirees. the legislation broken behind closed doors by members of the house, education and work force committee would be attached to the spending bill and could take effect without opportunity for public content. their quote is, this is nothing less than a declaration of war by congress on american retirees. that was a quote of the iam international president tom b f

buffi buffi buffingbarger. it's the wrong way to do it. does anyone doubt the trustees of such plans will not jump at the opportunity to improve the bottom line at the expense of their retired workers? the long standing promise of a secure pension system must not be overturned by unaccountable lawmakers in a lame duck session of congress. now, miss slaughter and i take great pride in being older than a lot of people. mr. rogers, you are in that category with us. >> what? [ laughter ] >> yeah. the chairman has a tendency to call everybody that comes up here the young chairman. rogers is not a young chairman and ain't nobody's chump.

he knows what he's doing and does it exceedingly well and i compliment him. no one can tell me, and i mention our age for the reason that all of us grew up in an era where you put 25 years in and you got a gold watch and everybody expected that was going to be what would happen. no one, absolutely nobody in my childhood that achieved the pension thought there would be a day that they wouldn't have that meager money in some way to go forward.f')y now, i understand that there is a problem with reference to pensions in this country. we see it startlingly in a lot of places. detroit would be a good example. the young man who shepherded that bankruptcy and trying to restore that community, i went to school with his father and

his mother lives in my constituency. i have been friends with the family a long time. he's done a remarkable job. we didn't do it that way. we didn't go through the process and now we are slamming it and i just ask you all, is it going to affect retirees who have already achieved their pension status? and if so, how much is it going to cost them for this measure if it becomes law? >> mr. miller? >> it could affect them. that's a decision the trustees and members of the union will make. right now, if we do nothing, the same retirees you are worried about have a very high likelihood of going into losing all of their benefits or going to the pbgc and getting the maximum benefit of $1100 a month

roughly, give or take. >> 12,000. >> 12,000 a year, roughly. if they are getting better than that, that's what they get, game over. we can say we didn't cut their benefits. or, do as the bill does, on a voluntaryry basis, if they believe they might be able to salvage their pension plan. say they are getting $2,000 a month. take 1750 or 15$1500 dlarls a month, it can survive ten or 15 years. they will then have to vote on it, including the retirees, who are impacted by the decision. if they do that, they may be able to, in fact, have a better pension for a longer period of time than if they are put on automatic pilot. many local unions made the

decision with their members, but they can't do it because we say not that we can cut their benefits, they can't cut their own benefits. who are we to tell these people who arencrpñ running the ridge respect to their retirement? they have one opportunity. they have one pool of money. can they make it go for a longer period of time for a greater number of people or go with the dictate they all go to a minimum benefit. if enough go to the minimum benefit, the ambulance that's carrying them runs off the road. the pbgc goes bankrupt and get nothing. we hope enough plans can take it upon themselves to think about the future and, perhaps, i don't know that this is possible because of 300 plans or so, there's eight that may be able to take keown the system by themselves. i don't know if that's going to

happen. it's quite conceivable. if nothing else, i could give them the opportunity, if we trust the dignity of the worker to decide if they can save their pension. that's all this bill does. there's no mandate here. and the one mandate is to increase premiums to see what the growing economy, with more people coming in and paying on the employee roles, we might be able to pump up the life expeck sanity. it's now between six and eight years. so -- >> they recognize the walls are closing in on them. we can give them one opportunity. my assistance, with the greem f

agreement. if you do it right, you can protect people over 75 years old and you can protect people with disability. >> that's a big if. >> if you wait, well, you can wait and they won't get any protection at all. >> do you agree, this is a radical change in 40 years of law? >> it would be a radical change if i'm cutting their benefits. it's not radical when you empower the people to make a decision on their own behalf. that would be fairly rads cal. >> the fact that it does cut -- [ laughter ] >> like voters. >> yeah. god forbid we have too many of those, you see. >> if i could, very briefly, the irony is, in the picture you showed us. there was a saw putting around,

the stas us quo is like that. if we don't take the time to add jest these to save them, it's not this legislation that is the saw. it's the status quo that is the size. >> i still argue that the process should have been more transparent and i still believe it drastically cuts the pensions. i still believe that the plans need not be in immediate danger of insol van si to take the actions we are taking. i still believe all the retirees under the age of 80 subject to cuts, up colluding widows, still believe retiree cuts, in this instance, if first result, not

last. i think what we are doing could have been done differently than to attach something to a bill. for the life of me, i don't think that's the way to go about it. >> excuse me. does the gentleman wish further time for mr. miller? >> i do. i thank you and appreciate it. i think it's important to mention this is supported by the north american building association, the plumbers, united brotherhood of carpenters. they locals voted for this. united food and commercial workers, international unit of painters and allied trade and the electrical contractors, dairy farmers of america, kelloggs, kroger, land o lakes,

penske dairy, u.p.s., others. >> you had me mr. miller until you got to that crowd. >> they are the ones with the union plans. they are the ones with the union plan. >> i thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you very much. gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> thank you. it's been great to listen to the democratic party the last few minutes. i have enjoyed it. been constructive. a couple things. four of my favorite members and i guess we have to do the pension thing at the last minute. your constituents are getting the value of their money to the very last minute of your time. i mean that in all sincerity, my friend. let me start, first, with our friends, my chairman and my

ranking member who i am proud of because i think when they took their respective positions, they walked into an appropriations process that had been broken for years before they arrived. you know, when something breaks down, usually can't wave a wand and fix it all at once. you do it step by step. i thought i made a big step last year in getting omnibus after the shutdown and the murray amendment. i thought you made more steps this year as we moved bills across the floor, some garnering large bipartisan majorities, but a normal process. i know that both of you you would liked to continue that process. to my friends on the other side, though, it is very difficult to run a normal appropriations process on one side of congress when the other side refuses to do it. it just is. at some point, your own members

begin to say, why are we voting on the bills, they are not passing them. your own leadership says why are we wasting floor time on something that will never, ever happen? we have to have a senate that functions. i actually have -- i think she has exactly the same operating style and same priorities that our chairman and ranking member do but the senate democratic leadership was not going to vote on an appropriations bill. with all due respect to my friends on the other side, they decided that last time they were in the majority, too. they got amendments, i think only two appropriations bills in 2010. so, that's how broken this system is. our two colleagues here have tried to restore it step by step. second point i want to make, i think this is important for people -- i know people in this room understand it. for other people to understand

it, this really is a bipartisan -- the product of a bipartisan negotiation. i know some of my friends on both sides of the aisle will feel like we were shut out or didn't have the opportunity. to my democratic colleagues, remember, there's a democratic senate over there. anything agreed to was agreed to with democratic senators to raise objections, concerns, negotiate. if it doesn't get through that senate, they control the majority, it isn't going to become law. as my friend pointed out from florida, you know, the president of the united states is the president of the united states. he's going to be the president of the united states until january of 2017 and he, too, has been involved in some level, his administration in negotiating this. nobody is going to walk out of this room happy in terms of getting everything that they want to get. they just -- that's not possible given the distribution of power.

it's not as if anything is being crammed down anybody's throat. we have a tough negotiation here. we also know that you can't reopen it at some point. you have to close it and bring it to closure. it's going to have things in it. i can point out a list of things i don't like. i know we passed them in a republican house and i wish my friend the chairman wof been able to maintain, but he wasn't able to do that. we just don't get everything we want when we are in that situation. i know our friends don't get everything they want. understanding, this is a bipartisan and includes the administration to get to this point, i think is important. again, there's not a member here that wouldn't prefer the normal process. i think we will continue in a bipartisan way under chairman rogers and ranking member's leadership to try to get there.

i know their counter parts in the senate want precisely the same thing. it's important for the institution and government. i think we ought to step back and look at this process as it's reconstructed over four years and maybe pat ourselves on the back more than we are inclined to do. four years ago, the budget deficit on an annual basis was $1.4 trillion. we all agree it was too much. we know we were dealing with an economic crisis. it's under $500 billion. way too high, still, but the most rapid decline and it's been done in a bipartisan way. these two leaders on appropriations have more than done their part. we are spending $165 billion less in their budget of over $1 trillion than when george w. bush was president of the united states. we can all point to that and say i wish we hadn't cut this or

that or i would prefer more of this, fwu budget has come down. appropriators authorize. we don't spend money, we save money. we do that in a bipartisan fashion. you know, if you guys would send us bills that have lower price tags on them, we would still cheat you out of more money and spend less. the people that spend money tend to be the authorizers. that's a huge accomplishment, yet, we also have things in this bill that i'm really proud of that are bipartisan. i'm glad on a bipartisan basis, we sat down on ebola. ebola doesn't care about democrats and republicans. i'm glad we have our differences. i agree with my friend on authorizations overseas. isil is an enemy of the united states of america. we have all got our different points of view. we are trying to work with the

administration and keep the country secure and do the right thing. there's additional money in there on a bipartisan basis trying to work through this. there's a lot here to be pleased about, quite frankly even though the process is not what we would want. we are going to try to make the process better. let me end with this. there's no secret in this body. john klein is probably my best friend in the united states congress and george miller is one of my very best friends certainly on the other side of the aisle. i have had the opportunity to talk about this pension problem with my friend over a cigar on more than one occasion and heard of the great frustrations, the cost. the only person that realized it was a problem was george miller, which is shocking in and of itself. i listen to the bipartisan work on this. to my friends who have concerns, you know, i think they have

worked to try, number one, to protect workers and retirees. that's the aim, to protect people who don't have the ability to protect themselves, to give them options and strengthen their hand. i think they are trying to protect the taxpayers. we know if the system goes bankrupt, the taxpayer is going to get it. as the system collapses, they are going to be drown into it. you know, you protect a lot of businesses at the same time. that will go broke, then put people out of work. again, i would prefer, as my friends do, we have this on a longer process. but this is the last train out of dodge. i don't see any likelihood that we are going to get a better the next congress. this has been worked hard by people who know it. it's a huge accomplishment. i would argue what they have accomplished is something we ought to look at. we need to do it with the

retirement system with the united states, social security as well in a bipartisan way. we come and negotiate and look at how to keep the system sol vant. they have done this. they have done it for, you know, tens of thousands, really, millions of workers, put them in a better position, protected the taxpayers and i'm very pleased that my chairman, mr. rogers is allowing them to catch a ride on his very overburdened train and made room for them. let me end with this. the next 48 hour, 72 hours is going to be pretty important. i don't know anybody here who wants a government shutdown. we all think it's a bad thing. i think it's a bad thing. i was opposed when it happened over a year ago. voted to reopen the government and the compromise measurements. easy to say no around here. easy to thump your chest, but we need to get things done. this bill gets things done for the american people.

it preserves the opportunity to do more going forward. this pension deal is a huge, huge victory for the american people, the american taxpayer. while i can point out a lot of things on this that i don't like or that i know other members will have objection to, i usually ask them, what is the alternative. it's almost never realistic. we can get everybody that agrees with us on everything, then the senate will sign on board and the president of the united states will look at the bill and go, ah, my goodness, i had no idea, i have been wrong 20 years. i guess i will sign this. if you don't remember what a government shutdown is like, you must have a short memory. it's not a good way to govern. it's not good for the american people. it's one of the cases where we put our partisan differences ahead of the interest of the people that send us here when ever we stumble into that.

i appreciate what all four of you and your members have done. i had the opportunity to participate a bit in my area in appropriations in this process working with my friend the chairman and working with my partner, debbie wasserman schultz. the senate almost messed it up then. it's amazing. amazing. that's where a lot of our challenges have been. at the end of the day, this has been worked hard. when people say it's new, it's not. a lot of this stuff is product of the bills that cross the floor, been worked on in committee, been a great partnership between our chairmen and ranking member. i know they have concerns. i know they will make decisions that are important. they deserve our support in this. mr. miller and mr. klein certainly deserve it. they are here representing the

interest of people at risk and cannot represent themselves if we don't give them the tools to do it. they have tried to do it nobly in the bill. good product. i yield to my friend. >> thank you. a lot of people have asked about mr. klein's and my relationship. since you alluded to it, we can let the secret out of the box. a number of years ago when i was new to the minority and he was new to the majority, we didn't know each other. you invited us to have a cigar. it almost got to a two-cigar meeting. we had a range of meetings over the several years without animosity, agree/disagree, it's all possible. and that has worked. people speculated about my relationship with speaker boehner when he was chair of the education committee. johnny asked us to come together

and share a dinner with him. we were able to have a conversation forever on. not rarely agrees, but certainly not being disagreeable as speaker o'neil used to say. i thank you for the cigar. i gave them up 15 years before that meeting and i tried not to smoke them since then. thank you. [ laughter ] >> yield back, mr. chairman. >> well, first, i'll start with wanting to thank mr. miller and mr. klein as was pointed out the pension benefit guarantee is expected to be bankrupt in six years. it puts workers and unions at great risk, not to take action and of course, the fact that mr. klein and mr. miller can agree on a reasonable action to take is testimony to their dedication to the cause.

there's not great political rewards for doing this, it's the discussion of doing the right thing. i would like a letter of support, people who sign the letter of support. among those who have extended their support of this reform are service employees international union, operating engineers, plumbers, carpenters, joiners, food and commercial workers, painters and allied trades, a number of other group that is added their voice, not joyfully, but out of necessity to the need to reform these programs. i thank both the gentlemen for their hard work on doing this. moving to the budget, i wanted to ask mr. rogers, approximately $1.1 trillion in spending. how much is deficit spending in the bill?

>> we abide by the budget caps on the budget act of two years ago. >> what is the deficit? how much of the spending is >> did the gentleman yield? >> i'll be happy to further -- >> this committee, with the congressional support hasrk x the last four years, since 2010. we continue. the problem, the deficit is coming from the entitlement programs. we appropriate a third of federal spending.

>> i believe -- i believe in the conventional calculations, they don't include the entitlement programs in that. they are reports on the operating deficit. those are the numbers i have seen. the deficit would be larger than any of us lead the american people to believe if we have unfunded liabilities. >> my point is, in answer to your question, we have reduced discretionary spending every year. i think this year it's a little bit -- yeah, $1 billion higher than the previous year. the other years, we reduced spending every year. in the meantime, that's a third of the federal spending. in the meantime, entitlement programs over which the congress has refused to change.

so, that's where the deficit is coming from. >> i do want to yield to my colleague in a moment, assuming he wants the time. are you still seeking time? i think, again, we are talking two different things. you are not going to find disagreement from me with regard to ensuring the stability of our entitlement programs fiscally. that is not part of the calculation of the current accounts deficit, which is spending minus income. and i just think it's important chair doesn't know, perhaps a ranking member knows. obviously, an estimate would be sufficient here because we all -- it depends on the actual receipts. approximately how much of the $1.1 trillion in spending is deficit spending? i'll go to the ranking member.

>> i'm trying to understand the point you are making because i know how important the funding that we are providing in this bill. in fact, the discretionary spending is the lowest it's been, i believe, in 45 years because, as the chairman mentioned, the entitlement accounts are increasing. >> is it the lowest, as a percentage of gdpn actual terms or what measure of method? >> if i'm not mistaken, the lowest it's been in 45 years -- >> just to clarify, inflation adjusted, percentage of gdp -- >> percentage of gdp. >> it's a very valid way to measure it. >> i would also like to say, we are constrained by the rules of the caucus.

as you know, there was a budget control act. >> yeah. >> and you're certainly aware of the mandate we were given and the numbers we were given. then there was the -- i want to make one other point because i think it's important. in fact, there is barely an increase in this appropriations package from the last bill that was passed. i think this is really, really important. but, i'm trying to understand exactly the point you are -- >> no, no. those are good points. obviously, a deficit -- an operating deficit is a function of income as well and receipt. that's not the discussion we are having here. this is appropriations, not ways

and means, we are talking about what the final calculation and how much more we have spent and expect to spend in this budget year than taken in. that was my question to the chairman. i don't know if he found an answer. >> when you total up the two-thirds of spending, which is entitlements, one-third is appropriations. my understanding is that the deficit calculation by the white house for this year is around $500 billion. that's the total -- >> are you saying that includes the entitlement programs? did mr. klein, i know he's a different committee. >> what i hate to venture sitting next to the chairman, but the gentleman from colorado, when he talks about unfunded liabilities going forward, that is not included in this. as i understand it, when you compute the budget and spending,

money in and money out, the money spent for those entitlements is included in that. that's how you get the $500 billion. >> i believe, maybe we can ask, the entitlements are close to break even. i don't know if they are a slight surplus or deficit. is it a surplus or deficit from the entitlements? >> this is a topic you need to take up with budget. the budget committee. we don't do the calculations you are talking about. >> we are doing the operating expenditures here. i don't believe, i mean you mentioned entitlement several times. i don't believe they are a meaningful thing to it. the issue is the unfunded liabilities there. the current accounts, it's slightly positive or slightly negative. it used to be slightly positive for several years. >> i want to make sure we are responding. >> sure.

>> we were constrained by the budget control act. >> yes. >> and we were given a number as a result of the murray-ryan agreement -- >> yes. >> -- that followed up. when we came up, we didn't have discretion to do a 1.5, 1.6 -- >> right. >> the number we were given was 1.1. i'm trying to -- >> i want to be clear. i'm not throwing the deficit at mr. roger's feet. it's not my goal in this endeavor. i realize we have a goal that was agreed upon. my goal is to highlight for the american people in this bill how much of the $1.1 trillion is deficit spending, not to say it was mr. roger's idea to do the deficit spending. that's not what i'm insinuating. i was asking how much of the $1.1 trillion is deficit spending.

well, i'll go back to mr. rogers, once more. perhaps i can get a -- >> happy to, yes. >> the deficit is off the entire budget. it's not off one piece or the other. what we are trying -- what they are trying to suggest to you is that, literally 60% of the budget, 40% being discretionary. it comes off the buckets that contribute and example is social security. there's 10,000 people or were 10,000 people a day retiring that were then taking money out rather than putting money in. i do have those figures. i don't have them at the ready, but i would be glad to give them to you. i think they are good and appropriate questions. i'm simply saying, that's not a baring for this. >> thank you. i look forward to getting the answers to the questions. i think the american people want

to know how much of this is deficit spending. i don't believe social security is at all contributing in a meaningful way to the deficit. it might be in the surplus. it's been a surplus. perhaps we were in the crossing point where it's a slight deficit. it's not -- it's not -- the bigger piece is the operational spending in this bill. this is the bill that, if passed, will lead to some deficit spending. i look forward to getting the answer and we can highlight that on the floor tomorrow before the vote. i yield back. >> thank you very much. the gentleman of colorado yields back. if you will excuse me. we are on a four-vote series right now. the votes have just started. we are going to make sure we get everybody out in time for the first vote. we are going to encourage people to continue moving through the

questions so we can get through this first panel. that is the goal we are trying to operate on. gentleman from georgia recognized. >> i will try to be brief. i don't pretend as i sit beside three reams of paper that i'm enthusiastic about this bill. mr. chairman, do you remember when we passed the first appropriations bill this year in the house? >> the last week of april. >> it was april. it was april! i think about my friend from massachusetts and his optimism, if only we were to stay here two or three days something would happen with your partners on the senate and we would be able to do these things one by one. it was this bill that you passed in april. it was this one. it funded the veteran's administration. it passed with one no vote. it was that good. it was that good. it was over six months ago and not a thing has come back from the united states senate. i don't know where we go, if we

don't go there. if you remember the second bill you passed, you may try to dismiss the fruitless efforts, but it was a day later on may 1st. it was a branch bill. it passed with 92% support. it was a brief, as we see here, 40 pages. every member had a chance to read it and digest it. more importantly, you opened the process, we got a chance to offer amendments to them. it is with great frustration that all of those good efforts culminate here. i'm not going to have a single constituent at home who finds fault with the way you have run your committee and the opportunity we have had to be involved in that. i am not going to find a single constituent at home that thinks

this is the way. not one. it's been that way the four years i have been in congress despite your best efforts. if i can take one bit of comfort away, you are chairing the committee the next cycle, you will be delivering bite size pieces of funding legislation that generate support from every corner of this institution. every one of us has a chance to have our voice heard on the legislation on the floor of the house. maybe for the first time in a long time, you will have a partner in the united states senate to work with you on that process. i can't defend the indefensible, but you can't beat somebody with nobody and the alternative to this somebody of a monstrosity of an appropriations bill is nothing because that's what we have gotten back from your partner across the way. if onrhsn! folks could see and remember the way that you ran the railroad, the way we ran the

railroad. again, one no vote. 92% support. d.o.d. bill, ucxg78% support. this is an exercise that is part and parcel to the united states constitution. our responsibilities and golly, i hope your four years of fruitless efforts will be met with a partner come this spring. i don't mean to suggest the gentleman from kentucky does it by himself, i know it's a team sport on the appropriations committee. it just -- i can't express the disappointment that what we do day in and day out is what the american people expect us to do, what they would be proud of us for doing and it goes across the aisle to die. this is what the american people are going to take away as the way that congress runs the railroad. that's not the way you would run

it. that is not the way chairman rogers would run it or you, either, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> appreciate the gentleman's comments. that was meant an attribute to you who got this done. >> to echo those words, we went through it with the ndaa. we had over 300 amendments on that piece of legislation back in may and the senate never brought it up. just like they never brought up any of the appropriations bills at all. it's an indictment on the senate. that's why we get put in a box every year when that happens. i want to really thank, obviously the aprop yea tors, the chairman, mr. klein and mr. miller. you know, what you did takes guts.

we have heard others here. we talk about entitlement reform, social security and things we have to take care of. we hear from the managers of those fund that is are going to be insolvent if we do nothing. this body doesn't like to do stuff. what you did takes guts to do. you did the right thing, though, because you are allowing the pensioners to take control themselves. or those future pensioners to take control. reading up some of the pensions we are talking about are $3300, currently. if they go into the fund, they get cut by two-thirds to 1,000 bucks. that's a big deal. so, you are giving them the ability to control their own destiny. we need to start having those same frank discussions as it relates to all entitlements. when you start talking about,

you know, two-thirds on auto pilot, that creates a problem for us, sooner or later. we can ignore it at our peril, but the retirees peril. that's not where we want to go. i hope we find more courage like mr. miller and mr. klein to move forward on other tough topics. i just want to, in this season, this christmas season, is to thank you for doing the tough work and not just letting it. you could easily walk away mr. miller. you are retiring. you could say it's not my fight, but you care. you can tell in the passion of your words that you care about the american worker. thank god for people that do. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> chairman yields back his time. chairman from orlando, florida, is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman, i have one thing to say.

flawed process produces a flawed product every single time. i'm sad we are here, where we are. it is what it is. time made the decision for us, nothing else. yield back. >> chairman yields back his time. i did not get a chance, i will waive my right to -- i want to say thank you. thank you to each of you, mr. miller, for your years of service, your passion to the end, thank you very much. mr. chairman klein thank you for much. chairman rogers, i hope our paths cross again, god speed. we are going to recess. call to chair at the end of the last --

the house rules committee in recess now subject to the call of the chair. members going to the floor of the house for a series of votes there and then the house rules committee expected to continue its work today on the $1.1 trillion federal spending bill that republicans filed last night. the bill almost funds all the federal government through september 2015. the one exception, the homeland security department, which is funded through february. congressional quarterly report that is house republicans hope to have the votes to pass the package once it gets to the floor despite conservatives angry about policy writers and lack of aggressive language on immigration. meanwhile, the associated press is reporting the democratic support for the $1.1 trillion spending bill faded on wednesday

as liberal lawmakers erupted over a provision that weakens the risky financial instruments and another that allows money to flood into political parties. chris van hollen of maryland said i'm not going to support it. i have found lots of provisions against the public interest. i find it1k/5ñ surprising they threatening to shut down the government for big benefits for big bang at the expension of consumers and taxpayers. the a.p. quoting the house budget ranking member chris van hollen. josh earnest was asked about the comments about chris van hollen's lack of support for the mesh at today's briefing. we will show you that now. >> a couple questions,[ ff hopey they are short. >> i'll do my best to answer them. >> chris van hollen, while you were speaking, his announcement, you should take the internet

away from us. he's announced he's going to be voting against this because he's very concerned about it lifting campaign financezzú%ñ

it does have but, because this is such an important piece of legislation, it is garnering the kind of attention and review that you would expect from the executive branch.

we have had folks who were up very late last night and early this morning trying to understand what impact they would have on policy. >> back live on capitol hill, the house rules committee this afternoon is meeting to work on the 1.1 trillion dollar federal spending bill only the department of homeland security is funded through february. 5.4 billion is in the measure to combat ebola. funding is set to expire this week, december 11. our live coverage will continue

when members return and resume their meeting. members now on the house floor voting. on capitol hill yesterday, senator elizabeth warn criticized what she called the revolving door between wall street executives and the treasury department.7>"c this was hosted by americans for financial reform institute. we will show it to you now during this break in the house rules committee. i want to welcome you and thank you all for come iing quickly s something about what we hope to do this afternoon next week's

meet i meeting meeting will be the future argument about many things. but raising interest rates is likely to hurt job growth and throw a damper on economic recovery. what if there were alternative ways to approach dealing with bubbles and other dangers. and the work that the fed is

doing put these in place but we think they are very important questions and that they need more attention and we want to dig in further. for many of us, putting these pieces together is part of our deeping focus of the fundamentally important relations between the financial system, regulation and how the real economic works or fails to work. in order to keep inflationary pressure in check. then there will be a second keynote and the second panel will examine the financial regulatory toolsvawzz available for senator warren. we are very fortunate to have the senator with us today.

we have been lucky enough to work with the senator on the creation of the new consumer production bureau. senator warren? [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you all. thank you for the kind introduction. thank you for this chance to be able to join all of you here today. today's event focuses on how the federal reserve can use its monetary tools to promote economic growth.

the fed has always had dual responsibilities. but in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, congress gave the fed even more regulatory and soup visery authority than it the new chair of the fed, janet yellen, just realized that soup visery responsibilities are just as important as setting interest rates and conducting monetary policy. i think the lapses that led to the 2008 crisis drove that point home with searing intensity the fed is now our first line of defense against another crisis, and we have made progress through the dodd frank act -- even so, the risk of another crisis remains unacceptably high take one example

this summer, the fed and the fdic determined that 11 of the country's biggest banks have no credible plan for being resolved in bankruptcy that means that if anyone of ;d them takes on too much risk and starts to fail, the taxpayers would have to bail it out to prevent another crash we are all relying on the fed to stop that from happening, which means we are all relying on the fed to get tough in regulating the biggest banks. the question is whether the bank regulators can do the job we need them to do. that raises an issue about the influence of wall street on financial regulation and economic policy. it affects the head and the other banking regulators, the treasury department, and our government's entire economic

policymaking structure. let's look at some facts fact one: wall street spends a lot of time and money influencing congress public citizen found that in the run-up to dodd frank, the financial services sector employed 1447 former employees to carry out their lobbying efforts, including 73 former members of congress. according to a report at the institute for america's future, i 2010, the six used tanks -- the six biggest banks employed 243 lobbyists who once worked in federal government, 33 who had been chief of staff, and for members of congress and 54 who had worked as staffers for the

banking oversight committees in the senate and house. that is a lot of former government employees and congressman pounding on congress to make sure that the big banks get heard. no surprise that the financial industries made more than $1 million a day lobbying congress on financial reform, and a lot of that money went to a former q elected officials and government employees. fact two: wall street dedicates enormous time and money to influencing regulatory policy. a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization took a look at all of the meeting laws from 2010 to 2012.

it found that three agencies reported meeting with one of the 20 big banks, or banking associations, a combined 12.5x a week that is about five times as often that works out to nearly 1300 meetings over two years goldman in jpmorgan each met with those agencies at least 175 times, or nearly twice per week every week, on average. keep in mind, that is the count out of only three of the seven major regulators. fact three: democratic administrations have filled in a norma's number of senior economic policy decisions with people who have close ties to wall street.

starting with robert rubin, a former citigroup ceo, three of the last four treasury secretaries under democratic presidents have had citigroup affiliations before or after their treasury service the fourth was offered, but declined, citigroup's ceo position the new vice chairman of the federal reserve was a citigroup executive. directors of the national economic council, the office of management and does budget, and senior officials at the treasury department, have also had citigroup ties that is a record for just one single bank many other senior officials in recent administration have had ties to goldman, jpmorgan, bank of america, organ stanley, -- morgan stanley. some officials were lawyers who spent huge portions of their careers representing wall street institutions. this is the revolving door at

in virtually every economic policy discussion held in washington, the point of view of wall street banks is well represented. so well represented, in fact, they have often crowded out other points of view. that is the kind of context for thinking of the nomination of antonia weiss. he spent the last 20 years at the investment bank and has been named under-secretary for domestic finance at the treasury department. he is focused on international, corporate mergers, companies buying and selling each other. it may be interesting, challenging work, but it does not sufficiently qualify him to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the treasury department. in addition to his lack of basic

qualification, mr. weiss was part of the burger king inversion deal that moved the u.s. company to canada as part of a merger that would cut down on its tax obligations. also note that mr. weiss's friends are giving him a golden parachute valued at about $20 million as he goes into government service. for me, this is just one 9)jb the revolving door too many. enough is enough. the response to these concerns has been, let's say, loud. first, his supporters say, come he is an investment banker, so of course he should be qualified to oversee complicated financial work at treasury. but his defenders haven't shown

that his actual experience qualifies him for this job. a bought professor who teaches financial regulation at georgetown wrote a good piece about this last week. he looked at each of the functions of the under-secretary's position, and as he put it, "almost none event relates to the work of an investment banker doing international m&a." the former chief economist of the imf now teaches at m.i.t., and he agrees. he noticed that this position is "the third most senior official in the executive branch with

regard to fiscal decision-making." then he goes on to say, "it is hard to think of any senior fiscal official from thea serious country as we get those of mr. weiss." these professors are right. i worked at treasury and i know how critical this position is to financial regulation issues. despite what some of weiss's supporters have said, the job isn't just to handle the u.s. treasuries to foreign investors, and even if it were, weiss is a corporate dealmaker not a bond trader. one professor makes another good point. "the shock of mr.ln$֖ weiss's supporters that anyone would dare question his suitability reflects an unspoken assumption that anyone from wall street is of course expert in all things financial." that is hooey. i agree. we would all scratch our heads isf the president nominated a theoretical physicist to be the

surgeon general because she had a background in science. it is no less puzzling for the president to nominate a national merger specialist to handle largely domestic economic issues at treasury because he has a background in finance. second, weiss's supporters say that burger king isn't a 4

go down a lot. but no matter how many burger king executives lineup in the newspapers to say that they have other motives, this is an inversion deal, and mr. weiss was right in the middle of it. this matters because at the end of the day, the administration undercuts its own opposition to# this practice by nominating someone to a high-profile cross-border inversion. who, by the way, made $50 million in the last two years in a firm that did three of the four major announced inversions. it isn't an american company. it already moved to bermuda because it's taxes are lower.

third, and maybe you can help me understand this argument -- people say opposition to mr. weiss is unreasonable because -- wait for it -- he likes poetry. [laughter] i am actually not kidding.ñ(>$r supposedly because he helped push a literary magazine called "the paris review," we should trust that he would zealously pursue financial reform. i confess, i don't read any literary magazines, but really? if you like to monster truck racing, with that show that he supported wall street bailouts? i don't get what his hobby has to do with overseeing consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the treasury department. so what is this really all about? why call out the cavalry for a guy whose experience doesn't match the job he has been nominated for?

why a guy who is picking up $20 million to take on a public service job? it is all about the revolving door. that's well oiled mechanism that sends wall street executives to make policies and government, and sends government policymakers straight back to wall street. weiss defenders are all in, loudly defending the were holding door and telling america how lucky we are that wall street is willing to run the economy and the government. in fact, weiss's even defend the

golden parachutes like the $20 million payment that weis will receive for taking this government job. they say it is an important tool in making sure that wall street executives will continue to be willing to work on government policy. if that sounds ridiculous to you, you are not alone. sheila bair, a republican, responded that "only in the wonderland of wall street logic could one argue that this looks like anything other than a bribe." she went on, "we want

people entering public service because they want to serve the public. frankly, if they needed $20 million incentive, i would rather they stay away." why does the revolving door matter? because it beans that too much of the time, the wind blows from the same direction. time after time in government, the wall street view prevails, and time after time, conflicting views are crowded out. consider the deregulation that the banking industry -- the deregulation of the banking industry, followed by a no strings attached the bank bailout in the aftermath of the 2008 when angel crisis.

most recently, the anemic efforts to help homeowners who had been systematically cheated by financial giant. the wind always blows in the same direction. the impact of the revolving door can sometimes be subtle. ignoring phone calls from former colleagues, advancing policies that could hurt future employers. relationships matter and anyone who doubts that wall street's outside influence in washington has watered down our government's approach toward too big to fail banks has had their eyes deliberately closed. take one example. brown kaufman was a commitment to the dodd frank act that would have broken up the largest financial institutions. that amendment might have

passed, but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between wall street are's in government and wall streeters still on wall street. the hand-in-hand on this was not subtle. a senior treasury official publicly knowledge -- publicly acknowledged it. too many people at jobs -- have jobs based on who they know and not what they know. too many others who might have brought a different perspective to this work get crowded out. i know that there are experienced and innovative -eìá% who are qualified for top economic positions in government. when i set up the new consumer financial protection bureau, i interviewed, i hired, and i worked alongside many people would wall street experience, and i was glad to do so. in the senate, i have voted for plenty of nominees with wall street experience. but we need a balance. not every person who sweeps in

through the revolving door should be offered a top job without some serious cross-examination. qualifications matter. weiss doesn't have them. this is about building counter pressure on wall street bankers. members of congress, their staff and regulatory agencies, are going to hear the wall street perspective loud and clear, each and every minute of each and every day. that isn't going to change. but we need a real mix of people in the room when decisions are made. when the president has an opportunity to decide who will be at the financial decision-making table, he should think about who knows the economics of job creation, about community banks and access to finance, about who has the skills and determination to make sure that the biggest banks can't take down our economy again. the titans of wall street have succeeded in pushing government policy that made mega banks rich beyond imagination. while leaving working families to struggle from payday to payday. so long as the revolving door keeps spinning, government policies will continue to favor wall street over main street. i hope you will join me in saying enough is enough. thank you. [laughter] [applause] >> [ applause ]

>> all right. thank you so much senator warren. now we are ready for our first -- >> that event with senator warren from yesterday. the boston globe reporting today that senator elizabeth warren spoke out against a broad cased spending bill negotiated by her colleagues because it removes a safeguard from the dod frank financial overhaul. we can't just let them slip in grenades that blow up pieces of financial regulations, warren said in an interview. she spoke on the senate floor just as house minority leader released a statement opposing the provision as well. that is from the boston globe today. the house rules committee is in recess. a live look here at the

committee meeting room. the members are voting on the house floor. our live coverage will continue when today's meeting on the $1.1 trillion federal spending bill continues shortly. federal funding expires thursday so this longer term bill is headed for the house floor and we get details on it now from capitol hill reporter. >> this isn't your typical catch-all. this one includes this 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill and includes long term and short term spending bill? >> it's being called a com any bus. it includes 11 of 12 annual appropriations bill.

>> why did they decide to make that deadline february 27th? >> it' the way that house republican leaders have decided to force a fight with the president on his executive actions on immigration. there were conservatives in their party who wanted to cop front the president now but this was the compromise. the white house that same week also called for $6.2 billion in emergency funding to fight ebola both at home and abroad. >> brian:uators gave them about 5.4 billion of that?

>> the biggest one right now is a dod frank related amendment that republicans -- a dodd frank policy writer. basically it would require banks to push out the derivatives business from the part of them that is federally insured. that is proving to be a big sticking point with democrats.

it would up the limits that conventions. >> it leaves taxpayers on the hook and undoes critical campaign finance reforms. what does this mean in terms of democratic support when the final vote comes on thursday?

>> it seems for the moment that democrats are free to choose however they want. we do think that housev republicans would need some democrats to bring this spending bill over the line. >> there is a core group of hard line conservatives that tend to vote against most spending bills that we see. there's a group that a few dozen of them, they are really pushing for the inclusion of a policy writer that would bar fund iing although speaker john boehner has said that will not be included in this spending bill and as it stands now that language is not in there. >> as we mentioned, she is on

twitter and on cq.com. we appreciate you joining us. >> thank you very much. >> back live on capitol hill where the house rules committee is meeting today. it is expected on the floor tomorrow. pete sessions in the middle of your screen facing the camera we expect the meeting to get started again shortly. national journal reporting this jampb that it is beginning to dozens ofuéré policy writers an house minority leader is calling on republicans to remove two particular sections of the bill

that she said are destructive separate votes on a three day continuing resolution and the larger scheduled for the afternoon. that again from the national journal reporting on the measure today. again our live coverage of the rules committee here on c-span 3. the meeting should begin here shortly.

>> thank you very much. the meeting will come to order. we have a very distinguished panel that is here and i want to go quickly if i can, to two members. miss holmes norton will be first. i know there are a couple of other people that we want to place at the table. without objection, anything we have in writing will be entered into the record. if you could grab that microphone and turn that buttton where the light comes on. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate your indulgence.

let me just summarize my testimony. i'm asking my good friends to hold to their own principles about local control local government, federalism. one of them i recognize traditionally has an amendment. the other is new. that is the abortion amendment. the other is new and prohibits the district from spending its on funds on enact iing the marijuana law. i would like to put on the record that there is an alternative view to the republican-led house appropriation view. their bill, their version blocks

dc's marijuana rider that legalizes very small amounts of wanted to come and put it on the record. in order to preserve the ability of the district to review, analyze and interpret. my amendment is based on a plain reading of the bill and ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. the original amendment contained language that is not in this bill. it was taken out of this bill.

it can be argue d. it does not require enactment of any kind or any new rules for implementation. and finally, i want to only say that i don't know what motivated the four or five increasing number of jurisdictions that legalize marijuana but the district had a very special reason. particularly a young african-american man with a drug conviction is essentially ruled out of society. the city felt it had to go ahead

and take away this stigma. the funds that would have i have already been spent. we think our interpretation is the best. i would simply leave behind my testimony and not proceed any further. >> thank you very much. does anyone have a question on the panel? is there anyone on the democrat side? the gentleman seeks

recommendation? >> judge? judge? the gentleman from colorado? >> i just wanted to emphasize how important this is. my state was one of the first along with washington too legalize and regulate the sale of marijuana. the congress through several votes in the -- one of the. >> brian:s bills where we voted not to enforce federal marijuana laws. i would hope that dc would be afforded that same discretion. the most compelling we have found in colorado is legalization has decreased the marijuana use rate by minors by over 5%, which is certainly one of the goals. i hope that washington's initiative will see a similar

decrease in marijuana use year. >> and that's why i'm happy to join the host in supporting the amendment. mk to have a question? i have one question for the gentlewoman. years ago, years ago the percentage of funds that were at kated for health care in the district of columbia, an as troe nom call amount of that was for drug overdoses.

>> drug use and it was cocaine and crack cocaine has gone down astro nomically. last thing i want to see is marijuana become a gateway drug. it's interesting that alcohol, when people tend to start using it, use it for the rest of their lives. people's drug they tend to outgrow it. even if one were to use marijuana, 80% of those who get the convictions are african-americans, even if one gets a conviction for marijuana normally kids who go college don't have that conviction. it chases them for the rest of their lives. the health effects and i want to

say this, we don't know the health effects of marijuana. >> i think we do. >> we know what the effects of smoking was and then some early reports about young people and brain interference, the last thing we wanted to do is to see anyone smoke marijuana, but worse than that, mr. chairman, is having a conviction that keeps you from ever getting a job because you possessed small amounts of marijuana. >> yes, ma'am. thank you very much. >> could i make sure -- i said, it's off of the amendment, i am to strike the amendment. >> i know you were here for a long time and i'm trying to respect that, man is recognized. >> thank you. ranking member slaughter.

oi do appreciate the chance to take a few minutes to ask you to consider an amendment. it's a simple and straig straightforward amendment. what i am proposing is we provide the department of homeland security with not a short term cr but a long term. and that continuing resolution contain sufficient adjustments to bring the bill's total amount up to the level in the in the bill or the bill that has been prepared and to provide the department with sufficient flexibility to address needs and priorities identified.

in order, a full year cr with sufficient anomalies as we call them to address the needs of the department as they have been identified by the appropriations committees over the course of preparing this bill. in ways that he needs to. from terrorist threats to secure our borders to enforce immigration laws, to continue to recapitalize the coast guard and so forth. i know colleagues this is not the best course of action. it's not my first choice. the homeland security bill has been completed in both chambers.

i have not heard justified reasoning. but limiting to an jurn lying agreement is certainly a bad idea. it will limit the ability to aggressively move ahead. it will create uncertainty to detain and deport dangerous criminals, to transfer unaccompanied children. it would delay needed procurements, acquisition at the eighth national security. it would delay security to prevent fence jumper intrusions i realize the enacting only a short term cr or i know what has been in the press about that about the desire to keep the administration on a short leash, so to speak. so early next year there could

be pressure exerted to perhaps reverse the president's executive order. >> you could have a senate filibuster, a veto, a threat and shut down of the homeland security department. i don't see how that is an outcome that really meets any objective. i am joined in this by the four minority members, three additional minority members of the homeland security members sub committee. that was negotiated in good faith on a bipartisan basis. it addresses the most presses needs of the department. short of that i urge the

committee to permit consideration of this amendment so we can have a year long cr to let the department meet its needs. >> i would like to go to the committee. is there a democrat that has any questions? i thank the gentleman. is there any republican that has a question? gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i appreciate the thoughtfulness in sorting through this. i don't dispute that at all. is it any surprise to you, though, once the president did what he did in the complete

absence of any kind ofgz78 legislative action that we are? >> we don't need to debate the executive order. that's not what you're asking me here and i won't do that. i will tell you that, yes, i am surprised by this tactic. there will be many ways to address that and deal with it. it seems like an odd move to me to freeze the homeland security department's funding for several months as a way of doing this. i mean, if this is about border security and immigration enforcement, then why would you cut hundreds of millions of

dollars on this? yes, i think it is a surprising tactic. >> the only tool we had to use was the appropriations tool. i would love to explore with you what some of the other tools might be that we should use going forward. it is a tiresome tactic to have to come back to the appropriations committee as our only line of defense. and i thank the gentleman for being here and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. further questions from the committee? i thank the gentleman. |to answer your question, i think i'm more concerned about the policy and it has a lot to

do with your ability to control through money. so what we're trying to do on this side is to say that we're going fund it and have a discussion. we will see if we can figure out the right policy and go forth. anything that we really do view that is a threat against this country. it's not really money, it's policy and that's what we're trying to get at. >> there is a real danger of swinging one policy and hitting another. >> the gentleman makes a great point there. i have taken time and the speaker has taken time to talk to the chairman of the homeland security committee. about these types of activities. you will hear me say in a few

minutes that we're going to quickly, quickly take this action up in the new congress. i appreciate you being here. thank you david for taking time. i know you have been here a long time this afternoon. i appreciate the gentleman doing it. >> thanks to you and the whole committee. >> yes, sir. okay. we now are going have what i would call the mulvaney panel. mr. price is going leave. >> mr. price is welcome to stay. >>if he wants to stay. i know that there are any number of members around here including the gentleman and mr. king. anybody that chooses to, if you want to pull up a chair, i am delighted. in fact that you are here. and i was i am delighted that you're doing this. i yield myself such time as i may consume for a statement. dave if you want to sit there or

anybody? okay. i would like to make one thing very perfectly clear today as you join us. and that is that at the on set of this panel, i want to let you know that i, too, am firmly opposed to the president's actions that he has taken. i believe what is called the executive amnesty plan is exactly that and do not support it and believe we should do something about it. let me repeat that the immigration proposals are unwise, unlawful, i do not support them despite what you may read in leading edge blogs around the country. i have not changed my position one bit that i have held over a number of years. i have openly talked but i have also openly defended my party, the party of abraham lincoln,

teddy roosevelt and ronald reagan. when people show up at this committee it's my responsibility and my duty to protect our conference as people come here some people like to take out of context my comments. i don't like that. you wouldn't like it either. you would not like to be treated that way. as we go through this prosays it requires everybody, everybody's ideas, some i agree with and some i disagree with. but i believe those in this country illegally can pose a threat to this country. they can pose a threat because we don't know who they are, they don't follow the law. some are people like what we had in boston, two of the 30,000 special interest aliens the rule

of law must be uphelt and applied regarding all the people that are here. there is a process and sometimes we know all the processes and sometimes we don't. with that said i also believe that whatever we do we must do lawfully. a couple of weeks ago there was a question that arose and a real question was asked. my very deer friend from alabama who asked from the congressional research service. they supplied him with a report they laid out that congress can do something about the actions that the president took even if it is a fee based fund. however, i don't believe that they gave enough of an answer to where we all completely

understood the answer. so i went back to crs and received a letter which each of you have received a copy of. it was talked about this morning in conference. about 200 of us were there. i asked crs to further explain the process. according to the information which they have put in writing that to defund the president's actions, the underlying question would need to be changed. that means that as we have done in the past in appropriation pros sess, process, that is called an omnibus. with agreement with the senate, and they were changed. and the president signed that. the same wo'j be required under this action it is a fee-based plan and the fee based plan can

change we can make it an appropriations and be responsible for it but as crs said, that would require the house, the senate, and the president agreeing to that. therein lies the problem. i just want to make sure that as we speak about all of this that you would understand i have the same concerns and i believe every member of our committee does. every member of the rules committee has spoken with me about this disdain for what the president did. the question then becomes what do you do about it? today in the washington examiner, they really weighed in on this issue and took the what i would call the jeff session crs question and answer and the pete sessions question and answer from 0ñtcrs and they examined and reminded us that

the white house would have to agree to it and the senate would. by tomorrow night. if we put it in the bill, what it could mean is a weapon that would be played back against us. so before we get started today, i would like to acknowledge and thank each of you for accepting my offer to come up and spend a full hour with me today for you to offer not just an explanation but once again a dialogue. not of frustrations but of expectations. and each of you to a person express to me things which i so strongly agree with. but, i will tell you tonight as we get started that the difference that i believe i have is not the policy and not the amendment. mr. mulvaney has given us an amendment that works perfectly

well. i have asked staff, does this get it done? i am pleased to tell you that i will guarantee you that the rules committee in the new congress in the first two weeks session where we all go off campus and we develop our plans for the year, we're going to have a rules committee meeting. we're going to bring back the amulvaney amendment which i completely agree with, and we are going to be able to use the sustaining new members that are nine new members of the senate to where they can then judiciously take this act up and it will actually get a hearing. it will actually be talked about by them as a body as opposed to ignored or used as a weapon against anybody that is opposed to shutting down the government in the next day.

i appreciate you, and i want to express to a person. we spent some time and actually found just common ground, a lot of it. i want you to know that your testimony tonight, your standing up for what you believe is very important. it's important to myself. it's important to these committee members. i'm delighted that you are here. mr. mulvaney, i want you to know that regardless of what your argument is tonight, we're going to accept the amendment by the second week of january. and we're going to come back here -- i hope you do well enough to get invited back. and your testimony tonight means a whole lot to the members on this committee. and we're going to iñ%vuxe new members of congress who have been elected and they will have a chance to come fight this battle. and that's what people have asked for. and new senators.

but i will assure you that you will have a chance with a rules committee chairman and a committee that strenuously believes that next year is the time to do this. i hope this helps your argument as you muster yourself here together. i don't think you need a lot of help, because i will tell you, you've got it down. i'm delighted you are here. anything you have in writing we would love to see. i would like to -- without objection, what i have spoken about, these articles, including the two crs articles and the article that appeared today from the "examiner" i'm going to put them in the record. i'm delighted you are here. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized.[1s÷ >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity. we appreciate the conversations we have had during the day today. it's nice to know we can sit and talk these things through in a

reasonable and reasoned fashion. it's one of the things that makes me proud to be here from time to time. what i would like to do is very briefly introduce the amendment. it very simply defunds the president's executive amnesty and defer to my breathren here. i will point out that we only drafted the amendment yesterday. as of 3:00 this afternoon, we had 67 sponsors -- co-sponsored already. it's a broad swath of the republican party. that's a great deal of interest in this across our party. i'm glad a lot of the ladies and gentlemen of the -- had a chance to stay around and talk about this. with that, i will defer to one of the co-authored, mr. salmon for a few minutes and take it down the line. >> that's awesome. gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. i want to tell you how much i appreciate the relationship we have had and your leadership on so many very important issues in this country. i appreciate your service. mr. chairman, i just want to do a little bit of an analogy. if there were a president of my party that were president of the united states right now or in the future and i happened to be here and he did something through executive order say that i really like, like maybe taking the corporate tax rate from 39% down to 25%, which i would walk on broken glass to get it done. but if he did that through an exertie executive order, i would fight him. it's not about the policy. it's about how it's done. article 1, section 8 of the constitution delineates only congress has the power to

regulate immigration issues. naturalization. this president said no less than 20-some times that he did not have the constitutional authority over the last several years when he was asked, otherwise i believe he would have done it much earlier when the president said in his speech when he announced this that it's wrong to rip families apart, then why did he do it for six year snz why were so many people deported if he had that authority all along? the point i'm trying to make is, now we're being asked as members in three weeks to raise our hand to say that we will work to protect the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. i believe that this president violated the separation of powers and the constitution by doing what he did. it's not about the policy.

i have said before and i will say it again that i think our immigration system is broken. and i think it does need fixes. but to do it like this is wrong. when president nixon did things that he did, it was john rhodes, a republican that went to him and said it's wrong. because they defended the institution. we should be standing up and defending the institution itself and the separation of powers and the constitution. and i have a real problem voting to enable something that i believe or fund something i believe is unconstitutional even for 24 hours. that's why i'm here to support the mulvaney amendment. >> who would you choose to have next? the gentleman from california is raised. if you have anything in writing that you would like to put in the record, we will allow to you do that. i will keep the record open

for -- until friday for -- to get you to do that. >> thank you. i appreciate the dialogue that you have initiated on this. it has been very, very helpful. i would make the point that the people spoke loudly and clearly in the election conducted on november 4. it was one of the most remarkable elections in recent history. nine u.s. senate seats shifted to the republicans. that's the undisputed will of the american people. that senate will be seated in just three weeks. so it seems to me it's disrespedisr disrespectful to lock in a spending plan for next ten months with the senate that has been so recently and so completely repudiated by the american people. i would urge the committee to bow to the will of the people, adopt a short-term cr that would protect us against any threat of a government shutdown, to put

this issue into the freshly elected senate where the will of the people can actually be expressed on all spending measures over the remainder of this fiscal year. we should not have the cold dead hand of the oeldz ald senate gu this congress for next ten months. once that's done and a government shutdown is completely off the table the mulvaney amendment before you offers a clear path to what this congress must do to restore that separation of powers that is the very foundation of the american constituti constitution. that's our responsibility to restore. the mulvaney amendment restores the power of the purse that has lapsed in recent years.

and it's that power that i believe will restore the separation of powers that has protected our freedom for 225 years. >> thank you very much. >> yield a few minutes to mr. duncan. >> the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> let me start off by saying you show exemplary leadership in your earlier comments. i thought about this and why are we are here on a spending issue when the issue of the day is the constitution. the men of 1787 could have set up different governments. they could have anointed a king. george washington was popular. they could have vested power within themselves, a small group of men. they didn't. instead they set up a government with clearly defined separation of powers. they set up a republican, if you can keep it, according to ben franklin. a government that's lasted

longer than any other form of government in the history of mankind. think about that. the issue before us is less about immigration and perceived amnesty or what the memo says or doesn't say. it's more about the crossing of a sacred line, a sacred line that delineates power and separates power in three branchs of the government. this document that i carry in my document spells that out there are powers that the legislative branch has. not the judicial branch. that we have. that's the power to make law. the legislative branch creates law, not the executive branch. that line has been breached. regardless of how we feel about the issue. in the past when the legislative branch disagreed with the executive branch, they used the power of the purse. only we have the power to appropriate