Atlantic council decided to give to a single commander, general eisenhower, sufficient authority to organize, equip, and train an integrated nato force for the defense of europe. The task before him was unprecedented. Though each of the nato countries would see to the supply and support of its own National Forces the Supreme Commander would be responsible for the coordination into a Single International force. And at 8 00 the changing of mary l discussion todd lincoln and why some of her critics labeled her crazy. For our complete schedule go to span. Org. Earlier today former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan said extending the visa program may help increase productivity numbers. His comments came as he spoke at the council on Foreign Relations in new york city. This is an hour. Welcome, folks. Thanks. Welcome to you. Yes. A little work to do. Thanks for asking me to be in this great spot here moderating a panel with dr. Greenspan historic decision yesterday. Alan greenspan needs no introduction, was the Federal Reserve chair from 19872006. He served under four president s, was on the 1983 panel that reformed Social Security. I think well talk a little bit about entitlements this morning. Also was the economic adviser to president ford and made a very, very important decision sometime in the early 1960s i think not to be a professional jazz musician. Was that the 1950s, alan . I hate to tell you when that was. 1945. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt there, young man. You also were factually inaccurate. [laughter] alan, i want to turn immediately to the news from yesterday. I know you have some reluctance to talk about the fed comment on the current policy but if , give me your reaction to the Market Reaction. The market seemed to rally on this news. Why do you think that was . Well, remember that this particular move was targeted way in advance, and the market had adjusted to it. The only question that was out there was what was going to happen subsequently that, not make u could actually certain happen but with what the policy was. As it became apparent the fed was going to just raise the rates and then not do a whole basically ates, then the markets said uncertainty is gone. Herefore income earning assets go straight up. This is just a classic case. I ran into it many times in the sense that choices that we had were always, do you want the market to know exactly what the plans of the Federal Reserve are or not . It depended on a very, very technically difficult problem. How much risk do you want in the system . If there is too little risk, youre bubble creating. If theres too much risk, youre suppressing growth eyond what it should be. Part of Federal Reserve policy at any particular point in time is trying to make a judgment of what type of level of risk you want in the system, and so what e often did, as you know, is change, change, change, and the markets did not respond in any of those. Of course, it knew exactly what we were doing and why we were doing it. Other times, we would go up 50, 75 basis point and shock the market. Why . Because wanted to change. That 2004 to 2006 period is actually criticized now as being one that created potential bubbles in that it was too regular a rate increase and something the current Federal Reserve has said were not following this. Was that a mistake you think to have gone in that regular fashion . It depends on how you examine it, the conclusion you come to as to why the crisis occurred. Have er, bubbles, per se, not been toxic. We went into the 2000 bubble, the market crashed. The people who were essentially hurt were those who were on the way up. But what was critical about the sort of dot com boom is that types of various financial intermediaries, which held the particular toxic assets, had very little leverage. And unless youve had debt, you cannot by definition default. If you cannot default or cannot create defaults, which is the basis of the problems that we ran into in 2008, so, for example, in 1987, we had no impact from the collapse in stock prices. In 2000 we had no impact. 1929, we had very significant impacts. Those two had in common, which were not in common with the other two, were the degree of leverage that the particular institutions broker loans for example were highly leveraged and subprime mortgages especially when they got into securities were highly leveraged. So its more the leverage issue than it is the issue of bubbles. Bubbles, per se, is not a pejorative term if i may put it that way. I want to ask just one more question about the current policy and Market Reaction and then move on to some of these other areas that we were going to talk about. Notice this morning the long end of the curve, 2. 25, basically unchanged, maybe even a little lower in yield on the 10year. It reminded me of the conundrum that you talked about. How much influence would you say now the fed has on the long end of the curve, which obviously matters, because those are the ones that are going to determine borrowing rates out of the real economy. Could you foresee a situation here where the fed raises rates on the shortened but the long end of the curve remains stable . Well, thats basically what happened to us in the period when i said were raising rates and the 10year note ought to go up. Why . Because it always did. But why the federal funds rate, which is the overnight rate should affect longterm rates was always the great mystery to me and still is. What is not a mystery to me is that longterm rates now in an International Market are essentially arbitraged. That the effect of longterm rates amongst many other countries tend to converge, and the reason is theyre arbitraged. But the impact between short and longterm rates is a whole different ball game. And so i think that the presumption youll get in the situation where interest on excess reserves or the federal funds rate or even the reverse repos, is going to significantly affect the longterm rate is not indicated by any Historical Data that im aware of. Do you care to share with us your forecast for the funds rate over the next couple years . I dont follow you. Would you care to share with us your forecast for the federal funds rate over the next couple years . What do you expect to happen . No, no. [laughter] alan, you know, i get paid to ask questions people say no to, so thats okay. Im good on that. Let me turn now to a broader question, which is none of this would matter a whole lot if we had strong growth out there. And yet growth has been, at best you could say anemic. Were lucky to eek out 2 growth. Whats holding back this economy . First of all, not only this economy, the globe. If you look at output per hour for example, which is the ical determine determinate of growth you will find the vast proportion of countries have under 1 in productivity growth over the ast five years on average. This includes virtually all of the basically all of the euro area, United States, canada. With very few exceptions all below 1 and averaging in many cases below 0. 5 and in some cases, which i think more for statistical reasons than economic reasons theyre showing fiveyear negative productivity. The question you have to ask, well why is this . If you go deeper into the data what do you take a look at the United States is perfectly typical as everybody else. What we have in this country is a very unusual and, fortunately, very unstable fiscal system. R fiscal system is driven by entitlements on the expenditure side and tax rate as always on he funds raising side. The entitlements are not affected by the level of Economic Activity. Its elderly, which has got nothing to do with what the economy is, how many people could become eligible for Social Security. And a whole series of other factors, which determine essentially what the entitlements are, i mean, for example, health costs have very little to do with what the economy is doing. So if you have a situation in which the entitlements are rising at 8 to 9 a year, and i might add parenthetically that it is in both republican and democratic administrations and, in fact, if you want to be exact with the numbers, the average rate of rise in republican administrations has been greater than the democrats. But this is very critical because at this rate of growth, entitlements could be funded only if the g. D. P. Growth rate is probably 3. 5 to 4 . Remember, these are not related issues. In other words, basically the economy does its thing. Entitlements does its thing. If they meet, all well and good. But if they dont, then you have a real problem. D what the issue is now is that the surge in entitlements gross, private savings, and the result of that is because gross domestic savings in total, which includes negative government, usually, and entitlements, have tended over the last 65 50 years as a percent of g. D. P. Have been remarkably stable. They go like this, which essentially comes down to the fact that a dollar increase in entitlements redeuces gross domestic savings by a dollar. But gross domestic savings is the major determinate of Capital Investment. Incidentally gross domestic savings plus the current account balance is equal to the borrowing from abroad is equal to gross domestic investment with a little statistical discrepancy in there. Gross domestic investment is a key factor in determining productivity growth. So let me recap, alan, just for a second. Youre saying if we save a lot, we invest a lot, if we invest a lot, were more productive. Correct. But since were not saving as much because were putting more stuff into entitlements, were investing less and our productivity is less. Perfect. Awesome. [laughter] and ive come back and i say weve got all this stuff around like this. People have a sense of Massive TechnologyTechnological Advancement out there. How can you say we are not more productive right now . Basically, because this is a ifferent type of effect. Remember when youre talking about lets say per capita income it depends basically on the number of hours worked or the number of hours its a per person thing. The issue of productivity is. Re output per hour more ial media stuff is direct consumption it does not improve productivity but it does create other values. Remember, when were in a market economy, we measure it only in terms of market values and market prices. Output. Output. Basically i can go out the door without my iphone. Youre getting so dependent on it. But that actually only marginally reduces the amount of hours and it doesnt get picked up in the statistics and there is a big dispute among people who are productivity experts. How to count this, this is a different type of value. Social media obviously have value and people pay money for it, but how should one measure that . That was always your metric, i remember. 19961997 you introduced me to this notion of the earnings forecast for ted companies suggested the need was out there for these things. Therefore, they must be productivity enhancing because we see the demand for it in the economy. Well, remember, at that time, it was information technology. Right, right. This was not social media. I mean, what you are looking at are very significant changes in values which do show up in output per hour. This is not. Part of that is, clearly, to the extent that that it cuts down the work day and, for example, i get more work done than e new technologies i could conceivably have gotten done with the 10 times as many people 20 years ago. Just for a measure in productivity a bit well, it is a definitional question. You have got to distinguish between what the economy is for. If youre going to measure as material well being food, clothing, standards of living, the old conventional stuff then all of the technical analyses that were done up through the year 2000 were unchanged over generations. This has created a very difficult measurement problem. There is no question social media obviously could create something. You have bob gordon whom you know from northwestern who points out, this is not a train. This is not equal to the innovation of electricity. Its not equal to the innovation of the car. It doesnt register. It just one of the really important ones was the telegraph. Right. I mean, it hugely altered. Broadly about lk the u. S. Economy and Global Economy and perhaps get more into fixing entitlements with the q a of the audience. Overall are you pessimistic about the outlook for u. S. Economic growth . Do you see it as a 2 economy over the next decade . Unless and until we rein in the rate of growth in entitlements, yes. Because the logic which you just went through has got to be broken and the only way you break it is, remember, we added 10 Percentage Points we moved 10 Percentage Points in of. From financing financing productive Capital Equipment to funding benefits. You cannot do that without a very significant impact. And were seeing it now. This is the reason everyone is looking at the data and saying we have to come to grips with entitlements, but entitlements are basically the third rail of american politics. You touch it and youre running for office, and you lose. I have to go there. Because this is why people hate economists, right . Ultimately in the utopian world you would have more of the entitlements geared toward productivity growth, right . That would solve some of the problems . Well, wait a second. No. It doesnt improve productivity growth. It is basically what we have to go back. Im sorry. What i meant was the growth of entitlements would be tied to the growth of productivity. Oh, yes, yes. That would solve it would well, you can be close just balance the budget. For example the reason a budget gets balanced back in the arlier years is 3, 4, 5 g. D. P. , but remember when Social Security began in 1935 , when Franklin Roosevelt signed on, it was a defined benefit program in which there were cash receipts scheduled to actuarially fits the same as in the private sector. We have now abandoned all pretense. You talk about the 1983 commission. We couldnt even get something as significant as lowering the retirement raising the because age longevity has gone so extraordinarily far since 1935. The only thing we could manage in 1983 is to get it in the next century. Now, politically, you got to see that thats what that was. Are this essures here system is so governed by getting these entitlements, once you get them, look at the word. Entitlements used to be something which the Founding Fathers talked about with respect to individual rights, liberty, freed osm the press. These are fiscal growth entitlements produced by whom . You cant answer that question very readily. Unless and until we get out of this cycle get out of the cycle and get back to 4 g. D. P. Growth, which implies significant rise in output per hour. Its the only way you can get there given the structure of our working age population and the very Large Population of beneficiaries. Thats the other thing we can talk about which is the other side of the growth equation is growth in hours worked. Could we enhance that by a smarter immigration policy and a smarter education policy . Well, yeah. I mean, my favorite problem before all of the immigration came up politically is i thought the h1b program is much too small. That is the program which enables peesm with special skills to come enables people with special skills to come into the United States and get a green card and the like. Every other major country looks to the quality of whom theyre inviting in, and were not doing that. Were restricting that very significantly. So the answer to your question is, yes. An increase in productivity would really if we want an increase in productivity would be to open that program up. Anyone with a ph. D in the physical sciences in the United States should be aloud to stay. Instead we kick them out. Why we do this is bizarre and beyond me. Tell me how Alan Greenspan listens to the current debate in the president ial arena on conomics and what do you hear . What makes you think i listen to it . Sorry for making a bad assumption. What you read about the president ial debate, which im sure you do, is there an intelligence debate going on . Is there a debate that is going to lead to i dont get paid to ask stupid questions which im sure i suppose this is right now. Im still looking. Yeah. Do you hear anything that gives you any sense of optimism on some of these issues youre talking about that theyre going to be addressed, or do you hear the opposite . I dont know look. Just on the basis of the type of facts which ive laid out, either i am wrong in my economic analysis, which i conceivably could be not easily but the point being that theoretically im either wrong in my implicit structure of how the economy functions, or im wrong in the implications. I have not seen anything i wrote a book three years ago, discussing exactly these issues. It is not something that all of a sudden has come out. I think that we need a fundamental change in culture and we did have i mean, Franklin Roosevelt created a major change in culture. Margaret thatcher did in britain. In fact, what is very interesting about it, is that culture is still there. The labor party when it came in ter thatcher did not change, what she changed, and obviously Ronald Reagan made a major impact. Both thatcher and reagan failed in the end because they couldnt control the budget. I mean, both ran up against very difficult problems. I shouldnt say they failed. But they didnt reach the goals that they were trying to reach. Were going to open it up in just one minute. I have one more question here, which is the markets got very excited and concerned this summer when it looked as if chinese growth was weakening. Or it finally realized chinese growth was weakening. How big a concern does china represent to you about the overall outlook for Global Growth and u. S. Growth . Well, china is a very big, a major consumer of almost every major commodity you can think of. Remember, china is positioned probably 50 years behind us. We went through, i remember when we i used to drive up the south, southern shore of Lake Michigan and you had one Steel Company after the other in the 1950s and 1960s. Theyre gone. You have a huge amount of Commodity Production and physical i actually went in one of my earlier books and measured the physical weight of the g. D. P. And the weight of the g. D. P. Was either stable or going up virtually year by year. Until basically in the 1960s, it is starting to flatten out and the actual physical weight, n other words, we had a huge downsizing revolution. It this is not much different from what it was 20, 30 years ago. China is still in the early stages of this. The reason why you cant go to beijing without choking is this sounds like what i went through, i remember walking down the streets in the triangle in pittsburgh in 1951 my shoes would crunch. There was coal debris and smoke stacks all over the place and id say, boy, this is a real measure of American Industrial capability. Until the Environmental Movement came on and said, uhhuh. That wasnt so. But this is what china is going through. Theyre moving where we were. Now that means that they are the key controller as we were back then of the commodity, the physical part, the biggest manufacturer, largest steel producer by far, the biggest consumer of oil and most other i shouldnt say not oil but a whole series of other commodities. And theyve got a long way to go. But theyre weakening now and its caused by the fact that china is becoming a more and more if youll excuse the expression capitalist economy. The markets are expanding dramatically. The way they handle that stock market crash indicated to me that they had no clue what they were doing, so this is getting away from them. They are moving toward capitalism at a very rapid pace and i dont think they are acutely aware of the extent to which thats been happening. s periodically you run into cycles. And the first sign that i saw that something very different was going on was when the price of iron ore in australia all of a sudden started to come down. That meant essentially since the major consumer of iron ore at the time was china, something was slowing in china, and it all accumulated from there and devastated a goodly part of the emerging world, not the euro indirectly area and the United States, but not as great as the impact before they controlled growth there was an accounting identity right . They would increase spending to state enterprises and g. D. P. Would rise. Now youre saying much more variable and inside the capitalist and market systems. Yes. Ust remember whats happened is that 34 years ago the state council which is essentially a cabinet of china, would order a providence for example to build. Lease 20 buildings the purpose was to create the jobs, not to get the space that you might think they wanted. Said a government owned if you apply National Income accounting to china, thats g. D. P. So they could set the level of g. D. P. As they chose by calibrating the Capital Investment. Whats been happening since is that theyve gradually moved away, theyve opened up a lot of the markets and had an extraordinary pace, which they didnt expect. I mean, they did not expect. At big surge that came they were surprised i think by it. And now were running into the effects of, remember, that they are they dipped their toes in allowing Creative Destruction to work, meaning allowing firms to default. Then they got cold feet. They didnt like it. They didnt like it. Lets open the floor to questions. One of the great things about these c. F. R. Breakfasts. Let me start right here with this young lady. Thank you. Good morning, chairman greenspan. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Good morning. As the Federal Reserve changes its focus to the interest being paid on excess reserves, i was wondering if we could call on your Historical Perspective about the changing decision models of the Federal Reserve over time. Since the 1970s, even before your time as chairman weve seen a focus on things like bank credit, money supply, the overnight rate, even the unemployment rate. And im just wondering how much you see the changing of the Federal Reserves decision models changing incentives and essentially affecting the behavior of banks and Market Participants and whether you expect to see potentially any positive or negative externalities or other unintended consequences as we shift to the interest on excess reserves. Thank you. Well, this is a very good question, because i used to sit at my desk at the Federal Reserve and three times a week id get a report or a study or an article come in about the way Monetary Policy works. Different channels, in a sense, we dont yet have a full comprehension of exactly how the Monetary System interacts with the physical system. In other words, the models. Ere using have not worked the way you know that is go back and look at the very recent history since 2008, for example. The Federal Reserve, o. M. B. , c. B. O. , most of the forecasting models all showed g. D. P. Going up . Uhhuh. Start again. G. D. P. Going up . And you begin to see weve had so many false moves in this particular period that we ought to be looking and saying, well maybe this something maybe something is wrong with the conceptual framework which we are using to understand how these markets are working. And, for example, the conundrum issue we discussed before was one of these types of changes. So i dont think it is settled down at the moment, but interest on excess reserves is the key variable, because remember what it has done. When they went to qe 1, 2, and 3, of necessity they would expand the assets side of the Balance Sheet and, therefore, you create a large degree of reserve balances, which by definition can only be depository institutions who have an account at the Federal Reserve. In other words, the markets will continue to adjust until we only only holders of those balances are depository institutions. So that the issue of fed policy was how do we essentially neutralize them . And the way you do it is you put the Interest Rate on excess reserve balances. When we put 25 basis points on for sovereign issue essentially which is what the claim on the Federal Reserve is, in the way of Capital Requirements, and essentially a riskless asset with no cost to the individual commercial bank for example. So it was delighted to hold them and while some of that did get out into the commercial rkets, in other words, jpmorgan for example shows a large balance at the new york Federal Reserve, would draw on that balance and make a loan to i. B. M. , that process is creates the money multiplier and expansion. There is very little evidence that thats going on, meaning that essentially the Federal Reserve largely neutralized the effect of qe 1, 2, and 3, so it didnt spill over into the money supply. Because you have to get the lending going out to utside of the simple system of e fed buys assets, its Balance Sheet goes up. That automatically creates a reserve deposit. Since reserve deposits are only legally capable of being held by Federal Reserve banks, that means the Federal Reserve could determine or could control how much in the way of those balances moved out into the market. If you move the rates all the the loans which are risky and have reserve requirements all of a sudden become more attractive. But if you keep moving the rate up, you basically neutralize the system. And the way you can tell is despite the huge increase in the monetary base, which moves directly with the assets side, money supply, which is the transaction balance which creates Economic Activity and inflation, and all of the rest of it that goes along with that, hasnt gone up all that much. So that the money supply has got to go up, start to accelerate before you can see any secondary, expansionary effects coming from qe 1, 2, or 3. Did you just make an argument for negative Interest Rates . What . Did you just make an argument for negative Interest Rates . No. Because negative Interest Rates shouldnt exist. You can always convert to currency if you arent too lazy to do it. At some point the Swedish National central bank decided it is something useful. Basically they find people are willing to hold deposits there. Negative. Essentially its a tax. On lending. Yeah. With a claim ck that has a negative yield on it what do you do . The only thing you can do is convert to currency, which has got zero. Right. And the point of issue is the central bank of control, and the aggregate happens, and it is a question of musical chairs. Who gets caught with the wrong side of the liability . Lets get another question. Let me go geographicly to the back to the gentleman there. You, yeah. Hello. Dr. Greenspan, the issue people are talking about a lot these days is inequality but it seems according to recent reports that economic insecurity is more important to people than economic equality. Lets imagine that this room were not filled with the people ts filled with but with average middle class and working class americans. How would you explain to those people the need to do something about entitlements and which changes would you suggest in terms of reducing entitlements given this great worry about economic insecurity in the country . Well, take an average low to middle income family. Productivity is what determines their real incomes. Productivity is basically as i mentioned a function of Capital Investment and if you discourage Capital Investment by creating entitlements, what youre doing, essentially, is something in todays world is you are paying a significant proportion of the g. D. P. To people who are retired. Thats not where the future of the country is. The future of the country is in the younger people. It always has and always will be by definition. So the question is, if youre an average middle to low income person going out trying to go up the ladder, youre being inhibited by programs which shifts the proportion essentially to the elderly. But the issue of inequality is basically another, more interesting issue in general. That is truly a function of productivity. Back in the 1950s and 1960s when productivity was really moving, especially the question of inequality never came up. The there was a measure of income and inequality and it was flat. The question only arises as you get into a situation where productivity slows down and it impacts middle and lower income wage earners. Remember that q. E. 1, 2, and 3 did not do all that it was suppose today do. It was supposed to, one, lower real longterm Interest Rates, enhance price earnings ratios , equities and on real estate and that actually did work very well and created a lot of Capital Gains, which did spill over into the economy but was also supposed to increase the general level of Economic Activity, which it did not. And so what we have is a very significant part of Capital Gains flowing to a very limited number of people. And so youll find if you want here youll find the issue of stock prices vs. Real wages in todays environment says that people who are involved in holding assets, which rise as a result of the qes, they have had Capital Gains and higher incomes, which will always out match the wage levels that are created by the standard Economic Activity, because, without getting into the details of it, stock prices grow at a rate of 7 a year, remarkably stabley. They fluctuate all over the place. And the reason they do that is everyone is scared to hold stocks. And that causes them to have a longterm up trend because people who are willing to hold them do well and you have to just basically buy stocks and forget about them. People that do that do very well. So there is something very unusual in the system, which means left to its own devices, the owners of Capital Assets will always do better than wage earners. And the result is that if you enhance your price of stocks, youll increase inequality and there is no way to get around it. A question right here . As you know, the taylor rule posits that the federal fund rates equals the rate of interest and inflation plus the weighted average. There is not much debate about where the gaps are but there is a lot of debate about where the rate of interest is. What are your views . Is it around 2 or is it around zero right now . Thank you. Well, lets go back and ask where does the Interest Rate come from . It is basically what congress would call the result of time preference. Time preference is the extent to which we discount claims to he future. For example somebody standing in line for one of these things back when there was a huge demand, the first day. What would you give to replace to get a position further up the line, get it much sooner . That is human time preference. Human time preference is has apparently been unchanged as far back as we can go. We have data for example going back to every single day weve , bank of of england england issues Daily Discount rates. Those rates have been absolutely flat through time. Go back to ancient rome. Low, middle, upper, single digit Interest Rates. The question is, why . And when you look at these data going all the way back, you have to conclude there is something inbred in human decision making. The amount of time preference is a relatively stable factor. And the reason you know that is not only are Interest Rates trendless over the generations, but the rate of return on equity or in any other type of asset risk adjustment is flat going back hundreds of years so that the question here is where is that socalled normal rate . And the figure i would say is substantially above where it is ow and i think the pressure is the pressures will start to emerge if not already. I am frankly surprised that rates stayed down this low this long. I dont expect that for lots of reasons, it goes against human nature and that is not a good enemy to go against. I think the economic historian Gregory Clark from university of california davis would go back into the textile revolution and 3 is the number he came up with since the Industrial Revolution began with a rate that would have to be riskless rate. Yeah. This lady over here please. Thank you. Good morning. Back to i. T. And productivity, is it possible that the time we spend with gadgets is really dispensable and that instead of being productive new creativity is rehashing, reliving, recreating, redoing, sharing things that actually dont take us forward . And so it is dumbing down of time actually . We are reproducing the argument that is currently going on. Those are the critical questions. This is human value. This has very little to do with economics. Nd the question basically is what do we want . I mean, if we want material well being which obviously were back in the 18th and 19th century were Still Critical and people were still dying of tarvation and it was unambiguous about what we were all about. But when we get to standards of living where we reach the population, a lot of leisure time and a lot of leisure money, its not to make its got to make an adjustment. I dont think it is going to get solved within the context of economics. The economics will tell you what is the material values that are produced, but those are limited to those which should basically enhance physical life. They dont stress anything about enjoyment or pleasure or other things. In other words, there is always a big dispute should we have the g. D. P. Of happiness. I dont know how youre going to measure it, but have fun. But these are very important questions which go way beyond the issue of economics. Economics is essentially restricted to a very limited part of human survival in human beings. The hen we go off into many different aspects, remember there is a great deal about the technologies which ally lower the hours input for work. And i find, for example, im in the Economic Consulting business. Have a firm i had a firm before i went to the fed which had 50 people in it. I can do the same sort of stuff now with four people. Its basically the technology which is embodied in that. Is it one of the economic arguments that the economic value we get from it is at least equal to or greater than what we paid for it . Thats the question. Are you being irrational or are there other criteria that you employ . Youre going to find books and editorials and all which raise all of these questions. I have not really seen satisfactory answers frankly. How about in the back left there . My name is andrew gallant. Could we go back to the discussion of debt and contagion . It seems to me the debt with capacity for contagion is in the sovereigns today and weve seen a couple of nonlevered funds have liquidity problems in the sense of the mismatch between the asset and the liquidity. Do you see the leveraged funds such as longterm credits of the world around with the possibility for contagion and do you see the political will at the Monetary Authority level to fix it in the same way you did when it became a contagious problem . It seems to me that the whole issue is debt. I, for example, just recently wrote an editorial for the Financial Times not recently. A couple months ago. In which i reraised the issue of what i thought ought to be involved in resolving the issue of debt and banking and all of that. And i concluded as indeed i did every ier books that single problem that occurred in 2008, crisis that occurred, would not have occurred if capital was high enough, where the collateral requirements ere high enough, and the issue of enforcement of basically all the statutes against criminality had been enforced, we would never have had anything like the 2008 crisis. I concluded that instead of Something Like dodd frank, which is creating a shortage of paper, just so much volume of detail and every single regulation, which i dont know how you do it. Just parenthetically, small banking is going down very sharply. They cant afford it. So the question is, what have we done wrong . Well, had we had, for example, a mandated Capital Requirement in commercial banks of 30 , the rate of return on equity would not have changed because what the data show going back to 1869 when the control of the currency first collected it is at the rate of return on Equity Capital in commercial banking ranged between 5 and 10 throughout that period with very rare exceptions. Nd that particular set of data shows that even during the period, during the most of the second half of the 19th century, capital Equity Capital as a percent of assets went from 30 to even higher all the way down to 7 or 8 in the early post world war ii period. Through all of that period of ups and downs the rate of return on equity did not change. Now, i think that this is where this time preference issue comes in, as well. I think that implies that if we go, gradually allow the rates of Capital EquityCapital Requirements to rise until we get to 30 within a reasonable period of time, we can get rid of virtually all of the dodd frank, all of the regulatory stuff, all of that is trying to prevent people from doing something. But if you have capital high enough, its the shareholders of the institution, not the taxpayers that are involved. If they want to go out and waste the shareholders money, thats the issue between the shareholders and management. But taxpayers are not involved. And get rid of all the huge complexities that were now involved with. I dont know how were going to get around because it feels like half the population is employed in enforcing the dodd frank regulations. Now, the question raises the issue of the high yield market which recently had i think a pretty major hiccup as a result of perhaps the fed Interest Rates. Do you have a concern about the high yield market, itself, and are there other markets out there that you believe could be in disbalance and would unwind as a result of fed rate hikes . Well, i think that the yield went up to 20 on some of that stuff. This is usually not a good sign. This is the way signals occur when oh, for example the First Mortgage e subprime bnp ends up s when saying they were having funds which are losing money, french bank is Holding Funds in the American Market in subprimes . I mean, what in the world was going on . That was the first sign that something was askew. D im a little concerned when i saw those reports, this is nervous making. I must admit the markets are still moving ahead in the usual wonderful form. We have time for one more question. Right here . Maybe another one. Ask kate. Shes the boss. My group is my question is about liquidity determination, chairman greenspan. There are two confirmed changes in the markets in the last 10 years that have created concern. One is the reduction in the number of Market Participants with het row geneous preferences or by corollary the increase in the concentration of market power in fewer Market Participants. The second is the unwillingness of the broker dealers and intermediaries to hold inventory because of the higher osts of capital. Have we created planted the seeds for the next major market dislocation as a result of this change in Market Dynamics . Thats a very good question. Let me say that, first of all, lets define what were talking about in a certain sense. O, as far as i can judge, no economic crisis, whether economic or financial occurs in the nonfinancial sector of the economy. You can tell by, frankly, the deral reserve has got an economic model which actually does very well for the nonfinancial part of the economy, and it did so right up to 2008. Our problems are all in finance, which spill over. And the types of issues you are raising really are essentially what individuals are mainly concerned about. Financial imbalances and the like. And if theres enough capital in the system, you can take a lot of defaults, a lot of changes, a lot of structural issues, which go way beyond hat youre raising, but i am concerned about a number of different things. As a central banker i was always concerned. My job was, what do i worry about tomorrow . Anybody who thinks central banking especially, head of a central bank, is a delightful activity, let me disabuse you. [laughter] its torture. [laughter] folks, im sorry. Ive gotten the hard rap, what we call in television the hard rap from the organizers. I could do this another hour. Please join me in thanking chairman Alan Greenspan. [applause] the house continue to work toward finalizing its spending bill. We will show you some debate next, followed by speeches by some House Democrats opposed to the spending bill. , terrorism threats. Appropriation reporter for cq roll call, why is congress at the end of the session passing another huge spending bill . They can pass their regular spending bills over the spring and summer like they were supposed to. How do they get into that position . There was a disagreement over topline budget numbers that went up to the white house. They spent months fighting over those numbers. As a result, john boehner fell his left before he Left Congress and decided to negotiate with the white house to set new budget numbers. Because he was able to do that that gave the Appropriations Committee topline numbers. With the negotiations bipartisan on both sides . They were. They were very secretive though. Evermore secretive as time went on and it became a leadership level negotiation by the end. Headlineint out the winners and losers in the omnibus, one of those was the becauseroleum institute of the listing of the export band. Who else is a winner in this bill . Who else is a loser . Planned parenthood. They got off unscathed. Republicans were trying to cut their funding. It is appropriated annually in they were not able to touch that. Of house wanted to cut all that. They were not able to do that. Republicans were in also able to impose new policy restrictions on abortion or on planned parenthood. Prochoice people ended up winning big here. Another win in certain respects, environmentalists did reasonably well in exchange for lifting the oil ban, they got new money to go to a new Ocean Conservation account. They reauthorize another land and water account that had expired for three more years. They got more money there. You could say they lost because of environmentalists upset by the changes to the oil export. Lets talk about the voting. Saying that earlier she was not confident although she will support the omnibus she can provide them a credit votes. The administration with several cabinet secretaries pushing for a vote on this bill. Willany democratic votes they need to pass this . It is unclear at the moment. Republicans have been whipping the bill over the last day or so. We still have a clear picture on how many will be voting for it. Leaders seem fairly comfortable about the numbers but as we have seen we havent gotten more than 100 republicans to support anything including this budget deal in october. Once again democrats would have to do the heavy lifting. With pelosi not whipping the bill it is unclear. A lot of the more progressive members of the Democratic Caucus are really upset about the Oil Export Ban being lifted, and that the bill does not provide bankruptcy protection to puerto rico. It is a clear where the democrats are. This, iticans in reflects a hardfought compromise. I believe my colleagues can and should support it. What about republicans who will vote against it . What do republicans not like about this bill . What are one, the lack of language having to do with refugees in syria and iraq. They pushed hard getting that in there. The standalone bill had passed the house earlier this fall and they wanted it included. That did not make it in. They were upset there was not more having to do with abortion on the bill. They were seeking new restrictions and not able to receive much of that beyond a small cut to a United Nations program that deals with family planning. Speaker paul ryan spoke about 2016 and the return to regular order. How important is a win on the omnibus bill, and how does it set up the process for 2016 . It would be huge for him. E has been selling this idea lets get it passed and then we can move to push the House Republican agenda. He is looking to get next years appropriation work started early. Midtolate march, quite early for the modern budget era. He is hoping to get all 12 of the annual appropriation bills debated and passed off the floor , which is an amazing seat for an american which is an amazing feat for an election year. Both chambers will not be here very much over the next year. They will campaign for the election. It will be an ambitious agenda. You can follow her reporting on twitter. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. The house debated the 1. 1 trillion spending bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. A final vote takes place friday. If the measure passes it will move on to the senate for action. Next, the debate. Mr. Rogers i yield myself such time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Rogers i rise today to present amendment number 1 to the Senate Amendment to h. R. 2029, the fiscal year 2016 consolidated appropriations act, legislation that will fund the federal government for the rest of this fiscal year. This funding measure provides 1. 149 trillion for critical Government Programs and services. This is the level agreed to in the bipartisan budget act of 2015, which was enacted last month. This funding meets the 548 billion defense and 518 billion nondefense base budget caps. The omnibus contains full year appropriations for each of the 12 annual appropriations bills. Weighing priorities and funding levels carefully to prevent waste and promote an effective federal government. The bill targets funding toward our national security, protecting against cuts that would damage our military readiness and securing our homeland by strengthening our borders and prioritizing Law Enforcement. The legislation also focuses funding on our veterans, providing nearly a 10 increase for the department of Veterans Affairs while addressing v. A. s problems with construction mismanagement and disability claims backlog and shores up other critical priorities such as the National Institutes of health and the center for Disease Control, Agricultural Research and infrastructure. The legislation also includes many policy items that will help rein bureaucratic overreach, protecting the rights of americans and encouraging economic growth. The legislation blocks administrations proposals to impose new fees on ranchers, air passengers and the oil and gas industries. And the legislation protects free speech by ensuring that the i. R. S. Does not suppress the ivic participation of 501c4 organizations. The bill preserves the sanctity of life by carrying all existing prolife policy provisions from previous appropriations bills. It adds new provision prohibiting jeanetting editing of human embryos and reduces funding by 7 . To prevent wasteful or questionable spending, the bill halts improper behavior at federal agencies, like making sure the i. R. S. Doesnt spend any money on frivolous videos or conferences. Within the labor, health and Human Services portion of the omnibus alone, the legislation eliminates 17 duplicative and unnecessary programs, zero on 17. And the bill provides no new funding for expanded e. P. A. Regulatory programs, insisting holding e. P. A. To its lowest funding level since 2008. Finally this bill includes a number of legislative provisions , the James Zadroga health and compensation act, the visa waiver program, improvement and terrorist prevention act and the intelligence authorizing act, among others. An importantly it includes legislation to lift the 40year ban on crude oil exports, a huge win for our economy and job creation. The package reflects a hardfought, fair compromise and i believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle should support it. The road to this final bill has been without its bumps and obstacles. But im proud we have finally come to a solution. Its been a long, hard odd icy. Although one big catchall bill is not the ideal way to conduct business in this house, the legislation will do the important work of funding our federal government and preventing a shutdown. Let me add that it would be enormously helpful if in the other body, they would change their procedures and rules so that on an appropriations bill funding the basic level of government, the senate would act in a expeditious way to allow these bills to come up over there without the 60vote requirement. Before i close, mr. Speaker, i want to thank my entire committee and in particular the hardworking staff. Their tireless efforts on this legislation, most of these people, mr. Speaker, have not d a day off since before thanksgiving. They have sacrificed their family time, their holiday dinners, countless hours of no sleep in order to bring this bill to the floor. Their hard work has resulted in a good bill and im proud to support it today. I also want to thank my counterpart, the Ranking Member of this committee, mrs. Lowey, for her commitment to getting this done. Es been fair and been conscientious and a good partner and i look forward than continuing to Work Together this coming year. And lastly, i want to take a moment to commemorate one of our dearest staff, chuck turner and his decades of service to the Appropriations Committee and to this house. Chuck sadly passed away on december 8, but he leaves his final mark on this institution in the form of the legislative Branch Appropriations bill that is a part of this bill. His presence will be deeply missed in the halls of this capitol and in our rose of friends. With that, mr. Speaker, i look forward to putting to bed our fiscal 2016 appropriations work and turning toward our next year which will any luck will come in under regular order. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and reserve. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. The gentlewoman from new york. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, first i also wish to join my chairman in mourning the loss of one of our Majority Committee staffers, chuck turner, who died earlier this month. Chucks passing is a true loss for our committee. And in the final hours of session for this year, we may finally be concluding this years appropriations process. It hasnt been an easy year, but i do want to thank chairman rogers, my partner in this effort, and the staff for their hard work to put together spending bills following the two years budget agreement. Im disappointed, however, that the majority attached a repeal of the Oil Export Ban to this omnibus spending bill. Such a major policy change should not be added at the last minute on a mustpass bill to keep government opened. It is especially disappointing that we could lift the Oil Export Ban in this bill and yet we dont address the urgent bankruptcy crisis facing puerto rico. It remains a priority to me and my democratic colleagues and we must continue all efforts to reach an agreement as soon as possible. Im pleased that this bill drops more than 150 extraneous policy provisions, many of which would have caused a white house veto. Gone are dozens of attacks on womens health, labor protections, Consumer Financial protection, the clean air act, and the clean water act. I was, however, disappointed that we were unable to reverse a 19yearold prohibition on federal funding for the reresearch of gun violence. It should have been removed from the laborhhs appropriations bill years ago. The budget agreement enacted in november provided additional funding, allowing us to make critical investments reflecting democratic values. Increases, mangor increase have been made to national inopportunities of health, head start, energy research, Infrastructure Investments through the army corps of engineers, cops hiring, nutrition funding, and many more important priorities. We also are able to prevent steep cuts to the Environmental Protection agency, another agency frequently targeted by some in the house majority. Also of great importance the omnibus package carries the 9 11 health and Compensation Fund to ensure we care for those who responded bravely on that tragic day and are now sick as a result. I appreciate the bipartisan efforts of all those involved to make sure this legislation was included. Date ition, on this foreign operations of this bill, while there are many provisions that i do support, i am frustrated by the punitive cut of 2. 5 million to unfpa and the continued attack on womens health. Im pleased that this bill sustains our commitment to embassy and diplomatic security, continues the unwavering support and robust funding for our close allies and partners, israel and jordan. We also reaffirm our commitment to basic education and investments in global health, including pepfar, the global fund, the Global Alliance for vaccine initiative, nutrition, maternal and child health, as well as programs to combat tuberculosis, malaria, and pandemic threats. In closing, i would have to call this package a mixed bag. While it fails to address several key priorities and wrongly includes a give away to the oil industry, it advances important investments that make our communities safer, improves access for Early Childhood education and childcare, increases funding for k through 12 education and pell grants, and invests in job creation by supporting Biomedical Research and Small Businesses. Our country will be stronger as a result of these investments. I support this compromise legislation. And i also, in closing, want to thank the staff. The staff has worked day and night to put this bill together. David, lesley, and the entire minority appropriations staff, will and jim on the majority staff, and dick on the leaders staff. Thank you, mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore does the gentlewoman reserve . The gentlewoman reserves. The gentleman from kentucky. Mr. Rogers mr. Speaker, i yield three minutes to the chairman of our defense subcommittee, mr. Frelinghuysen. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Frelinghuysen mr. Chairman, thank you for the time and for your leadership and support and that of ms. Pelosi for our men and women in uniform wherever they serve. In the wake of paris and san bernardino, the American People are deeply concerned about their security. They wonder how and where the next attack will occur and they are turning to us to protect them. In an increasingly dangerous world, the defense and intelligence portions of this act proride funding for our armed force provide funding for our armed forces in our Intelligence Community to confront multiple threats we face across the world. What some have described as a long war against extremism. This measure includes a global war on terrorism title, overseas Contingency Operations to ensure our military is agile, lethal, and ready to address these threats and theft strength and capability to defeat the rise of many Islamic Terrorist Groups worldwide and deter potential gressors like russia, china, north korea, and iran. Mr. Chairman, we share the concern of the army, navy, air force, and marines about the erosion of overall readiness in the force. To begin this reinvestment, this bill provides 168 billion to fully Fund Programs to prepare our forces for combat and other missions. Within this funding, an additional 609 million over the president s budget will help the services, particularly the guard and reserve. In summary, mr. Chairman, this package provide our troops and looks after their families and for those and those who have been wounded in service to our nation. I would also add this package offers the department of defense, our Intelligence Community, and our Defense Industrial base the stability and predictibility they need and have sought. My colleagues, it is the first responsibility of the congress under the constitution to provide for a strong common defense. In a world rife with crises and challenges, we do not know where the next catastrophe may or hot spot will erupt, or how and when our armed forces will be asked to respond. But we do know the american that america must continue to lead and this bill enables that leadership. This bill deserves our bipartisan support. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yield back. The gentleman from kentucky reserves. The gentlewoman from new york. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, im happy to yield to the gentleman from washington, mr. Mcdermott, for a unanimous consent. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Mcdermott thank the gentlelady from new york. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record my remarks in opposition to this bill. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentlewoman from new york. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, im happy to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from ohio, Ranking Member of the energy and water subcommittee, ms. Kaptur. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Kaptur thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank the Ranking Member for yielding me time. This week marks progress in the return to regular order. And although four months late and following the resignation of former speaker john lane bayner, a victim of republican gridlock, this critical funding legislation deserves passage to avoid another shutdown of the federal government. This Congress Must be disciplined and constructive and i thank chairman hal rogers of kentucky and Ranking Member nita lowey from new york for leading our committee in that direction. I want to thank our subcommittee chair, mike simpson, as well as staff leads, donna and tonya, for their stellar work. Our appropriations accounts constitute but a third of overall federal spending, about 30 . The appropriations accounts have been shaved away for nearly 30 years now, down from 50 of costs for running our nations most vital functions in prior decades. This has meant cuts in everything from defense of our nation at home and abroad, all the way founding for critical lifesaving programs like clean water, modernization. Just ask the people in flint, michigan, how it feels to have a water emergency because the children and adults are having to drink water with lead. We cant continue to shortchange our appropriation accounts. Other committees beyond our own must act to grow our economy while balancing our nations accounts. The budget committee, the tax committee, the authorizing committees, and quite frankly congress ought to require the executive branch to balance u. S. Trade accounts which have ballooned to 9 trillion in the negative over the past quarter century, creating such a drag on economic growth. Still vast Energy Imports continue to represent the single largest component of our trade deficit and this bill promotes an energy and water bill that tries to move our nation forward despite all of this. As one of 12 measures in the omnibus, our energy and water section provides a strong pathway for American Energy independence, as well as upgrades to vital port and water assets essential to life in america. A 535 million increase investment at the corps of engineers will keep our ports opened for business and continue to clean our waterways. Might i have an additional 15 seconds from the gentlelady . The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for another minute. Ms. Kaptur i thank you very much. There is 1. 257 billion for western drought response, water smart programs, and River Restoration and increased funding for science is equally important up to 5. 3 billion, which will support american innovation, critical for manufacturing competitiveness and job creation. 2 billion for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy sets us on a path toward greater energy. Let me end with this, when our foes decide to flood our Global Market with excess crude oil and push prices below 2 a gallon, they try to snuff out Emergency Energy sectors like natural gas. Our bill attempts to move and the world in a different direction and we dont want any more recessions caused by those who control the spigots raising gas prices over 4 a gallon. Though this bill is not perfect, it represents a compromise. I urge my colleagues to vote positively and support this measure to move America Forward again. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from kentucky. Mr. Rogers i yield two minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on foreign operations, ms. Granger. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Granger mr. Speaker, i rise in strong support of this omnibus appropriations bill. My top priority is to ensure we provide for our national security. This omnibus does precisely that. This is one of the most dangerous times in our history. We must ensure that the United States remains not only the greatest country in the world, but also the strongest. The u. S. And our allies face threats from countries such as iran, russia, china, north korea. Additionally radical islamic terrorists such as isis continue to threaten everything we stand for. As chair of state foreign operations and vice chair of defense appropriations im very proud of what this bill does to ensure resources are available to counter these threats. I have worked hard to ensure our military has the tools it needs. We fund the equipment required to confront our enemies head on, and we take care of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their loved ones. Not only does this bill provide funding for training and readiness, it also funds critical family services. Assist abc is provided for our allies including israel, jordan, and ukraine who are vital partners this fight. To address Security Issues closer to home, we have prioritized funds for counter narcotics and Law Enforcement assistance in mexico, colombia, the caribbean, and central america, including funds to stem the flow of unaccompanied children to our borders. There are increased funds in the bill for Embassy Security and prevent and protect against future terrorist attacks, unrest, and other acts of violence at home and abroad. The bill also includes provision that is will make our foreign system more secure. Passage of this omnibus is critical to ensure america can continue to lead from the front in this very dangerous world. I want to thank chairman rogers, chairman frelinghuysen, and Ranking Members lowey and visclosky, for their timeless work on this bill. I urge a yes vote, mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman yields back. The the gentlewoman from new york. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, im very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. Delauro, the distinguished Ranking Member of the labor, health, and Human Services subcommittee. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Delauro i rise in support of the omnibus appropriations bill before this chamber. In many ways this omnibus moves the federal budget in the right direction. It begins to leave behind the shortsighted policies of austerity that have slowed our economic recovery. But i am disappointed it did not go further. Im troubled that the laborhhs Education Bill received only a fraction, about one half of its fair share of the 33 billion increase provided by the recent budget deal. While we were successful on many fronts, the bill still does not adequately fund many of our nations highest priorities. I have also been fighting for years to remove a policy rider carried in this bill that prevents the centers for Disease Control from Funding Research on gun violence. Even congressman dickey who authored the rider is now opposed. This bill, however, does begin to make incremental progress and there are many, many successes to highlight. It boosts our efforts to improve our quality of life. It provides an increase of 00 for the centers of Disease Control and 160 million to ddress the growing threat of the bacteria. And it provides for child care and 170 million for head start. These Early Learning programs reduce inequality and narrow achievement gaps. There are sizeable increases, 455 million for special education, 5 million for title i grants and 200 million more than last year for job training and apprentice programs. Imagine if we gave labor, education and Health Programs their fair funding. We could be expanding access to high quality child care, Early Childhood education. We could be funding partnerships between community colleges, Technical Training to develop the most highly skilled work force in the world. Tomorrow i will vote to support this omnibus bill. It is a downpayment. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. Mr. Rogers i yield two minutes, mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson i thank my Ranking Member for her hard work wep spent preparing for this bill for consideration and acknowledge the work of our senate partners. There are a number of good reasons for us to vote for this bill and many of them are in the energy and Water Development section. This bill provides strong funding for our Nations Defense and important Infrastructure Investments that will keep americas waterways open for business and critical funding to secure the security of our electrical grid and support our aging stockpile. This includes full funding for critical warheads such as the b161 bomb and the cruise missile. The program has been increased by 141 million and the ohio class ballistic missile. Funding for the army corps of engineers includes 1. 2 billion. This bill provides for full use of the annual everyone dth revenues. And moves this country forward with a balanced all of the above energy. It includes important funding for the Idaho National laboratory to advance Nuclear Technologies and ensure efficient use of energy. 162 million to improve the resilience of the electrical grid against cybersecurity. We continue to commonsense provisions that were included in last years bill such as changing the definition of fill material and to protect Consumers Choice and responsible commercial operations. I urge my colleagues to vote for this omnibus and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from new york. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, im very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from north carolina, mr. Price, the Ranking Member of the transportation, housing and urban development subcommittee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Price mr. Speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this omnibus bill. It will provide funding certainty for the balance of the fiscal year and the sequester caps that crippled our appropriations process and it casts off the poison pill riders that threatened everything from fair housing to truck safety, to Environmental Protection, to womens health. This bill will allow us to begin repairing and modernizing our aging highway and transit systems, makes critical investments in railroad and Aviation System and the Grant Program that will allow us to build a stronger transportation future. The omnibus makes limited but significant progress towards addressing the Affordable Housing crisis and provides funds to maintain and rehab Public Housing and increased funding for the choice neighborhood programs and home and investment partnerships. Mr. Speaker, the bill fails to fully address our known transportation and housing needs. We still have a great deal of work to do. But whatever deficiencies this omnibus contains would only be made far worse by defeating this bill. That would likely lead to a full year continuing resolution that would be funding at sequestration levels and eliminating programs. Finally, mr. Speaker, we must resolve to get our budgetary house in order. We should pass this bill and thank everyone who worked to bring this together, but we must stop lunching from crisis to crisis. Surely we can do better than to depend on the threat of a shutdown. This bill is a small step in the right direction, far better than the alternative, but its past time for congress to conclude a comprehensive agreement, one that sets responsible funding country mustts our make. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from kentucky. Mr. Rogers i yield three minutes to mr. Calvert of california. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Calvert i would like to recognize mr. Davis. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Davis i thank the gentleman. The interior environment section of this bill instructs the office of Surface Mining to reengage state partners before finalizing the stream buffer zone rule. This rule blurs the lines between the stream buffer zone rule and the clean water act and would have a devastating impact on coal mining. We have audio recordings of officials touting the fact that a major benefit of this rule would be no more coal mining. It estimated it will result in the loss of 7,000 or 9 of the more than 80,000 coal mining jobs in the United States. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this report language would mandate o. S. M. To go back to the states and require signoff on the rule before finalized. Can you clarify the intent of this language . Mr. Calvert the language included in the omnibus recognizes that this administration has not been working with the states in a collaborative manner. Of tates signed memorandums understanding. They established processes for Data Information sharing and the exchange of comments and ideas. Unfortunately earlier this year, nine states withdrew in protest. This mandatory congressional directive will require they share date ave information as they have should have been doing all along and we will be monitoring this implementation. The committee commits to working on the implementation process moving forward to ensure that o. S. M. Reengages the states and actively engages them in the process. Mr. Davis i thank the gentleman for the clarification and i thank mr. Johnson. Mr. Frelinghuysen i associate myself with the comments of my colleague from illinois, mr. Davis. This is a devastating rule. Mr. Johnson the administration has said this is going to kill 7,000 jobs and far more than that. We are looking at 80,000 jobs. They are critical stakeholders in this, mr. Chairman. It is my understanding in the interpretation of this language that o. S. M. Will be directed to reengage and meet with those states at the states request. And based on that direction under the weight of law, that would essentially mean at a minimum the Comment Period for those states of prime asy that request meetings would have to be reopened, is that your interpretation . Mr. Calvert yes. Mr. Johnson i appreciate all the hard work that has been done on this. And i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired, unless you would like to yield some more time to the gentleman from california. Mr. Rogers i yield to the gentleman. And would mr. Davis yield . Im sorry. Let me associate myself with your comments. My district, like yours has been absolutely devastated by the war on coal. And this language is a great help in that direction. Mr. Johnson i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from kentucky reserves. The gentlelady from new york. Mrs. Lowey im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from california, ms. Roybalallard, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security committee. Ms. Roybalallard mr. Speaker. As the Ranking Member of the appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, i can attest that division f of the bill before us today which provides funds to the department of Homeland Security is the result of careful consideration, intense scrutiny and bipartisan collaboration. I want to thank chairman carter for his leadership and his partnership in crafting our portion of the bill. The bill provides significant resources for critical priorities, including funding to recapitalize the coast guard and air and marine fleet, to fully fund femas disaster and relief activities including wildfire management assistance grants and to significantly enhance support for flood mapping and predisaster mitigation and to maintain funding for fema terrorism preparedness grants including 50 million to help communities counter violent extremism and prepare for complex, coordinated terrorist attacks. Without this omnibus bill, my home state of california and communities across the country would be faced with the uncertain funding level of a continuing resolution or in the worst case, the effects of a government shutdown. It is also important to note the bill does not include a number of harmful immigration policy riders that were adopted during the Committee Consideration of the house bill. This funding bill is clearly not what i had hoped for. Many of my colleagues feel the same way, and i share many of their concerns including the lack of assistance provided to puerto rico and the giveaways to big oil. However, on balance, i believe this bill should move forward and i ask for an aye vote. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from kentucky is recognized. Mr. Rogers i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california plrks calvert. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Calvert on december 2, isis sympathizers attacked and killed 14 and injured another 22 in san bernandino, california. Police and First Responders put their lives on the line rescuing survivors and capturing the perpetrators. However, localities have faced unexpected costs as a result of this attack and i yield to the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the the c. J. S. Subcommittee to discuss the funding terrorism in the bill. Mr. Culberson protecting the homeland is our priority and we provide funding to combat terrorism, a significant increase for local Law Enforcement assisting the f. B. I. The bureau has the ability to reimburse costs and there is 50 million for victims of terrorism. Mr. Calvert i yield to the gentleman from texas, Homeland Security subcommittee chairman to discuss d. H. S. Resources available to respond to the attack. Mr. Carter i thank my friend to yielding to me and give you the news about what department of Homeland Security is doing. This bill includes 2. 5 billion for grants for First Responders, 397 million above the request. Further this bill includes 50 million for a new program to help states and local communities prepare for, prevent and respond to terrorist threats. Mr. Calvert i thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from california, representing san bernandino, california, mr. Ag did you lar. Mr. Aguilar it killed 14 and injured 22, responding to the attack were the First Responders. I look forward to working with the gentlemen and the departments to assist san bernandino in recovering from this attack. Mr. Calvert thank. I yield to the gentleman from yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from new york is recognized. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, im pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished the gentleman from new york, mr. Serrano, the Ranking Member member of the Financial Services and general Government Subcommittee of appropriations. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from new york is recognized. Tie minutes. Without objection. Mr. Serrano i thank the gentlewoman and our leader. This is a very bittersweet moment for me. On one hand im so proud of what my staff and i other members and your staff did to make the Financial Services portion of this bill much better. Much, much better. We increased dollars to the i. R. S. We helped the treasury department. We helped the Small Business administration. Did so much that would make anyone want to be the top yeller and screamer in favor of this bill. For that i am very grateful. For that im very thankful to the committee and to our leadership and to the staff. But then as one who was born in an american territory called puerto rico, there is a glaring omission. That is in puerto ricos worst financial crises we could not get our colleagues on the other side to agree for just some simple help. Some simple opportunity to declare bankruptcy. For a simple opportunity to put their house in order. For a simple opportunity to restructure their debt. And so i have said so many times here that i find myself always in this, not contradiction but double situation where i am a member of the United States congress. Prior to that a new yorker since the age of 6, long time ago. Very proud of that. But important in the territory. And if there was ever a sign of colonialism, its what we have done in this bill. We totally ignored the needs of four million american citizens. We totally ignore the need for them to restruck tire their debt. We totally ignore the need for them to survive. And in the process, we may be creating a humanitarian crisis. We could have averted it. Simply by allowing some simple language in this bill. But we chose not to do so. So i think its time that we do two things. That we address the issue as speaker ryan has said that he will before march 31 shall the issue in general of work works problem. But its also time to address the issue of the relationship between puerto rico and the United States. It cant continue to be what it is. It either needs to be an independent nation or a state of the union, but it cant continue to be powerless and begging for everything it gets. Thank you. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from kentucky is recognized. Mr. Rogers mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the military preparedness and Veterans Administration. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. Thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Dent 00 i rise in support of the fiscal year 2016 consolidated appropriations act. Legislation that will provide for much needed budgetary certainty, stability, and predictibility. I certainly like to commend speaker ryan, chairman rogers, Ranking Member lowey and my good friend and partner, Ranking Member of the subcommittee, sanford bishop, for all their hard work and for and also all the staff who did so much work behind the scenes to make this bill what it is. While this bill has many excellent provisions throughout its entirety, as chairman of the subcommittee on milconva, i can say with confidence this is a good fwill bill for our veteran Service Members and military families. It will ensure those who have served in defevens our great nation receive the full benefits, care, and support they deserve and help to maintain our militarys readiness both at home and abroad. The bill will ensure quality housing for nearly two million military families and improve the quality and safety of our bases, defense installations, monuments, and cemeteries throughout the world t will provide an increase for v. A. Programs including a 10. 5 increase to v. A. Medical services to provide care and treatment for approximately seven million veterans. It will also allow veterans with hepatitis c to be treated and cured and help the v. A. To address Critical IssuesLike Mental Health care and reducing the rates of veteran suicide and homelessness. Well also provide funding needed to reduce the v. A. Claims backlog and move us closer to establishing an integrated Electronic Health records system. It will increase congressional oversight at the v. A. To counter the instances of gross mismanagement in eaksess of cost project overruns that have affected facilities across the country, colorado being the most egregious example. For these reasons and many more, mr. Speaker, i support the legislation and encourage my colleagues on both side of the aisle to do the same. I want to thank Ranking Member bishop, mrs. Lowey, chairman rogers, and all the staff who put this bill together. Thank you again. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from kentucky reserves. The gentlelady from new york is recognized. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, im very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. Farr, the distinguished Ranking Member of the agricultural subcommittee and representative of the peace corps. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Farr thank you very much, madam Ranking Member of the committee, nita lowey. I want to just remind people that this is a big bill. Its a bill thats got a lot in it. Its got a lot more good in it than it has bad in it. Big deals have both. But whats really important, this is the most important vote we take all year because this is the vote that runs all of government. Keeps it all operational. All the things you have heard about. I want to thank the chairman, mr. Rogers, because he promised at the beginning of the year to our committee he was going to get us back to regular order and get us a bill. I bet we were going to end up with a c. R. Which is the worst thing we could do. Its the failure of congress to carry out its business. Want to compliment mr. Rogers and nita lowey for their incredible work to get a clean, relatively clean appropriations bill and how important this is. The work that was done on all the minutia there on our staff d the democratic side and my staff, michelle, troy, the republican staff of tom, andrew, pam, elizabeth, betsy, and chairman aderholts staff of brian and jennifer thank you for all the detailed work night after night that you put into this. If you take medicine, this portion of the bill, 1 12 of the bill, the ag portion and Commodity Future Trading Commission and f. D. A. , if you take medicine, this bill impacts you. If you invest in the market this bill impacts you. If you care for animals this bill impacts you. If there are hungry people in this country and around the world, this bill really impacts you. Quite frankly, if you want to eat safe, wholesome, and affordable food this bill is essential. Thank youall for doing this. But most of all i want to thank also another subcommittee. The subcommittee on international relations. And kay granger and nita lowey just did an incredible job for the first time fully funding peace corps, the highest level they have ever funded. We have 23,000 people applying for jobs and congress has only appropriated enough money to hire 3,500. This bill will go a long way to allowing all those americans who want to do service to our country abroad to get a chance to do so. So i want to thank youall. Its one of the better bills. Its certainly a lot bert than last year. I look forward to next year. Will it even be better . The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from kentucky is recognized. Mr. Rogers i yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas, member of our committee, mr. Yoder. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman virginia tech. Mr. Yoder i rise today to applaud the efforts of chairman rogers, his staff, and all my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. This bill achieves many conservative goals, including ending the export oil ban, limiting the e. P. A. To its lowest funding since 2008, freezing the i. R. S. , almost 2 billion below the president s budget request, denying any new funds to obamacare, resolving visa cafere westerns, and other pryors. While cutting in certain areas, we are also able to reprioritize 13e7bding and one is for the National Institutes of health. This bill provide the largest funding at n. I. H. Since 2003 and i want to thank chairman tom cole, the subcommittee, for his work in that endeavor. As we debate this bill, cancer is prepared to kill 600,000 americans next year. Without new investment, well be unable to find a cure to cancer or any other diseases, Heart Disease that affect every family and community in america. I thank the committee for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the hard work of the committee and many others as it seeks to advance the conservative causes in a balanced way in a divided government. I urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from new york is recognized. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, im very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. Bishop, the Ranking Member of the Veterans Administration and military construction subcommittee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from georgia is recognized tore two minutes. Mr. Bishop i thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first of all id like to thank chairman dent for his hard work on the subcommittee. Hes been a tremendous partner. Id like to thank chairman rogers and Ranking Member lowey for their strong bipartisan leadership. Certainly id like to thank our staffs for their hard work. Todays omnibus reflects what the f. Y. 16 mill conva bill should have looked like during full house consideration. Discretionary funding for v. A. Programs in todays agreement is 71. 4 billion, 6. 4 billion above the f. Y. 2015 enacted level. This agreement fully funds Major Construction within the v. A. Budget. As you may recall, this was a significant issue in the house bill. There are a number of good things to highlight within the bill that will have a profound impact on the lives of our nations veterans. For example, we have the opportunity to completely eradicate hepatitis c from our nations veterans. We raised the amount for funding for treatment to 1. 5 billion. Additionally, in order to combat veterans homelessness, suicide, and ptsd, we have also included 7. 5 billion for Mental Health care services. That being said, mr. Speaker, it is high time that we return to regular order. By regular order i mean a process that starts with a realistic allocation, enabling the Appropriations Committee to meet our nations fiscal needs. I believe that if the Appropriations Committee were given a fair chance, we could have completed our work months ago. Mr. Speaker, the process has much room for improvement. Governing through the use of omni bills is not a lost factor. I believe we must return to regular order utilizing the entire legislative process to determine how our government invests in the American People. Truly regular orders better for the committee, for the members, and for this august institution in which we serve. Nevertheless, while the omnibus is not perfect, far from it, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a good bill and i urge my colleagues to pass it. With that, i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from kentucky is recognized. Mr. Rogers mr. Speaker, may i inquire of the remaining time . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from kentucky has 7 1 2 minutes. The gentlelady from new york has 10 3 4 minutes. Mr. Rogers mr. Speaker, i yield two minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee on appropriations, mr. Crenshaw. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Crenshaw thank you very much for the recognition. Mr. Speaker, i rise in strong support of this funding bill for 2016. As chairman of the subcommittee on General Services and Financial Services, i want to high lie light some of the areas that i think highlight some of the areas i think are important for members to understand. We oversee in this subcommittee a myriad of agencies, all have an impact on our functioning federal government and also on the constituents that we represent. We oversee and fund the treasury, the Internal Revenue service, the Securities Exchange commission, the federal trade commission, federal communications commission, Small Business administration, and many other agencies. And i think that while we overall fund this section of the bill, 1 billion less than the president requested, there are some areas where we increase funding that are important that are priorities. Like Law Enforcement. Like drug abuse prevention. Theres been a lot of discussion about the i. R. S. Over the years. Quite frankly they have betrayed the trust of the American People and have a long way to go to restore that trust. Therefore, they are funded at a flat level. However we give them additional money to try to do a better job of customer service. They complain they cant answer the phone. They cant respond to mail. So they have additional dollars to improve that. We do other things to rein in some of their outofcontrol activities. But overall, mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. We increase funding for some of the priority items, as i mentioned, like the Small Business administration. They actually help create jobs. They help grow the economy. Drug abuse prevention is important and we fund those levels. Some of the areas that arent so important we reduce funged, actually frees their funding. But overall this is the result of a lot of hard work by the committee members. Special thanks to our Ranking Member serrano. Overall i would urge all the members to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentlelady from new york is recognized. Mrs. Lowey mr. Speaker, i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. Honda, the acting ranking minority member of the commerce, justice, and science committee. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. Mr. Honda thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member for yielding. I thank chairman culberson who worked with me and my staff to formulate a better bill. While there are areas that could still be improved in the c. J. S. Bill, im thankful for the chairmans bipartisan effort and desire to find common ground. Lifting the budget caps we were able to more fully fund many of the essential programs. Id like to highlight a few of these. I was pleased we were able to dedicate fund for the National Network for manufacturing innovation to fund one competitively chosen center and provide funding for nist. The modest increase for Minority Business Agency will allow them to expand their work creating jobs and fostering innovation and entrepreneurship amongst minorityowned businesses. In the 2020 census, we ensure that all communities, including those that are small, rural, or have limited proficiency with english are counted. The rider making the survey optional was dropped. This is important to communities across the country including cops, Byrne Justice kits. And a Backlog Reduction Program and my district were able to receive 45 million. And robust funding for both commercial and c. L. S. And owe ryon. Were able to provide healthy funding for science and Exploration Missions and i hope the mission will be able to include the expertise of all nasa centers. Happily, we restored earth and geoscience funding and removed e language and ill continue to work the limitations on n. S. A. In the future. Finally, many of the harmful immigration riders were removed, including ones that would have stripped the administrations ability to defend daca and dapa and withheld d. O. J. Grants