the appropriations and transportation committees will get the money. is oversight committee absolutely appropriate and congress needs to do more oversight. if they do not like how the executive branch is spending money, they should authorize more and do more. many have not been authorized, meaning formally set up to continue in business. it gets funded, but technically they are supposed to be authorized. that is the big oversight that congress is not doing. if you do not like the way the army corps of engineers is spending money, fix that whole process. then the army corps can only spend money when congress tells them to. host: sammy is on the democratic line from kinston, north carolina. caller: good morning. the city councilman in north carolina, in the last 15 years we have had two major floods and lost about 700 homes. we had a meeting with the north carolina emergency management team, and everybody in the past was talking about, fema would replace people's lost homes and all that, and i thought about the issue of the army corps of engineers. it is

our distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee is here, and so many other members, who are with us and helping to work on these issues and getting ready for the march. they stand here ready to work. sleaze up and ready to work. up and ready to work. otherwise, we are becoming

i commend her for her great leadership as our ranking member on the appropriations committee, or as we say, mr. frelinghuysen, the almighty powerful appropriations committee on which i was proud to serve with you and congresswoman lowey. i'm disappointed, though, that the legislation that is brought to the floor today falls so very, very short of our responsibilities to the american people. when it comes to considering this bill, which the republicans are bragging supports chip, it's important to review the facts. the facts are the these -- are thiels. the chip proposal that the -- are these. the chip proposal that the republicans boast was on the floor in october or this or that was funded by taking money from other children's programs and that's why it was not to be supported by us. it's also important to remember that the chip re-authorization expired september 30. so here we are with our fourth continuing resolution, our fourth continuing resolution. that means on september 30 we were supposed to not only re-authorize chip, but to pass an omnibus bill to fund the government. republ

i've sat on the appropriations committee since my second term in congress. even that beginning we were known as the most bipartisan committee and unfortunately that has eroded significantly and we need get back to the days where approp reators sat down across the aisle and were able to work through each of the 12 budget bills and make sure we can send them to the house floor that work with the senate and with the white house to send the entire appropriations act to the president. that's the only responsibility we have in the united states kaungs tushz constitution as a congress and -- >> for people that have watched this budget process, why do budgets matter? they don't have the force of law? >> it's funny, john, that you raise that. the budget should matter because the idea behind a budget is that you are creating a spending blue print, now even with that, the appropriations committee in both houses end up making spending decisions that don't wholly align with it way these budgets, even when we pass them which we don't always do, evilen with it way they lin

appropriations bill. the vote was 31-0. on july 20, 2017, the committee unanimously, again by a vote of 31-0, approved the fiscal year 2018 agriculture rural development food and drug administration and related agencies appropriations bill. also on july 20, the committee approved the f.y. 2018 energy and water development appropriations bill by a vote of 30-1. still an overwhelming bipartisan vote on the part of the appropriations committee. on july 27, 2017, the appropriations committee unanimously by a vote of 31-0 approved the f.y. 2018 transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriation act. on july 27, the appropriations committee approved the f.y. 2018, commerce-justice-science and related appropriation act. that vote was by a vote of 30-1, overwhelmingly bipartisan. on the same day, july 27, the committee unanimously approved the f.y. 2018 legislative branch appropriations bill. i'll go on and on with two more. on september 7, 2017, the full appropriations committee approved the labor, health and human services and educ

if the appropriations committee were to decide that dr. gottlieb should have a breakthrough device pathway medical devices we would would be upset. we would say that's our probable and try to appropriate another $50 billion for you, the appropriations committee would be upset they'd say that's our job. let me ask you this, we have discretionary funding, that's the appropriations committee. we have mandatory funding, which this committee could do. what's the size of the nih budget this year? what's your total funding? >> $34 billion. >> how much of that is biomedical research? >> virtually all of it. and to be clear, more than 80% of that goes out to all of those institutions all over the country that do that. >> and how much of that $34 million is mandatory funding? >> i think there's 150,000 in there, almost all of it is money that's supplied by the-- >> 150 million for type one-- >> through the subcommittee that senator blunt and senator murray. now, two years ago, if i'm correct, senator blunt and senator murray recommended and congress

and the appropriations committees are supposed to have funding bills ready and passed to start the fiscal year on october 1. the president was supposed to present a budget, and he didn't. the budget committees controlled by republicans are supposed to pass a budget, and they didn't. and the appropriations committees are supposed to have bills that are ready to be in effect on october 1 of the fiscal year, and they didn't. now, that's not unique to this particular congress, but it explains why we are here. why was there a decision to violate the statutory calendar and not frankly even get to a series consideration of the budget until january, the fourth month of the fiscal year? well, it's because the majority decided that the priority of the budget was a low priority. instead of working on the budget in appropriations bills, what the majority wanted to work on for the first nine months of the year was the ineffective and ultimately failed effort to repeal the affordable care act. that took us into late september, essentially a week before the start of the fiscal year. the repeal of the af

every time we brought a bill, usually a very bipartisan bill out of the appropriations committee for the funding for our troops, every single time it gets filibustered by the democratic side. that's not supporting our military. a number of us have come down. we talked about this. we encouraged our colleagues, don't support the filibuster. and then we've asked, why are you doing this? why are you doing this? we all know that our forces have been cut too dramatically, that national security challenges have increased, and yet every single time we bring a bill out of the appropriations committee to fund our troops, the other side filibusters that bill. now, most people back -- if most people back home knew that, whether they are democrat or republican, doesn't matter what state you live in, if you knew that was going on the senate floor, you probably wouldn't be happy. but that is happening and it still happens every time. a senator: will the senator yield to a question? mr.sullivan: no, i will not yield. hopefully my colleague from hawaii hasn't been filibustering spending for our troop

barbara lee, from the appropriations committee, wants to address a few of the items that are being appropriated and not appropriated, and the importance of it, and then we will close out with one more member. >> i want to thank our chairman of the -- and of the congressional black caucus for their moral stand and responsible stand to not support the cr. as a member of the appropriations committee, and the subcommittee that funds are our veterans our workforce, , department of labor, health, human services, all of our domestic programs, i can tell you with certainty that these cr's that keep coming to us reflect a spending level that is , devastating for our communities. it is devastating to community health centers, to our children's health program, to we have to get back to a budget that really signifies and realizes access to the public, that we care about the black community and communities of color by prioritizing spending on schools, housing, health care, and on addressing disaster relief. thank you very much chairman richmond for standing firm against this budget. >> let me just and with

parts that i am pleased about that by the date to expect we can enact budget numbers so the appropriations committee began pass appropriation bills. to allow full year appropriations for the remainder of this year'spr appropriations that includes fy 19 and then to be balanced to the needs of the department of defense critical functions that are required to have a full year of appropriations defense or state department with the department of health the national institutes of health fda and the ability of the social security administration and to take care of health care needs. all of that requires we have predictability of a budget. i am pleased during this debate without democrats and republicans we are committed to bringing out a budget by february 8 to have that type ofe predictability. they didn't want to go for a continuing resolution. and we also need to get done by no later than february 8. funding it is in our national interest to understand we have a national crisis. every community is suffering fromin the opioid crisis and we need to make sure to be a strong partner to deal with the crisis.

years ago when barbara mcculsky was the democratic chairman of the appropriations committee she over and over again went to senator reed and said get these bills on the floor let the other members be part of this debate and let's get them on at that time president obama's desk and i was for that. i was for having that open process still am. we have been dragging through the nominations process in a way where democrats over and over again in the senate have required 30 hours of debate on the president's nominees that would then get 90 votes or easily pass sometimes with as many as 90 votes and by the way so we're at no debate so just a stall tactic that prevents us from getting to other issues like daca on the floor or like community health centers on the floor or like chip on the floor. now we're down to where republicans have a bill that no, the democrats don't oppose anything in the bill at least a majority of democrats don't and they've decided to use that as the effort to get an unrelated piece of legislation and not just get a debate on it but they want it on a must pass bill. t

ing to chur the house appropriations committee, no small feat.e liked given the dynamic of what is left of the county and that district. plus the fact, the republican as committee and going to come with it and. >> this is a game-changer. he is a phenomenal candidate he. this is incredible opportunity. >> i know you were a inhe green. this seems to be the person you worry the mishe seventh disstriw they don't have to spend as many resource going after incumbent and open seat and they can shift to someone they think is vulnerable. >> well, this is what my grandmother calls strike while the irons hot. that whis they are doing. it reminds me of that time when he was running against cory booker for the second time. dropped out ef this is a. he would have run though grave. i think he is doing the thing to retire now. he would be running from the grave. you don't want that. i mean, you know how they say. on top. >> right. >> right. there is something here, though. it is new jersey continues to drift in a new direction. this whole idea you could be looking at a one party state look you have in

if the appropriations committee were to decide that dr. gottlieb should have a pass through medical device, we would be very upset because that would be our job. we were to try to appropriate another $50 billion to you the appropriations committee would be very upset because they say that is our job. so let me ask you this. we have discretionary funding that is the appropriations committee. we have mandatory funding which this committee can do. what is the size of the nih budget? what is your total funding? >> $34 billion. >> and how much of that is biomedical research? >> and to be clear all of that goes out to institutions. almost all of it is money that is supplied by the -- >> how much of that $34 billion is mandatory funding? >> i think there's 150,000 in there. i'm sorry, $150 million. >> through subcommittee that senator murray -- now, two years ago if i'm correct recommended and congress approved $2 billion increase in funding for nih. last year they recommended and congress agreed and the president signed another $2 billion increas

time and that is before we spend it on time and sitting down at n the table sitting on the appropriations committees since my second term in congress and even at the beginning we were known as the most bipartisan committee and that has eroded significantly and we need to get back to those days to work through each of those budget bills to work with the senate and the white house. that is the only responsibility wee have and republicans have consistently advocated that in favor of their wealthy contributors and corporations. >> watchinge the budget process why do they matter? the budget should matter becausein the idea is a spending blueprint. and then to make those spending decisions the way these online. and then to establish pending caps and a blueprint. >> that means we should adopt a budget.ge it does need reform and needs to be utilized as a political lesson which as a document to help guide us what we are ultimately going to include. >> you cannot ignore the tweets and common but to bring up a case in his interview with the new york times last week with the federal court case a former aide for

years ago when barbara mcculsky was the democratic chairman of the appropriations committee she over over again went to senator reed and said get these bills on the floor let the other members be part of this debate and let's get them on at that time president obama's desk and i was for that. i was for having that open process still am. we have been dragging through the nominations process in a way where democrats over and over again in the senate have required 30 hours of debate on the president's nominees that would then get 90 votes or easily pass sometimes with as many as 90 votes and by the way so we're at no debate so just a stall tactic that prevents us from getting to other issues like daca on the floor or like community health centers on the floor or like chip on the floor. now we're down to where republicans have a bill that no, the democrats don't oppose anything in the bill at least a majority of democrats don't and they've decided to use that as the effort to get an unrelated piece of legislation and not just get a debate on it but they want it on a must pass bill. that'

the chair recognizes the gentleman from the appropriations committee, mr. newhouse. >> new member of appropriations. been there not even 12 months yet. thank you, mr. chairman. and thank both you gentleman, mr. schatz and mr. bass, for being here today and being patient. i know you've been waiting since the hearing started at 10:30 even yesterday. i had to be gone for a few minutes of your testimony so i didn't get the benefit of hearing everything that you have had to say today so i apologize for that but, and i think from what i have heard though at least mr. shiatsus, you would probably fall under the category of being against going back to any kind of a earmark system, which think all of us accurately would be agreeing with that. we don't want to go back to anything but keeping status quo is more accurate what your position would be. i don't want to put words in your most but probably what i am getting from it. mr. bass, you seem to at least, from your statistics, texas department of transportation seemed it fair better in a system of not using earmarks

i think back when i first got here, and i was not on the appropriations committee in the era we had earmarks, i was on other committees, about the things that i was able to secure by that tool. they were within whatever the appropriate level was to focus on a particular problem. i think testimony has been submitted, one of my colleagues, tom coburn, wonderful guy and great member of the house of representatives, this was an area we disagreed on. at the beginning of his career, he accepted earmarks. he came to have a different point of view and i respect that. in my district, there were always things like you have heard here today one where my state highway department came and requested, look, we have built a bypass around a small community. people are coming at 60, 70 miles an hour. there is no overpass. we need this. five people have died in the last 18 months. that hadn't caught anybody's attention in the bureaucracy. they could go to a member and immediately get the attention. this was something they vetted and they put their money in. a newspaper editor wrote a wonderful column praising

our distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee is here, and so many other members, who are with us and helping to work on these issues and getting ready for the march. they stand here ready to work. sleaze up and ready to work. up and ready to work. otherwise, we are becoming accomplices to their incompetence, and we cannot do that to the american people. the buck stops here. happy anniversary, mr. president. your wish came true. you wanted a shutdown. the trump shutdown is all yours. >> leader, how long are you willing to go? and as the stroke of midnight, the white house released a statement that the democrats were acting like disruptors. are you the face of this shutdown? else with: anybody republican talking points? [laughter] >> americans ought to be confused or consistently, the strategy of the republican party has been to take america hostage and shut down the government. they did it under gingrich. they did it three years ago for 16 days. and they are pursuing that policy now. this is a shutdown that president trump welcomed. he would allowey put on the floo

as a member of the appropriations committee, i strongly support moving appropriations bills through the committee and to the floor through regular order. i applaud all of my committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working in good faith on all 12 appropriations bills. but the appropriations process has been hydrogened by republican sleered had and -- hijacked by republican leadership and the ideologues who run the house. regardless of the outcome of the vote, all appropriation bills will remain stuck in the swamp that is this republican congress. the reason for this holdup is that republicans' so-called leaders have refused to work across the aisle toward an agreement on a budget that would prevent the gutting of investments in vital national priorities from education to infrastructure, from health care to housing, from diplomacy to defense. we need to provide our military with the resources they need, no question about that. instead, the republican majority is using the brave service men and women who defend our nation as pawns in a partisan crusade that would undermine the

the eighth it's realistic to expect that we are going to be able to enact numbers of the appropriations committee can recommend to the chamber and we can pass appropriation bills or an omnibus that will allow our agencies to have full-year appropriations or i should say the remainder of this year's appropriations and i certainly hope that will include fy19. that would certainly be the past and then it will be balanced, balanced between the needs of the department of defense and the non-defense agencies. we have critical functions that require to have a full year of appropriations including our national defense, the department of defense, our statert departmt and the department of health and the work thats is done in food safety and the federal drug administration and the social security administration to deliver checks to our seniors and to take care of our health care needs. all of that requires that we have the flexibility of a budget. .. ons between democrats and republicans that we are committed to bringing out a budget by february 8 so that we can give that type of predictability to the peop

said, know their districts better than anyone at the federal agencies and better than the appropriations committee as a whole. "the houston chronicle" pointed out this in an editorial last friday when it lamented the difficulties the city's representatives have had trying to get specific appropriations for flood clean-up and rebuilding efforts. i quote from the houston chronicle. without the ability to write line item expenditures, our local delegation and city advocates have been forced to craft legislative language that, they hope, will instruct executive agencies to prioti houston flood infrastructure. in other words, doing indirectly what we say you cannot do directly. that becomes less available for the public review. without specific directed spending, it is ultimately up to the executive branch, which everybody has noted, in washington, to decide which projects had funding. let me suggest that also as another perverse. it estranges us further from our districts. and therefore, undermines the confidence the american people have in that we are paying attention to them. to a school need. to a

frelinghuysen, the almighty powerful appropriations committee on which i was proud to serve with you and congresswoman lowey. i'm disappointed, though, that the legislation that is brought to the floor today falls so very, very short of our responsibilities to the american people. when it comes to considering this bill, which the republicans are bragging supports chip, it's important to review the facts. the facts are the these -- are thiels. the chip proposal that the -- are these. the chip proposal that the republicans boast was on the floor in october or this or that was funded by taking money from other children's programs and that's why it was not to be supported by us. it's also important to remember that the chip re-authorization expired september 30. so here we are with our fourth continuing resolution, our fourth continuing resolution. that means on september 30 we were supposed to not only re-authorize chip, but to pass an omnibus bill to fund the government. republicans were not able to make the decisions necessary to do that. so we had one extension. another extension, an

realistic to expect that we are going to be enabled to enact budget numbers so that the appropriations committee can recommend to the full chamber and we can pay appropriation bills that will allow our agencies to have full-year appropriations for the remainder of this year'son appropriations and i certainly hope that will include fy 19, that would certainly be the best and that it will be fbalanced between the needs of the department of defense and the non-defense agencies, we have critical functions that require to have a full year of appropriations for, including our national defense, department of defense, state department, department of health and the work that's done in the national institutes of health, the drug administration, social security administration and take care oft our health care needs, all that requires that we have the predictability of a budget so i am pleased that we were able, during this debate, i wasn't pleased we had a shutdown but i was pleased that during this debate we had great discussions among democrats or republicans that weng are committed to bringing out a bud

it's realistic to expect that we're going to be able to enact budget numbers so that the appropriations committee can recommend to the full chamber and we can pass appropriations bill or cromnibus or an omnibus that will allow our agencies to have full-year appropriations. or i should say the remainder of this year's appropriations. and i certainly hope that will include f.y. 2019. that would certainly be the best. and that it will be balanced, balanced between the needs of the department of defense and the nondefense agencies. we have critical functions that require to have a full year of appropriations for, including our national defense, department of defense, our state department, the department of health and the work that's done in national institutes of health, food safety and the federal drug administration, the ability of the social security administration to deliver checks to our seniors and to take care of our health care needs. all that requires that we have the predictability of a budge. so i'm -- predictability of a budget. i'm pleased that during this debate, not pleased we had a sh

by february 8 day it is realistic to expect that people enact budget numbers so that the appropriations committee can recommend to the full chamber and we can pay appropriation bills for an omnibus that will allow our agencies to have full appropriations since they remainder of this year appropriations and i certainly hope that will conclude fy 19 and that will certainly be the best. and then it will be balanced, balanced between thehe needs of the department of defense and the non-defense agencies and we have a critical motions that required to have a full year of appropriations for an including our national defense department and their state department and the department of health and the national institutes of health and food safety and the ability to deliver checks for seniors all that requires that we have the perfect ability so we have i am pleased that we have during this debate and i wasn't pleased by the shutdown plan please that during this debate we had great discussions upon democrats and republicans that we are committed to bringing out a budget by february 8 so that we can give that

i can say this as the vice chairman of the appropriations committee, i know that democrats have been ready and willing to negotiate a spending agreement since way last june. instead of working toward that goal, congressional republican leadership spent the last year overturning consumer protectio protections, they stripped health care for millions of americans, they removed protections against activities in the workshop that endanger women, they passed a massive tax cut for big corporations and wealthy americans, they paid for -- being paid for by middle-class americans and future generations because it adds trillions to the deficit. but during that time, they continued to kick the can down the road. they failed to do their jobs to pass sensible spending bills, to keep our government open. they've cast aside congress' fundamental responsibilities in pursuit of a hyper partisan agenda. now, we've -- as a result, we haven't reached a bipartisan budget deal that would allow us to strengthen our military. that's something both republicans and democrats want. we haven't reached a bipartis

insurance program will be reauthorized that we have other issues with spending caps so the appropriation committee can figure out how much money can we commit to national security? we have shortchanged the national security because of the budget control act and sequestration that creates automatic spending caps with a grand bargain. this is a perennial problem. not just for congress but in particular has fallen hard on our military at a time when james clapper said has never seen a more diverse braid of threats to confront the world. and you can take down the list from north korea to iran, to russia, china, there is the threat of homegrown terrorism because domestically inspired islamic extremist, the world is a dangerous place only made safer and we cannot do that by finding the national security apparatus. with our agencies and department of defense. we need to takeh care of that and also disaster relief, coming from a state hammered by hurricane army -- harvey. the most significant rain event perhaps in 1000 years 50 inches of rain inundated thest city of houston. many people are still hurting

i'm vice chairman of the appropriations committee and we should have had this long before now. our agencies are operating under last year's funding levels. they have little flexibility to handle the problems they face today, not the problems they faced at the time of the old budget. we still haven't reauthorized the children's health insurance program, we call chip. that puts the health care of nine million children at risk. these are american children. nine million of them are at risk. and nearly 800,000 dreamers lived under a cloud of uncertainty and fear of deportation living in the country they've known most of their life. i don't know how anybody, republican or democrat, could call this acceptable. now, i know the republicans control the house, they control the senate, and they control the white house. they are in charge. they've got to show the responsibility, show leadership, on these issues, but instead of addressing these issues last year, the republican leadership spent time rolling back sensible regulations designed to protect the american consumer, designed to prote

vote shortly'v but we've got otr issues we've got to agree on the spending caps, so the appropriations committee can figure out how much can we to our national security. we've shortchanged the security because of the budget control act and sequestration absent a grand bargain. this has been a problem not just for congress and the country but particularly it's falling hard on our military at the time when james clapper the former director of national intelligence said in his 50 years in the intelligence committee he had never seen a more diverse array of threats confronting the country and the world and you can just take down the list from north korea to iran, russia, china. there is the threat of homegrown terrorism in the united states because of domestically inspired islamic extremists. and the agencies and the department of defense. so, we need to take care t of tt and deal with disaster relief. i come from a state that was hammered by hurricane harvey. the most significant in many or perhaps a thousand years where 50 inches of rain inundated the city of houston and the environment and many p

i served on the appropriations committee. the house passed the bill, i believe in september. it's been sitting in the senate ever since then opinion mitch mcconnell has not been able to mover forward because he's got to get 60 votes. he's got to have nine democrats. up until recently eight decrats. >> more than that. now he's short on his own side. what about that? >> that's right. i want to say one of the bills that hasn't moved is homeland curt. if there's a bill where there's a case for bipartisan, why hasn't the homeland security appropriations sub committee moved their own bill. that's not mitch mcconnell's fault. that committee would move it. senator tester sounds like an earnest guy. he's in leadership on that bill. i think they should mover it. >> let's hold it right there. it's a good appetizer. we're going to get more information tonight. i'm going to come back to you guys. i love you both for sticking around. that's just round one. we'll keep following the breaking news on capitol hill. as we learn more we'll go back to them for their take. the leadership that seem

let's bring the defense appropriations bill, which came out of committee unanimously. every senator on the appropriations committee, democrat and republican, voted for that. let's bring that to the floor. so we did. so we did. let's have a debate. we're going to fund our military with these new talking points about supporting our troops. so what happened that summer, mr. president? the democratic leadership filibustered the spending for our troops. they wouldn't let us vote on the bill. they wouldn't let it come to the floor. they stopped funding for our troops. so a number were upset. i know some of the democrats were upset by this. they didn't support it. you only need 41 to filibuster, like we saw last night. so a number of us said, let's keep bringing it up. they can't be serious. our troops are in combat. everyone knows that we have national security threats. the bill came out of committee unanimously. let's bring it up again because i guarantee you if they are constituents back home, whatever state they are from, whatever party they are in, democrat, republican,

am worried about its impact but even with that spending cap agreed to it would take the appropriations committee additional weeks to come up with bill but even if the spending caps were agreed upon,in but it was a situation for them to manage but the military was funded for fewer than nine months that way. but the consequences are clear. and deadly. so the budgets are spread thin. or for that the but the army is prepared to fight. because i know americans well enough to know that there was an threat, we revised the either for policy or fiscal reasons, other people are more than happy to fill the void. but unfortunately the general is right. so we need to quit fooling ourselves into believing our security is not negatively impacted by the current funding approach but that is like the military. or yesterday when the senate democratic leader spoke he said that common sense andrt bipartisanship one when the government reopened. . . . . those two things continue to prevail. common sense and bipartisanship, particularly when it comes to funding our military and other critical government functions, to

we've got to agree on spending caps for this fiscal year so the appropriations committee can figure out how much money we cane commit to our national security. we have shortchanged ourud national security in recent years because of the budget control act and sequestration which creates automatic spending caps absent some agreed-upon grand bargaining. this has been up really nailed problemou, not just for congress and the country, but particularly on part of our military. at the times when james clapper said, he and his 50 years has never seen a more diverse array of threats confronting the world. you can just take down the list from north korea to iran and russia and china, there are, there is the threat of homegrown terrorism here in united states because of domestically inspired islamic extremists, the world is a dangerous place and it's only made safer when america is strong in america leads and we can't do that underfunding our national security apparatus, our intelligence agencies and the department of defense. so we need to take care of that. we also need to deal with disaster rel

the chair of the house appropriations committee. been there 24 years.er been in a competitive race until now, are republicans looking at that and saying this is going, going, gone? >> you know new jersey very well. everything in that district is named after that congressman. what is surprising about that, not necessarily surprise go but what was most notable to that retirement compared to the others, we've seen several committee chairman announce their retirements but they were term limited. this one was not. he had a couple of see left on that term so that's indicative of the mood. when i met with people from the various committees today and they are trying to strike an optimistic mood. talking about the economy and the tax cuts that they think republicans can campaign on. where the tax cuts actually could have a negative impact are on these very district that's you mentioned. new jersey, new york, this is the road map for them to take over. they argue that the tax bill negatively impacts high tax states where property values are also very high. so rep

here and we've got other issues and we agree on spending caps for this fiscal year so the appropriation committee can figure out how much money can we commit to our national security. we have shortchanged our national security in recent years because of the budget control act and sequestration which creates automatic spending caps absent some agreed-upon grand bargain. this has been a perennial problem not just for congress and the country but particularly falls hard on our military at a time when james clapper the former director of national intelligence said he and his 50 years in the intelligence committee never seen a more diverse array of threats confronting our country and confronting therl world. you can take down the list from north korea, iran, russia, to china in there are the threat of homegrown terrorism here in the united states because of domestically inspired islamic extremist. the world is a dangerous place and it's only made safer and we can't do that underfunding our national, security apparatus agencies and department of defense. we need to take care of that and we need to deal

barbara lee from the appropriations committee wants to address a few of the items that are being appropriated and not being appropriated and it importance of them. then we will close out with a new damage. chairman to thank the and the caucus for the the moral stand to not support the cr. as a member of the , all ofations committee the domestic programs, i can tell you with certainty that these crs that keep coming to us reflect a spending level that is devastating for our communities. devastating to our disaster relief and you are a crisis and other issues. back to a budget that really signifies and realizes what it says to the public that we care about the prioritizingty by and spending on schools and on houses and health care. and addressing disaster relief. much chairman richman and cdc for standing firm. >> variant with this. and theere today tragedy that is occurring this is a trump tragedy. this was created by the person in the oval office who was inactive. showdown lies at the feet of the republicans and the top of the ticket, trump. let us be crystal clear. they have a large number o

appropriatio appropriations committee is one of the oldest. >> what's your sense of where this goes,hen does it end? >> the two paths forward. i'm encouraged there are fwrugr of senators getting together and talking. if they cannot, i do think mitch mcconnell is going to have to call and say this is it. i'm passing this with 51 votes. he can appeal a ruling of the chair on any vote that he brings up. that only requires 51 votes to sustain it. please don't blame the dreamer situation on president trump. this has been going on for a number of years. 2005, jim had a bill on the floor that would have solved this problem but it never got day in the senate. in 2010, remember senator durbin's bill. this dreamer act was defeated in the senate. not by republicans. yes, republicans did vote against it but that 60-vote rule, there were five democrats that voted against his bill. that's what brought it down. >> i guess you'd have to argue the president's comments have poisoned the well. that's part of the problem. >> wait a minute. in defense of the president, if you were trying to do something

[applause] i look forward to working with senators, chairman and appropriations committee on balancing the budget. our next challenge has to do with taxes. cutting and reforming taxes is key to growing nebraska. over the years, together, we have done the hard work needed to hold the line on taxes. but nebraskans need and expect more. if we are going to remain competitive and gro he into the future, we must continue our efforts, no matter how hard. the tax foundation ranks nebraska's property taxes as the 11th highest in the nation, which is the worst around our surrounding states. while we have provided over 840 million dollars in property tax relief over four years, we've all heard the stories about how high property taxes are hurting nebraska. this fall a former came up to me at one of my events and let me know that his high property taxes had driven him to sell his farm, leave nebraska and move to missouri. that's terrible. it's stories like this that inspired me to continue making property tax relief a top priority. [applaus [applause] >> it's an urgent need. we must help our farme

actually short term, and it should be short term, is an agreement on spending caps so the appropriations committee can come up with an appropriations bill that will fund the government through the end of september, through the end of the fiscal year. but what's really happened here unfortunately is our colleagues across the aisle have listened to the most extreme elements in their political party and shut down the government over an unrelated immigration issue that doesn't even ripen until march 5. now i say that just to say it doesn't have to be decided today, nor can it be decided today, but that's what they're trying to hold all of the rest of us hostage in order to do. all across the country the headlines reflect the reality, from the associated press it reads senate democrats derail bill to avert shutdown. and even "the new york times" read, senate democrats block a bill to keep government open past midnight. and i can't help but share in the frustration of those who in disgust find us in a situation that we don't want to be in and that makes absolutely no sense to anybody. because everything

frelinghuysen, the almighty powerful appropriations committee on which i was proud to serve with you and congresswoman lowey. i'm disappointed, though, that the legislation that is brought to the floor today falls so very, very short of our responsibilities to the american people. when it comes to considering this bill, which the republicans are bragging supports chip, it's important to review the facts. the facts are the these -- are thiels. the chip proposal that the -- are these. the chip proposal that the republicans boast was on the floor in october or this or that was funded by taking money from other children's programs and that's why it was not to be supported by us. it's also important to remember that the chip re-authorization expired september 30. so here we are with our fourth continuing resolution, our fourth continuing resolution. that means on september 30 we were supposed to not only re-authorize chip, but to pass an omnibus bill to fund the government. republicans were not able to make the decisions necessary to do that. so we had one extension. another extension, an