years. and if you adjust for inflation, middle class wages are lower than they were in 1989. that is a fact. so there are many reasons for the middle class to feel like they're left out. like the recovery has left them behind. it's because the entire economy is leaving them behind. this year, seems like we may have finally begun to turn that corner and our economic recovery is still really accelerating. last week the bureau of labor statistics reported that the economy created 321,000 jobs. o that makes for 57 straight months of job growth. the longest streak of consecutive months of job creation on record for a total f over 10.9 million new jobs. for the last 10 of these

montanas we've created over 200,000 jobs per months. that's the first time we've had a streak of that with robust job creation since the 1990's. the 321,000 jobs we created in november brings the total number of jobs created just this year to 2.65 million jobs. so with one month to go, we've already created more jobs, get this, than any year since the 1990's. now those are some of the statistics about the job numbers you might read in "u.s.a. today." manufacturing is the lynch pin of our economy. adding 28,000 good-paying jobs just last month. for a total of nearly 3/4 of a million new jobs. wages as i mentioned have been stagnant. see a nice monthly gain of 0.4%. we have not had a month this year when wages have fallen and

for the first time since 2008 we've had four months where they've grown at least 0.3%. the average workweek increased to 34.6 hours, meaning more workers are finding full-time employment instead of part-time jobs. according to the labor department we're seeing increasing turn in the job market with the highest number of employers being hired for jobs and voluntarily quitting their jobs since early 2008. this means more workers are confident enough -- in the job market strength to leave and look for a better opportunity. the first week average of weekly jobless claims has been below 00,000 for the last several month -- 300,000 for the lafert central month, another welcome sign. and according to the commerce department, construction spending increased 1.1% in october, including a 1.8%

increase in home building. total construction spending is up 3.3% from last year, part of the reason why unemployment amongst construction workers as fallen from 8.6% to 7.5%. for the last year. so i say to the american people , we know it's been a long, tough road over the last couple of years and the last couple of decades, we know many of us have been frustrated that it's taken so long to get back on our feet but today the american worker is the strongest in the world. we should feel good that not only are we on the right track but we are moving faster. the only thing now that could hold us back is if we sabotaged the economy. by returning to some of the favorite old tactics. shut the place down. shutting down the government or defaulting on our national debt

. we're now only one day away from shutting down the government. last time the tantrum over defensing affordable care cost us -- defending affordable care cost us $24 billion. i don't know who the austere party is. i don't know who the party is that's going to watch every dime that's being spent. $24 billion is not chump change. and that resulted in 120,000 fewer jobs being created. so we're going to have to be a little bit more creative than just shutting down the government. maybe only try to shut down parts of the government. but these -- this pales in comparison to the negative economic impact of brinkmanship over our country's debt ceiling. we all know just how devastating actually refusing to raise the debt ceiling can be. credit market -- markers would freeze, interest rates would skyrocket, the dollar would crash. even the possibility of hitting the debt limit does serious damage for our economy.

the first time we did this back in 2011, consumer confidence declined to levels not seen since the lehman brothers collapsed in 2008. business uncertainty is not what we need. that's led to a slowing of job growth, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. all of these economic wounds were self-inflicted. and to his credit, the new majority leader, senator mcconnell, has stated he doesn't want another shutdown or default in our debt. however, as our speaker, mr. boehner, has learned, sometimes the leader of the party will have a hard time keeping his troops in line. every leader finds that out. with our recovery findly picking up steam, the -- finally picking up steam, the ideologues must cast aside its mentality of legislating by taking the economy hostage. this includes not only our debt ceiling and averting a

government shutdown, but also the myriad of other deadlines congress must deal with in the new year. the expiration of the highway funding, preventing a cut in medicare payments to doctors. and expiring tax provisions. republicans and democrats must come together really to tackle these issues in a way that accelerates our ongoing recovery. we simply cannot get caught up in the endless brinkmanship and bickering as defined the past four years. failure to do so would be an insult to the middle class. who are just starting to see the fruits of recovery in their pocketbooks. unemployment is finally down to the lowest rate in years. and we saw a big jump in hourly earn earnings -- earnings in this past week. combined with the continued drop in gas prices, not once did i ever see someone come to this floor and give the president credit for anything from the other side. not once. whether it was falling gas prices -- and we know what happened when the prices went

up a few years ago. not once did we see anything about the 321 newly created jobs, not one person came to this floor. he's done a few things right, my brothers and sisters. believe it or not. and if you do admit it, nothing's going to happen to you. believe me, nothing will happen to you. combined with these gas prices going down and the positive impact from the president's immigration order, which will bring money into america's treasury, we're on a track for a great year for the american worker. the best thing congress could do is to make sure that happens is simple, just get out of the way. and i say that with all respect. now, mr. speaker, it is my honor to yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, with your permission.

mr. holt: i thank my colleague, mr. pascrell from new jersey. for underscoring the importance of what we do here in this house. those are not just numbers on a page that he was quoting. those are people's lives and livelihoods. and we have work to do. as i prepare to wind up my service here after 16 years, i seek the indulgence of my friend here and our colleagues to make a few observations for the benefit of my constituents. to whom i owe much. when people call my office, we answer the phone, representative rush holt. mr. speaker, here in the house for each of us, representative is our title and our job description. it is an honor and a privilege for each of us to represent about 3/4 of a million people, to represent them here in the people's house, this house, that is the focal point of the u.s. government. laid out in article 1, section

1 of the constitution. right at the beginning. despite all the well publicized frustrations of this place, this house is the greatest instrument for justice and human welfare in the world. we are a central part of the most successful experiment in human advancement in history. we must not forget that. speaking of not forgetting, we would all do well to develop a stronger sense of history, a sense among ourselves and our country. it is with a sense of history that we realize what progress we have made as a country. in this time of frustration and cynicism, we should take note. the success of america economically, culturally, socially has not been an accident and it was not destined. our success derives from our chosen system of governing ourselves. without a sense of history, one

cannot recognize progress and humans need a sense of progress. when i was first elected to congress 16 years ago, some people asked me why would a scientist leave a good research institution to get into the muck of politics? the simple answer was, it was too important not to. sure, it was satisfying to win an election in a district where many said it couldn't be done, where no one of my party had been elected in almost anyone's memory. but it was clear to me that this was not a game of politics. it was a fight to defend the soul of america. i came here and optimist about our crecountry, our people and their government and i leave an optimist. i've had the help of many people, volunteers, staff and colleagues, smart, inspiring, tireless. i think of many. i'll mention several by name. my wife, margaret, my chief and

deputy chief, chris and sara, and looking back i think of those who have died during my time here. as i speak here in glowing terms about our government, successes of this ingenious system of balancing competing interests, i'd be on use it not to recognize -- obtuse not to recognize that many are discouraged about their government. some people even foster distrust in government. taking people beyond the traditional healthy american skepticism to real destructive cynicism. in every era there have been nay sayers. the government has broken pecial interests rule, all politicians are corrupt. i know that's not true. i'm reminded daily that through diligent and committed service to the people, a representative can ensure that each person knows that she or he has a part in our democracy.

a direct connection to his or her government. and that cooperative action, es, government, benefits them. so we must continually show our constituents that we are committed to improving always the mechanisms of good democratic government. voting, legislation, addressing grievances. after eight terms i look back with satisfaction at some things accomplished. preserving land and bits of history, improving educational opportunities, supporting education in science and foreign languages, expanding access to excellent health care , especially mental health care for our military veterans. protecting families' economic security in their nonwage earning years, protect -- protecting postal workers when they're exposed to anthrax and protecting voting. strengthening civil protections of muslim americans and other

minority groups. strengthening fairness in the workplace for lgbt workers and increasing support for scientific research. through it all, our primary job i would say has been to beat back the cynicism about our ability as americans to govern ourselves. of course we understand that passing laws and appropriating money is only part of a representative's work and i've taken opportunities to speak out about injustice, to ex toll people and programs -- extoll people and programs that work well, to voice support for people who need a kind word and more a little help. i present a vision for a government -- not a government that vanishings but a government that works -- vanishes but a government that works for its citizens. not all problems can be fixed by government but it can be reassuring and uplifting to people know -- for people to know that other people have their baseballs and can help. yes, that's government -- backs

and can help. yes, that's government. i continue to speak against intrusive surveillance by government that treats people as suspects first and citizens second. i've joined with others here to preserve our national leg sis, our land and resources -- legacies, our land and resources, a clean environment and to preserve memories of where we come from. and with my science background, i always try to present arguments based on evidence and open review. on many issues and in many votes, i have found myself outvoted and in a minority. but it helps to recall the words of justice ruth bader ginsburg. who has spoken about the satisfaction in crafting a strong dissenting opinion with the hope or expectation that it will become the prevailing majority opinion. i'm reminded of many shortcomings and work

unfinished. others may succeed in reviving the office of technology assessment, to provide congress with badly needed assistance. others remaining in congress may move our country appreciateably toward more sustainable practices. my colleagues here may yet reform the intelligence community. and acting with the recognition that peace is the best security , others may work to move our nation away from mill taristic responses to so many problems. i thank my namly and my staff, and i thank the people of central new jersey for this opportunity to serve. and i yield back the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise?

>> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 776, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 83, to require the secretary of the interior to assemble a team of technical, policy and financial experts to address the energy needs of the areas of the united states and the freely associated states through the department of energy, action plans aimed at promoting access to affordable, reliable energy, and clean energy resources and for other purposes. waiving a requirement of 6-a rule 13 with respect to certain considerations reported from the committee on rules and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. cole: i move the house do

now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands fiscal year 2015, which funds all government agencies through september 2015, except the department of homeland security, which would be funded only through frippery 27. republicans -- february 27. republicans want to use limited funding to pressure president

obama to make changes to executive action allowing some undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and work legally. the spending bill increases contribution limits to political parties and eases regulations on some financial trading. >> the roll call appropriations reporter. this is not your typical catch all on the bus. it includes long-term and short-term spending. how does that work? >> it is being called a "crom line," with full line by spending guidelines for most agencies in the federal government, and one short-term continuing resolution for the department of homeland security through february 27. >> why did they decide to make that deadline february 27 for homeland security? >> it is the way house

republican leaders decided to force a fight with the president on his executive actions on migration. whoe were conservatives wanted to confront the president now, but this is the company my state. tweeted earlier that the measure includes $5 billion for the islamic state operations. does that match up with what the white house wanted? what about the request for ebola? >> the white house asked for $5.6 billion in emergency funding to fight the islamic st ate. it funds most of that. for $6.2 called billion to fight ebola at home and abroad. appropriators gave them $5.4 billion of that. the discrepancy between 6.2 and 5.4 comes out of a contingency

fund the administration wanted in case of emergencies, in case anything happened with a needed to tap into extra resources. appropriators said no. >> there are also policy rid >> the biggeste oners. right now is a. frank -- the biggest one right now is a. frank related policy rider. pushuld repeal the swaps out provision of the dodd frank overhaul. it would require banks to push out the derivatives business from the part of them that is federally insured. that's a big sticking point with democrats, and nancy pelosi mentioned that it is a big point of contention for her. also, a campaign-finance-related amendment that democrats are also not happy with. individuallimits

donors can give to national parties for things like conventions. >> ahead of the expected floor debate on thursday, nancy closely released -- nancy pelosi released a statement that democrats are deeply troubled by inclusion of special interest provisions. chris van hollen is voting he says no, leaving taxpayers on -- and that it leaves taxpayers on the hook for gambling by big banks. stopped pelosi notably short of saying she would not vote for the measure. it's a possibility. she said democrats will not be the party of shutting down the government. it seems at this point she will not go against the spending bill. for the moment, democrats are free to choose whether they will support this or not. but we are still getting a sense

of where democrats are. we think asked republicans will need some democrats to bring this over the line. >> our viewers can read your reporting at cq.com. gop is confident about passage. who are they concerned about on the republican side? >> there is a group of hard-line conservatives who tend to vote against most spending bills we see, but there's a few dozen of reallyat they claim are pushing for the inclusion of a policy rider barring funding for the president's executive action on immigration. john boehner has said that will not be included in this spending bill. as it stands, that language is not there. at cq.com.ntioned, we appreciate you joining us. >> thank you very much. >> tonight on c-span, the rules

committee meeting on the $1.1 trillion spending bill to keep the federal government funded past thursday. then, senator cory booker testifies at a hearing examining police practices and civil rights. payr, members of the house tribute to retiring congressman john dingell, the longest-serving member of congress. the current federal funding measure expires on thursday. wednesday, the house rules committee met to discuss the $1.1 trillion federal funding -- spending bill to keep the government funded into september 2015, and the rules for debating the measure on the house floor.

>> today we will consider the amendment, the mechanism by which the government will be funded through the appropriations act of 2015. government funding is set to expire by the end of tomorrow night, midnight, december 11. for all agencies and departments except the department of homeland security. it is a result of what i believe is a bipartisan and by -- bicameral negotiation that concluded earlier this week, and it is designed to make sure we avert a government shutdown. i will have more to say as we have our panels and we go through them. but i want to, if i can upfront, thank to people in particular. our young chairman of the appropriations committee from kentucky, mr. rogers, who

negotiated this bill in good faith and has spent a lot of time doing this, involving a lot of staff time, thousands of calls between members and your staff, and also ranking member lowey. she has always showed up as a full member, with the opportunity to work together. i am denied it that you -- delighted that you are here again to do this. i would like to welcome you. i also know we will have two other members here to give testimony. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. klein, and also mr. miller, who will be retiring this year. i'm delighted you are here, and i will tell you that during my years of being on the committee i have enjoyed your testimony, your hard work, and in particular when you did show up,

you worked with both sides. when you were chairman, and when you were ranking member. and i'm delighted you are here. what we will attempt to do today is to, as we always try to on the rules committee, make sure we listen to each other, and we are clear about what we are here to do, and we maintain the decorum that is necessary. i note that we have a full house, and that there are a lot of strong opinions in this room. i will remind the panelists that the committee members here have and hoursgh hours over the last few weeks, and we tried to pair for you. we have tried to ready ourselves for the substance and policy being submitted, but we will you to brief this body, as well as many members who are here and others that are listening. . want to thank you

and have you know that your clarity and assisting to nest will be much appreciated by this committee. before i defer to the gentleman from new york, the ranking member, i would like you to know that anything you have in writing will without objection be entered into the record. make sure the green button is on. that will help us all. i would now like to yield to the ranking member, the gentleman, mrs. slaughter. >> thank you very much. we have all looked with some anxiety to this very moment. we are going to see whether we will have a government shutdown or not as we lurch from crisis to crisis. the thing i have to say about this, 1600 pages right here released in the middle of the night, not one member of the committee was able to read all the way through it, no

opportunity for public input, no committee hearings, no committee markup, and no time to adequately consider $1.1 trillion in spending. perhaps if the has majority had spent less time trying to prevent people from getting health care or investigating a nonexistent scandal in benghazi, we would have had time to put together a proper budget. the goes against all progress he has republicans themselves have made. 2010, iboehner said in do not believe that having a 200 page bill on the house floor serves anyone's best interest. not the house, not the members, and certainly not the american people. once again, we see the reset -- recalcitrance of the house majority leading us into another manufactured crisis, and

damaging our reputation around the world, coming once again to the brink of shutdown. and this is no different. for reasons i'm at a loss to understand the bill undercuts , the department of homeland security. and our members on homeland security have said this is at great peril. they need to be training people to be alert for what's going to happen. but we're going to make sure they can be in existence until the end of february. at that point, i don't know what happens to them, nor do they. now, we've heard a lot of talk that you are dependent on the votes from my side of the house to pass this. and, frankly, we're always willing to do that when legislation comes up that we can support. but in the dark of night there, two things happened that are really hurting us being able to do that. and i honestly think before it comes to the floor these two may go away. it is certainly my hope. one is, rolling back the

regulations on the risky behavior by big banks. since 2008, we've been going through this nightmare. we allowed megadonors at the same time, the people with all the money to donate ten times the current limit to political parties without any discussion again, completely undermining the mccain-feingold bill. and then, what we've done, as i mentioned before, the banks completely as we know and probably we will see the end of dodd-frank very shortly because banks don't like it. let me quote from a statement that barney frank a former congressman as you know who is the frank we referred to in the title released a statement today , and said, quote, the provision inserted into the appropriations bill is a substantive mistake. a terrible violation of the procedure that should be followed on this complex and important subject. and a frightening precedent that

provides a road map for further attacks on our protection against financial instability, said frank. ironically, and this is the most important part. ironically, it was a similar unrelated rider that put into the debate a larger bill -- i misspoke there. a similar unrelated rider put without debate into a larger bill that played the major role in allowing the irresponsible, unregulated derivative transactions to contribute to the crisis in the first place. why in the name of common sense would we be willing to risk that yet again? the damage done, it's taken years to try to get over and lots of people will never recover from the loss of their homes or jobs. how to regulate derivatives -- this is still congressman frank, a question about responsibility

-- which responsible people can differ. and the subject of what banks should be doing in this area is a legitimate subject for debate. but not for a nongermane amendment inserted with no hearings, no chance for further modification and no chance for debate into a mammoth bill in the last days of a lame duck congress. those who have consistently opposed any significant financial regulation should be willing to put forward their proposals to cut back on the rules adopted in response to the crisis in a manner that allows full open discussion and members supporting the retreat should be required to do so by their votes without the cover of an omnibus appropriation not subject to amendment, frank concluded, end quote. this bill also concludes significant reforms to pension programs that would impact thousands of retired workers in my district and yours, as well. for provision, it would impact so many working families should

have been considered through the regular, transparent and open legislative process. now, i recognize this process is extremely difficult. and i want to note that some harmful riders were removed. and for that, we're extremely grateful and i imagine a lot of hard work went into that. but on one other positive note, we were able to include an important ban that included the that prevents the process poker products imported from china from being served in school meals because that is an issue of food safety. i asked that be done and we're happy it's there, but it's not enough, the negotiations on this bill are not enough. it doesn't serve the american people nor does it serve the institution. and i yield back.

yields back her time. i want to thank the gentlemen for comments. in fact, you'll probably hear during the time we were here there was some legislation that was discussed and talked about yesterday and continues to be on the floor today and it's a really good reason why each of you are here to help clarify these things. mr. frank was offering his comments as a former member of this body. and i'm very interested in what this current membership is going to say and so i'd go straight to our lead witness, mr. chairman, thank you very much, hal rogers for being here. i don't know if we want to move that water in front of you. we put it there but i want to make sure we don't get it in the way of your testimony. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ms. slaughter, and members of the committee, for having us here today. on behalf of the amendment to

hr 83 that we submitted, including the bipartisan house and senate agreement to fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal '15. i come to you to request an appropriate rule to provide for prompt consideration of this important measure. our current funding mechanism as you've said, mr. chairman, expires on december 11th tomorrow. to avoid a costly and damaging government shutdown, we must pass this legislation before then. the funding measure abides by all the terms of the ryan marie -- ryan-murray budget agreement, providing a total of 1.103 trillion. it includes full year appropriations for 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. weighing each agency and department individually reflecting up to date budgetary , needs and prioritizing the

most effective, most useful programs. this legislation also includes a short-term funding mechanism for the department of homeland security which expires on february 27th '15. this funding for dhs programs at current levels to maintain essential security programs on our home front. we've gone to some of the highlights, national security is a top priority in this legislation. the measure provides $554 billion for the department of defense, including $64 billion in overseas contingency operations, funding to support our troops in the field who combat isil, to train and equip our iraqi allies, and to counter russian aggression. it also cuts more than $345 million from the i.r.s. and $60

million from the e.p.a. from last year's levels. the legislation provides no new funding for obamacare and holds the line on funding for the agency at hhs most responsible for implementing this law. it prohibits funds for the army corps of engineers to act on two regulations that could have serious consequences for american industry. changing the dems -- definition of fill material and regulating water and certain agricultural areas under the clean water act. the legislation also protects farmers, ranchers and other job creators from onerous regulatory burdens by amending dodd-frank swaps pushout rules and by adopting the house promise to stop the epa from placing the sage grass on the endangered species list. and it helps to put a stop to improper behavior at federal

agencies. prohibiting the irs from targeting groups based on political believes from , determining the tax exempt status of an organization and from holding inappropriate conferences. the bill also preserves the sanctity of life, maintaining all existing pro-life policies and funding provisions from previous appropriations bills, as well as adding several different provisions that address conscience protection and transparency in obamacare plans that provide abortion-related services. although you have heard me say , considering 12 individual appropriation bills, this is our best case scenario as we face a short deadline. this legislation fulfills the constitutional duty of the

congress to keep the lights on in the federal government, and it will allow us to start with a clear deck in the 114th congress to hopefully complete our appropriations work for on time. 2016 the ranking member of my committee shares my desire to return to regular order next year. i want to thank her for her fairness throughout this process, as well as her hard work bringing the bill before us today. the omnibus legislation is the result of weeks of hard negotiations between the house and the senate. it reflects conservative priorities, but it's also a compromise, a bipartisan bill that can and should have wide support from both parties in both the house and senate. i hope we can pass it in short order and send it on to the senate tomorrow, eventually to the president for quick approval, as well. the american people deserve the stability and certainty of a functioning federal government.

it's high time we provided that to them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. each time mr. rogers comes up, he is always accompanied by you. and while i don't presume there's a 100% agreement, i do know there's 100% teamwork. and hal has, i believe, always dealt fairly with me and as a colleague. and i know he would do the same for you. and we're delighted that you're here. the gentlewoman's recognized. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. for the opportunity to be here today. i'm very pleased to be here with my friend and my partner chairman hal rogers with the spending package before current funding expires tomorrow night. i'm deeply relieved that we seem to have avoided the antics of last year when a vocal minority in this body was able to hold

the entire government hostage for reasons they couldn't articulate. it wasn't fair to the american people. i hope we'll never have to go through it again. throughout the process, my goal has been to avoid another costly shutdown. make adequate investments to grow the economy, enhance our security and protect the most vulnerable. i am disappointed, mr. chairman, that a decision was made by the house majority to leave out the agreement reached on the department of homeland security. this bill could have and should have been included in this package. it was left out as a part of a political calculation on immigration policy, not over differences our subcommittee had in developing this bill. i believe my chairman was right when he rebuffed efforts to restrict the president's

executive orders on immigration on a must-pass appropriation bill. but forcing these important agency -- customs, border protections, the u.s. secret service, the federal emergency management administration, the transportation security administration, forcing them into a two-month continuing resolution was unnecessary and unfortunate. the short-term cr creates uncertainty, will limit the department's ability to make important decisions on procurements, hiring, and on new initiatives which we all support. we're already 70 days beyond the actual start of this fiscal year. should the homeland security agencies really have to wait another two more months, i strongly support ranking member price's amendment to restore full-year funding to homeland

security. the 11 other spending bills included in this package are a mix of wins and losses. i was very pleased most of the worst were dropped. including those on the affordable care act, the clean air act and those preventing full implementation of new reforms to the federal school lunch programs. statutory budget caps essentially kept all discretionary programs at a hard freeze. but i'm pleased we were able to prioritize a few key items such as the national institutes of health, food safety at the food and drug administration, another very modest but very important increase is provided for after school programs, many of which suffered steep cuts under sequestration and have still not made up those shortfalls.

i'm also pleased the final agreement provides $500 million for the department of transportation's tiger program to fund major surface transportation projects including bridges, transit and passenger rail. to keep firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't possess them, the national instant background check system will receive an increase of $14.5 million. this important investment was achieved because members on both sides of the aisle recognized how crucial this money is for states to improve their submission of records into the background check system. the final package includes much of the administration's request to respond to the deadly ebola crisis. we must ensure that all those tasks with being on the front

line fighting this disease from local hospitals to federal agencies have what they need. we all recognize how the ease of international travel has changed the way we must respond to contagious diseases. i have confidence in our health care system, the center for disease control and the fantastic hospitals that stepped up to take and treat the patients with ebola. but we should do whatever we can to stop the disease where it is the most deadly. the funding provided will allow research to ramp up to treat and hopefully develop a vaccine for ebola. i do have an amendment, mr. chairman, before the committee to strike two sections. one that amends dodd-frank to include the swaps pushout language and the other that

multiplies by ten the amount of money that wealthy individuals can give to a political party. together these provisions stack the deck for special interests against middle class. in closing, i'm pleased the appropriations committee has come together on a package to fund 11 of the 12 spending bills. i will reiterate that it contains many things i wish had had a different outcome. i would have wanted more for key investments like the national institutes of health. weish all of the riders, started with about 1000 items, down to about 75 riders. i wish all of them had been dropped. and i need to see whether the rules committee makes changes to this package before making a final determination. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much.

it's very clear, not only your participation, your wishes, some of the things that you wanted, some of the things you didn't get but working together the benefit of the team. i appreciate you very much. chairman klein, perhaps a new submission but not a new idea. but one that's a bipartisan idea and one i believe is good for us to know about and hear about is your hard work with mr. miller on pensions. obviously our country has gone through five years of a very difficult time, and the average american that gets up and goes to work plays by the rules, does the right thing, they should not find themselves on the bad side just because of timing. and i know you have taken a lot of time to include this. and i'm delighted the gentleman's recognized. >> members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to to speak on behalf of the klein-miller amendment. i don't know how many of those there's been, george, but i'm pleased to be here today. this bipartisan amendment

provides a legislative response to a growing crisis that's now facing millions of americans in the multi-employer pension system. for more than a year, mr. chairman, in fact, for over two years, but for more than a year, the committee has been working intensely to take a proposal put forward by business and labor and turn it into a bipartisan solution. this bipartisan agreement we've reached will protect taxpayers by putting the pension benefit guarantee corporation, the federal backstop for defined benefit pension plans on a more sound financial footing. protect employers by helping to address the pensions, liabilities crushing their businesses and protect retirees by giving the trustees of trouble plans the tools they need to avoid insolvency. this isn't a perfect solution, mr. chairman, i suppose there aren't many, but it's a good solution that deserves our support. we cannot let this opportunity pass by. hoping we will get a better deal in the future. further delay will make this harder, not easier.

by acting now we can prevent a , bad situation from getting much worse. by acting now, we can deliver retirees greater protections that may not be available down the road. and by acting now, we can begin to address a tough issue with strong, bipartisan support. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan multiemployer pension reform agreement and its inclusion to the spending bill. thank you. >> thank you very much. by the way, your inclusion of mr. miller should be set. thank you for being participatory with him. it takes two sides to get these things done and i'm proud of our chairman. welcome. you've been to the rules committee 4000 or 5,000 times over your career. you've been here as a vigorous advocate. i've seen you win too many and then your record up here is better than losses. i'd like to have you grab that mic. make sure the green light is on.

we are delighted you are here. as one of your colleagues i , enjoyed watching you, seeing you and your opportunities to work all the way back with john boehner when he was in the committee. and i know that you have been a strong leader in the field of education. gentleman's recognized. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman for your kind remarks and thank you to you and ranking member slaughter for allowing mr. klein and myself to come before the committee. the client-miller amendment is based upon a proposal developed two years ago working together to find a path for severely distressed and failing pension plans. this amendment will give planned trustees, labor and management the tools they need to avoid impending collapse of multiemployer plans. they will also provide new funds with a premium increase for the insurer charged with backing up these plans which is also facing bankruptcy.

the klein-miller amendment is the only available option and it is the last chance for labor unions and their members and their employers to gain some control over the future of their pensions. i expect this is my last time before this committee. throughout my 40 years in congress, i have worked to strengthen pension protections and expand retirement security for all americans. i have fought for workers and i have fought for their benefits. when wall street was siphoning money out of workers' 401(k) plans via hidden fees, i fought to make sure people could make an informed decision about the retirement savings. i fought to protect workers from conflicted investment and advice that could be put -- could put their retirement security at risk. it is my commitment to workers and the retirement security that brings me here today. we have an obligation to reform the multiemployer pension system so we can protect the retirement security of workers nationwide. the amendment before you today, which is backed by business and labor, which will secure the multiemployer pension systems for millions of current and

future retirees. it includes important consumer safeguards that give the participants in these plans a voice to protect their most vulnerable, the most vulnerable of the retirees. it will also provide critical flexibility necessary to keep workers from losing everything. employers and employees would have the option, this is the option, there's nothing here mandated. they would have to make a decision that they want to take, come together and try to -- try to design the best rescue plan they can so their pension plan can survive for a longer period of time and with a level of benefits that can be sustained. and i think that's an important right to grant them. many of these multi-employer plans have already tried to work this out. but at the end of the day, they were prohibited by law from cutting pension benefits. they've already made a decision that's the only way they can rescue their plan. but the federal law stands in their way.

we remove that impediment. if they choose not to take advantage of it, that's their choice. if they choose to take advantage of it, we wish them the best of luck in trying to work out a sustainable pension plan for their members without going into bankruptcy and then going to the pbgc, increasing the liabilities and the snowball continues downhill. so thank you for your consideration. i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their consideration of this amendment. we think it is very important. it's not a new idea that's been kicking around, we've had two years of hearings of this last congress on this matter under chairman klein's leadership and we've had numerous hearings in the committee before on this exact provision. i think its time has come. thank you. >> thank you very much. before my deferring to the gentleman from texas i would like to ask unanimous consent for a document called fy 2015 which has been prepared by the appropriations committee without

objection. that will be entered into the record. that provides not only factually based information, but if anybody needs a record about what was included, that will be there for them. the chair would now recognize in reverse order, the gentleman from louisville, texas dr. , burgess. gentleman has no questions. ms. slaughter? >> [indiscernible] >> the gentleman g -- gentlewoman does not seek time. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i want to say thank you to our colleagues. i do know that our colleagues, my colleagues, particularly on the education workforce committee have worked extremely hard to get these pension

reforms done. having been on that committee for some time, i agree with them and know this is a critical time to get these provisions passed. and i want to lend my support to the comments that they have made . pension reform is never easy as we have found out over the years. but we're particularly at a critical time. i want to thank the -- i want to agree with the chairman of the appropriations committee that doing this through regular order, one bill at a time is the best way to do it. and we have done it. we've spent many hours in this committee, this past year hearing from our colleagues about appropriations bills. we spent many hours on the floor. and as i sat here and listened to the chairman and the ranking member, it sounded to me as though, and i guess i could put a little bit more water in this glass, and i would say this that what i heard, i heard the chairman saying that the glass was half full.

and i heard the ranking member saying that the glass was half empty. we're looking at the same glass of water. and that's what struck me particularly when congresswoman lowey was speaking. she emphasized things we didn't do, the chairman emphasized things we did do. and so that image struck me. and i want to say this is the way it gets done with legislation, particularly why we don't like the bills. -- on the this bills. -- omnibus bills but i want to thank everyone involved for your hard work and say nobody is probably terrible happy, completely happy, therefore i learned long ago in state legislature if nobody's completely happy, then it's probably the best legislation we can get done. and with that, i yield -- yes? >> the reason we are here with

an omnibus bill, the house passed seven of the 12 bills. 84 hours of debate and amendment, seven bills that went 300-something amendments were considered and dealt with. we sent those individual bills, then, to the senate. and they're supposed to take them up like we did, individual. but they didn't. not only all yearlong they didn't take up a single one of the appropriations bills that we sent over there. consequently, we have no choice then at the end of the year to come together and try to put together a funding for the entire government because the senate simply didn't act. so that's why we're here. i have preached and still am preaching to do individual bills, house, senate, conference them separately, do it the right way. and that's the aim that i have

that i've been trying to do this for four years now. i think, perhaps, things are going to change now with a change in the senate where we can take up the separate bills as it ought to be done. thank you. >> i appreciate what the chairman said. i wasn't going to bring all those things up myself. but i am glad you did, because, as has been the history of this institution for a long time, the problem is over in the senate, not in the house. we're able to act, able to do our jobs, we did, and i want to say i believe this other saying is appropriate, too. you are preaching to the converted, mr. chairman. thank you very much. >> the gentleman from massachusetts recognized. >> well, i hope i'm not causing that. okay? i'll just speak this way.

thank you. first of all, i want to thank testifyingho is here , for the hard work you put in. on so many issues. but it is frustrating to be here with an omnibus bill that is 1600 -- actually, 1,603 pages long that, i think, we can all be honest with one another that nobody here has fully read. and with each passing minute, i find out there's something else in here that gives me indigestion. and i think the process is lousy, and i appreciate the fact that the chairman and the ranking member have tried to bring appropriations bills to the floor on their own. but i think there have been five bills we haven't brought to the floor. and even if we have to get to this kind of process at the end of the session, we ought to

build in an extra week or something so that people have an opportunity to be able to look at it so we're not all kind of going through all this stuff. and i'm concerned about a number of things. i'm concerned about the fact that we continue to fund wars that congress hasn't authorized. there are provisions in this bill that weaken the child nutrition act. there's this crazy campaign finance adjustment in here i didn't know about until a little while ago that increases the limits on individual contributions to a party by allowing a person to contribute a total of $770,000 per year. >> thank you very much. you know, maybe i paid attention to it and somebody else didn't, but i believe what happened is we have taken away funding by the federal government for conventions. the federal government's not going to pay for conventions anymore. and yet conventions still need to be paid for. a lot of security and a lot of

other things. and so that is what this is here for. >> my advice to the political parties would be maybe to seek out people who don't have $770,000. we ought to be -- the trouble -- >> and i'll yield back to the gentleman. but you have still got to pay for for -- >> you know, you could fund it -- >> even for both sides, thank you. >> for both sides, absolutely. >> would you yield on a moment on that -- for a second? because it is not just for conventions. it's for housekeeping accounts and you know what housekeeping

accounts are for political parties. go for almost anything. >> but i don't -- you know, and then there's a provision that, you know, that repeals, you know, truck driver safety rules that will make our roads less safe. and none of these things belong, most of these things don't belong in an appropriations bill. and certainly not in an omnibus bill. i also associate myself with the remarks of ranking member and of of -- i mean the repeal of the dodd/frank provisions in this bill are awful. and i want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the entire statement of congressman frank. and i also want to associate myself with remarks of the senator from massachusetts, elizabeth warren on the floor in the senate today asking, i think, a fundamental question. and that is, who does congress work for? does it work for millionaires, billionaires, giant companies with their army of lobbyists? or does it work for us? this provision is not a technical fix. it's a big deal. and, you know, and it -- it would -- and the provision that is about to be repealed requires banks to keep separate a key part of their risky wall street speculation so there's no government insurance for that part of their business.

i mean, i -- i don't know why we're doing this and i don't know why we're doing this in a bill like an omnibus bill. just one final question for mr. klein and mr. miller, i appreciate the fact that we have to do something about pensions. but i have to tell you that this provision is controversial to say the least. i mean, i've got a -- a statement here from jim hoffa, the general president of the teamsters who says that basically this would result in cuts to pensions for his members. and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the letter to the rules committee. but concerns from other unions from the aarp and there's some unions that have written in support. i guess what i'm a little concerned about here is that -- since we're going to take this

provision up that it be taken up as a separate vote. and it not be part of a self-executing rule where you pass the rule and this and 100 other things become part of it. i don't know enough about this to be honest with you to tell you whether it's a good deal or a bad deal. i just know a lot of people i trust tell me they have problems with it. it ought to have adequate debate. and i hope whatever we decide here won't be something that is, you know, some self-executing mechanism that we often do around here. but, anyway, i don't want to belabor this. you've been working on this for an awful long time. i just think there's got to be a better way to do our business than this. and i get it, we're at the end of the session, but there's nothing that says -- and i'll tell you, i'd be willing to stay here a couple of extra days if it meant that people had the

opportunity to go through and review this. i don't think anybody here with a straight face can say they know what's in this bill. and with that, i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back his time. thank you very much. the gentleman from utah's recognized. >> let me, if i could, just say a few things very quickly without a prepared statement or questions coming in there. first of all, to the gentleman from education workforce if there is a klein/miller amendment, this either has to be the best damn amendment ever written or the biggest mistake we have ever done. i don't know which one it is. but the fact that you have brought forth a bipartisan amendment says a great deal right there and probably should be left at that. secondly, i think i echo what everyone has said, especially the chairman of the appropriations committee. this is a lousy way of doing business. sad element is it's not the first time i've ever seen business accomplished in this way. it's not the first time i've seen self-executing rules accomplished.

hopefully, probably, unfortunately, it may not be the last time. but that i want to emphasize in your defense how much i have appreciated you bringing the other bills, the house has done to us as we have discussed them. i appreciate you bringing them up to us. and had the senate actually done their business, then this would not be the process we're going through. that is what is extremely frustrating of two years of going through these games. and unfortunately, it's not the -- this issue alone. i was part of the negotiating team for team for the defense authorization bill. it was the exact same problem there. we did the bill in a timely and efficient way yet the senate has not even had committee hearings on it. that is the frustration. it's a process none of us like. i'm not trying to shift the blame over there, i am shifting the blame over there. what i am looking forward to come january is the chance to

start with a fresh slate and do it the right way. that includes comments about riders in this bill. yes, it should be done in authorization measures. come january, i hope to be able to do that. since come january, i will not be able to speak to you from this forum, it will be in a different way where my time limits will be limited. let me say a couple of things that i would like to put in the record. i appreciate what you have done in the area of land issues in this bill. and i appreciate what you have done on riders dealing with grazing allotments. however, coming forward, again, we are going to talk to you again about fees. fees really are, in my estimation, a tax and they should not be at the acquisition of the executive branch to do them, it should be a legislative function. so there will be fees dealing with not just grazing fee, but other fee that is are done on public lands. i want to work with you to make

sure they do not come through the appropriations. we authorize the fees and the legislative body looks at the fees. i appreciate what you have done with pilt and the pilt payments. srs is not here. i'm going to come back and say yes, we need to do the same thing with payment in lieu of taxes, but find a unique way of funding those that will be a constant source so it is not done in a haphazard way and the same with schools, there is, can potentialuld be funding sources to make sure these programs will have a secure force of funding. and we can do it in the long term. finally, i appreciate in here you have, once again, a one-year prohibition on sage grass. there is no potential endangered issue that could have the greatest and most serious impact in the west and midwest as this particular species does. the fact we are not allowing the states to go through and come up

with a program that fits the geology and geography of the individual states and looking at a court ordered mandate is one of the problems. this is not something i blame on your committee. this is where too often policies are dictated where people have some kind of say, but judicial proceedings where they were done in a settle approach. and settle approach. it's the wrong way of doing things. you have given a one year moratorium in here for us to look at it. as we talk about this issue, one year is not enough to find out the viability of programs out there. they need a chance to go forward with it for their own areas and they need five to ten years to find out if the things can work. they are issues we are kochling back here.

i appreciate the fact that your committee made progress and addressed the issues. i'm going to talk about those in the future. there are issues we need to do the appropriate way through authorization bills. i thank you for your hard work. i am sad that we are doing it this way. but, to be honest, all of you, your hands are tied. you didn't have a lot of options in the way you came about this. thank you for the hard work and thank you for bringing a bipartisan bill, bipartisan amendment. boy, that's weird. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank all those that are presenters and friends of all of us and do remarkable work under the constraints that we are allowed in this body. i don't think that my friends on the republican side can honestly say that they want to fund and run government responsibly when,

in fact, what we are passing with this omnibus funding package only funds the department of homeland security until february. it's my hope and i'm sure the noe of all of us that significant or matter of harm will come to any of us and the citizens that we represent, but the agency with the mandate to protect the borders, these are the same border that is many of friends,any of my particularly on the other side continue to focus on. i think rightfully so. it is an ongoing concern. what we are experiencing right now in the final analysis on this subject is a blatant political stunt, just trying to

satisfy those who are the extremists of the republican party. now, they are entitled to all of their views, but i find it ironic that despite these efforts to appease republican extremists, house republicans are still going to have to rely on democrats to pass this bill. both now and when it comes up again in february as it pertains to homeland security. i can assure you the same extremists won't be any happier this time in february because barack obama is still going to be the president and still be in office and my view is, we need to grow up around here and stop letting the extremist of either of our parties run the agenda.

good friend for whom i have the greatest respect, harold rogers, speaks of the seven measures that have been passed, and that is commendable. but i would argue that those funding bills were the easiest of the funding bill that is you and the appropriations committee had to undertake. and the five that would have involved hard choices have not been addressed, so, pretend thag that all the blame rests with the senate and a lot of it does, let me be clear about that, for not passing their bills, we have to recognize and realize that passing blatantly partisan bills that cater to the extremists in the republican party isn't a viable option. all we have achieved has been a shifting of power from the house and committee floors to

back rooms with fine young staffers who do extraordinary work and are terribly under paid, in my judgment in this institution. and allowing for much of what we wind up with -- these 1600 plus pages and she pointed to the fact that none of us have read it. more importantly, none of us have read it and few of us really understand it. that's where the rug is unlikely to come. i kind of am certain this is a prelude to the next congress, but once again, we are busy removing restrictions on big business. and their ability to pollute and destroy our natural resources. i don't know when my friends on the other side are going to come to the conclusion that just letting giant corporations have

their will because they are going to do the right thing. there's no clear evidence that they have done the right thing and i don't know how many more oil spills or burning rivers or factory explosions it's going to take, or polluted food and damaged people before we realize that we do need a strong and accountable regulatory system. now, mr. chairman, i would have been prepared, sight unseen, not having had an opportunity to review every aspect of this bill, i, you, and all of us voted on measures a lot of times that we didn't understand. but, this one comes with two of the people bringing us a measure, alluded to by my good friend, mr.

bishop as the best or the worst when george miller and john klein wind up teaming up. but, i couldn't fundamentally disagree with my two good friends, john klein and george when it comes to the matter that they are addressing and more importantly, the process under which it's taken. i hear you when you say that many of these matters have beenoiz discussed before. -- have been 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. >> without objection. >> united steel workers. >> without objection. >> the labor international union. >> without objection. -- oilermakers, blacksmith >> without objection. >> and something a lot of this belong to, the american association of retired persons. >> without objection. following in the

third paragraph. the lengthy and complex proposal has not been introduced. the 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 attach attached to the fiscal year 2015 omnibus and enacted without further scrutiny. that was written on the third of december. precedent sore not press i , 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. they are preparing legislation for the lame duck session to overturn a key tenant of the employee retirement income act. we know it as arissa, and allow drastic cuts to the pensions of current retirees. the legislation, which is being brokered 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 hearings or 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 buff 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. when it comes to these measures, he knows what he's doing and does it exceedingly well and i compliment him. but 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. 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 particular bankruptcy proceeding and trying to restore that city i went to school with , his father and his mother lives in my constituency. i have been friends with the family a long time. i think 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 the members of the union will make. right now, if we do nothing, those very same retirees you're 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 a year, roughly. 12,000. if they are getting better than that, that's what they get, game over. we can say we didn't cut their benefits. the build us on a , voluntaryry basis, if they believe they might be able to salvage their pension plan. say they are getting $2,000 a month. if everybody takes 1007 under

-- takes500 a month, month, it can a 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 are running the ridge with 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 are hoping that 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. they are a little bit different in this characteristic, it's quite conceivable. if nothing else, i could give them the opportunity, if we trust the labor unions, the workers, and 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 employment roles, we might

be able to pump up the life pbgc,ancy of the somewhere between six and a years. so -- they recognize the walls are closing in on them. we can give them one opportunity. my citizens, with the agreement of mr. klein, is to take a vote. some union plans don't want their retirees to vote. 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. >> right. but 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.

radical.d be fairly >> the fact that it does cut -- [laughter] >> like voters. >> yeah. god forbid we have too many of those, you see. briefly, the, very irony is, in the picture you showed us, there was a saw cutting around, the status 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 saw. >> i still argue that the process should have been more transparent and i still believe it drastically cut's the pensions of retirees already living on their pensions. i still believe that the plans

need not be in immediate danger of insolvency to take the actions we are taking. i still believe all the retirees under the age of 80 subject to cut, including widows, still believe retiree cuts, in this instance, if first result, not the last resort. in many respects i think what we are doing could have been done differently than to attach something to a bill at the last minute. for the life of me, i don't think that's the way to go about it. mr. chairman, i have occupied a lot of time. i appreciate it. >> excuse me. does the gentleman wish further time for mr. miller? >> i do. i thank you and appreciate it. i think it is important at this juncture to mention that this is supported by the north american building association, the plumbers, united brotherhood of carpenters.

they have been coming to us because their locals have voted to do this. they could not do it for the last several years. united food and commercial workers, international union of painters and allied trade and the electrical contractors, dairy farmers of america, kelloggs, kroger, land o lakes, penske, 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 plans. >> i thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. >> thank you. it has been great to listen to this debate over the soul of the democratic party. i have enjoyed it.

it has 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 solution in the near 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 01:18:25 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. >> well, first, i'll start with wanting to thank mr.

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 deficit spending? >> did the gentleman yield? >> i'll be happy to further -- >> this committee, with the congressional support, has

spendingiscretionary over the last four years, since 2010. we continue that. the problem is that 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. i think we are talking about an operating deficit. >> my point is, in answer to your question, we have reduced discretionary spending every year.

i think this seer is .$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 we are talking about 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 to know, maybe'ti 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. >> im trying to understand the point that you are making. i know how important the funding that we are providing in this .ill 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 am not mistaken, it is a

low as it has been in 45 years. >> just to clarify, inflation adjusted, percentage of gdp -- >> percentage of gdp. >> that is a valid way to measure it. >> we are constrained by the rules of the caucus. there was a budget control act and you are certainly aware of the mandate we were given and the numbers we were given. i want to make one other point because i think it is important. up agreement that followed after the budget control act and, in fact, there is rarely 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. it is a big total. 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. >> i need to venture into spending sitting next to the chairman, but the gentleman from colorado, when he talks about unfunded liabilities going for word, -- 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. collects we are doing the >> weing expenditures --

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 01:28:08 of the murray-ryan agreement -- >> yes. >> that followed up when we came. >> right. >> i want to be clear.

i'm not throwing the deficit at mr. rogers 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. rogers 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. , 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 01:29:20 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. 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. 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. 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 appreciate the comments. >> to echo the same words, we just went through this 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 the , 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.