tv White House Defends Spending Bill Saying It Delivers on Promises CSPAN May 2, 2017 5:48pm-6:36pm EDT
thank you, thank you. >> the house will take up the 2017 spending bill to fund the government through september ahead of the friday decline. reacting to the budget plan president trump tweeted about the need to reduce the number of votes to advance legislation which will end the filibuster. here's what he said. "the reason is that we need of votes in the senate -- . >> at the white house today, white house director mitt mulvaney haswas asked about
president trump's tweet and whether the president is satisfied with the agreement reached by congressional democrats and republicans. he's joined by john kelly. what's in the bill to protect the country and keep our borders safe. ironically when the secretary is done he's got to get right to the meeting with the president to talk about the wall and the efforts he's taking to drive down illegal immigration and border crossings.
after he's done, the director of management and budget, mick mulvaney will come up and talk about the overall status of the president's priorities in the funding bill and take your questions. so without further >> well, i've talked to many in the media over the last 100-plus days about the things our department does on a daily basis to keep our nations safe. in the past 100 days we've been incredibly successful in enforcing the law and defending the nation. i believe this budget will help us begin to improve the way we do business and how we accomplish our goals to make this country more secure. the department's base discretionary budget authority is $42.4 billion and we can never, in my opinion, invest too much in the security of our citizens or in our communities and we'll be able to sustain the critical improvements that will make us all safer.
that includes hiring i.c.e. agent, improving cybersecurity and funding grants that support state and local communities and funding the coast guard operations at $344 million above the fy-17 budget request and as promised, the budget would secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws. voter security has three factors. you need people. you need technology and you need an infrastructure. this budget begins to provide all three. it will help us replace see-through steel wall along the southwest border and it will help us put more enforcement aircraft in the skies. it will help us to deploy more technology to stop illegal activity crossing our borders. it keeps us moving in the right direction to a more secure united states. we've accomplished so much with the resources we already have. if i may remind you apprehensions and illegal immigrants and criminals at the
border are down significantly, but we need more to keep moving forward. this is our government's largest investment in border security in ten years. we are getting the tools we need or beginning to get the tools we need to make a change, but frankly, i am shocked at the behavior of some individuals in public service or public office that instead of celebrating how they've managed to reduce the amount of money for our border wall, a wall that will make us more secure that will prevent drug smuggling and rejoicing in the fact that that wall will be slower to be built and consequently our southwest border under less control than it could be. these appropriations provide a solid investment to people and technology that helps our department protect the homeland. we face a variety of hazards with man made and natural factors and this budget begins
to help us confront them all. i would like to thanks, as i always do, all of the men and women of dhs who take on this often thankless, often dangerous and very, very difficult job and they do it every day superbly. i am proud to lead them. most americans appreciate what they do and thank them every day. most public officials also appreciate and defend them, but there are many who owe them an apology, many in public service who owe them an apology, and frankly, many in the media for how they disrespect them, disrespect them for what they do and how they serve us every day. with that, i would like to introduce the director of omb. mick? >> all right. let's get the important things out of the way first. thank you for being here. shawn said ie can't do this and today is my anniversary. hi, pam.
i love you very much. it's my 19th anniversary. believe me, i wish i were home and not here with you people. those of you that know me know it's a miracle that i've been married to anybody for 19 years. we're here to talk about the bipartisan spending bill, okay? and i want to focus that description first before we go into details. a lot of folks have asked us over the course of the last 24/48 hours with republicans in charge of the house and the senate and the white house, why do we need a bipartisan spending bill and one of the things that's not being discussed as openly as it should is this is one of those bills that requires 60 votes in the senate and it's not like the health care bill. >> we have to have at least eight democrats support this in the senate which is why we've been working with democrats in the very beginning and yes, we could have passed out of the house and it never would have passed out of the senate and we
would have been accused of not being able to function and run the government. there is a very good reason that we're working with democrats on a bipartisan bill and that is because we must, and until those rules change, that's the environment that we'll continue to operate in. the dems have been trying to claim victory on this which is a strange way of having a bipartisan discussion and i think it's very unusual for one group to spike the football and say we won and killed the other guys and it doesn't bode well for future discussions and since the democrats have raised the issue, and i think it's important today and only fair to show you what's really in the bill and how the president actually cut a tremendous deal for the american people. at the end of the day that's who we think won in this discussion and this negotiation and not the democrats and not the republican, but the american people. first, the list of things that republicans got in the negotiation. you've heard a bunch of different numbers about the top
line defense number that i've heard as low as 10 and 12.5 million. the number is $21 billion. that's made up of two number, $15 billion in a stand alone oko, overseas contingency account, and another 6 billion in the underlying do dbil. remember, this is an omnibus bill which means it's made up of different appropriations bills and one of those bills which is part of the omni bus is the defense appropriations bill and in that bill is $6 billion. you take the six that's in the underlying bill and the 15 that was added at the supplemental and that's how you arrive at the $21 billion. the 12.5 billion is wrong. the $15 billion number is wrong. you could talk about a number as high as 25 billion if you wanted to compare it to fy-2016, and you could never go below $21 billion which is a full
two-thirds of what we would ask for in the beginning and i would talk about the 1.522 billion of additional spending and that's not all of the spending on total security. the total dhs number by the time we're finished will be north of $42 billion. the largest funding levels for border security in the last ten years is what we'll have at the end of this process. that's where this negotiation has taken us to the largest spending on border security in ten years. we'll go over the details of that in a second. miners' health, and the democrats walked out of the room and said they protected the miners' health. so did the president. the president has been asking me since the day i got here for the way to fix the miners' health issue problems that they have in
a mracha, and the every single protection that the democrats wanted to get rid of is still in the bill and every pro-life protection that we wanted in the bill and the democrats wanted out is gone, okay? and most importantly and those of you in the room and those that take the time to watch this during the day understand this and follow this business fairly closely. we broke parody and for those of you covering this in a long time know what it means and ever since the sequester went in, was there this unwritten deal of capitol hill which is for every dollar of defense spending that the republicans wanted they had to give $1 worth of nondefense spending for the democrats and that was the deal that president trump was able to cut during his last years in office. we got $21 billion in defense spending for less than $8 billion of non-defense spending. we didn't go dollar for dollar. we got a dollar of spending and only got 20 cents of discretionary. that's a tremendous development for the president and a huge win from the negotiating standpoint.
think about that for a second, we've gone from dollar for dollar to 20 cents and part of that is stuff that we like. so the miners' health is included in that number. so even some of the stuff we gave away, supposed lead to get the defense spending was stuff we liked in the first place. what didn't the democrats get? i've seen it on the news, go find it for me. it is not there. what the democrats are telling you about that is false. there's absolutely no language in this bill that requires us to make any obama bailout payments of any way, shape or form as a result of this deal, okay? why are the democrats saying that? because it's what they told their base they would deliver and they failed to do that for their base. that is not in the bill. there's no new money for puerto rico. the democrats are crying out they got $295 million from
puerto rico. not a penny of it is new money. all of that money was actually spent and it was part of obamacare under a previous agreement. that money was sitting there unspent and all we agreed to do was agree to let them move it from one place to another. it did not cost the taxpayer a penny. they wanted new money and they wanted a bailout and we wouldn't give it to them and we gave them money that was appropriated and already spent. no renewable energy subsidies. they wanted at the last minute they threw in a demand for wind and solar and those types of things and we kept those out. what they really didn't get is this and this is what they wanted. >> they wanted a shutdown. we know that. they were desperate to make this administration look like we couldn't function, like we couldn't govern and we know that a large part of their base especially their left-wing base wanteded a shutdown and they didn't want us to cut a deal with us and that's why they see them crowing about the success
and they cut a deal with president trump and president trump did a tremendous job. what are we talking about? more money for spending -- excuse me, more money for defense. more money for border security, more money for school choice, another thing that we got, okay? those of you who were here in march and saw me introduce our first version of our budget blueprint saw me talk about the president's priorities. what were they? defense, border security, school choice. the president delivered on his promises and got his priorities funded and that's what the democrats don't want you to know. they want you to think they won. what they don't want you to know is the american people won here because the president simply outnegotiated them. i'll take questions and if i can bring the pictures up now that would be great. you've heard me talk a lot over the last couple of weeks saying there's no bricks and mortar and no bricks and mortar and no bricks and mortar for a wall on this. we can do this. and we're going build this. there are several hundreds of millions of dollars for us to
replace cyclone fencing with 20-foot high steel wall. there are several hundreds of millions of dollars in the bill for us -- can we bring up the other photo, please? do we have the other photo? there are several hundreds of millions of us to build levy walls and some of the most vulnerable areas that we have are along rivers in order to provide the protection of the southern border that we need, okay? >> we are building this now. there is money in this deal to build several hundreds of millions of dollars on this to replace this, and that's what we've got in this deal and that's what the democrats don't want you to know. this stuff is going up now. why? because the president wants to make the country more safe. this doesn't stop drugs and doesn't stop criminals from stopping the border. it doesn't stop anything from crossing the border. this does and that's what we got in this deal and that's why we are so excited about the opportunities that we have to follow through on the president's promises to secure
the southern border. so unless we have the other picture i'll take a couple of questions. >> how do you say that fence will come over the border and they tunnel under the border. >> the general left. this is the wall, by the way, that dhs said they wanted. i've sat in the oval office with the president and we talked about bricks and mortar and concrete walls. this is what dhs wants. why? because it works better. you can tunnel under anything. i'll answer your question. where we have this in place now and we do. it's safer for our border patrol agents and you can talk to the dhs about the details and there has been a dramatic reduction in attacks on the border patrol agents where you can see through the wall and no one can throw anything over the top at them and it's half of the cost so we can build twice as much and a huge win for border security. >> the president tweeted out looking ahead to fiscal 2018 a
shutdown is just what's needed to clean up the budget mess. do you agree with that? can you expand on that? >> i've been through a couple of shutdowns. let me answer that question this way. that's a good discussion to have in september. i think the president is frustrated with the fact that he negotiated in good faith and they went out to spike the football and made him look bad. it's a terrible posture for the democrats to take and if we're trying to prove to people that washington is going to be different and that we can change things and figure out a way to do that and they do that to this president. listen, i would have taken offense to that and it doesn't surprise me that his frustrations were manifested in that way. >> we have a lot to do between now and september. i don't anticipate a shutdown in september, but if negotiations and if the democrats aren't going to behave better than the last couple of days. >> what about a shutdown to clean up the mess? >> look. sooner or later we'll have to
start doing something different. i think i can make the argument, and i did that we made something dramatically here today by getting rid of parody by going dollar to dollar and getting something new. that may help us change town a little bit, but if we get to september and it's business as usual, business as usual and nothing changes and it takes a shutdown to change it. i have no problem with that. gentleman in the back in the red tie. >> thank you, mr. director. happy anniversary. >> thank you very much. i'm sure my wife enjoys spending it this way. >> okay. a few weeks ago governor mior groxa said that the effort to get appropriations in the budget meant that the administration was giving up on having mexico pay for the wall as the president promised. what is your response to that?
>> i've taken that question before and i'll give you the same answer. we have the opportunity to move quicker than expected because president trump was not able to sign a full-term cr we got a bite of the 2017 apple. think about that for a second. if president obama were able to pass it we wouldn't have been here because all of this would have been dealt with and none of this would have been available and none of the additional money for defense and the school choice for the border and none of that would have been there because president obama never signed that. we got a second bite at the 2017 apple and we were happy to get it in order to get things start moving quicker. my job is to spend the money and we're working on ways to get mexico to pay for it. yes, sir? >> it looks like you have a wall there already. >> this stuff is the stuff that was built already and if anyone was watching it's the levy wall
and this is currently built and we don't have the picture up there anymore of the cyclone fencing. this will be replacing cyclone fencing. the other pictures, we have -- >> do you need a wall in all of the places when you have existing fencing? is that a good way to spend the government's money? >> i think securing the border is a good reason to do it. we have money on this and there are places where we have land acquisition for next year and can do that in the bill and we have to hire new agents and beds to catch and release. one of the difficulties we have on catch and release is they were full with the detention levels and when you look at it holistically, it's a tremendous -- >> it's across the entire u.s.-mexico border and no. you've got a couple hundred million to do it and this is a several-year process and you couldn't build that in one year. yes, sir? >> yesterday, of this bill you
said i think it's great that the democrats like the bill. we think it's a great deal for the administration as well. >> yeah. so what changed? yesterday it was great and today it's an outrage and and it's spiking the football. >> what i said yesterday is what you would ordinarily say when you walk out of a negotiation. they got what they got, and we got what we want and they're walking around trying to make it look like they pulled one over fast on the president, and i just won't stand for it because it's not true. i'd rather they be truthful. go ahead. >> you were saying earlier that the obama care subsidies are not part of this bill? does that many that this administration --? we've not made any decision. the payments are due on the 20th or 21st of every single month and we have not made any
decision at all. yes, sir? >> the follow-up to the earlier question is what do you say to members of your own party who say that this negotiation didn't net what they wanted and mike huckabee, i think, tweeted something earlier and they're not happy with it. >> until right now i don't think anybody knew about this. all you heard was no bricks and mortar and it was all about technology. >> about the deal itself? >> listen, i would be happy to have this discussion with everybody and convince anybody on the right that this was a great deal. >> not those on the right who are not happy with it. they've obviously seen it. >> my guess is they have not. my guess is they've been reading "the washington post" and watching television and i'm here to let the other side and the middle know. >> he could just veto the new spending bill. he doesn't have to wait until the fall so why doesn't he just do that? i think we're trying to first of all, show that we can govern and know that we can. we can also fund our priorities
and it does. why would you shut it down when you cut a good deal and funded your priorities. i think what you heard this morning was a sense of frustration of how he was treated by the democrats. >> yes, sir? >> the president talked about a potential shutdown and you say democrats wanted to do what they did so they can force a shutdown and we've heard the term shutdown a lot here, and i think there are probably folks at home who are saying, my gosh, we're barely 100 days into this. what does it mean for tax reform and what does it mean for a government spending bill in september and this is just year one? what does it is a to the tone that we're talking about? >> they have a president who can run the place which is not a narrative that you hear coming out of many different sources. you have a president who is able to work with democrats and republicans. again, disappointed with the way the democrats have acted, and
you i have as who knows what he's doing to run the country. when he hired me to be the omb director, and i think the message that we're sending is that we are competent. we know what we're doing and the country is safe in our hands and we think this goes to prove that. yes, sir? >> i'm a little confused. you said that the democrats wanted it shut down. >> yeah. i really believe that. it's the president himself that tweeted our country needs a good shutdown in september. can you explain that and if there is a shutdown in september won't it be the president's fault? >> the 18 budget comes out in september and before then, you hope to have infrastructure to deal with and there are a lot of things to deal with between now and september. again, what i think you heard the president express this morning was frustration over how he was treated as part of the negotiation and it may be that
people get to that point, and there are a lot of things that will happen between now and then to let us know if you're moving in the right direction. to your point, about the democrats, i think it was a little bit reported that there was a great deal of disagreement within the house democrats over this deal that mrs. pelosi was absolutely convinced when we said we wanted money for the wall that we would shut the government down and when we took the request off of the table in the negotiations they were flabbergasted and they were stuck in a circumstance where they were facing possibly shutting the government down and some of them wanted to do that. my guess is their base is not going to be very happy to know that we are taking their taxpayer money to build this and that's the deal and my guess is that will not sell well with the folks on the left, but they'll have to deal with that. yes, ma'am? >> you spoke about this being a bipartisan bill and the president is floating this idea of doing away with the legislative filibuster. is that a good idea? is that something that you're talking about and is that what
you need to -- >> clearly, we don't need it because we did this. the question is would the results be better and will there be less animosity? maybe. i know that there has been some discussion on the hill over the course of the last couple of years for limiting the filibuster when it comes to appropriations bills. >> keep in mind, one of the reasons we're here and one of the reasons we have a discussion about the shutdown is the appropriations process is broken, and the way it used to work and is supposed to work is the house passing an appropriations bill on the topic saying military construction and va and the senate passing a bill and going to conference committee and putting that bill on the desk for the president and that, i don't think has functioned in the last decade. >> we want to go back to that process, but the reason we can't get back to that process is because the senate is requiring 60 votes on every single appropriations bill and that is forcing this discussion about continuing resolutions which is a bad way to run the government and they forced a discussion about shutdowns which are simply
not productive. >> what does the president -- thanks for being here today. what does the president -- how does the president define a good shutdown? >> i don't know. >> we haven't had one. i think a good shutdown, and i've said it during my confirmation. it's not a goal or negotiating tool. >> but to the extent the president advocated for one today, it would be one that fixes this town. the one that drives the message back home to people that really was as broken as they thought that it was when they voted for donald trump and they would trust him and that's what it's necessary to do to fix washington, d.c. >>. >> to be clear, another 1.3 million were required to work without knowing if they would get paid. is that a good shutdown? >> you and i have had these discussions before, every single one of those folks got paid, right? during the temporary lapses in appropriation which is what the congressional research service
calls. that's why i say it's not desirable, but you asked me what a good one would look like and a good one would be something that fixes washington, d.c., permanently. yes, sir? [ inaudible question ] >> what happened between that meeting and now? >> that meeting took place in early march, and i've always heard that we came late to the game. we got put at this office, i think, february 17th and the first week in march we were meeting to lay out the president's priorities which again, they worked that time and the four that we laid out for them was border security including the wall and we wanted sanctuary cities. we had to pick up on the last two as part of the negotiation because that's what you do in a negotiation. we got something we didn't ask for in the first place, and it's still part of the president which is the school choice so that's the nature of the back
and forth and the negotiation and i think we got a tremendous deal. yes, sir? >> you said in your statement before you started taking questions that the president delivered on his promises and got his priorities funded. >> yeah. well, that's not true. he didn't get the border wall. no funding for the border wall and that's the replacement and no funding for the u.s. southern border and planned parenthood. >> let me ask you a question. >> i'll stop right there. when you heard about the deal yesterday. >> i'll be happy to let you go if you let me answer your question. i won't jump to another person -- >> you take it as a whole, right? >> fine, go ahead. >> are they always like this? as far as the priorities that you say are funded, no new border wall along the southern bottle, and you've already said that another priority of the
president was explain to me how you say what you said before and square what you said before with the actual reality as far as the budget is concerned. >> sure. thank you for finishing your question. when you heard in the last 48 hours about the deal, did you think we could build this? i'll bet you didn't. nobody did. is it a replacement for existing wall? no. this is what's out there right now, and this is what's going to be here right now? that is better border security. you can call it new wall and replacement and call it whatever you want to, the president's priority was to secure the southern border and that's what this does. he asked a couple of questions. the young woman in the pink and then the young woman in the orange and then we'll take another couple, but let me finish your thing. planned parenthood, okay? planned parenthood. we had a good discussion and it's a fair question and we had a really good discussion about that and we decided after
talking to the pro-life supporters on the hill and the pro-life supporters outside is the president has made his case fairly strongly for his pro-life position. you saw mike pence, vice president pence had to break the tie on that vote, okay? on the states with the medicaid funding and you've seen the executive orders and this bill includes all of the traditional protections for the pro-life movement including the hyde amendment and what we simply decided was, look, if you want to take a vote on the hill to stake out your position on planned parenthood do it on the health care bill and the outside groups agreed with that. if you want to prove to the folks back home that you are pro-life then vote for the planned parenthood bill. you asked about sanctuary cities and we talked about that and something that we gave up in the ney gos negotiation. the president got his priorities funded and more money for the military and more money for the southern border security and more money for school choice.
those are the same, exact priorities that i talked about in march when we laid out the budget and that's how i can look you in the eye and tell you that i am satisfied that we funded our priorities. >> the new border wall that you built. will it look like that right there? >> this is what's permitted in the bill. >> the new one that's built along the u.s. southern border will look like that right there? >> in certain places, yes. other photo we can't get up is the levy so i'm not sure what your question is. in other words, is this a short-term fix and then we're going to -- >> that is a 20-foot high steel high. that is not a temporary, short-term fix. >> i've been promising the young lady in the pink. >> where is that being built and how many miles are you going to get out of it? >> i don't know where it's being built and we haven't done the per mile, and i think the total spending is $347 million and we haven't done the math yet.
>> what are we talking about? >> it depends. it's more expensive to build a wall in certain places. this is going to be replacement and we have to figure out where we are and it's cheaping than building new wall because we already have land acquisition and there are probably roads out there to service it when you are building a wall to the gentleman's points, and you have to get the construction teams out let to build and we haven't done the miles yet on where to build and where it will be. what we do know is we have hundreds of millions of dollars to do this. do you have a follow up on that or not? >> well, yes. when will we see construction? and when will we see the wall? >> i don't know if it's this exact construction, and this wall is being installed in the southern border today. >> yes, director mulvaney. two topics. when it comes to the wall and the budget for the wall, it's very expensive and that's one piece of the immigration issue
what about the larger piecest immigration issue and where is the funding when it comes to the issue of fixing the issue of people overstaying their visas and that's more the immigration issue in the past when it comes to just dealing with the southern border and you have immigrants from other countries here. what monies are going into that? >> it's a fair question and let me answer this two ways and this is how i would answer the question and this is a pure funding bill and yes, there are policies that are wrapped up into it and both parties will push back and if you try to tie something as much as immigration reform. they don't like to do that and they will tell you that they're not supposed to authorize on an appropriations bill and this is a one-year funding bill and it is not supposed to be a carrier for a long-term policy change. obviously, from time to time, they make exceptions to that, and i didn't like to do it when i was a member of congress. to your larger discussion about
why do this and ignore the other topics is that i really don't think and this is not just rhetoric and i've been through this as a member of congress. it's very difficult to have a conversation about immigration until the southern border is secured because all of us who follow it very closely know the example of ronald reagan in the 1980s when he did the amnesty in exchange for the southern wall and gave the amnesty first and never got the wall and there are those who say including me who say fool me once, shame on you and until we secure the southern border, we don't think it's product testify have the discussion about the immigration. >> they are the ones trying to interrupt you. >> they're not. the conversation has been basically focused on the southern wall and the other piece is just not there in the conversation from the white house. no one is dealing with the bigger issue, that's the major piece versus this expensive wall and i'm wondering why is there not talk about that and the
money to accompany the bigger piece on the bigger issue? i think the administration needs to have credibility on this before we start talking with anybody. no one will take it until we satisfy them that they're secured on the southern border and you have to go out and secure the southern border first, and i think that's what we're doing. i'll take one or two more. >> i wanted -- i said several topics when i asked. i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i have to get it when i can get it. on aca, is it -- is it more about the numbers or about the issue when it comes to these possible waivers for states when it comes to the issues of substance abuse taking the substance abuse component out of the aca? i'm asking that question as many of these candidates to include this current president who ran
on the issue of fixing the opioid addiction and heroin addiction and now you have this piece that possibly that states can take the substance abuse prevention or programs out of aca. what are the numbers on that because how do you justify that when the republican candidates and democrats ran on this? >> i don't know what numbers you're speaking of? i will speak to the philosophy which is that we really do believe that the states will do it better than we will. i mean, you've seen this commitment that the administration has had to opioid abuse, and i think there may be money in the funding bill that we approve of. we're committed to that and we recognize the reality that the states are more nimble and more well at tuned to deal with it and i would have loved on very many different levels from opioid abuse to medicaid to simply have the federal government write us a check and say here, south carolina, go fix it because we would have had a better job at it.
>> and that's the philosophy behind the waivers and the federal one size fits all might not be a good solution. >> thanks very much. >> and the issue of shutdowns and i mentioned earlier that president trump was upset by how the democrats portrayed the deal. >> yeah. >> is it right to shut down the government because of how something was portrayed. >> that's not the case otherwise we'd be vetoing the bill now. >> is he foreshadowing? >> no. the way we run the town has to be fixed. we cannot simply muddle along using the same models that the previous administration has used, okay? this is a change age the president and he's going to change washington, d.c. and if it takes a shutdown that's what it takes and that's several months away, and we have a lot to do. >> quick follow up on the notion of a good shutdown. wouldn't most americans agree that shutdowns are bad? you shouldn't shut down the
government and to that point it seems that you may have are swd your own question on the issue of government shutdown. you have a compromise. republicans and democrats are getting together and passing something. both sides are not getting everything that they want. isn't that what the american people want? they want their government to work and pass budgets that can be a compromise and both sides can agree on? how can a shutdown be good? >> that's exactly what i think we want, and that's exactly what we have given to them with this agreement. my point to you in response to a couple of different questions was that the president wants to see washington better, get better, get fixed and change the way it does business. >> is this better? >> it is. it absolutely is, which is why it's so frustrating to have the democrats say they won and we lost. i can't imagine ronald reagan and tip o'neal having that discussion in the negotiation.
ysz, ma'am? >> i wanted to ask you about republicans and i wanted to talk about on the senate side and democrats, but on the house side there have been budget bills that simply can't get enough republican support. do you think it's possible to do a republican budget bill with republican votes a lobe? >> i do because i voted for them prize. there's been a lot more -- many more appropriations bills that have passed than people realize and the reason you don't hear about them is they die because the senate is incapable of passing a bill that has any chance of passing in the house because they have to use the 60-vote threshold which is where i started the republican. you are selling the republicans short and let them speak their mind and let their voices be heard in the appropriations process which starts today. i'll close with this. this puts '17 to an end and the discussion about '18 begins
right now, and we very much want to see the appropriations process function, and anything we can do at the white house to encourage that to happen we will do it because we do not want to be here again. we don't want to be having a discussion about the shutdown. one of the things you asked about changing washington and why shutting it down in september is? the appropriations isn't working for the country. one of the things that we like as members of the government, and i'm not talking about members of the administration, members of the government is the proper functioning of the appropriations process is critical to the proper constitutional funk of the government. the house and the center are supposed to use the power of the purse and when they don't do appropriations bills their constituents voices are not heard. so we hope very much that comes back as part of the process. we're very pleased with the deal today. if you have any follow-up questions and you can always
c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you coming up wednesday morning. republican congressman chris stewart of utah discusses tensions with north korea and then virginia democratic representative gerald connolly on the future of health care and margaret tollum, senior white house correspondent for bloomberg talks about president trump's approach to wall street
regulation. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3. saturday at 8:00 on lectures in history, messiah college professor john thea on the people and ideas that shaped the 776 pennsylvania constitution. >> the continental congress, right? the representatives from all of the colonies have instructed after the july 4th declaration, instructed all of the colonies now states to form new governments. >> sunday at 4:30 p.m. eastern. secret service and fbi agents reflect on protecting president reagan following the 1981 assassination attempt. >> when i heard the shots go up i immediately went to my weapon because i recognized the shots had gone up and then i only had
seconds obviously to determine where those shots were coming from, and by that time, you saw the smoke from the weapon and you saw individuals moving toward the potential assailant, and they moved directly toward them, as well. >> and at 8:00 on the presidency. historian, annette gordon reid on the relationship between thomas jefferson and the enslaved hemings family. >> people as property who could be bought and sold and that was a thing that many members of the hemings family, despite whatever privilege sally and her children might have had, they all lived with the specter of the possibility that that could happen because the law construed them as property and jefferson construed them as property. >> for the american history tv schedule go to c-span.org. >> united airlines reached a settlement last week with the
doctor who was dragged off a flight in chicago. the ceo of united airlines testified at a hearing today looking at airline customer service. he was joined by officials from american, southwest and alaska airlines. here's a portion of today's house transportation and infrastructure committee hearing. you can watch the entire hearing at c-span.org. the committee will come to order. i, first, want to recognize mr.
lobiondo for a motion. >> pursuant to rule 1a1 on transportation infrastructure i move that the chairman be authorized to declare a recess during today's hearing. >> questions to the motion and all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. i, first, want to start with thanking all of the witnesses for being here today that accepted our invitation to testify on this oversight hearing on the airline customer service and we invited all of the major carriers to participate and you are the very few to be here with us to seek answers regarding the treatment of passengers in the airline industry. air travel can be stressful and as many of us on this knows that we are passengers and many here are passengers on a twice a week basis flying all over the country, but anyone who flies knows just getting on the plane
can be stressful and getting to the airport, checking in and getting to the gate on time can rattle the most seasoned travel. the whole thing starts with the purchase of a tick pet. there is the expectation that they'll be treated fairly and with respect with the airlines and the employees. there is also an expectation that the ticket will be honored and the airline will get them to the destination safely. i used to be in business, in fact, i was in business for 20 years and one of the fundamental rules of any successful business is that the customer comes first, and as i said, i spent 20 years face to face in the retail business with customers, so i know firsthand how our customers are supposed to be treated if you want to be a successful business. so there's something clearly broken when you see passengers being treated the way some of you have been treated in recent flights. regardless of the contractual relationship between the airline and ticket holder, it's common dyessency and common sense that you don't treat a person that