the world becomes more dangerous, and avoiding tough choices. the package before us today will sustain a much-needed rebuilding of our military after a half decade of cuts, while our troops remained in constant combat, and they do so today. we provided prioritized funding to necessary but unfunded equipment and weapons platforms. we boosted missile-defense, a program that has taken on critical importance as north korea unabatedly tries to marry its nuclear warheads with new ballistic missiles. we increased funding for the vital training that prepares our war fighter for any contingency. this legislation also supports our military families. after all, they serve, too. we include a 2.4% pay increase for our servicemen and women, the largest raise in eight years, and they deserve it.

within the military construction of veterans, a portion of this bill -- and i thank the chairman for his leadership -- military infrastructure funding has increased by 25% above current levels. continue our efforts to rebuild our armed forces, ensuring our war fighters have the support they need. we cannot forget those who served. this measure increases funding for the department of veterans affairs by 5% over current levels to provide veterans and a -- and their families with access to medical care and other benefits they have earned and deserve. within the energy and water section of this legislation, i thank chairman simpson for his leadership. funding is prioritized for critical nuclear programs that will help strengthen our security and deter threats around the globe. we also support the maintenance of our nation's waterways and support the work of our army corps and to ensure security of our electricity infrastructure.

we recommit to opening yucca mountain as a safe location to permanently store the nation's nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and promote basic science programs which lay the foundation for new energy technologies. finally, mr. chairman, this package also includes funding for important legislative branch functions. i thank chairman yoder for his leadership, improving security to ensure our members, our staff and visitors to this wonderful capitol complex are always welcome check. mr. chairman, before i close, i want to offer thanks to members of the appropriations committee for their hard work and tough decisions over the past few months. reducing two appropriations bills. fiscal year 2017-2018 in less than three months. as you know, we received the president's budget on may 23, over two months ago. since then, we have worked nonstop to put all 12 bills to

the committee in record time. each and every one of these bills deserves to be sent to the president's desk. i look forward to completing work on all of our bills. i would like to extend my personal thanks to the entire committee and to our remarkable staff of our hard work on these bills and on the eight yet to come. >> gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield myself four minutes. >> the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. >> typically, energy, water, and defense bills would be debated and amended by the full house individually. regrettably, we are debating this $790 billion so-called

security minibus in only two hours. for some reason other than necessity. substantive amendments chosen at the discretion of the chairman of the rules committee will be debated for 10 minutes. we also expect $1.6 billion in border wall funding to be added through a rules gimmick meant to prevent an up or down vote on the law. -- on the wall. the undemocratic maneuver by the rules committee to unilaterally remove congresswoman barbara lee's amendment to debate a new aumf, which received bipartisan support in the committee is simply outrageous.

all the promises of republican leadership of returning to regular order and have been broken. i do however want to thank the chairman for conducting business in the appropriations committee markups fairly, and collegially, as the minority offered amendments late into the night. on top of the many procedural inequities, however, the majority's increased defense spending is a mirage. shattering budget control caps would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts of 13% to every defense account. yet the majority pretends to sequester, which would cut $72 billion in defense funding in this bill. it isn't real.

i want to make it very clear that democrats are ready to work with our republican colleagues to raise the caps on defense, but we must also raise the cap on important domestic priorities. playing politics with the bill that funds the troops by inserting the toxic border wall to it is beyond the pale. why not include the fbi or the entire homeland security bill? if the intention is to pass

security-related bills, securing our homeland goes beyond the department of defense and our own budgets in the legislative branch. the republican approach to funding our government for fy 18, all but guarantees short-term if not a full-year continuing resolution. just like every year, democratic votes will be needed to enact appropriation law, and i really do hope we will soon start to work together again to invest responsibly in both defense and nondefense priorities to grow the economy, create jobs, and secure the country. as i conclude, i want to thank our distinguished chairman, mr. frelinghuysen, his outstanding staff, as well as my outstanding staff. an additional minute. >> recognized for an additional minute.

rep. lowey: however, i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, which would waste $1.6 billion on trump's border wall, use fraudulent defense numbers, guts critical investments in clean energy, includes poison pill riders, and leaves the remaining spending bills with no path forward. >> joining us now for an update on the fall congressional agenda from capitol hill is christina marco, a reporter with the hill. cristina, now that the house has passed four of the 12 federal spending bills, what are the plans for the august recess? guest: the house expects to take up the remaining eight spending bills for the next fiscal year. however, speaker paul ryan has said in the last week or so, while over the august recess, that because the senate has such

a backlog of nominations, they are still dealing with that, it appears likely nonetheless that the house will turn to a short-term spending extension. in congressional parlance, it is known as a continuing resolution. the real funding fight may well go into december, since the spending bill that they will likely pick up will likely only be for a few months. host: you mentioned the trump administration and continuing resolution. president trump has called for a border wall between the u.s. and mexico, and he said, one way or the other, mexico is going to pay for the wall, but he also talked about a shutdown in conjunction. if he doesn't get the funding for that. how do you think we are going to see this resolve itself to avoid a government shutdown september 30 and also the continuing resolution. you say that will be needed? guest: hard to say how it will play out. trump has never held elected office before. this is the first year of his

presidency. the last time that he was pushing for funding of the wall to be included in a spending package was earlier this spring, when congress had to keep the government funded. in the end, the trump administration ultimately backed down in the face of widespread democratic opposition and even some opposition from republicans. especially in the texas delegation and other states where there is a border. they are the ones on the ground, and they are saying this is not really practical and we should invest in things like border technology and other kind of infrastructure, not necessarily a wall as envisioned by donald trump on the campaign trail. in any case, mexico would not be paying for this wall as trump famously promised in his rally. host: on the other side of the capital, if we take a look at the senate, what are their plans to deal with federal spending? guest: the same problems as the house.

they are at this point not planning to take up any kind of spending package like the house is the first week back, but it is possible that in the end, the senate could pass a short-term spending bill and send it over to the house. that game plan has not really been meshed out at this point. host: another issue that congress is going to be dealing with this fall, raising the debt ceiling to avoid a default on debt. steve mnuchin testified in july before the senate appropriations committee, and he was questioned about the debt. we will take a look at some of his testimony. sec. mnuchin: as we spoke about the u.s. reached the debt limit in march, and you are using a measures to avoid default, do you agree that allowing the government to default on its debts is a terrible idea that would have significant consequences for our market, our economy, and the threat of default has the potential for costly applications patience for the -- implications for the government and it undermines our

credibility? >> senator, yes. thank you for asking a question, which is on one of my favorite subjects and has also been one of the previous secretary's favorite subjects. ,et me again emphasize that thet is of utmost importance. we are the reserve currency, and we must pay our bills on time. so as i have suggested in the past, based upon our best estimate at the time, we have the funding through september, but i have urged congress to take this up before they leave for the recess. >> let me ask you a couple questions. i wanted to pick up where the senator left off, on the issue of debt ceiling. we are using extraordinary measures. do extraordinary measures have cost to the taxpayer? sec. mnuchin: yes. >> give me a guess as to what they cost the taxpayer when we move past the time period and wait and delay the decision on

the action. sec. mnuchin: there is a significant cost. it is twofold. the first cost is a real cost, which is right now effectively, as opposed to barring in the market at lower rate, we are borrowing and making our trust funds hold at slightly higher rates. there is a real cost to doing that. there is also an implied cost of uncertainty into the market. the longer we wait, the more that uncertainty will be. again, i fully urge congress to deal with this issue as soon as possible. >> a couple things on that. the best guess i have been working with your team and trying to get an accurate cost of extra ordinary measures, is $2.5 billion to the taxpayer in real dollars. we pay in because we are covering our own interests to be able to do that. that is a significant cost and loss to the taxpayer. second thing is, you and i have spoken about this before. we should and will do a debt

limit issue, because that is taken care of, already, when budget decisions are made. there is something that has to be resolved at that point. my request to you is to be able to work with congress and figure out a way that when we get to a debt limit moment, we do address the issue of debt because we cannot ignore that, and pile on that, and assume there is no consequences. those key moments should be in the fiscal decision we make. we need to find some sort of consistent calendar. i have recommended a two-year debt limit time period that every two years we have to address this, and determine if we have the deficit going up or down? if the deficit is going down, the president has the authority to make the decision on the debt limit. if the deficit is rising or is static, congress has to debate it. that forces us to get back to , how are we dealing with the issue of deficit? for me, we have half a trillion dollars in overspending this year.

we cannot pretend that will go away. we have to address it and i believe a debt ceiling moment is a moment to address it, but if we are actually cutting away at the deficit, i think that should be a process that is ongoing and very predictable. the only time it is not predictable, is the moment when the deficit is static, because something has to be addressed at that moment and we have to take that on. >> cristina marcos is with us, a reporter for the hill. the trump administration called on congress to vote to raise the debt ceiling before the august recess. obviously, they did not do that. what have you heard from house and senate leaders about their plans to schedule a vote on the debt ceiling? and when is the deadline to avoid default? guest: the default deadline that has been issued by the treasury department is september 29, which incidentally is one day , before funding for the federal government expires. what is likely at this point to

happen is that, congress may lump both of those things into one vote rather than forcing the republicans to take two votes. so they can lift the debt ceiling and keep the government funded at the same time. speaker paul ryan, senator mcconnell, steve mnuchin, have all been seeking to emphasize should notarkets worry because they are confident this will be dealt with in a timely manner. host: are we expecting a clean vote on the debt limit as the white house has been calling for? guest: there has been mixed messages on this front. treasury secretary steve mnuchin has been calling for a clean debt limit increase. speaker paul ryan and mitch mcconnell have not been ruling any options out, because there is a highly influential faction of conservatives in the house and in the senate, who have always called for pairing spending cuts with the debt limit increase.

especially now that republicans control congress and the white house, they are really insistent that -- during the obama years, they had president obama saying they should have a clean debt limit. it was not really a realistic possibility, but this time, since theoretically they have conservative control, this is something they can theoretically deliver on. but it is unclear if they can the votes to do that. host: who could prevent a clean vote? guest: the house freedom caucus has been at the forefront of this since earlier this summer, they have been calling for a corresponding spending cuts with debt limit increase. we could see some support for that in the republican spending committee which is conservative. , they generally have not taken as many hard-line positions as the freedom caucus, but in the end, since there is a need to it ishe government funded

, entirely possible that they will end up with a clean debt limit. host: another issue is the tax code, and congress plans to take up a rewrite of the tax code this fall. in the next video we will show , this is from early august, we are going to be hearing from house ways and means chair kevin brady on the republicans' proposals for tax reform, and then we will hear from the senate. floor remarks from minority leader chuck schumer on the democrats' plan. brady: for years, americans have watched our jobs, our manufacturing, our research, our headquarters move overseas. they have seen america struggle in raising paychecks for every american. so, after all these years, it really begs the question of every american -- "why are we standing idly by and watching our jobs leave our shores? why, and at what point, you

know, have we given up on the reagan principles of simplicity and fairness and competitiveness?" and when did we decide to give in to washington special interests, at the expense of hard-working americans who truly contribute to america's economy? you know, i just do not accept where we're at right now in the tax code. our local businesses, our middle-class families, they don't accept it either. and so, on this historic day, it is time for us to come together and show the world as a nation , we do not accept this tax code. and it is time to change it. for the first time in 31 years, we have a white house, house and committed to fixing

this broken tax code and , providing relief for every family while we are growing jobs and paychecks. and it will not be easy. tax reform, legislatively, it is the biggest challenge of any generation. social media, on twitter, already has a hashtag for it. #trih, tax reform is hard. and it is. it is. to be successful, as president reagan was, it is important to remember what we are fighting against, and more importantly, it is important to remember what we are fighting for. we are fighting against this monster of a tax code. and this tax code has been winning. in that, it is on a 31 year winning streak. it has tripled in size since president reagan reformed. once again, we have all these lobbyist loopholes, exclusions, deductions, and carveouts.

and today, our tax code is backed by powerful special interests who will fight tooth and nail to preserve their sweetheart deals, even if it they bring tax reform down. we cannot let the status quo win. and if you remember nothing else i say today, we cannot let the status quo win. what we are fighting for is too important. who we are fighting for is too important. we are fighting for what president reagan termed as the greatest special interest of all, the american people. we are fighting for those reagan principles of simplicity and fairness and growth and competition. and more importantly, i think we are fighting for a bigger and better future, for our children and grandchildren.

a better future, a future like kathy and i hope for our two boys. when this fight gets tough, and it will over the coming months, , we cannot give up. we will not give up. the american people are counting on us to persevere, to win, and together, with your support, we will. so, as you know, coming from texas, i do not necessarily talk fast, and i do not talk long either. so, let me close with this. today, we commit to a new chapter in america's great story. today, we commit to a new tax code written for a new era of american excellence and prosperity. with the american people, we can cut all these loopholes out and

we can lower the tax rate for every family, for every business, for every neighborhood in america. and we can vault america from nearly dead last in the world , back into the lead pack. the best place on the planet for that next new job, that next new plant, that next new technology. together, working with president trump, congress, and the american people, you know, i am confident we can meet this challenge. we can rise to this challenge, just as our nation has risen to, and prevailed over so many , challenges before in our history. i believe this with all my heart, because just as president reagan did, i believe that there is no limit to what this nation can achieve when we put our

faith in god, in each other, and in the boundless potential of america's ingenuity. 2017 is the year we make history, and together, i mean truly together, we will. >> my friend, the majority leader, brought down the curtain on bipartisan tax reform before a discussion between our two parties could even start. dismissing the prospect of democratic input, promising the republicans would again use reconciliation to lock is out of the process, repeating the same mistake they did with health care. leader mcconnell's announcement just came a few hours after 45 members of the democratic caucus sent him a letter, saying we were open to bipartisan

discussions on tax reform. we have three simple, straightforward principles. let me read the principles. democratic principles on tax reform. first, do not cut taxes for the 1%. the top 1%. they are doing fine, god bless them. second, do not increase the debt and deficit, something many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been talking about for a long time. and third, negotiate in a fair and open process, not reconciliation, but hearings, amendments, the things that have made america great and have brought the acclaim over the decades it has had. i would like to know which of these principles the majority leaders do not agree with. i would like to know. is he closing the door on bipartisanship, because he so

dearly want to cut taxes on the top 1%? the wealthy are doing great right now. god bless them, but they don't need another tax break, while middle-class families and working americans are struggling just to make ends meet. many of us on the side of the aisle suspect that to some that the number one motivation is to give that top 1% a huge tax break, to please us so many like , the koch brothers. i ask the leader, are you closing be door on bipartisanship simply because you want to cut taxes on the top 1%? or, maybe the leader is closing the door on bipartisanship because he has a fervent desire to blow up the deficit. that doesn't sound like something that republicans have been interested over the years. they have been spending lots of

time, with good reason, deficit scolding and debt-scolding. or, is the majority leader closing the door on bipartisanship because he thinks reconciliation, which means you exclude the democrats from the get-go is a good , process? because he doesn't want to have hearings? because he doesn't want amendments? and maybe it is the same reason on health care. maybe they are ashamed of their proposal. i would like to see somebody on the floor say, we believe in tax cuts on the republican side, we believe in tax cuts for the top 1%. that is why we want to do this. but no. they want to hide it, give a crumb to the middle class and say, see, we are helping you.

and we all know that what happens after we have a big deficit. they come back and say, let's cut medicare and social security because we don't have the money. we don't have money because they cut taxes on the very wealthy. so, i don't know which of these three principles the majority leader is against, but when he closed the door on democrats, when we sent him this letter we -- this letter which simply outlined our principles. that is all we wanted to do. which one or all of them made him close the door? we democrats hoped that we could work together on tax reform, but the majority leader has drawn down the curtain before the play has even begun. republicans will spend the entire first year of congress trying to pass their agenda on reconciliation, a process that deliberately excludes democrats,

excludes hearings, excludes amendments, with no shred of bipartisan input. just like with health care, i believe it will be another dead-end road for republicans. and i tell the majority leader, i quote his speech in 2014, restoring the senate. and i truly believe, i truly believe that leader mcconnell believes in the institution of the senate. he has shown examples of that when he said, we don't want to change the rules, despite president trump pushing to do that. but here is what he said in 2014. "when the senate is allowed to work the way it was designed to, it arrives at a result acceptable to people along the political spectrum. but if it is an assembly line for one party's partisan legislative agenda, it creates instability and strife rather than good, stable law." that is the majority leader's words.

well, if you believe that, my good friend from kentucky why , are you instituting reconciliation, the exclusionary process before we , begin the debate? why might the american people have to learn the lesson of health care if the process doesn't work? the american people want to see us work together. we may not always succeed. it may not be easy. it is hard work. but, we ought to try. this assembly line, a partisan -- of partisan legislation, no democratic input or hearings, no amendments, is not what any of us want. it is not what the american people are calling for, and it won't produce good, stable law. host: christina marcos, with "the hill." what is the current timeline for congress to pick up tax reform? guest: there has been a shifting timeline for a tax reform bill. republicans hope they could've

-- republicans hoped they could've had something by the august recess. clearly that didn't pan out. , the idea that the house could take up a plan in october and the senate could then take it up in the following month would be , following month, where, theoretically something that , could be on president trump's desk by the end of the year. as we saw with republicans plans to repeal obamacare, that quick sort of timeline didn't work out so well. with all the other deadlines that congress faces this fall and in december if they push the government spending fight that far it is , entirely possible their plans to take up tax reform could be pushed aside. host: what have you heard from house and senate leaders about legislation going through regular order, where we have hearings, a floor debate, or would the reconciliation process,

with that be used like it tried , to be used for health care? needing only 51 votes to pass? in the house, i guess that worked. guest: the republicans have been planning to take up tax reform under the same process with reconciliation. so, they wouldn't need democratic votes. members i have been talking to say, they want to avoid the mistakes they made on health care. maybe they are hoping they could find some pro-business democrats who would be interested in working with them. and possibly, another option is that they really want to stick to regular order more so than with the health care bill, rather than rushing the bill to the floor, without extensive hearings ahead of time. they want to be thorough with this and avoid that kind of public criticism they encountered last time when they

, could rushing the votes. host: what has the trump administration's input been on tax reform proposals? should we expect to see more meetings between congressional leaders and the white house for ofwhite house over any kind final bill? guest: i'm sure we will see a lot of meetings in the coming months. with the house, senate leaders, administration officials, tasked with working on tax reform. they are known as the big six. and they have been meeting for months, on this. i am sure we will be seeing a lot more of that in the weeks to come. host: a fourth key issue, and you have mentioned it already, health care reform legislation. congress, planning to take that up this fall after , repeal efforts in the senate have failed. lamar alexander chairs the health committee. he announced that bipartisan meetings to stabilize the health

insurance markets. we're going to hear his remarks on this first and it will be followed up by the senior committee democrat. >> mr. president, this afternoon senator murray, the senator from washington state, who is the ranking member of the senate committee on health, held a labor committee. and i am the chairman of the committee, and we made a joint, bipartisan announcement that the senate health committee will hold hearings beginning the week of september 4, on the actions congress should take to stabilize and strengthen the individual health insurance market so that americans will be able to buy insurance at affordable prices in 2018. we'll hear from state insurance commissioners, patients, governors, from health-care experts and insurance companies. committee staff will begin work this week, working with all committee members to prepare for these hearings and discussions.

that was the announcement that senator murray and i made today. now, in my own words, the reason for these hearings, is that unless congress acts by september 27, when insurance companies must sign contracts with the federal government to sell insurance on the federal exchange next year, millions of americans with government subsidies in up to have our -- up to half of our states, may find themselves with zero options for buying health insurance on the exchanges next year. many others without government subsidies will find themselves unable to afford health insurance, because of rising premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. there are a number of issues with the american health care system, mr. president, but if the house is on fire, you want to put out the fire. and the fire, in this case is , the individual health insurance market. both parties agree on this. our committees, the health

committee, held one hearing on february 1. we will work intensively in order to finish our work in time to have an effect on health insurance policies next year in -- next year, sold in 2018. i am consulting with senator , -- with senator murray, to try and make these hearings as bipartisan as possible. i will be consulting with senator hatch and senator wyden, so the finance committee is aware of anything we discussed that might be within it's jurisdiction. a number of senators had said they would like to be involved. we are going to find a way for them to be involved, and update on our progress. these discussions, the ones i am describing, we are dealing with a small segment of the total health insurance market. only about 6% of insured americans buy their insurance in the individual market. only about 4% of insured americans buy their health

insurance on the affordable care act exchanges. well, while these percentages are small, they represent large numbers of americans, including many of our most vulnerable americans. we are talking about roughly 18 million americans in the individual market. about 11 million of them buy their insurance on the affordable care act exchanges. about 9 million of these 11 million have affordable care act subsidies. and unless we act, many of them may not have policies available to buy in 2018, because insurance companies will pull out of the collapsing markets. it will be like having a bus take it no bus coming through town. just as important, unless we act, costs could rise and make health care unaffordable. for the additional 9 million americans in the individual market who receive no government

support to buy insurance, roughly 2 million who by their health insurance on the exchanges, but who don't qualify for a subsidy, and roughly 7 -- 7 million who by their insurance outside the exchanges. this means they have no government help paying for their premiums, co-pays, and ir deductibles. as we prepare for these discussions, i have urged that president trump temporarily continue the cost-reduction payments through so september, that congress can work on short-term solutions for stabilizing the individual markets in 2018. these cost-sharing reduction subsidies reduce co-pays and reduce deductibles and reduce costs, to-of-pocket help lower-income americans by

their health insurance on the exchanges. we are talking about those who make under 50% of the federal poverty level, $30,000 for an individual, $60,000 for a family of four. without payment of these cost-sharing reductions, americans will be hurt. up to half the states will likely have bare counties providerso insurance offering insurance on the exchanges. and insurance premiums will increase roughly 20%, according to the american health insurance plans. any solution that congress passes for 2018 a stabilization would need to be small, bipartisan, and balanced. it should include funding for the cost-sharing reductions. but it also should include greater flexibility for states, in improving health insurance policies, which should reduce costs. expectis reasonable to

that , if the president were to approve the continuation of cost-sharing subsidies for august and september, and if congress in september should pass a bipartisan stabilization bill that includes cost-sharing for one year, that is 2018, it is reasonable to expect the insurance companies in 2018 would lower their rates. they have told us, in fact, oliver wyman, an independent observer of health care, has told us that lack a funding for cost-sharing reductions would add 11%-20% for premiums in 2018. president, over the next two months, and the congress, over the next year, should take steps to provide certainty that there will be cost-sharing subsidies. that should allow insurance companies to lower the premiums that they have projected they will charge in 2018. in fact, many insurance companies have priced their rates for 2018 at two different levels.

one, with cost-sharing, and one, without cost sharing. so it is important the president ,not only approve a temporary cost-sharing, but that the congress in a bipartisan way find a way to approve it for at least one year so we can keep the premiums down. in, this is only one step what we want to do about health insurance, and the larger question about health care costs. so we will proceed step-by-step. , a subsequent step will be to find a way to provide a way to create a long-term individual insurance market. but in the short term, our proposal is that by mid-september, we will see if we can agree on a way to stabilize the individual insurance market, keep premiums down, and make insurance affordable to all americans. i thank you, president, and i yield the floor.

>> mr. president. >> the senator from rhode island. >> i am here to speak about something else. let me take a moment and thank my chairman for what he has , done. i had the experience of serving on the health committee with chairman alexander and ranking member murray, when we did the education bill last year. education is nearly as fraught a topic, politically, around here, as health care is. what we saw in a thoughtful, regular order of process that was developed under chairman alexander's leadership, was a very considerable piece of work, with real effect. sometimes we agree with something on both sides of the aisle because there is nothing to it. it is national peaches week, or something like that.

when it is something big and consequential, that is where difficulties begin to emerge. what the chairman was able to work in the committee with something big and consequential on health care, and to the end of my days in the senate, i am going to remember that closing vote. when the clerk of the committee called the roll, and every member of the health committee voted in favor of the measure. it came out of committee unanimously. and with that burst of energy, fine, ito the floor passed the house without too many changes, and it was a remarkable piece of work. so, i have seen what the health committee can do under chairman alexander, and ranking member murray, and i am filled with confidence that the process can be terrific there. and i am filled with goodwill towards a successful outcome. and i just think it is terrific, what the

chairman has said. i just want to say that word of appreciation. host: the senate health committee has scheduled for two days of hearings on health care beginning september 6. cristina marcos, what is the purpose of these hearings? guest: since the senate health care bill went down in flames earlier this summer, the plan is that the senate health committee will have hearings with state insurance commissioners and several governors, in both democratic and republican states, to talk about maybe there are some bipartisan solutions lawmakers can agree on, rather than going with the original republican plan of straight up repealing and replacing the health care law. and so, some of these governors have been working on bipartisan solutions of their own, like governor john hickenlooper of colorado, he is one of the governors set to testify. he has been working on a proposal to stabilize the health

market. he has been working with ohio governor john kasich, a republican. they are hoping to get some more input on that. as chairman alexander said, these governors and state insurance commissioners are at the center of the problem. host: will there be more effort in the fall to repeal the health care law, or fix the current problems? guest: republicans in both the house and senate have indicated they would like to move on and start working on tax reform. a lot of them have acknowledged, privately that this , is what they really want to work on. it seems at this point, politically, and devote wise, this is what they would like to pass through both chambers may be a slimmed-down insurance stabilization markets. host: several items were not on the agenda until recently, have come up. possible disaster relief for hurricane harvey, and plans to reauthorize the national flood insurance program. that is set to expire september

30. what is the status of some of these issues? how do they impact efforts to fund the federal government? guest: the flood insurance program was going to be dealt with in september. but now that we have hurricane harvey in the spotlight it will , probably get a lot more attention. federal aid for harvey once local officials assess how much aid is needed, that will likely become part of the bill. government spending could be one way for public and leaders to ease passing the short-term spending bill, which, historically in recent years democrats have had to carry most , of the votes on that. democrats likely vote no. which is a vote no, hope yes. host: we're expecting russian and house

investigations into the russian influence in the 2016 u.s. elections, to continue into the fall. there are also calls from democrats, to censure president trump. what is the status of these efforts? guest: democrats are pushing censure of president trump after his political response to the violence stemming from a white supremacist march and charlottesville, earlier in august. and some democratic aides have suggested that democrats might find ways to force votes on and, through committees through the resolution of inquiry. that is a way for the minority party to get documents from the administration. for example, they could ask for documents on how the administration is addressing white supremacist comments. and there are a variety of other ways that they could force the vote on how

to address the threat from racial violence, and censure trump. unlikely thaty republicans whatever sign on to that. host: cristina, thanks for joining us. and, we arere joined by john bennett. good morning, john. >> good morning. >> the white house has said the initial request might be $6 billion, and members of commerce -- members of congress are expected to approve that quickly. >> last night, the white house office of management and budget sent up a letter, which is the

first step to a formal request. seven .8 5ing for billion dollars immediate -- $7.85 billion immediately. burningk, fema is through their disaster money at a stunning rate. i think that shows the level of damage on the ground, in texas and louisiana. and then, the white house is also expecting a continuing resolution, while they work on a longer-term spending bill. to congress,e said if you do have to do a cr, we want $6.7 billion in that. so that brings the total of what to $14.55asked for, billion. that would come in the next few weeks, maybe the next month or so.

of getting this, these things are always tricky. i think the initial $7.85 billion, i think the white house will get that. we have not heard too much, so far, and i think the key thing to look for here, is to kind of go back and look at the hurricane sandy relief bill, which became really political. it took a long time to get it through. conservatives,e will want this emergency spending to be as clean, meaning nothing in the bill that they think isn't directly related to responding and recovering from hurricane harvey, these things can get really tricky. initial $7.85e billion goes through very quickly. they could cast in the next week or two. we have seen spending fights

for 6, 7 years, a couple of times a year. on if conservatives insist these bills being clean, if they offsets, the only thing harder in washington to negotiate than an offset, is in operation -- is an authorization to use military force. the same with offsets. there is always a group that likes the thing that you want to cut, to pay for disaster relief. i think we will see a fight. i don't think we will see a fight on this on the hill, with the white house getting involved in the next few weeks. but, we are talking as much as $150 billion. to $120ina total came billion, that was the federal total. so, we are talking about a lot of money here. and you have got house conservatives, and they certainly stand on principle. they know how to hold things up.

and you have some senate conservatives, who also feel the same way as the freedom caucus over in the house. so, i think we will see a fight on this down the road. at,re going to be looking probably coming a bill, eventually of $125 billion, $135 billion. the conservatives are going to, and they have some very good reasons, they are going to want that to the as clean as possible, and there are going to be things they are going to object to. president trump threatened to shut down the government if he did not get money for his border wall. he has backed away from that. what is the story there? we are seeing his new chief of staff, retired general john kelly, increasingly playing a role behind the scenes. this would be, the president himself forcing a shutdown. even members of his own party

say, there is plenty of time to provide funding for the border .all they say there is this insisted -- this work already going. so the president would be backed by some conservative immigration hardliners, and that is not as big of a group on capitol hill as you might think. there is no evidence that speaker ryan, and leader mcconnell want to shut down the government, over a chunk of money to start the border wall construction, to start the program. fundwould not completely the border wall, this would kind of kick things off. they say the proper way to do that is in the regular appropriations process. basically, their message, if you read between the lines, it would hurt the party to shut down the maybe $100over,

million, for this border wall program. and this is another sign, right here, over this border wall mcconnell andand other prominent republicans, sending a message to the president that, he has got to kind of pull back. and he can't just demand things. he has to work with congress. and he has to listen to members of his own party. so, the fight over the border wall, interestingly, and this is something to watch with republicans and trump, this will fight, comingty up over the next few months. >> john, thanks for your time. john bennett is a correspondent with cq roll call. >> the trump administration last night sent congress a request for hurricane harvey aid.

trump, president arriving at alistair field about 15 miles outside houston. the president will to her a relief center, and meet with a texas congressional delegation.