so yes there could be others who join. and i know there will be more who will join us in election. just as others join in president trump sport. i think if they continue to govern this way, they're not solving one problem, the putting their own personal beliefs and head of their own district. and i am keeping in keeping the promises. i think it will have a hard time keeping people in the party. thank you. >> the u.s. house will debate articles of impeachment against president trump tomorrow. stay with c-span as members of house vote to move both articles of impeachment live on the house floor. watch unfiltered coverage on c-span.org or listen live wherever you are on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> back at her table this morning with the bipartisan

policy center here to walk us through this spending package that house democrats and republicans have negotiated. ofwhat you have is a package a bunch of spending bills with a grand total of $1.4 trillion. how does this compare to previous deals question mark >> this is about $50 billion more than what we spend in the previous fiscal years. it is 12 appropriation bills and by the way it is to bills. they do not want to put all 12 bills on the desk, so they have broken it up into two, so they it is all theand funding for the federal government to the end of next year. >> why $50 billion more.

>> it is a number of particular and for 25terest years, i guess we have not had the authority to look at the , but i think about $2 million, so the increases are an increase of salary for employees and the presidents wall. >> as he was saying, it was two packages, politico reports that one package contains four bills and buy financial service spending measures, it holds a bills to fund the department of

agriculture human health and , veterans affairs, as well as the epa, and water projects. government. want to remind your viewers that trillion,t iss $1.4 that is only about 30% of all government spending. suchther 70% is in programs as medicare, medicaid, social security. safety net programs, food stamps, child nutrition. it only represents 30% of government spending. host: this is what congress has the discretion to spend, they have discretionary powers on this type of federal government. guest: correct. whether they want to spend money on a wall or not.

that is all discretionary on the part of the government, congress to spend money. the other 70% excluding interest is mandatory. some people call them entitlement programs. they are automatic spending because if you are age 65, you qualify, you get the benefits. it does not require the appropriation process to do that. what does this mean for debt --host: what does this mean for debt and deficit? this is another concern i have about this bill. while the discretionary portion is $50 billion more than it was last year for these programs, this bill has a number of what we call ornaments that have been

hung on the tree this holiday season related to eliminating the tax on medical devices, eliminating the tax on health insurance, illuminating what we call the cadillac tax and expiring some of the tax provisions and all of that adds up to close to $500 billion additional on top of this spending package. therefore, what i am concerned about is we are already running deficits of close to a trillion dollars annually and it is projected to grow out. this is the time the economy is growing out. it is those mandatory programs driven by demographics that are going to continue to increase the deficit going forward to a level we have not seen historically.

host: if you have questions about the debt and the deficit -- the president could sign this into law. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, your line, 202-748-8002. remember, you can also text us with your first name, city, and .tate with 202-748-8003 what -- what in this bill do you find surprising that they would agree to? guest: it is a compromise and at this stage of the exercise, the government will likely shut down if they do not pass these bills. has anything surprised me? not really.

what surprises me a little bit money president will get for his wall, but more importantly, there was language the democrats wanted to have to say he could not do what he did, toch is to transfer money add to the fund. he wanted $8 billion, he got one to allow himllion to transfer money out of other military account the wall. that was language restricted him and that was removed from this bill. that one surprised me a little bit that congress is giving up a little of their authority under the power of the purse to let the president make these transfers. host: there is a court case related to that provision making its way through the court system.

-- immigrations and customs enforcement are flatlined. you are up first, good morning. good morning. i amnow the main reason calling. what i need by that is having resolution for bidding to supply the united states of america with anymore uranium. our uranium --

host: we will go to christian next, woodbridge, connecticut. .aller: yes, hello a fascinating topic and thank you for letting me have the opportunity to talk to the guest. i was wondering if the guest was aware the federal reserve has started quantitative easing 4. there has been a liquidity injection into the markets. the fed is about to become the biggest buyer of u.s. treasuries which means the federal reserve find iting money and i is quite remarkable considering we are supposed to be in the greatest economy ever that we are running trillion dollar deficits and that the fed is once again expanding its balance sheet, bailing out stocks, bonds, buying treasuries, allowing the government to keep things borrowed at a low

interest rate through printed money, which could later lead to the depreciation -- the dollar has been depreciating forever, but a further devaluation of the dollar. i really hope you could address a couple of those points i made and talk about whether you think that is right or wrong. i think monetization of the debt is something banana republics do. understand this is happening and largely has to do with an issue calling repose that come at this time of the year as banks needed the liquidity and this is a process the federal reserve is injecting that liquidity back in the market. it is somewhat of a temporary -- chairman powell has addressed this issue in his latest press report last week. i will say i agree with you totally. my biggest concern as one who

still believes deficits matter is the accumulation of this level of debt going forward. at some point, it will have to be paid back. seele right now -- when you the polls, you find out less than 2% of the american public think the debt matters. that is understandable, but this level of debt has the impact of putting the burden on our children, grandchildren in the future and you have to monetize it and possibly increase interest rates. i think there is danger and i agree we have concerns not being addressed right now in this current fiscal situation. host: also included in the spending bill, the government deal to agreement is a do away with three health care taxes that were intended to help pay for the affordable care act, tax.ding the cadillac

provisions to shore up or a time to benefits for tens of as wells of coal miners as a 7 year extension of export -import banks, flood insurance extended through september 30 and the rural schools program would be extended for 2 years. is a patient center outreach program for another 10 years also. there are a number of provisions that are not related that have been added at the last minute. host: tracy in maryland. caller: please don't cut me off. i am a teacher in my 50's, so i can remember reagan coming out on the tv and telling the needed toeople we

face up to our deficit and i like that. i can remember clinton having a surplus. we area surplus and now so far in debt, i am so upset about the deficit, to not understand why any of the reporters will not confront trump and tell him we are in a booming economy, why doesn't he confront the deficit? i can remember before he went into office, obama had a $3.4 trillion budget. was -- our revenue -- we were in the red, of course. the trajectory was going down. now we are skyrocketing the

other way. i can't understand for the life of me why trump is not addressing this. knowmakes me so mad and i this is fixable and now we cannot even look back. host: is this fixable? guest: it is fixable. i want to tell her i am glad mad. i wish more americans and citizens out there would raise this issue with their elected officials. ands here on the hill worked throughout those years you mentioned in the reagan years, the clinton years, the bush years. during the clinton years is when we did, as the caller indicated, we did reach a balanced budget. we were on the path toward a balanced budget until september 11 2001. overnight, we went from projected surpluses into deficits.

i agree with the caller that this is unprecedented that -- i would also point out that president trump, when he was campaigning did say he was going to eliminate the debt and deficit. this is quite the opposite. i have been at this a long time. it is very frustrating for somebody who thinks the federal government should -- like businesses balance expenditures. your federal government from time to time -- not in times of war and times of recession for the difficulty here is that we are in a period of economic growth. we are still increasing debt and deficits. from my perspective, that is something that can be addressed. it requires leadership at both ends of pennsylvania avenue and also requires us to face up to the reality that we want a lot.

we want infrastructure, health claire -- health care, better education. if we want those services, we have to pay for them. for a republican staffer to say this, i will be chastised but i think i think we have to pay for the services we are demanding from the federal government that means looking at taxes and balancing -- increasing taxes. unless you are willing to cut back on services, particularly pensions, social security and medicare. it is very difficult. host: nikki. spring hill, florida. caller: i agree with william. so many areas in the united states needs money. it is no wonder the deficit has gone up. i do not know if there is a cure for. i know that trump has ideas. he has plans. he can never put his plans into

effect because the democrats triesim at every point he to make. he can't get anywhere. is a curenow if he all, if he has the silber -- silver bullet to fix the deficit. i wish they would give him a chance. as you can see, i am a true republican that i do believe in president trump. guest: my reaction is i agree. i consider myself a republican also. i do agree that what the president did achieve was a reduction in taxes. i think that is good, but at the same time, when you have a reduction in taxes that did not pay for themselves and helped create the deficits, democrats come along and say if you can create a deficit by cutting taxes, why can't we add to it by increasing spending? would you have a divided congress like we have today. i'llu scratch my back

scratch yours, you end up with the situation we have today. we need both ends of pennsylvania avenue to -- willing to -- if you want to try to do something going long-term. that has been untenable in a divided congress. host: michael in austin, texas. caller: hello. good morning. i am a student at texas university. i do a lot of work in student government. consensus we see here at the university about issues of taxes, especially the younger people, we will be carrying over this. benefiting from a lot of the stuff that is happening, we do believe that jeffrey epstein killed himself. host: we're going to move on. yes, i am off the

subject but i would like to see and --ite house grow up the country. host: in what ways? are arguingway they back and forth. is that we be -- is that what we voted for them for? host: we are talking about the $1.4 trillion spending agreement that both sides have negotiated and the house vote for. this president could sign this bill into law by the end of the week. i want to go over some other provisions that are in it. time, -- in more than two decades, democrats announced research into gun violence. the dickey amendment language ordering this centers for disease control not to lobby in favor for research into gun control. the national institutes of health received $12.5 million

each in researching the issue appeared legislation would also provide 41.7 billion dollars for medical research at the nih, in year 7% increase. republican leaders are touting the fact that the deal does not include new funding for international efforts to aid family and replayed active health. they are proud the legislation would deliver a $22 billion increase in defense spending as well as a military pay increase -- the largest such in a decade. guest: this is a very big bill. at one point, $4 trillion. one item you did not mention that i like is they did increase the pell grant award. 6000nts now can have up to -- up to $6,000, a major increase on the pell grant which is important. -- there are winners

and losers if you like throughout this, but when you're talking about $1.4 trillion to fund the government, there are lots of programs that are receiving some increases. there are some that are being flat too. staff,t goes out to the particularly having been a former staff member, technically we had an agreement we back in july. it has taken us five months to get to this point where we can divvy up that one host: host: $.4 trillion. host: some of that is for election security. let's go to randy in burlington, north carolina. caller: i would like to make a glad youbout -- i am are there bringing sense to all of this but it seems to me in the big picture that our government is more concerned with kicking the budget can down

the road. they seem to me or interested in putting off the inevitable. spending, butnd they do not want to look at how howontrol the spending, or to cut back or eliminate some of the debt. budgets --usehold business budgets coming commented on that -- you can't do that. it is impossible for me to adjust my budget in the debt direction without having some long-term effect on my personal income. for the government to constantly be looking at it as not important, just spend a bunch of money and deal with it later, just does not seem responsible. i do not think it is fair to attack the president about it. i think it is a problem with government overall. the bureaucrats in washington

take up the biggest part of any budget deal that is done because that spending is solid. you can't reduce it currently. guest: thank you very much. -- thatthe analogy to a it is kind of like the termites under the front porch. you can step out on the porch, but one day you will step out and go through. exactly what you said, in the short term with low unemployment, low inflation, people say why worry about the debt and deficit? here is thathave it is long-term. it is reducing the standard of living for our children and grandchildren. they will have to pay for this debt and deficit one way or another. soht now, things look good, why worry? spend money, cut taxes, don't worry. you will have to worry about your future generations and what this impact will be on them. host: darrell in missouri.

caller: yes. we are spending a lot of money on stuff like -- if we could get the border wall fixed and spend some on immigration. once we get some of that down, we can start saving money and have less people to do that. i think the sanctuary cities -- tps, wewe are paying are bringing people over and paying for them and they won't go back to their country. so, we need to look at that. before we canoney save money. guest: again, i would point out of theis is one third whole spending we are talking about. it is a large bill, 1.4 trillion dollars per let's be clear that even reducing spending may be --

after we build a wall so to speak, or whether you reduce spending for bureaucrats here in washington, it is still a small portion of what is really driving our spending. entitlement programs, mandatory programs need to be addressed if you want to talk about spending and not taxes. host: texas, independent. caller:caller: i would like to money are we going to end up spending, and who is going to pay for that? guest: good question. in fairness, i can't answer that. i do not know. it is coming out of the investigations here in congress are coming out of the budgets of those individual committees. the congress does have part of this funding -- obviously is funding the legislative branch. that is where the funding for these investigations and carrying on the activities of

your federal legislative branch takes place. host: columbia, missouri. we know that $1.4 trillion tax cut for the rich should never even have been put on the debt. the rich did not need that. they did not want that. we also know the debt that we have, we know who is going to hurt. people's retirement. they are going to get rid of people's retirement. if trump gets back in, they are going after social security. all people who have worked all their lives. people who have worked all their lives. guest: i would not anticipate that any elected official, whether they be republican or democrat, will focus on those who are in retirement.

needthink that there is a socialquickly, 2035 the -- in 2035, the social security trust exhausts. that means automatically, it would not require a democratic or republican president reduce benefits, they will already be reduced by 20 5% unless we modify the benefits or increase payroll taxes. yes, ifnot be those -- we do not fix it, people in retirement will see reductions. what we will be focusing on are those who are today, if you're planning on early retirement and under the age of 49, by 2035 you would see a 20% reduction in benefits. we have to focus on making changes. you can make changes to social security by still protecting low income, and those people who still need social security benefits. at the same time, modifying

benefits for those at the high-end. i think you're going to have a debate about social security in the coming years as we go forward simply because the program is running out of money. host: las vegas, republican. caller:. thank you. federal workers -- i do not know if there is a watchdog group about how efficient these agencies are but i would like to citizens for like responsible accounting practices. to investigatep -- to be able to go on the job and see if there is a lot of wasted money in -- and position >> c-span's "washington journal," live with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning,

democratic congresswoman val demings of florida and republican congressman ben cline from capitoloin us hill to discuss wednesday's scheduled full house vote on the impeachment of president trump. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has provided america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. 1979, c-spanble in is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government.

>> over the weekend, senate minority leader chuck schumer sent a letter to senate majority leader mitch mcconnell laying out a proposal for how a potential impeachment trial could be conducted in the senate. tuesday, senator mcconnell reacted to the letter by speaking from the senate floor. in response, senator schumer explained his request for specific witnesses. objection. mr. mcconnell: all signs seem to suggest that later t sen. mcconnell: later this week, house democrats will finally do what many of them have been foreshadowing for three years now and impeach president trump. it appears the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history is about to wind down after just 12 weeks and that its slapdash work product will be

dumped on us over here in the senate. say to our colleagues and to the american people if and when the house does move ahead. but as we speak today, house democrats still have the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and avoid setting this toxic new precedent. the house can turn back from a cliff and not deploy this constitutional remedy of last resort to deliver a predetermined partisan outcome. this morning, madam president, i just want to speak to one very specific part of this. over the weekend, the democratic leader decided to short circuit the customary and collegial process for laying basic groundwork in advance of a potential impeachment trial. the preferable path would have been an in-person conversation which net