hosted a discussion about the history of news and public affairs programming with former pbs news anchor jim lehrer. university of kansas randall on the role of african-american ministers in politics and how churches help them for running for political office. sunday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, recollections of the battle of midway from four world war ii veterans to took part in the battle. and dreams of equality featuring recreation of the 1948 convention. american history all weekend every weekend only on c-span 3. >> always glad to welcome to our desk senior appropriations and bucket committees. veteran of previous fiscal fights on capitol hill. what's your sense on this latest potential shut down? how likely is that to happen?

>> i think it's probably not likely, but i think congress also is not likely to get work done by december 8th either. so i think what you'll see is bipartisan so-called continuing resolution, which continues to fund everything at the current levels. but what we really need is a larger deal that will fund the government for all of next year. and frankly the framework of one that could last a couple of years so that honestly there could be a pretty orderly process of appropriating coming to agreements. that has to be by bipartisan. there is no way one can impose their will on the others. and you leave it to both parties. they actually work together quite well. >> can you explain how much the tax reform debate is overhanging this budget debate? how much one influences the other? >> really not. moving on different tracks. maybe one of the things that may complicates things, the tax bill is bipartisan exercise. republicans have a program.

trying to do it largely without democratic votes. so that's that. but the spending process has to be bipartisan. you do have to reach 60 votes in the united states senate. and, frankly, the reality is that since 2012, democratic votes have been required in the house as well. i mean, you'll lose some republican votes simply because they don't want to spend anything beyond defense of veterans or anything like that. so the two sides have gotten good at working to the. but we've very seldom had to do it when we had a fight as big as a tax fight going on. >> democrats and even some republicans now saying they want to see some legislation in the spending deal that will protect dreamers. do you think this is a place that can resolve that immigration fight? >> i think not. i think part of the problem is you really conflating policy issue with normal day-to-day operations of government. we have until march to deal with

the d.r.e.a.m. er issue. i think will is a natural deal there which is national status in exchange for border policy. which is popular. most americans feel strongly if you were brought here by your parent, that that status is fundamentally different and ought to be respected. most americans believe in border security whether on the left or right. they want secure borders. so it's something when you deal with on its own you can find common ground and get a good bipartisan majority. >> president trump said he would absolutely blame them if shut down hans. would that be hard to deal? >> i think it's more difficult but the reality is it takes 60 votes in the senate. they've heard it so much on so many different topics that they do know there has to be bipartisan buyin many of some sort. so really they'll be plenty of

blame to go around. if we were to stumble into the shut down as there should be. because we are further along in the process in some way. in the house we moved all 12 bills to fund the government across the floor. >> how unusual that? >> it had not happened in republican house since 2006. i don't think it's been done by either party since 2009. so quite an accomplishment. but we also know that at the end of the day those bills are going to have to change. you'll have to negotiate with the democrats because of the senate. so again at some point you'll get in the process where you pick up democratic votes and quite frankly lose some republican votes. >> we are talking with tom coal, senior budget committee member, here with us, for about the next half hour, if you want to call in, 702 hr republicans 702-7001.

independents 8001. clayton, go ahead for independents. go ahead. >> caller: yes, congressman cole, i don't know if you remember me, but i serviced your office as repsych letter. >> recycler. >> yes, i do. >> my father passed away, i've been here with my mother. it's been a struggle for me. >> i'm sorry. >> i want to call your office and pass on a message to you if you can get it from one of your staff members if you can ask them to get this message to you, i really would like to have you read something that i need for you to see, please. >> okay. i'd be delighted to do that. >> okay. thank you so much. and i hope you guys work this out, sir. >> thank you very much. appreciate that clayton. >> not often you get to hear from people who work in the office. >> yeah, because i'm quite often

there late in the evening. everything from the protection of capital police, but takes a lot of people to make the place work and frankly keep it clean and safe for visitors. you have thousands of them. so they do a great job for us. >> when it comes to making the place work and making the place work better, there is a house vote coming up on training when it comes to anti-sexual assault training for all offices to make it mandatory. can you explain, a, why we need a vote on that? why speaker ryan can't mandate that? and b how are you going to vote? >> i'm going to vote yes. it is necessary. it's been great work by two members, jackie speier from california, office right around the corner, and barbara comstock from virginia, i used to bring her supervisor, and she's a tremendous member. and they have come together to talk about an issue that has dominated the news.

and to update the procedures. so i applaud them both for their work. and it's something i think will pass quite easily. >> beverly, in new jersey, you are in on congressman tom cole. >> yes, mr. cole, i have a question. this is really upsetting me over the children's fund. i have a grandson who is a disabled child. everything that he gets, he has to have in order to live. if this fund does not go through, and my daughter loses the funds, my grandson will die. why haven't you all done something? >> well, actually the house has done something. the house has passed the reauthorization the children's health insurance program. the senate has not. i think they will. we understand how important that legislation is to people like you and your circumstances and

your grandson. so i don't think there is much likelihood that it won't be extended again. but, again, your case under lines the urgency of getting that done. there is a part of this to put people's minds at rest. no reason for you in my view to have to go through what you are going through right now as you worry about your grandson. so all i can tell you is i suspect if we have a rear end spending deal, whether it's a continuing resolution, continue as they are, move forward, what we need is a larger deal that allows us to take care of, i think the children's health insurance program will likely be attached to that both sides want to approve it. support for both sides. >> you were quoted in the washington examiner saying if you don't get tax reform done you might have a bad midterm. >> well we might have a bad one anyone. look, i've been telling my friends since immediately after the election, expect a midterm.

we lost ours. they have been rough on everybody. so that's just the mood of the country right now. and foolish not to recognize it. but you do have to have something to run on. something that you've accomplished that you told you would get done. to me tax reform is the most important single one of those commitments and we need to fulfill. >> pt house has its bill. senate is working on its bill. whether that comes together what provisions will be essential? what will need to be in there to get your vote? >> obviously, different provisions for different people. i mean, for instance this doesn't effect my vote, but a lot of votes will edge on being able to keep the property tax deduction, at $10,000 level in there. that was a concession made to people on high property tax states in the house. i was pleased to see the senate pick it up. and looks like it's going to be in the senate bill. but broadly i want to make sure there are tax cuts for just about every taxpayer.

that we make american business competitive again. right now we pay the highest corporate tax in the world. and we remove the incentive we have in tax code right now for companies to move overseas. we've had quite a few in search of lower tax rates. so we need to bring the rates down and be competitive with other countries. >> democrats, doris, good morni morning. >> good morning. representative you and your republican buddies decided you wanted to write a tax cut bill that disproportionately gives everything to the rich and the corrupt corporations. in that bill you decided you wanted no democrats in the room, no democrats to help write this bill. this is a tax bill for the entire country. who in god's name gave you and this party the right to shut out

democrats from helping to write this bill? and now you want to say, oh, well, if the government shuts down, well, blame the democrats. >> well, actually i haven't said anything like that. i said i would expect on spending bill it would be bipartisan. both sides have to work together and i who ep that happens. and hive been under that process under barack obama and president trump. we did this in april and with bipartisan on both sides of the aisle. majority of democrats wrote for this. and they have tax legislation fundamental disagreements. in the operation of the government they can. so i think you try and do both of these realities. again nobody cuts the democrats out. they certainly have votes. but, you know, in the case of taxes, if you use what's called reconciliation language, you can lower what you need to 51 votes. by the way, that's how the

democrats passed obamacare without a lot of republican support. so there are occasionally issues that are extremely partisan, extremely important to both parties, and they each resort to those kind of tactics in those cases. there are other issues where you work together. and the appropriations process frankly where i spend most of my time is actually very much a give and take exercise with the two parties have to work together to get something done. >> so line for republicans, patricia, good morning. >> good morning, you guys. yeah, i don't think the senator congress should go home until they pass the tax bill. get something done. and the other thing i want to talk about is what is up with this $15 million hush shush fund to pay off sexual assault victims? what are you guys doing? how come we didn't know about that? how come you didn't know about that? how come you didn't tell us about that ridiculous thing?

if any congressman is breaking the law, abusing people, they should have it paid out of their pocket and we need to know what's going on? and the other thing is you are right it takes a lot to keep that place working for you guys. you know, but you aren't working for us. you guys go home at the drop of a hat. and you haven't got enough done. and what about the idea of cutting spending? i mean, we have handed you the house, the senate, the presidency, and what do you do? >> well, first of all, you covered a lot of ground so let me try and reach each one of your points. i couldn't agree with you more not going home until the tax bill is done. and i would argue not go home until ht spending bill is done. and i think we can do both those things. second, in terms of your concern about the what's called the judgment fund, i think.

that's over ten year period, and it's not all congressman. it's actually settles any kind of disputes. and it's not frankly mostly or completely sexual harassment. having said that, again i think you are right. i think the money needs to come out of people's personal pocket, not out of the public. frankly, it's pricey in the corporation world. and if you really look at these cases, at least so far, there appear to be a whole lot more of them in the media world and entertainment than there are on capitol hill. but one case is one too many. and again i applaud my colleagues jackie sphere and barbara comstock who are bringing fort legislation that would do exactly what you suggest and i think will pass with a great deal of bipartisan support. so that's all to the good. your final point in terms of

cutting spending, quite frankly congress has cut spending. where most spending is now, social security, medicare, medicaid make up almost all the spending. so if you want to do at spending you have to do those things. it's about 30% of what the whole government funds. tan that money has actually come down. when the republican majority came into power, the deficit was $1.4 trilli $1.4 trillion annually. it was lowered to under $500 billion, that's way too much, they brought it down but creeping back up. and most of the increase is coming, again not in capitol hill in terms of government, but we have aging population and social security expenses continue to rise and they will continue to rise. so sit down and grapple with those problems and neither parties wanted to do that. i actually have a bill on social security with my friend john delaney, democrat from maryland.

>> running for president. >> and a guy i have a lot of respect for personally. we've worked on legislation before. but actually do what ronald reagan and tip o'neil did set up a commission on social security. we think that's a solvable problem. but we haven't been able to get the administration to, three congresses in a row, count get the obama administration interested and trump interested. but you'll have to sit down and talk about entitlement spending. and entitlement spending i'll tell you has to be bipartisan. and that's what they did in 1983 when they extended life and social security on the verge of doing bang rumt. we can do that again. >> about ten minutes left with congressman tom cole of oklahoma. you've come on the show several times and before talked about your native american heritage. i want to talk about the

president's use of pocahontas in elizabeth warren to talk about that. >> first of all, i was at the ceremony. and it was a terrific ceremony. i want to give the president his due. the code talkers were magnificent. 94, 97. president handed the mic over to them, guy that was 90, peter mcdonald who gave one of the best addresses, i wish i could talk that good at my age, let alone 90. so it was update, good and meant to honor native americans and i think the president was very sincere in that. he literally turned to mr. mcdonald at one point and said, you know, had prepared remarks and gave him to mr. mcdonald, everything i was supposed to say you already said and said it better than i could. now when the elizabeth warren came in, clearly not in the premard remarks, look, i

disagree with the president very profoundly. number one, pocahontas is very important historical figure. her descendants are still around and pretty remarkable human being and a very short life, died and was buried in england, in her 20s. so frankly the formation of the relationship between europeans and native americans in the 16th century. and so i don't like her name being used in anything other than a very respectful way. and frankly i'm not ha big believer in name calling in politics. at the end of the day you have to work with people. so i usually find it's easier to work with them if i don't call them a name before i sit down. >> did you have a chance to sit down and talk about the history of pocahontas? >> i did not. and it difficult when you are in somebody's house, but because i am there and because i am native american we got a lot of requests immediately. and so of course we responded to

the requests. and again it's not an opinion i haven't expressed before. quoted as saying this my recommendation was don't use this language in this way to the president back in 2016 before he was president of the united states. so my view on this hasn't changed. and, look, i regret the use of the name. and think it's in appropriate. >> i want to get you as many calls as i can. rita waiting in illinois line for republicans. rita, go ahead. >> good morning. yes, i have two points to make here. first of all, on the deficit, why aren't the super rich paying back the money, the tax money that they use from our tax dollars to projects that are for their own self good? makes them richer and the taxpayers poorer and they've never paid any of this back and they are worth trillions of dollars in themselves.

why would they need it to begin with? number two, the days of building hillary clinton and let's make a deal and let's hold the country hostage. tell the democrats to get in here, and quit holding up the country, and to get things done for the country and not for themselves. >> well, and i'm not sure exactly what you mean about not pay back. frankly wealthy pay a lot more taxes and a lot higher taxes than folks that aren't. and that's always been in the country since we had income tax over 100 years ago, 1913. if you are referring perhaps to the bank bail out in the great recession, every dime of that with interest was paid back. it's one of these cases where the government actually made about 40 or $50 billion out of the money it loaned. because again we didn't give anybody anything.

we gave them loans and we collected warrants and you got interest on the money. so i don't excuse what happened. it was devastating to the country. i think that was the right decision at the time. i supported it. because i think you had to stabilize the economy. but we were paid back that money. only place we lost any money was on the loans to the american auto industry. and they got about $80 billion. about $60 or so billion of that came back. so it wasn't a complete loss. but the net of the entire program, what went to banks, what went to the auto industry, again was a money maker, strangely enough, for the taxpayer. didn't cost them anything over a few years period. >> charles, school craft michigan, for independence. go ahead. >> thank you. first of all, i would think that you were more insulted that the indian ceremony was done under

andrew jackson. you would know more than anyone how he treated the indians. but your point was on the talking of the 12 bills you passed and sent onto the senate. and those bills were passed because of about 20 people in the republican party that you had to make sure that they would go along with the vote. but then when the bill is sent to the senate, all that is going to be compromised and then sent back to you guys. and then you are going to lose those 20 votes. so you are going to have to get smaller votes from the democrats. >> well, actually, if i can, let me respond tour first question. i do know a lot about andrew jackson, migrate great grandfather had to walk 800 miles. i'm one of the tribes that was removed from the southeast of the united states, mississippi was home areas and forcely taken to what was indian territory

which is now oklahoma today. so believe me i understand very much. and my whole grandmother wouldn't carry $100 bill her entire year. so on the other hand you had washington, both were famous indian fighters. >> you mean there in the oval office? >> yeah. look you can be offended by any president, and i'm no fan of andrew jackson, i'll be clear, but i don't think that was deliberately done by the white house. and other presidents have had portraits of andrew jackson inside the oval office. the democratic party has a jefferson/jackson day dinner, two slave holders and pretty famous anti-indian figures, if they want to get rid of those, that's fine. but that's up to them. i think you ought to be careful historically. now in terms of your point about the appropriations process, you

are actually broadly right. the way bills pass originally tends to be out of the house. it's majority institution. tend to be bipartisan. when they get to the senate 60 rule requirement, they tend to become bipartisan. then you have negotiated process. again you are right, we pass something, they pass something, then we go to conference and negotiate it out. it's got to come back and pass each body. it has to be signed by the president of the united states. in the end the appropriations process will be bipartisan or nothing will get done. it's just that simple. so, again, this is the opening part of the process. obviously you are going to write bills the way you think they ought to be written. but when the point comes that you need somebody else's vote, you are exactly right, you sit down and make a compromise. that's what we did in apron all the appropriations bills. and majority of democrats and republicans both voted to fund the government. there was some big wins for the president in that. big increase in defense spending

and border security spending. also some things that democrats liked where places we worked together, a strong center for disease control, that protects you from zika to influential outbreaks. so important things that are extremely bipartisan in the appropriations process. and frankly majority of democrats and republicans usually vote for the final bill. >> you talk about needing votes. one person looking for votes in the state of alabama is roy moore. are you supporting his senate bid? >> no, i think he should withdraw from the race. i think the people of alabama have a very difficult choice because with all due respect the democrats who seemed to it be a find person doesn't represent what the majority of people in alabama believe. i don't pretend to know what the issues are with mr. moore, but i do know this, the campaign is

not being fought on issues anymore. and i think the best thing to do would be to step a side. but in the end the people of alabama are going to have to make up their minds about this. and it's their decision, their right to mick a decision, and whoever wins the senate will have to make a decision whether or not they are going to seat him. as a house member and not a guy from alabama i don't have a lot to say about that. >> a couple more calls for you. in colorado, line for republicans. go ahead. >> yes. i would like to remind mr. cole that in 2,000, when george bush came in, we had money in the coffers. and your tax plan then brought on the great recession. and you all acted like you didn't expect it. now mike pence gave away millions of dollars to stay in indian. we are buying jobs that are costing us millions of dollars

so you guys can hold office. as a republican, i'm totally disappointed with you guys. you are a bunch of spoiled brats. yet you realize one thing, you are going to give the middle income people a 47 to 57 cents an hour raise with your tax break, but you are giving the coke brothers an 8 to $12,000 an hour raise. i'm sorry, but there is a little disparity there. >> well, first of all, i disagree with you about the details of the tax plan. and to be fair they are not finalized yet. still in the negotiation going forward. but i this i at the end of the day americans paying taxes will see a substantial tax cut. i think meernl businesses that are not competing and leaving the country, and huge numbers, you mentioned carriers, pretty good example, will have incentive to stay here and continue to employ americans. in terms of the performance of congress, look, there is areas

that i disagree, but i don't think any economist has argued the tax cuts in 2,000 brought on the great recession in 2008. i don't think there is much of a correlation there. what brought it on, frankly, was address stiff over lending by wall street and literally peddling sub prime loans and stuff to people who couldn't afford them. that was an incredibly reckless behavior but much more regulatory problem than it was related to the tax cuts of literally years before. >> time for one or two more calls. alexander springfield, virginia, independent. go ahead. >> good congressman, alexander from virginia. i want to add a topic that hasn't been given much discussion at all, even the last couple of years on this whole idea of our revenues. so last i heard congressman t you probably have the better numbers, 11 million illegal immigrants are living in our

country. so that means to me 11 million residents of our country are living tax free. and so if we had had a program to give the ones who are not dangerous to our country some kind of tax status, well then we could have an incredible billions of dollars of revenue that we could have. has that everbeen considered? >> it actually has been. there are a number of pieces of legislation that show depending how you structure an immigration deal, that you actually do gain long-term in terms of additional revenue. the country now. to be fair, most of the 11 million people that are here are paying taxes. i mean, a lot of them aren't getting any benefits because they are not eligible for benefits. but if they are working where they get a salary, they are paying social security taxes and paying medicare taxes, a lot of them still pay income taxes. but, again, you are still right, a portion of these people are

outside the normal economy. some of them are not fully taxed. and so if you could regularize the immigration system you probably could improve the bottom line of the federal balance sheet. but you don't want to incentivize people coming in the country illegally. there is it crime. the country has rules and regulations. it has a right to enforce the border and who comes and goes. >> wane line for democrats, go ahead pennsylvania. >> tom, how are you doing? >> doing well. >> listen, you seem like a fair person. this is not directed to you. it's directed to the ones in there that need to hear. what about the special interests, not only that, why can't the social security, don't cap it, and coke brothers don't need no help, how about strengthen social security and

health care? there are a couple things you can do. and as far as taking away what you can write-off on your mortgage, i don't have a mortgage, but i can write-off my taxes. i mean, come on, i mean, now it's getting down to you can't do this or that. it's a joke for a tax bill. >> well, actually i don't think it is. and to your points, specifically, number one i agree with you about carried interest, i've never been a fan of t house bill did not eliminate it but did increase the amount of time that you literally have to hold the money before you can turn it into taxable income with the idea that that would limit it to some degree. i this i a fuller debate on this is in order. in terms of social security,i think you are right. we do raise the limit by the way on social security. one of the reforms that was made in 1983 was to index the amount of money. so the top lionel gaable for

social security goes up. and i think if we had a real commission, it would look at that and that would probably be one of the answers. wouldn't be the only answer. in the past we've raised the age. we've raised the amount you can contribute, level of your salary at which you contribute. so i think all those things make a lot of sense ought to be on the table. and again social security is much easier, it's basically a math problem. and we know the system is now going broke. since 2011. fortunately we built up quite a surplus in the social security fund from 1983 to 2011. but since then we are more drawing out than the social security taxes pay in every year. so drawing down that cushion. we are not in any immediate danger, but by 2032, so you would be cutting check by 20%,

that's unacceptable outcome. so thank you for that. sometimes people paint with a broad brush, we'll have different point of view than i do on a lot of issues. but i can tell you he's an outstanding member and great guy. >> i appreciate the set up for him. he'll be here for 25 minutes. but i want to thank tom cole. >> thanks for having me. >> i'm glad to have him back at your desk. cochair of the congressional bike caucus and congressman before we get to the tax reform push. i want to get your thoughts on yesterday's aborted meeting between the president and house democratic leaders what you think that means for potential shut down coming up next month. >> well, i think it just symbolizes the problems we have,

not just democrats, but republicans, with totally unpredictable president who is disengaged with the details and doesn't seem to be concerned that he tweets and insults and blows things up. in the end, it's going to be worked out with members, both parties, in capitol hill. and i don't think we are going to get any help from donald trump. >> so you blame the tweets? >> i think it's the whole behavior. notion of not being forthcoming, not engaging, being unpredictable, throwing all sorts of things out that are completely unrelated, you know, insulting some kids father and getting in that. there is serious business. we are facing a deadline that may prompt another shut done on capitol hill. i've served with people, many are still here, who welcomed the last shut down and have fish to fry. we still don't have the numbers allocated for the appropriations

process. and i hope that people just get serious and move forward. because we might have a real train wreck. >> what does a serious spending deal need to look like for you to support it? what needs to be in it? >> it needs to be balanced. we have an agreement that's been reached to protect both military and nonmilitary discretionary spending. that agreement should be respected. we shouldn't be using this to first through a program are where there isn't support for republicans for it. that's one of the reasons why these budgets haven't moved in the past because they are so draconian that republicans don't want to support it. i think left to their own devices people on the appropriations committee with a little latitude ought to work this out. we are talking about spending $2.2 trillion added to the national debt throwing around huge sums of money. we ought to be able to deal with children's health. we ought to deal with the

fundamentals of keeping government going. and those shouldn't be partisan road blocks. >> should there be a deal with dreamers? >> donald trump started this. and they'll be people pulled out of their job. >> march of 2018. >> and causing mass disruption for over two third of a million people who are part of our community h and the notion that we are going to sit idly by with that sort of disruption for that population and when you add their families you are talking about millions, plus their employers, i absolutely think we ought to resolve that. it's not going to get easier. and they shouldn't be tortured. >> if it's resolved and the deal includes spending on the wall, would you be okay on that? >> there won't be spending on the wall in the deal. . just ain't going to happen. most republicans don't want to do t it's not feasible.

we have much higher priorities. i don't think that's going to be part of it. >> talking with congress earl blumenauer hall, ways and means committee. if you want to call in, questions and comments. republicans and democrats, independents, 202-748-8002. congressman as folks are many calling in, you voted for this. is there anything you like in the senate version that's moving through the senate? >> it's interesting that senator corker believes he has some sort of agreement to have a trigger mechanism. that was. >> explain what that is. >> if their rosy scenarios don't pan out, this doesn't pay for itself, that the deficit explodes beyond the $2.2 trillion that we are going to have increase in the debt ceiling in interest, my

amendment that we advance the first thing in the house was you stop the tax cuts. you don't go further over the cliff. that i think has some encouragement. but it has to be real. it's not something that is a bait and switch like we have seen in the past. >> explain an example of a bait and switch in the past. >> what we are talking about right now some people are saying well the temporary tax benefits. only way this pencils out for some middle income americans, for many middle income americans is by tax credits that expire. the benefits for the large corporations and rich people continue in perpetuity, but we are watching tax increases on a temporary basis. and of course some of the tax increases start next year in the house and the senate middle income people with exceedingly high medical expenses, 9 million

people, are going to see their taxes increase dramatically. and won't be able to deduct them anymore. $90 billion worth of a tax increase on over 9 million families think of it as an alzheimer's tax. there are a lot of moving pieces here. i'm not certain they can put it together. but at this point it doesn't look like a good deal for most persons. >> let you talk to some viewers about it. christine is up first, virginia, independents, you are online with congressman blumenauer blumenauer enhair. >> thank you for taking my call. this is fascinating. i truly have not been able to wrap my head around the fact that this could possibly go through until the last couple of days when they are coming up with these new things like this stop the tax if it doesn't work sort of thing. i mean, this is it really getting crazy. i don't think any taxes should be permanent. i mean, you just don't know what's down the road. you have no idea what's down the road. and the idea that we are going

to make permanent those for the people who really don't need them and not for the rest of us is just more of this stuff that has got to stop. also, if there is going to be, you know, all these tax breaks for the corporations, i mean i thought they were people, so why don't they do their thing on a postcard too. but tax breaks for corporations should come with legislation that requires them to make an 80% investment in the industries, in the workers, for the american people. if they are so sure it's going to p ha, why don't they just make sure that it's in the law. >> christine, we'll take the point and let the congressman respond. >> christine's dilemma is something that's facing everybody on capitol hill in both parties. nobody really knows what's in this bill. it's astounding the largest transfer of wealth in american's

history, most large corporations and wealthy people paid for by increasing taxes on future generations with greater debt. and as i mentioned some of the examples. and it changes by the day. there has never been a hearing on many of these controversial issues that people are just now finding out about. i mean, it would tax the stie pends for graduate students, that would be unacceptable in any public discussion and never would have survived. so we are facing a dilemma now. every day this morphs and changes we won't know what's in it until long after it's passed if it's passed. and that's just no way to do business. >> for folks who don't understand the process, is there a chance for the hearing down the road if senate passes it and goes to conference committee? >> well, i mean, the last time we did real tax reform, this isn't tax reform, this is tax shift, the last time we did real

tax reform, we had a republican administration, democrats, republicans in congress, it took two years. and you were able to dive in and understand what was in it. to have a hearing after this thing is largely baked would be perfunctory, and you are not going to really know some of the provisions that have been snuck in by a lobbyist and a corporation and maybe a senator until long after the fact. >> cedar town george, lee is it a republican. good morning. >> good morning thanks for taking my call. i would like to say first, if this is not bias, how comes it seems like sometimes people will get 30 second to talk and other people 3 minutes. why can't we get 2 minutes and hear what's being said. as long as we aren't talking in repetition or cussing let our words be heard. but what i would like to say it's shows like this not a chess game, two parties act like they

can't get along and if you say well just like the sludge fund everybody that you put on tv says i know nothing about it. and if you say well, prove it, and i got 15 lawyers that say i don't know nothing about t and if i say something good that he likes to hear, he will agree with it, everyone of your people that i bring on there might say something bad he would disagree with it. every time same thing like a puppet show. >> we try to give everyone a fair chance. what's your question for the congressman? >> my thought is why is it it seems like no one can get along. and the thought is why they can't get pa long when you say there is good people on democrat side and dpood people ton republican side, and it's like us people out here watching people on tv, so many common sense things that can be done, but it's like there is so much small print that the government doesn't say well it's always difficult, but it's never really difficult. the government is making it difficult. so we can stay in this squall

lar that we are in. >> got your point. >> i think the fundamental point i was trying to make earlier if we did this like we are supposed to, if we actually had hearings on individual provisions, if there was an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis, the tax bill in the house no democratic saw it and frankly very few republicans knew what was going on, there are ways to be table to deal with things that matter for the american public. the fact that the children's health program has expired and being used as a bargaining chip, this is something that doesn't need to be partisan. overwhelming majorities of both republicans and democrats would agree to deal with a kleenex tensi clean, extension of it. we talked about daca, undocumented kids, majority would be able to move something forward if we were given ta chance. and when you shut down the

process, manipulate it, try and predetermine what is going to be in the legislation, and not allow other voices to be heard it guarantees conflict. >> what do you say to republicans who complain that happened with the health care bill? >> i was there, that happened. i was on the committee. we had dozens of hearings. lots of give and take. lots of opportunities for people to be involved. there is no comparison. you look at what happened in the senate with the biplay. this is unprecedented. never been something of this nature in our history. and the stakes could not be higher. >> baltimore, maryland. line for democrats. good morning. >> i'd like to point to the health example that the congressman gave and how it creates an in equitable ability for healthy people.

i would like to share my profile. if you took my 2016 taxable incomes lan put it to the proposed plan, my tax goes up 11% if you apply it to the house it goes up 5%. and i'm a healthy person. if you take what i think is going to be my income profile for 2018, 2019, whenever this kicks in i'll be able to shelter that income, hide it through contributing to my retirement, ira, taxable income will go way down, and i'll relationship a huge reward. my taxes will go way down. because i have the luxury of being able to save for retirement and enjoy that tax benefit. now if i get sick and i can't afford to put that money into retirement and shelter that, then my tax liability goes up, and i'm unhealthy, obviously my medical expenses will go up, and it's a triple whammy for in

equitable. that's not even bringing up the senate proposal to eliminate the mandated enrollment into the health care system in a cowardly fashion preserving the pre-existing clause. it's a bombab it's a bo it's a like that in so many levels. >> part of the people paying for this package will be everything with insurance next year, projected that the premiums across the country, because of this one tactic, is going to increase on average 10% per year next year, the following year, the year after that. there are all sorts of hidden increases. but one of the things that people need to focus on is that one of the reasons i was strongly opposed what was going on in the house, it's going to provide a stealth increase. the last tax reform adjusted

brackets for inflation. this bill has a lower rate of adjustment for inflation, which means over the years it's going to pull people up through high tear brackets, ever higher brackets paying more simply because of inflation, not because they have more money, and those benefits for individual families, the one that makes the biggest difference, goes away in five years. so the relief is illusory. the long-term increases are real. >> joe anna, damascus maryland line for independents. go ahead. >> good morning. i actually see this tax bill as robinhood in reverse. i find it interesting that students won't be table to write off the interest on their loans. yet people that own private jets and golf courses have write ups. the thing they put in here for lisa murkowski to get her to vote for the bill is give her all these goodies for alaska to

twist her arm in order to get her to sign on. i find this just outrageous that we are accepting this kind of thing and you just addressed the other thing i was going to mention which is the mandate. you take the mandate away and the whole health system falls apart. and my understanding from what i've read is that 10% is it a lowest mate in terms of. >> yes. >> in terms of the premium rise. that it cob as much as 25 to 30% increase in premiums in the next couple of years. and there is going to be a lot more uninsured people. a lot more taxpayer expense in terms of people and health care costs going up, people going to the emergency room, that kind of thing. this tax bill is extraordinarily unfair. and it really is robinhood in reverse. people that, like i said, you have the write-offs for the planes and stuff, but people making under $75,000 a year are going to see taxes increase, and

they are the least able to see their taxes go up. >> i think the caller has it right. it is robinhood in reverse. it is the largest transfers of wealth in nation's history to most corporations and the top 1%. and it is paid for by taxing future generations with increase of debt and having the increase for families, over the course of the next ten years, most middle income families will pay more in tax, and in the ten years after that, it will be even higher. the relief for the largest corporations and the wealthiest people who need tt least is permanent. for everybody else it's temporary and bargaining chip. it really is scandalous, i think. >> about ten minutes left with congressman earl blumenauer that will of organize. ways and means committee. if you watched the tax debate on the republican tax bill in the house as they were, maing it up, you would recognize earl

blumenthal from that, you can go back and watch it at c-span.org any time. but the house is expected to vote on instituting anti-sexual harassment training making that mandatory for house offices today. how are you going to vote on that legislation? >> oh, absolutely. i agree. i think it is important. it is the training, and i've done it going through it is very clear, very concise, makes the points. there is no ambiguity here. and i think at a minimum that's what we should do going forward and deal with opportunities to make these things more transparent. >> at a minimum what else would you like to see? >> i think dealing with strg as much transparency as possible on what happens in the aftermath of example of some of these settlement, i've been in congress for 20 years and i was not aware of how public funds were used on these settlements.

the fact that you could use office funds somehow to settle these claims. this is news to me. and it shouldn't be in the future. >> we have seen more news come out about congressman john conniers, your democratic colleague in the house. here's an article from the poe pol lit co, do you think congressman conniers should step down? >> obviously that's his decision. but i would think he should. >> back to your calls. go ahead for republicans. >> yes, i think it should be mandatory that they should step down. i don't care who voted them in. this should not be up for americans to put up with this stupidity, it's terrible. i mean, it's common sense. i mean, the thing is too.

you know, everybody can double talk it all they want to. but it comes down to this. if you have businesses that are making more money, hiring people, and people go into work, like myself, i'm a great grandmother, i have great grandchildren, two and then two more expected, twins expected. and my children are very hard working people. i have been too. although i'm retired now. and i have a lot at stake here with the future. and not so much myself, because, you know, if i live 20 more years i'll be lucky. and i really don't worry about this kind of stuff. but the people that are in charge that are in congress and

in the senate should work together for the sake of our future. i mean, come on now. >> congressman. >> i agree. and common sense should be the watch word in terms of session you' sexual harassment and to the tax code. there are lots of opportunities for us to strengthen american families. we should have been investing infrastructure which would create family jobs and improve the quality of life. and that shouldn't be a partisan issue. unfortunately this has been lost in the rush to have this large transfer of wealth. and it shouldn't be that way. and hopefully we may be able to rescue it still. >> to illinois, line for democrats, kay, good morning. >> good morning. i sfrhave a couple of suggestio. the corporations, big corporations have plenty of

money. we need to go to them for any tax increases. now, they want us to let them bring their money back overseas so they can create jobs. let's not do that but threats create a rebate for them for every job they create here, for an actual united states citizen, who holds that job for at least a year, give them ta little rebate. but don't let them bring that money in free. because they are not going to create jobs. that is not their job to create jobs here. their job is to create money for their investors. >> makes a very important point. last time the repat ration was tried, even though it was sold creating lots of joblgs, it didn't. some of the companies gained the most reduced equipment. they bought back stock. reduced dividends. they bought things.

recently the white house, mr. cohn economic adviser to the president was shocked when they asked businesses if they were going to use reduced taxes to raise equipment. and very few hands went up in the room. and he was somehow surprised. but that's the history. right now the corporations actually are a wash in cash. they have some overseas they can borrow against and use. capital is less expensive now than ever. they are not investing because they don't have profitable opportunities opportunities. and we have sadly a middle class that vicinity had a raise in the last 30 years. there isn't the demand. so there are ways to have structured this would have been more direct and given the benefit to average americans. >> time for a few more calls. lynn, june lake, california, line for independents. go ahead. >> yes, good morning.

i'm interested in the doca kids. you know, nobody ever talks about the parents h it's always oh, these poor kids. and my kids are about that age. and they are out there competing against them. we work two jobs to put our kids through college. and these guys are getting chosen time and time again, not even being legal citizens. and it's like the poor kids. well, who is responsible? and i find the most appalling and disgusting thing that americans are so upset about is how many years you people have been sitting up there on that hill talking about the same problems for 30 years. illegal immigration has been a problem for well over 30 years. and we have durbin and mccain and pelosi and all these people who have been life long supposed

to be servants of our nation that what have they been doing? then you want to talk about the un-affordable care act. well, i'm going to be one of the middle class people that can no longer afford her ridiculous premium with the ridiculous amount of money. they want me to spend $30,000 before i even get any help from my insurance company whatsoever. and the fact that you guys chose taxpayer subsidies to subsidize these wealthy insurance companies, what a joke. >> a lot of issues there for you, congressman. >> a lot of issues of the let me just say there has been bipartisan legislation that passed the senate, that would pass the house, if the republican lead are ship would have let us do it six years ago, five years ago, four years ago. it was bipartisan in the senate. it would be table to do a reset.

but i think the least, i mean, the people who need the help the most are these doca, who were brought here as children, and in some cases as infants. and the notion that they are being productive, they have been educated here, some of them served in the armed services, that we would pull the rug out from underneath them in the only country that they know is outrageous. and the overwhelming majority of the american public agrees, we ought to be able to fix the situation for them. >> to be clear though, are you one of those democrat members of congress who would withhold a vote on any sort of funding deal for some sort of fix that you are talking about for the dreamers? >> i think at the end of the year there are certain issues that have to be resolved. this is one that has to be resolved. we can't put together a package and move forward and get votes from people like me if it doesn't deal with fundamental issues where there is bipartisan

support to fix it. >> so this can't wait until march when those -- >> these people's lives are being up ended. their employees can't plan like this, and then we have a thousand a day being deported. that's outrages and if it legislative leadership on the republican side would allow us to vote on it, you would find a majority of people in the house and senate agree and this would no longer be an issue. >> santa clara, california, line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm retired. gott got interested in politics a couple years ago and watch a lot of cnn, c-span, fox news. i like fox news because i want to see what the republicans are talking about and i have a couple of thoughts and a

question. i don't have a computer and i feel helpless in california that i can't do anything to help the other areas of the country where there's republicans in charge and a lot of democrats in their area that could protest and call. i don't have anybody to protest and call because they're on my side here in california. and a couple of my thoughts was not just for the tax reform but for other things that you guys talk about that the house and the senate should have it same talking points with the same figures and the same whatever because it's so confusing. i mean i understand it, i think, because i watch so much of it but other people they hear 1.4 trillion, 2 trillion.

they hear one thing one minute and another thing the next min. >> we're running out of time. >> but she's talking about the increase of the national debt. they've authorized a increase under their budget but if that's increased you're paying interest on it. so it will be well over $2 trillion but it's pretty easy to unpack with a tax on future generations and some people, like i mentioned an optialzheim tax. it's not as complicated as some would make it. >> and oregon can be pretty certain to say you'll be back on c-span down the road. >> i if had joy the conversation. >>

you may not be aware but it appears the president of the united states has been in recent moments been retweeting comments from far-right organization, britain first, highly inflammatory videos including some posted that i believe has been arrestd and charges with serious offenses and i wonder if you've notice odof an intended speaker on this very serious matter? >> i confess i have no advanced notase of this matter. i'm not myself one who tends to follow what is said on twitter, although the honorable gentleman is very well informed on these

matters. but the home secretary is welcome to say something but under no obligation to do so whatsoever. they're not hailing a taxi. oh, very well. in deference to the seen yort of it lady of the house. if she's got a point of order to raise, of course i'll hear it it. >> to the point of order, mr. speaker, i understand it woman in question has already been convicted of hate crime in this country and on that basis, given the significance and the seriousness of having the president of the united states giving her such a huge platform, don't you think it would be appropriate for us to hear some form of condemnation and raising this for the secretary or home secretary. >> it's a point of order for the chair and i can say only that at the moment it will be very obvious to her and her honorable friend. i've received no advanced notice

to make a statement and it would be order. it would be wrong to expect a government minister pdly to respond. home secretary to be fair is under no obligation to do so. what i do say is i know the honorable gentleman very well and if anything i know the honorable lady as we came in twept years ago even better and knowing them as well as i do, i know that when they've got their teeth into something, they are disinclined to let go and by the way that's a compliment. i think we'll leave it there for now but i rather imagine this will be mentioned again. >> we're also going to eliminate tax breaks and complex loopholes taken advantage of by the

wealthy. who are they? i think my accountants are going to crazy right now. it's all right. look, i'm president. i don't care. i don't care anymore. some of my wealthy friends care. me -- this is a higher calling. do we agree? as hillary said what difference does it make? it made a difference. it paid a big difference. made big, big difference. yesterday's missile launch was more advanced than previous launches.