Transcripts For CSPAN Christian 20240705

Approve more funding for ukraine. This is just over one hour. [indiscernible chatter] so we have cspan here, so we all have to behave. I am the Washington Bureau chief of the Christian Science monitor. Our guest this morning is shalonda young. This is her first appearance at a monitor but is, so welcome. Director young hails from clinton, louisiana and has degrees from Loyola University new orleans and tulane. She worked on the home as recently as democratic staff director on House Appropriations , and in 2021 she became acting omb director, and a year later was confirmed easily by the senate including 14 republican votes. That is something. Director young was a key negotiator in the debt ceiling talks last year and we will be interested to get her take on all of the government funding issues now urgently on the table, so again, welcome. Now to the ground rules. We are on the record. Please note live blogging or tweeting, no filing of any kind whether breakfast is underway. Once the session ends at 10 00 there is no embargo. We will email pictures had a rough transcript to all reporters shortly after the breakfast tends ends. If you would like to ask a question, send me a signal and i will call on as many of you as time permits. Since we have a big group year, maybe keep it to one question. Director young, if you would like to make brief opening remarks, the floor is yours. Dir. Young i still know what brief is. During debt ceiling, i ran out of clean laundry. I promise you i have enough built up for a very busy january and february. I have seen a few of these radios before rodeos, and it is tight how quickly appropriators get a right to finish these bills by january 19 seems a daunting task at this point. Certainly, i know all of you saw the trip to the border taken up by House Republicans, some of the things that came out of that. Also further concerned me about the path they are headed toward in 14 days. This is all preventable. This is the reason we did the debt ceiling deal. The debt ceiling could have just been lifted as historically has been done before it was weaponize during the obama presidency. No one wanted to see a billion jobs risked. That is why the president agreed to sit down and talk about topline budget numbers. Was that necessary to lift the dead . No, but one of the upsides was maybe we can get an orderly appropriations process out of it. Turns out we have a new speaker since then, and we have to remind people this budget agreement was not a handshake. It was vote of congress. It is not optional. They have to keep their word and live by the numbers that were agreed to by 70 of the House Republican caucus that voted for the deal. 76 of democrats voted for that deal, and that is the only way to get Appropriations Bills done without the threat of shutdown, but 14 days. I am typically optimistic. Do not mark me down as optimistic this morning especially after some of the remarks i have seen over the last couple of days since the border, trying to complete not only holding up ukraine and israel funding now for the border. At some of the House Republican conference chair now saying shut down over border as well, which is not a great thing for the country. So brief enough. I think i am under five minutes. Thank you so much. I will throw in a question and then move around the table. You may have seen the johnsons chief of staff of Communications Released a memo this morning saying that he is refuting the white house sank their fiscal 2024 Homeland Security bill increase funding for the border into the that it and says that the white house 14 billion supplemental for the border is smoke and mirrors. What is your response . Dir. Young i am not sure how more money for Border Patrol, more money for equipment, everyone is fascinated to is been on the border. I have been to a few in my day, and in my day it was bipartisan to want to do more with that equipment. The president asked for more equipment, more money for agents, or money for officers. If you want to close the border and not have an immigration policy, why would you want to fix it . We want to fix it. No, we do not want people waiting 5, 6 years before they get called in, and have their case adjudicated. Not only is that bad for our border policy, that is bad for those families who come and get adjusted in this country and to be snatched away from their community. Some children of us because the only communities they have ever known. We have to do something to fix it. You cannot think that people should not emigrate to this country and what to fix this process. If you do not have that believe that we should have a functioning immigration process, you say no to all of this, and you are starting to hear the rhetoric close the border. What does that mean . What does that mean about our immigration policy, and there is something deeper there, and again in a few years ago republicans would have said sure to more asylum offices, and you know that makes the system work better. Now you are saying just this willingness to would not even have an immigration system that works even to get people legally through the system. That is concerning, and that does not leave a lot of room when there is just a fundamental disagreement of how this country a bunch are said to find some agreement with the problem that we all see. There is just a fundamental difference in values, frankly, that is stopping this, and then we will argue about numbers. At the numbers do not lie. Every time republicans say they want to cut nondefense discretionary, guess what is in their . It is Homeland Security. You have a bill limiting growth, a House Appropriations bill that cuts that makes topline cuts of 20 , 30 , security is a part of that. Most americans do not know what is in that. That is Homeland Security veterans, childcare, headstart, nih, and when you start listing that people are like why did we cut that . That is not our problem with the deficit. We did not get into this problem because we find it a Biomedical Research or our Border Patrol. I would be worried too if i put out a dhs bill and had my members vote for that. I would be trying to correct the record too. I am seeing reports speaker johnson is putting direct negotiations with the white house. Changes to Border Security and immigration policy. Are you going to jump in and get involved in this . Dir. Young the last i checked, congressional leaders are having talks. There have been talks with the with senator murphy, senator sinema, senator langford. I know where the speakers suite is, right next to the senate. It is a long trip down to the white house to be do something that could be done right next door. The white house has been involved with those. There is a Group Meeting about these important things. He is a fellow we the end, so i will use a terrible thought, but that is not serious. There are talks going on, and i am sure no one can tell the speaker if he was to be involved with that he cannot be involved in that. He is from the north part of the suite state. He did go to baton rouge, so he has visited down south. Louisiana people talk about north and south. There is a geographical difference. In all seriousness, graves was a good partner in the debt ceiling. I have known scullys in many years during his leadership, but those relationships do matter. Whatever it takes to get through these next few weeks, we are willing to do. It baffles the mind that there was no acknowledgment the talks are happening on the capital. Jonathan from the pittsburgh postgazette. Thanks for coming. I know we are talking about the shutdown, but youre also preparing the budget for 2020242025. Dir. Young dont remind me. Is there concern when you looking at the budget, are you talking about new security steps , funding you think you will need for the election, the postelection, for the counting of the ballots and certification. There was always this time this year. Even lesser restarted funding leading up to just the normal planning around inauguration, which includes security funding for the election, for candidates, so that is normal course of action for 2024 and 2025 budget, and we work closely with secret service to make sure they have what they need and make sure that we are budgeting. That is all i have done that for the last 20 years in some way. There is nothing different in that landscape. As far as the legislative branch and security, they tell us what we need and we do not analyze that. We just ask for what they tell us to escort for themselves. So nothing different and out of bounds of tradition are we thinking about with regards to how we plan for secret services needs, how we plan for the needs of the National Capital region, and on elections we have put forward in our budget for the last three cycles the need for more Election Security money. This has clearly been the forefront of american politics since russias behavior in 2016. We continue to look for a bipartisan audience with regard to an Election Security. It used to be. You probably remember when the Election Commission was set up. Things have changed. Then we said the answer to all of that is electronic. Now we realize we are vulnerable with all electronic, and we need to do something about that and provide assistance to states and localities to make sure that equipment is secure, and we continue to outscore that. Unfortunately, republicans do not seem to be interested in our Election Security requests, but it is the right thing to do. John to your right from newsmax. Director [indiscernible] you are certainly a player in all things economic in the administration. Coming up we are told in fiscal year 2024 there will be a soft landing and inflation minimal. Is there anything you see in the Economic Indicators out there from your perspective that had interrupted this soft landing and perhaps lead to some things unexpected that are bad for the economy . Dir. Young there is always on a monthtomonth every piece of data of the economic team, no one has ever said we are on the right path without the caveat that there could be bumps in the road. Who even uttered the word supply chains before covid . The red sea attacks, shipping, all of these things in the geopolitical space certainly have the chance and opportunity to raise prices on the american consumer. Who knew what would happen to gas prices after putin invaded ukraine, our food basket. I did nothing people realized how much food ukraine produced until russia and ukraine, so all of these things. We are always on alert. We are on a good path to the soft landing that most economists outside of the government did not think was possible, and it is good to see them finally come around. Goldman sachs was the outlier who thought how we could land a soft landing, and others have now appreciated that we are on that path, but i worry about the geopolitical space we live in in this world and what some actors especially in the energy space, what that could cause, and what American Consumers could pay because of it. All right, boston globe. [indiscernible] piggybacking on that more broadly, what is the mood like on the White House Economic Team as you continue to get these good indicators . We got better than expected job numbers again today, and what is the Economic Growth trying to back to our previous conversation if there is a government shutdown. Dir. Young i am glad you have them. I am not talking about them for myself, but wow. Job numbers have been consistently robust. Inflation has moderated in a way that even the fed recognizes, and you have seen their response to good pce and cpi numbers with pauses. That does not mean we are done with Interest Rate hikes, but the fed will make those determinations. This hat trick of a soft landing. Again, the geopolitical space makes me personally nervous, but the indicators we see every month we are on the right path. We have seen some months where inflation did not move. We always want to see a downward trend. It has gotten stuck a couple of times over the last couple of years, but the trendline is very positive from the economic team, so we are cautiously optimistic. We have lunch every friday, so i will see them later today. And i would say cautiously optimistic, but always looking forward to the next thing around the corner and trying to get ahead of it. From an economic standpoint . Dir. Young most economists will tell you i shut down as may be. 01 effect on gdp and typically the economy picks up in the next quarter, so from a macroeconomic standpoint, it is certainly not even in the stratosphere of debt limits and how catastrophic that would have meant. At the one caveat to that statement is governance. We have seen financial institutions, those responsible for Credit Ratings look at that very closely with regard to the United States credit worthiness, and it is concerning that we continue to have a political system that does not show that it works in a smooth way. So my fear is that these governance issues, these potential government shutdowns, shutdowns themselves going up to the brink of the debt limit, that will continue to play heavily in the minds of our credit agencies as they look at the United States credit worthiness. Erik paulsen from bloomberg. Are you predicting that shut down this month as far as that is concerned . We also have some reporting that the democrats are willing to reopen the idea, accelerate irs cuts and look at unspent covid funds. Are you guys willing to do some tweaks . Dir. Young just a quote, we will shut down the government. We control the money. We did not say that. House republicans said that this week. So i have been taught to believe what people tell you and what they show you, and that there are a growing number of House Republicans with this mindset, so i would not say pessimistic, but i am not optimistic, and i started this conversation with the border trip left me with more concerns about where they are headed, and i can only read what and this is not, this is not some of the flame to typically hear this from. There were not on the border trip. This is not a small french number of House Republicans, so i am going to take them at their word on this one and try our best to work with those who know this is a bad road for the country and see if we can find a coalition of the willing to do the right thing. [indiscernible] dir. Young i will start with this ideal was a part of the budget deal. Democrats voted en masse for this seal because nondefense discretionary would be left relatively flat. That includes the things that are unlocked and the appropriations process. Are the leaders talking to try to get their appropriators working . Yes, but from my perspective this is i hate that we use this term side deal. This is a part of the budget deal. We have to make sure nondefense discretionary remains of 172 billion, which is a relatively flat level to current spending. Without that, i am not quite sure how they get there, and so i will not get ahead of what they are discussing, but from my standpoint it is incredibly important to make sure that ndb stay at the budget levels that we agreed to in the budget deal. The gentleman to the right . James with the financial times. There was a report in the New York Times suggesting the administration is open to allowing mass importation of drugs from canada. Can you confirm that is a shift where the administration and how much of a game changer in terms of lowering Health Care Costs . Dir. Young on this one, i do not typically like to say this, but not by will house. I am hopefully smart enough when to say i am not the best spokesperson for the administration in regard to importation of drugs from canada , so i will let fda and others speak to the details and what they see from a Health Care Cost perspective. Ok, lets see. Are you aiding . I about followup question about the decision. If you want to accelerate the irs decision, what effect would that have on the fiscal 2025 process . Dir. Young you know as part of the budget deal we agreed to allow the appropriators to rescind 20 billion in irs funding. 20 billion over two or one year is 20 billion, and we have already worked with the irs to make sure that does not impact their current efforts, and we feel confident that they can continue to go after high income tax cheats with their 20 billion reduction to the 70 billion they received in the inflation production act. Kim from ap. Hi. First on ukraine [indiscernible] how much longer you can make a Silver Service payment without any additional aid . Obviously that is a big part of the aid package from the eu and washington. Dir. Young i do not have the exact figure. Clearly we are worried about this. The good news is we provide a smaller portion of direct budget support, which goes to the world bank that as you pointed out is used to make sure their government continues to function. The Partnership Provides 60 to 70 of those funds. We are closer to 30 , and when it comes to military equipment that percentage which is, so there is not an immediate problem, but clearly a deficit of what he billion dollars per month is going to start having an impact. Why dont we get back to you on the specifics . And really, kyiv owns some ownership to that answer too, and i want to be very precise. This is their government we are talking about, and so let us do some more Due Diligence with them and followup. [indiscernible] the president hinted at an alternate Revenue Source for ukraine. It is that what will happen if congress does not approve additional funding for ukraine . There is another means by which we may be able to find funding for that. What was the president talking about, and are there alternate sources beyond congressional appropriations . Dir. Young i came from the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee Congress Must provide additional funding if we are to keep the level of support. Yes, dod has some Authority Like an authority we are using now, that will not get equipment into ukraine. We clearly cannot continue to provide some of the support from our dod personnel and device and counsel, but i think ukraine will tell you they need the large tranches of equipment to continue to flow into ammunition. That comes through president ial Drawdown Authority. We have additional president ial Drawdown Authority, but we have made the decision that without money that impacts our own readiness, so there is pda left, but given this complicated world i have talked about a few times now, we are just left with no choice to leave that on the table, because we do not have money to backfill our own equipment, and that is a Risky Business to send equipment in which congress has not provided money to backfill, and we made the tough decision to not use all of our pda, because we do not have the money to replace it. [indiscernible] dir. Young i know there are bills moving through congress. Others have a bill. We are interested in talking to them about it. We are interested in earlier supplementals congress did not take us up on, but the timeframe of seizing assets, sending that money to kyiv is not an immediate thing. That does not resolve the need to provide funding now. That is a future benefit to kyiv we should look at and take seriously. Ok, are you jacob . From the Washington Post . That is me. [laughter] the question again about the way that would impacted by the administrations buildout of the irs over time, 20 billion in one year or two years is one thing, but to preserve the 69 billion in the side deal in 2025, there is a very real chance congress will come back for more irs funding. With the money that has been rescinded, how do you assess the ability of the irs to continue building out and modernizing both in terms of Taxpayer Services and enforcement . Dir. Young you are asking is a 20 or can you stop at 20 . My answer is we have to stop at 20. That is a necessity to ensure that we can continue to undertake what i think is a Game Changing opportunity to look at the top 1 and 2 in this country who do not pay what they owe, because they know the irs is so understaffed that they can cheat the system, and no one will ever come knocking on their door. That is why this president is committed to this. That is why we had the inflation production act, and 20 billion was the deal. We are going to have to work out ways just like we are working out now. We are trying to get through the next few weeks. If 20 billion in irs as a way to ensure the appropriators can work, and yes, but that does not mean that we are giving more of irs in 2025. People should not have that assumption, because we are committed to making sure that this program in irs is not just a shortterm thing. It will prove itself and have real deficit reduction. If people are serious about deficit reduction, why would you cut something that conservatively is two dollars spent and one dollar comes in. That is conservative. These are the kinds of conversations rather than cutting head start we need to do to be serious about our deficit. All right, dave from reuters. [indiscernible] is that because of our far apart the sides are not or the rhetoric of the republicans . Dir. Young certainly rhetoric. I think those who are working in good faith and leadership on both sides of the aisle know that the shutdown is bad. It is tough on all of our houses. No one should be planning for a shutdown. It is irresponsible. The rhetoric concerns me. I see Republican Leadership we know it is a bad pass, and they go into a Conference Meeting and they come out of it and say we are shutting down, and that is happened over and over and over. So while i think leadership understands this is a bad path, the question is can they hold back the floodgates . [indiscernible] federal workers, you sent a memo last april to federal agencies telling them to step up in person to work, and the chief of staff. What is the status of workers were turning . What do you think of the federal foot and in terms of workspace . Does that need to be rethought in this new world and is the return where you wanted to be . Dir. Young most agencies are closer to precovid levels than i think people give them credit for. I think what is happening from the federal workforce standpoint, on his gun look at my own agency. People do not necessarily have more generous telework policies. You have managers where it was not accepted form of work. People did not take it or were not allowed to take it, and now people are taking two, 2. 5 days of telework through most places in the government. That is not a bad thing. We were encouraging that before covid. With regard to footprint, we have always had a footprint problem with the federal government. One, this is a very wonky thing. The gsa has a way to manage the federal footprint the congress is not supporting, so what happens is gsa collects all of this right and it is supposed to go in a federal buildings fun. They have flexibility to consolidate, manage like you would want any real estate portfolio to do, at that flexibility parade flexibility. Congress goes we have higher priorities, so they take out of the rappellings fund and they fund things like irs and nih, so we have got to do something to fix that, because gsa is now left as a real estate manager with no money to do anything. We have got to give them to get authority to use the funds that Government Agencies pay into and expect results out of. We are basically handicapping our ability to manage our real estate folio, because were probably the last 10 years that money has basically been siphoned for other important things, but we cannot manage real estate in this way we are gsa has no money to really make any decisions, and if you dont do it that way, what do you think congress is going to do when you say send me 200 million to consolidate versus putting 200 million to put into a program that they could write a press release from home. It is not the sexiest thing on the hill. We have got to convince members that we need resources to manage this vast portfolio, including resources to consolidate and get rid of some of it. And we need to continue. I talked to the geodesic administrator about this yesterday, so it is high on my priority list to make that to make that case, but also know what the appropriators are dealing with, and it is hard for them not to reach into as essay import resources out. Sabrina from the wall street journal. [indiscernible] based on the border and where we are right now that ideal on the supplemental will be wrapped up in the larger spending talks . Or do you think there may still be a possibility . Dir. Young dry as we make try as we make, you guys need to separate the two. Now would we see . This rejoining. We have made the effort to separate, give the supplemental its own space, the space it needs. The same players have to discuss these things, so maybe a capacity issue, giving them the holidays to really work out the supplemental, and then hearing the speaker wants to have now new talks when we had all talks. We want to shut down the border, but we will not do the supplemental because that does not have enough border. It is a strange they are not in the same conversation, but clearly anyone who has watched this sees a joining and not a helpful way of the regular Appropriations Bills with the supplemental and all being threatened to be held up over border policy that House Republicans clearly seem to be moving away from whatever bipartisan deal is emerging in the senate, so it is concerning. And people always have to be very careful of taking hostages that are too important in the grand scheme of things to keep, and they are on the precipice of doing that with government funding, and we have seen this play out before. It does not work out well. After two days and seeing the impact, it is unrelated things to keep the government closed is a bad posture to be in. And i just hope people think about the rhetoric they use as they try to conflate all of these things. [indiscernible] democrats have backed an amendment that would enact conditions on the military assistance to israel as part of the president s supplemental request. Other allies as well, but they say specifically citing the humanitarian crisis into vacant death toll gods as part of their concern. As there been any discussion in this administration about tying or treating conditions around the weapons and military assistance that the Administration Seeks to provide to israel . Dir. Young we have heard from the senators and we talked to members of the time, so we understand the concerns. When we set up our request, the senate as to figure out a way how to write the supplemental. They are in the process of figuring that out. It has to get to the senate. It will be a question as to how they navigate with the senators who wrote that letter how they dropped the supplemental. I know all of them remain strong advocates of making sure that our allies have what they need, but they have concerns. We have heard them. We have talked to them, and just like the other parts of the supplemental including direct budget support, humanitarian aid, the congress will do as the congress does, and they will want changes to how we set up our package. [indiscernible] is israel being conditioned in some way as part of this package . Dir. Young i am not going to get ahead of talks that senators are having pricing for they are or where i think this is going, because they need room to talk amongst themselves as a congress to figure out the best way to make sure our allies have what they need but look at their concerns. Courtney from bloomberg. You have been talking about the Senate Negotiations and exercising how the negotiations are happening there and not necessarily in the house. Any spending deal will have to get approved by the house. Can you talk about what you doing personally to build a relationship with the speaker and what the president is doing . We have not heard any Public Meetings between him and the speaker for example . Dir. Young certainly one must always talk to the house, and i have been in rooms with the new speaker including talking about ukraine funding and the necessity of that. At the last time we were in the room together was on the capital. The secretary of defense and others explaining this issue. I talked about it earlier that people should not assume because we have more Drawdown Authority that we are going to impact and readiness. It is not a political game. It is a readiness policy decision, so we have definitely had many conversations with the speaker. Look, how these negotiations happen, none of them are ever the same. I was also in a room with only speaker mccarthys staff. No Senate Staffer in the room on the budget deal. That does not mean we did not keep the schumer and jeffries teams in the loop on what was happening, but everyone agreed that was that beth path best path to sign a deal and have speaker mccarthys team in a room together. Not all of the corners where there. You can imagine if people want to do border deal to come there was no way Senate Republicans are talking to House Republicans. Senate democrats are not talking to house democrats. It is not without precedent including recent precedent that only two of the five quarters and watching people go in the room and work out a deal that they are responsible for briefing and keeping in the loop there Political Parties who are not in the room, and certainly that is the expectation as to what is happening. I want to ask you a big picture question. The rest that now tops 34 trillion. At one point is carrying such that become sustainable . Dir. Young we look at more than the sheer number. It would look at our activities and our cost to pay to service that debt. Clearly with Interest Rates going up, that always becomes more of a concern. When Interest Rates were historically low, servicing the debt, we had a higher Comfort Level, so Interest Rates are a big variable in the economic scene Comfort Level there were not when the country is carrying too much at debt, but from a political standpoint, we have got to get serious here. I have talked to bipartisan members at hartford when the new class started last december, and let me tell you what is going to happen during debt ceiling. Everyone will have big talks about all of these things impacting the deficit and tell you they want to do something about it. By the end of that, do you know what you were going to focus on . Nondefense discretionary. You cannot fix the debt or deficit are working on a path to fixing anything by focusing on the smallest spending about. All you are doing is hurting people who depend on those discrete programs in that lane, so we have to be willing to tackle in a bipartisan way some of the cost drivers that are adding to the debt and deficit, and that also means whoever this president more than any other democratic president be willing to talk about taxes. Democrats ran from that for a long time. At president has pointed out the tax unfairness in this country, but that also means it has an impact on our debt and deficit. He has been able to put out deficit reduction because she is willing to take on taxes. He is willing to say the Corporate Tax rate is too low, that we need to have a minimum tax. We need to close loopholes for some of our biggest companies. That alone brings in large amounts of revenue that help fix our debt and deficit problem. That is not the only way, not the only place to fix it, but if youre not fixing it with this dialogue where we are arguing over the smallest pile of money available because it is easy to attack, because it is nondefense discretionary, and no one knows what that means. Exactly. Myra, did you have your hand up . I have a followup. I have a followup on ukraine. I you for taking my question. I was wondering how much does the situation in the European Union as of that worry, because the Financial Aid from the u. S. Depends on how much of the European Countries and ukraine too or vice versa, right . Do you see the situation isolated from each other, and how do you see the nato summit in july where this issue will be a top priority . Dir. Young clearly, we are central to the allied relationship, the keeping of the coalition, and that is why in december and now we speak in such dire tones here. Yes, we might have a little time from other donors to make sure that they can keep their war footing, their civil service, but what happens in the eu and other nato allies if the u. S. Pulls out their support . I mean, this president has spent countless hours keeping this coalition together. Is the United States the the glue that holds us together . I believe that it is, so i am very concerned that it is not just ignited the resources that are necessary for kyiv to stop putin. It is what message that sends to the rest of the world and what will their decision to be if they see the United States not step up to the plate . Youve heard what putin thinks. He said it. He said if the ignited states pulls out i give kyiv one week to live. So this is not the stakes are not small here, and it is very concerning that our political process has gotten in the way of what i think 90 of members say they understand. They have backed themselves into a corner and asked for these other things, and by the way we want to get there on border. But they are not going to get hr2 and everything they want, and people have to know how to take a deal. And so given the exactly what you laid out and what is going on in ukraine, we have got to get to a deal, not start from scratch with new talks. I mean, this is dire. We are past the point in providing aid to ukraine that certainly we bypass to my Comfort Level, and we it would be a mistake not to think and that is not just about to United States about the United States but what signal that sends across the world, and what happens after ukraine. Our nato alliances being tested . What happens when we are now at the doorstep of poland . I mean, american troops, daughters and sons, what is the price we are going to pay versus what we are asking for now to keep that from happening . It is a nobrainer to me, and i am just baffled. I am baffled that we find ourselves here. I really am. I think the president use the word stunned once when he saw what was happening with ukraine funding. I still find myself in that place. Casey from the National Journal to your right. [indiscernible] that was part of the debt deal. How are you planning on that potential eventuality . Dir. Young it will be done. [laughter] if congress does do a full year cr, should include language willing that back . Dir. Young that is an interesting question on the cr. When people say i want a full year cr, ask them what they mean. You can have a full year cr that completely complies with the budget deal, and it would not have all of the details, and it is never good to have things on autopilot for two years. However, it is a lot less devastating when you hear some republicans what they mean what a full year cr is, they went a full year cr that does not comply to the budget deal, meaning they want a sequester to take place. That is very damaging. A full year one, are we opposed if it did not and require draconian cuts across the board. And the other, you want programs to get a fresh look but it would be less damaging if it was a c. R. To comply with the budget deal. We have until september 30 before that happens. And i dont find myself as a defense hawk. But i am the only one left in town. I cant even begin people would allow 1 cuts to defense with all of this happening. Stranger things have happened. Defense is actually because we have not passed full year bills and not the 27 billion. Thats concerning in itself. If congress should pass april 30 and lead to a cut to 1 in defense im going to remain optimistic that a bad place to be in and that cooler heads will prevail and get past the 19th and february 2 and dont flirt with and its not just nondefense and i dont think it is a bad idea to cut defense in a time like this. We are past time the supplemental has been pending since september. We send up a smaller package knowing there will be a short c. R. And got nothing in september. So in my mind, even though we didnt send up a bigger one until october, this has been a pending question until the end of september and it needs to be dealt with. Alex from the hill. [indiscernible] virtually every day about the budget. If that was the case. Talk about the nature of those talks and were you concerned then that republicans would threaten a shutdown over the border . I didnt see what he said but i know people have worked in good faith to try to get their appropriators working and i have been on the appropriation side and you need the green light and once you get it, you go quickly and people working to try and get that will going. And i will call that all in good faith. I go back to my concerns. Leadership can work in good faith and then they go into a robing cuss Conference Room after a trip to the border and the sentiment of the well shut the government down and we control the money, wins out the day. The rhetoric this week has concerned me that is the path that conservative republicans are headed down. I think leadership is working to prevent a shutdown just like i thought mccarthy did the right thing in september because he knew a shutdown would not be good. They seen this many times played out and never worked out the way members in the shut it down caucus thinks it will. N. P. R. I wonder if you could characterize the relationship that you have with the speaker, with the president and they havent had a lot of face time and talk about more how they are forging that relationship. Incredit apply important. Your speaker certainly for myself, ill speak for myself first, i came from the Appropriations Committee, the speaker was not on the Appropriations Committee so i didnt have the opportunity to know him when i worked in the house but being from the great state of louisiana one finds Common Ground quickly. And first time in the situation room and i let him know where i was from and he took some i think he took some credit for something i said as a good Louisiana Public school education. So, you know, that does help forge what is needed in tough situations. And incredit apply on a personal level, nice person. But he has a job to do. A very complicated conference to lead. I may not know him well but his conference well. And its tough, twovote majority well. That is even. If you are in the senate, that would be on leadership sharing agreement frankly. The house, the majority rules, but that is barely a ruling majority. So im under no illusion that vote count and where the conference is and how he got to the speakership he will have to do to lead his conference which is to put us in different places including government funding even if he is trying to dot best he can. He is going to be pulled in a more conservative direction before we find our way to compromise. The president has a lot of respect for the institution. Was a senator for a long time. Over time, they will build a relationship. But that will take time. And im sure im not every time they sat down and roomed together and talked on the phone. I will not try and say how their relationship is because it is not in my wheel house and not have knowledge of their conversation. Three minutes until 10. Last question. Washington post. Thanks so much. On the supplemental, can you talk about the decision to add immigration priorities to that supplemental in the first place because Senate Republicans have said the white house put immigration on this and thats why we are pushing for more our view as the National Security package is a National Security issue. And now that does not mean we pushed to have h. R. 2 added and a funding bill that says we need to make sure we are there for our allies, it is important to say we need more resources to make sure that the border is orderly managed and catch fentanyl at the border coming through. To us, that makes all the sense in the world. The question is, if people want to do something about it, are they making a political calculation that if they do something that in my view most republicans would have found reasonable and trying to extract something different. And talking about policy changes that make sense. And some of the stuff that has been offered doesnt do that. It is cumulative by nature to imdprants. We make no qualms. This is National Security. Wry need more resources and we asked for more money in december. We got half. We linked them together in september. Did we not get ukraine or border money. You cant be serious and say no to resources, you just cant. Smoking mirrors. What does that mean . How is more Border Patrol more smoking mirrors . I get it. It is a good political football. And that is something that is unacceptable. If you want just like President Trump when he was president , i was on the hill on the appropriation committee, he asked for more border money to deal with the and democrats are uncomfortable providing more money for his policies to perpetrate those. But most democrats realize that you can dislike what he was doing but to see children sleeping on the floor wasnt going to get my better. They did the right thing and and aborted his policies and more funding to make sure immigrants were taken care of. They did the right thing. This is a moment in the reverse for the republicans. Do you want to do something about it or not. Do you want more Border Patrol agents and more intrusive aquivment to look at cars coming across . What else is there . I guess closing it down. All