our freedom. they continue to be at the forefront of our thoughts. and it is on their behalf and for their benefit that we bring this conference report, urge its adoption, and appreciate their service to the unite >> we're joined now by ondonnelly, c.q. "roll call" senior defense reporter. the house is considering this compromise, about $800 billion. what are some of the key highlights we should know about the bill and how does it address the current budget caps for defense and war funding? >> first, congress came up with the deal -- congress and the administration covered fiscal year 2018 and 2018. that was one of the reasons why things happened pretty smoothly this year because the budget number was set. you pointed out it's $708

billion, approximately. that includes $639 billion for base operations. and another $69 billion for overseas operations. this bill doesn't provide the money. it basically endorses spending that for untold number of programs. then the money is then appropriated in several different appropriations bills. but the amount of money to put it in context is when you take away war spending, the money for the so-called base budget, the rest of the pentagon's programs, is higher in fiscal year 2019 than it has ever been since world war ii. and so it's pretty significant amount of funding for the defense department. host: can you talk about some of the particulars in the bill, the increases in some of the particular items? john: sure. well, the defense authorization bill, one of the things that by law the authorizers, the armed

services committees, alone can do is, one, the size of the military, and another is the pay for the military. and whatever they say is what appropriators have to fund. and the end strength, the total number of people in the military, the active duty military will go up by 15,600 people in the coming fiscal year. and that is more than twice what the senate had wanted. it's equal to the administration's request. so that's a big thing and that's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars of additional money. the senate appropriators cut about $1.4 billion from their personnel accounts thinking they were going to have a lower level of so-called end strength. but because they're going to now have to go to a higher level, they'll have to find that money. that's one thing, the number of troops, the pay. there is a 2.6% pay raise

across the board for uniformed personnel. this is like a 2,000-plus-page bill. host: the bill's name after senate armed services committee john mccain who is battling brain cancer back in his home state of arizona. without him here in washington, what lawmakers are taking the lead in the negotiations to put together the final version of the defense bill and how did those negotiations go? john: well, they went very well, as i indicated. 1997 was the last year that the defense authorization bill was enacted prior to the october 1 start of the fiscal year. and it's only happened a couple times in the last, like, 35 years that it's happened that fast. and this, it looks like, is going to be one of those years, one of those fast years. i'm asking around to try to find out why. there seems to be a number of reasons but i think the fact that the budget number was set was a big reason. now, as for mccain's role, he

is -- james inhofe, republican from oklahoma, is stepping in for mccain in leading the majority on the senate armed services side. mac thornberry, the majority on the house side. but inhofe, i'm told, is representing mccain's views to a large extent. even in cases where inhofe might personally disagree. so james inhofe is the one who's stepping up in particular. host: one of the key differences between the house and senate versions of the bill was a provision involving the chinese telecom company z.t.e. how does z.t.e. figure in each bill and how is the issue resolved? john: well, the senate had a provision that would have basically barred american companies from exporting to this chinese company z.t.e. which is controversial, we should point out, because it was found to have violated u.s. sanctions and trading with north korea and iran and it's widely considered to be an espionage threat that's tied to

the people's liberation army in china. and so there's a lot of member concern about doing business with this company and a lot of insistence on penalizing them. the administration did not want to have this ban. they have instituted fines and other punitive actions against z.t.e. so the senate provision that would have blocked private business with z.t.e. was stripped out. what the bill retains is a ban on the u.s. government buying phones and other equipment from this company or another chinese company called huawei technology company. another thing they did on the same front is the process for monitoring foreign investment in u.s. companies has been expanded and strengthened so that more kinds of transactions, including by countries such as china, will be reviewed as part of this

process. host: the house also had some procedural problems with the bill earlier this week. your recent article on the bill has this, house resolved ndaa snag. moves toward passage. what was that procedural hang-up? john: it gets pretty arcane, pretty obscure pretty fast. it has to deal with a revenue racesing ish -- raising issue. there was a jurisdictional issue. basically they edited one sentence and fixed it. but because they altered the conference report, they had to basically file a new version of the conference report. a few other spelling changes and what not. it was a minor issue that cost a couple of days just on the rule for proceeding to the bill but it has not delayed final passage. host: and finally, how does the trump administration view the bill and when might we see it come to the senate for consideration?

also, will it see a smooth road to passage in the senate? john: yeah. the senate could take it up as soon as -- in the next few days. the house is going out after today. senate's going to stick around for some or maybe even all of august. there's no reason they can't get to it pretty quickly, and i think support there is pretty widespread. the president has not indicated he intends to veto it over any particular provision. although he expressed concerns, sometimes strong concerns about dozens of provisions in one bill or another. short answer is this should be enacted and it will be, i believe, the 58th year in a row that this legislation will become law. host: john donnelly follows the defense issues at "c.q. roll call." read his work at cq.com. thank you, john. john: thank you. >> and we're live this afternoon in illinois waiting

to hear from president trump. he's set to speak about his tariff policy at granite city works. it's a steel producing factory in granite city, illinois. live coverage here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ oh, yeah knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door ooh, yeah ♪ ♪ knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door whoa

whoa, whoa yeah ♪ >> again, we are live at granite city works which is a steel producing factory in granite city, illinois. the audience there waiting to hear from president trump. he's set to talk about tariffs and trade policy here. the president was set to start 10 minutes ago, scheduled to start at 3:40. he's running just a couple minutes behind. we will have live coverage of his remarks when it gets under way here on c-span. so while we wait here's a portion from today's "washington journal." host: so we had you on about a year ago, the two of you, to

talk about legislation of career and technical education. congressman thompson, tell us what's happened since then? mr. thompson: h.r. 2353, which is a really transformational piece of legislation for american families, businesses, really for the nation when you look at the economic impact, has been voted on five times. three times in the house. two times in the senate. and now is going directly to president trump's desk for his signature. host: what exactly will this do? mr. krishnamoorthi: as g.t. said, as congressman thompson said, it's landmark, bipartisan piece of legislation. to me it does at least three things. it modestly increases funding so that more students can participate in a career and technical education. two, it shifts authority from washington to local

authorities, community colleges, high school districts to spend the money because they know the local labor conditions best. and then, three, it makes sure that if any federal dollars are spent that private companies and businesses are at the table to help validate the skills that are taught. that's very important because at the end of the day we want these students and people in career transition to basically end up in what i call the greatest anti-poverty program devised by human beings, a j-o-b, a job. that's what this is about. host: for veers, what we're talking about, career and technical education. the term applies to schools, institutions, and educational programs that specialize in the skilled trades, applied sciences, modern technologies, career preparation, sometimes called vocational education, is how people know it. about 12.5 million high school and college students are enrolled in c.t.e. nationwide. it provides on-the-job

training, industry certification, opportunities. congressman thompson, who qualifies? mr. thompson: well, it actually, there are today, gretta, there's more than -- greta, there's more than 6.7 million jobs open and available in this country that employers are not able to fill because what we call the skills gap. there are people out there that are looking, they're looking for greater opportunities. perhaps they're unemployed. maybe they've been living in welfare for generations, and there's employers desperately needing employees. this piece of legislation fills that skills gap. and you talked about what career and technical education is. -- it is of it, the so diverse. it can be a welder. it can be a hammer. it can be wrenches. but it also could be a paintbrush. it could be a stheth scope. it could be farm implements. it could be a keyboard for coding. there's just so much. so this bill really fills that

skills gap and provides better access to more effective skills-based education or career and technical education. mr. krishnamoorthi: i agree everything that congressman thompson said. the common denominator is this. maybe a four-year college degree isn't for everyone, but a postsecondary everyone has to be. you have to gain the skills, credential, certification, something to equip yourself with the tools to get one of those 6.7 million jobs that congressman thompson alluded to that remain unfilled. and so career and technical education is for the 2/3 of americans, 2/3, the vast majority of americans who do not have a four-year college degree or not going to get one. and if we want them to get on the road to a middle-class lifestyle, then we have to get them into career and technical education and similar programs. so that's why, you know, yesterday, you know, people were lauding this as historic

and bipartisan and, you know, we have to take advantage of this moment. host: well, i want to invite our viewers to call in with their questions, their concerns, their experiences as well in this field. want to know what sort of stories are out there and have you guys responded to them. let me ask you this. what if you didn't get that next education after high school? instead you went to work and now your job is gone and it's not coming back. mr. thompson: well, it works for those who are kids. it really does. there's two stories that were shared yesterday. we did an innovators forum. we had 24 innovators that are involved in work force development, career and technical education from around the country. joe luther who is a local career and technical education teacher talked about two kids real briefly that were in high school. one was in his landscaping program. this young lady had downsyndrome. and the agreehouse curriculum

of his program -- greenhouse curriculum of his program she excelled. she showed up on time. she was just a high performer. so when she graduated -- you can imagine the stress of parents with a special needs child, you know, what happens after high school. well, joe went out to a local green house and said, i have an employee you have to hire because she's going to be an all-star and she was. they hired her and she's been there for six years. she had another -- he had another young man that was actually in the welding program and this young man was -- had some challenges in a regular classroom in learning in traditional academic ways. but when you put a welder in his hand, he was inspired. i mean, he struggled with language skills, with science and all the traditional things, but a welder, he was an all-star. he came back a year later after he graduated and mr. luther said, how are you doing? doing great. working on a pipeline. joe said, what are you making?

and the boy kind of paused and looked at him and said, last year i made $185,000. those are obviously, you know, exceptional cases but this works for folks. it also works for folks who at any point in their age, if they do lose their jobs, this is a chance to go back to get a certificate, just a little bit of training, specialization. we are not talking about four-year degrees, to be able to get a better job or new jobs so this works for folks who are unemployed, underemployed, people that have been living on welfare for generations. mr. krishnamoorthi: you know, going to g.t.'s and your point about these students and others that go into career and technical education, i think that the alternative is worse which is if they don't get equipped with these skills, they are unlikely to get a job. now, of course, markets change and industries change but employers are much more likely going to invest in these people and make sure that they are

equipped with the relevant skills to, you know, stay ahead of the modernization that's happening in every industry. basically stay relevant. that's the key. and i think this is, you know, going to help spur a career and technical education revolution but kind of a life-long education revolution in this country because even collegiate students and people that get a four-year degree, it's not one and done anymore. you have to continue educating yourself. so they may end up getting career and technical education certifications and so forth and advicea versa. the c.t.e. students -- may go to a four-year college to complete a degree. the cool thing is their employers might pay for it. this is to avoid debt. right now our students are choking with postsecondary debt and we can't go down that road. host: david, independent,

maryland. caller: i am so glad you guys are talking about this conversation and being brought in the mainstream. i'm 28 years old. when i was in high school we had a program in montgomery, thomas edison. you can do nursing, restaurants, all of the construction trade. i ended up planning in the ninth grade to drop out of high school two years early and just finish all of my stuff through the program. got me set up with a job. jobs sponsored the rest of my training, got my journeyman's license. i have my masters license. i'm making six figures. i have a rental property. i have my own house. it just -- it's not everybody needs to go to a traditional four-year college. yes, you do need to get the skills, but a lot of those skills don't even need to be attained after high school. you know, i don't know what europe does but i think that we

need to -- people can identify, you know, certain kids, and my mom's a teacher, are not going to be cut out for it. there's no need to really start it after high school. we can start this stuff in high school, kind of a half-day program like the edson has going on and more of that stuff would be great for this country. host: ok, david, let's take this point about starting this earlier in high school. mr. krishnamoorthi. mr. krishnamoorthi: i would say, congratulations to david. this is an excellent example of how, if he had gone the other path, dropping out, basically leaving the educational system altogether and not equipping himselves to get a skills to get a job, where would he have ended up? nstead, instead he's got a good job. because of laws such as this, you earn you learn, it goes back

and forth. it's going to be a cycle where you're making yourself more and more productive and at the same time ding it in conjunction with an employer so it's relevant and our businesses will benefit too. they're going to have a skilled work force and they won't go to other countries searching for that works for. i think it's a win-win. host: let me give you joe, a democrat. caller: i too am happy to hear there's bipartisan agreement on the need for vocational teaching. that used to be, back in the 1950's, i don't remember exactly when it started fading out in public schools, my father taught at a school that had vocational

training. i can me also say that making president obama this point to congress when he was in office. but of course it went nowhere because republicans were not gog to that he proposed. but i'm happy that now you are coming together to do what is good for the country. host: i'll leave it there and get a response. mr. thompson: thank you very much, thanks to your father for his educational work and eadership. we did much better, it was unanimous. it got caught up in the politics f the 2016 election.

in the senate. this is something that's bipartisan. we have a bipartisan career and echnical education caucus. now we're going to start to sigh kids in fifth grade get exposure to possibilities, what's out there, what are the job openings, what are the skills. i'm not saying we'll start training there, though i was just with one of my elementary schools, we were doing coding. they were getting exposed to it. but we -- this law will, when it becomes law, when the president signs it, gets pushed down to middle schools and we provide flexibility. to your point what happens when

industries change? today it's like, the change training to add a new program under the current law, it operates a at the speed of bureaucracy. local leadership, state leadership if there's an employer that comes in and says i want to build a factory, want o hire 500 people, with this skillset, we provide the flexibility to where it's been changed to meet the needs of that emerging opportunity. i want to stay on that point of getting this into the high schools. what are we doing so that they a graduate high school with certificate and maybe a master

and go the college route? host: i'm not sure if he gave you a promotion or demotion? do you want to take that? mr. krishnamoorthi: actually, great point. we already have certain high school districts that are having welding certification in the high school. so basically you can graduate as a certified welder from high school and get a job immediately. depending on how that district is doing, depending on how much collaboration it has with plivet industry, it can get more funds through this particular bill that, you know, put that type of program on steroids.

the cool thing about this particular bill is the flexibility. to me, i know this isn't necessarily the sexiest issue on 26 these days. it's definite the most important in my opinion in the educational space as of right now. it's going to be a huge win for the economy. host: you mentioned the number of job out there. "the hill" has this column, written with the headline, retraining the work force is not enough to meet labor demand. what they write in here is needing to address the work orce pipeline on three fronts. american businesses need skilled workers now. retraining our work force to

meet our current labor demand. only a robust immigration system based on market demand can meet employer needs. mr. thompson: absolutely correct. i would add another one. unfortunately the columnist missed. it's the obvious one the number of people we have in this country that have been, unfortunately, been placed on the sidelines. it's not just about retraining. we'll have an opportunity to with that, with a farm bill vote that actually we're going to conference committee on the farm bill, vice chairman of the agriculture committee. this deals with folks who have been druggle -- struggling financially. neighbors, friends, loved ones, who have been struggling financially. they're on the sidelines because of unemployment, underemployment, because of -- because of interthen rational poverty. this is a significant number of people, millions in this country that we need in the work force and they need a greater opportunity. so as a part of the farm bill, we're going to be discussing, and i chair the nutrition subcommittee, this is something

i'm responsible for as well, having people that are receiving snap benefit what we used to call food stamps, be able to benefit from this legislation that will now become law. we're going to give them access, we're going to have to give them access and we're going to provide training slots, actually, up to 20 hours a week for these individuals between the ages of 18 and 59. a few will go to the child at home you're caring for or an adult that's disabled that you're providing attending care, you wouldn't need to do this. but for a lot of families this would be transformational. >> and this would be a requirement to continue to receive benefits? mr. thompson: if you're working 20 hours a week, you don't have to do the training. although if you're working 20 hours a week and struggling financially, you need a better job. we need to get you into this. there are some polices in the country, perhaps in cities that are just deteriorating economically where there's not a

lot of jobs. so there's a third option. there's work, 20 hers of work, 0 hours of job training, the career and technical education we're talking about right now and the third option is 20 hours of volunteer work. and through that networking and soft skills and hard skills, that -- frequently lead to a job opportunity. it is all hands on deck. i have a county -- i'm fortunate, one of my industries s powder metals. they have determined if every child in two counties and additional school district graduated from high school went into their industry, it it wouldn't be enough to fill the vacancies they have. that speaks tooth need that we have so much demand. as we see businesses growing now, when businesses, they only grow when they have a qualified and trained worker. that's their number one asset.

host: let's go back to calls. sydney in forest hill, maryland, a republican. >> good morning, i have more of a comment than a question. i was -- back in the late 1970's when i was in school we had metal shop, electrical shop, did the trades. when they took trades out of the school everything kind of went south. i'm a blue collar worker, i make over six figures. and they just kind of went back in those day, i struggled with school. but they kind of just pushed you through to get you out of there is what it seemed like. but everybody is pushing college, college, college. all my friends have gone to college, they make half what i make. so i don't understand why the democrats are insisting on everybody going to college because it's not really right for everybody. mr. krishnamoorthi: you make a great point you made the point about basically taking these --

what i call career technical education programs out of the schools and sending them elsewhere. two things happen, one we stigmatize people in those programs and two, we didn't allow the people who maybe were going to go to college to experiment with career and technical education programs and find out if they have another skill or calling. and so what we end up having is perhaps some people who are going to four-year college who might not be taking advantage of all the skills that they have been blessed with. and maybe our mis-- and maybe are mismatched with the employment they have now. they might be underemployed, they might not have the passion for the job they're in and so forth. they might have a lot of debt on top of that. so what we're trying to do here with our bill, congressman thompson and i are basically, what we're trying to do is

trying to get people as many -- give people as many choices as possible. we're not here to dictate what, you know, what line of profess you're going into or whether you should go to four-year college or go to career and technical education. however this should be made more available to more people so they have the option. there's one point i wanted to just mention as well which is that this bill, it modestly increases some funding to get more people to participate. but what it's really going to do as well is unleash billions of dollars in private investment into our career and technical education system. ow, private companies -- ♪ ♪ i won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me i gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today because there ain'to