What he Just Announced was policy that was already in place, information thats generally already provided to the commerce department. I want to ask you about some other news. The speaker of the house announced she will attempt to finalize a deal that would raise the debt ceiling in the next few weeks instead of dlelaying it until the fall. Can you tell us what it is she would like to do and why its necessary and what are the specifics . The problem, of course, is that the debt limit will be reached sooner than what was originally anticipated. Looks like it could be as early as the beginning of september when we would essentially reach the limit of our ability to borrow in order to continue to provide funding for the government. The thought initially was that the debt ceiling increase and the decision on budget caps which allows us to continue to operate without these automatic cuts, it would all be rolled into one deal. It looks like thats not going to be possible now. In order for the government to not default on our obligations we have to increase the debt limit and give the Treasury Department the ability to increase the debt. Secretary mnuchin has made it clear he needs to see some action. This is one of those cases where we actually are on sort of the same page. It was preferred that we roll all of this into one big deal. But the worst Case Scenario is that the United States defaults on its obligations. We cant let that happen. So the speaker is making it clear shes going to do everything she can to come to an agreement on the debt ceiling. By itself . By itself perhaps in concert with budget caps but potentially by itself before we recess at the end of july. Explain the budget caps negotiation. We have to have an agreement to increase defense and nondefense spending. If we dont and we appropriate beyond that automatic budget cuts are triggered at the beginning of the calendar year, socalled sequestration. It w when it was considered a decade ago, it was considered a situation so dire that congress would do everything it could to prevent that happening and force some budget discipline. Because we continue to budget beyond what those original caps required, we have to increase the caps in order to not trigger those automatic spending cuts. Its a complicated device designed back in 2011 intended to bring some fiscal discipline. Its actually created some speed bumps for us. Where are those negotiations . Well, the thought was that those negotiations would roll into sort of the october 1 deadline. I think because now we have to move more quickly on the debt ceiling, it could be that those are accelerated as well. Youre part of the whip team. You help get the votes for whatever the speaker wants to put on the floor. Where are the votes for a clean debt ceiling vote . Thats a good question. The difficulty is this often becomes very much a partisan question. But i think the responsible approach to increase the debt ceiling means were going to fund our government obligations. Its my view without having a specific whip count that there are very few members who would want to say, i want to default on our obligations. Its often used as leverage in budget conversations. Were the majority party, we have a responsibility to do the responsible thing. So i think wed be able to put votes together for something as fundamentally necessary as making sure we dont default on our obligations. How do you, though, do that when youve got a headline in drudge that says federal spending smashes records, budget deficit widens 23 . Well, i mean, this is a combination of factors. No one can ignore the fact that in 2017 republicans alone pushed through the biggest tax cut and really the biggest shift of wealth from working people to people at the very top in our history. The Congressional Budget Office said this would not pay for itself, this would increase deficits. So theres responsibility that comes with those decisions. We cant just say were going to do tax cuts which is what the Republican Leadership did without accepting the fact that its going to have an impact on the deficit. We have to look at all of this. We have to look at spending. We have to look at revenue. Any time weve been able to get to a balanced budget in this country, its been as a result of really robust growth. Growth that spreads across the economy. Sometimes we have to think about how we can carefully invest to get ourselves in a position where were back in balance. Myself and many other members have been pushing a significant Infrastructure Investment as a way for us to not only take care of some of our challenges around productivity and delivering our products to market, but also stimulating the economy in a way that translates significantly increased earnings for working power. When they have stronger spending power, the economy is super charged. Not only is that good for families but families but caller i work with the project thats focused on global poverty. I just want to ask the representative about the budget. How much of the budget is allocated to addressing global poverty . I think its the International Affairs budget. Do you think that amount is enough . Thank you. Thanks for the call. I dont have the specific number but i think there is often a debate, i think a false debate, about whether the United States should be investing overseas in other countries, you know, people facing abject poverty, for example. We have a moral obligation, i think, because were the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth to make sure the wealth that we have is not just something that we horde hoard. Just think about whats happening right now at the u. S. Border. Theres a lot of questions about how we ought to deal with the border issue on the southern border. But one thing thats certain is that people who are traveling from guatemala, from el salvador, from honduras, are fleeing conditions partly driven by violence, partly driven by abject poverty and theyre looking for a way forward. I think its in our economic interest, in our policy interest, in the National Security interest, but also theres a moral obligation to try to do what we can to make sure people in that part of the world have opportunity. I was disappointed that the president stepped away from direct support to that part of the western hemisphere, the northern triangle, because that in part fuelled this really strong desire for people to flee that area. The caller makes a very good point. Theres a moral obligation to support those who are far less fortunate, to be living in the kind of poverty that we never even see in this country. But theres also Significant National selfinterest in making sure we support those places and sometimes that point gets loss. Remind viewers what the house just passed recently on the border. Well, we did. This was a difficult vote for many of us, because i ended up supporting what was the senate compromise. It was support for additional humanitarian aid and support for managing those individuals and those families that are coming to the border, providing direct support. I would have preferred the house version of that legislation. I voted for it because it had, i think, a lot more Accountability Measures and a lot more constraints on this administration to ensure that the money is being properly used for humanitarian purposes to make sure we dont see families and particularly children essentially jailed for trying to seek a Better Future for themselves. We needed to make some effort to improve the conditions for those people who are being held at the border or for some of us they shouldnt be held, they should be placed with families. But essentially to make sure we have adequate resources to deal with that influx. So it was a tough call. The senate had a pretty overwhelming vote. We needed to get something done. I think some of the moderates on the democratic side caved a little too fast. I think the speaker could have negotiated a better deal had she been given the space to do that. It didnt happen that way so we ended up going with something that is a step in the right direction but not nearly enough. Did the speaker make the right decision . I dont think she had a choice at that time because it was going to fail. The speaker had a choice do i stand on principle and do nothing for those conditions at the border, or do i accept the fact that we dont get what we want but we help at the border and live to fight another day. It has caused rift within the Democratic Party in the house. How would you describe tensions right now . There is tension. This comes when youre in the majority. I think its something that we should have expected. We all kind of expected this would happen. When we have a majority, by definition you have a lot more diverse points of view. But this discord or difference is okay. What we cant let it do is get in the way of working together when we do agree because we cant come together where we disagree. Thats okay. Thats the democratic process. Sometimes its messy but thats what it means to live in a democratic society. You have those differences, you air them out in public. Its not a lot of fun. Thats the way our system works. Do you agree with the speaker that a group of freshmen women alexandria ocasiocortez, that they should stop tweeting about whats happening within the party . I think we all have to make decisions for ourselves how we want to communicate and what positions we take. I do think we have to be careful not to demonize one another over differences that are legitimate differences. I dont think people should stop tweeting or use whatever mechanism they use to communicate with the people they work for. But i do think taking the old carpenters rule, measure twice, cut once. We have a president that i dont think gives a lot of thought to the tweets that go out and that creates significant problems. I think being a little more thoughtful will go a long way, but i dont think anyone should ever be muted. Your reaction to alexandria ocasiocortez saying that the speaker is targeting newly elected women of color . Well, i understand why she may feel that way because shes a woman of color and shes newly elected. Ive served now for nearly seven years with the speaker. She can be tough, but shes tough on everybody. When its you, sometimes it feels a little personal. But look, she knows what she wants to get done. She has a really strong sense of what she thinks we ought to be doing and shes going to do everything she can to try to lead us in that direction. Sometimes that means saying things that people take as a personal attack, but i dont see it that way. Well go to ann louisville, kentucky, independent. Caller yes. Im calling in because this guy said we have a moral obligation to help the people who are coming over the southern border and these people are able to walk, you know, they have a route to walk over into our country or try to get into our country. Well, there are people all over the world who are living in just as bad or worse conditions atha the people who walk here, however, they dont have the means to walk into our country. You have the people in mumbai india, all over africa people are starving to death. If we have a country that has a moral obligation, why arent we sending planes picking up people and loading them up and bringing them into our country . The answer is because we cannot bring every Single Person who is starving i live in louisville, kentucky, and all you have to do is drive through downtown louisville. You see people laying on the street, standing on the corners. My daughter lives in austin, texas, and its even worse. We have people in our own country that have needs. Its not like im a heartless person but how much are we expected to do as a country . I think we do what we can do. When someones knocking on your door because theyre in danger, you dont tell them go away because theres somebody five miles away who might also be in danger and tell them, i cant help them so i cant help you. We have to deal with the reality on the ground. We have a terrible crisis taking place in the northern triangle. Theyre in proximity to the United States. Theyre traveling through mexico, theyre presenting at our border seeking asylum. It is legal for a person to present at the u. S. Border and ask for asylum. Its not a violation of law. In fact, its anticipated in u. S. Law that you may do that. And i do believe where we can, we ought to be able to show some moral leadership and some strength and help those who are less fortunate. One of the ways we do that is try to elevate the standards in those places. Not just view the United States as a source of relief, but through trade relationships, for example, try to increase the Living Standards in those places that are less fortunate so theres more balance in the way the u. S. And global economies interact. The House Oversight and Reform Committee is going to be holding a hearing this morning on child separation policy at the border. Theyre going to hear from these freshman female lawmakers. Representatives alexandria ocasiocortez, pressley and talib among others will be testifying 10 00 a. M. Eastern time. Well go to fred from pennsylvania,democrat. Caller president kennedy in the early 60s had an idea called alliance for progress to help the Central American countries. We wanted to give technology, expertise, show them how to do agriculture, manufacturing, this was money and have the peace corps. I was wondering if the representative had ever thought about that as a way to stop the mass migration. Those sorts of initiatives are what we ought to be engaging in. We ought to recognize this problem doesnt go away if somehow its not presenting itself at our border. Theres real tragedy taking place every single day in honduras and el salvador and guatemala. I was disappointed the president took the position to stop support to those places. This fuelled the crisis. Theres a crisis presenting itself at our border because were failing to deal with the crisis at its source. Over our history, there have been a wide variety of initiatives to try to bring relief and aid into those places around the world that are struggling. That becomes a source of a lot of controversy as if its the reason that we have a budget problem. The amount of money that goes into those programs is minuscule compared to the value that we get from that kind of investment. Well go to john in jupiter, florida, independent. John, are you with us . Caller yes, im here. Question or comment for the congressman. Caller about the impact in his Community Versus the impact in the Southern States about the illegals. Whats the impact in your state of illegal immigration . I think every community theres some impact. We are fairly well removed from the southern border, close to the northern border, just a few miles really away from canada. I have a part of that border myself. The impact on us, i think, is one thats the impact that the rest of the country faces. Were concerned about what happens to our fellow americans. Clearly the impact is far greater in Southern States and western states but that doesnt mean we should ignore it. I think theres a false sense that many in the Democratic Party for example want open borders. I havent spoken to a Single Member of congress that advocates for open borders. We want to have smart borders. We want to be able to manage whats happening on our borders. I think the question is not whether or not we have border security, but what happens when people do present themselves. What do we do with people who are in the country right now . Those are real problems we need to deal with and manage. But i dont think we should start with the idea that somebody is advocating for open borders. Congressman, the house is going to vote today on the 9 11 Victims Compensation fund. After our viewers watched very emotional testimony from jon stewart and some 9 11 victims, one of whom passed away since testifying. Did you see that testimony and how will you vote today . Its a shame that we keep only temporarily funding the 9 11 Victims Compensation. This is a problem that we know were going to have for as long as these victims are around. We ought to permanently authorize and appropriate money for the fund. A couple of years ago i met with jon stewart and talked about this when we went through this before. Look, these folks stepped in during a moment of national crisis. We ought to be there for them and we ought not put them in any have any uncertainty about whether were going to have their back and provide the support they deserve. Im obviously going to vote yes, but its something that we ought to settle once and for all. If viewers missed that testimony, you can find it on our website at cspan. Org and search in the Video Library at the top. When are you expecting this vote to take place today . And will there be any sort of special recognition on the floor . Whats the plan . This is one of those votes that i think is going to have such broad support that its coming to us with a lot of cosponsorships. Democrats and republicans support it. It will happen before noon today. Im not quite sure what the leadership has in mind in terms of how the debate will ensue. Its coming under the socalled suspension calendar so it wont be a protracted debate. I expect a really big vote in the house. If not unanimous, nearly unanimous. The house will be gaveling in at 9 00 a. M. Eastern time here. Keep your channel here if you want to continue to watch the floor gavel in for their morning session debate and take this vote today. Jesse in florida, republican. Caller i just heard the congressman say if someone was needing help and was at our door, knocking at our door, that we had a moral obligation to help that person. Thats not the situation we have at the border. What we have is someone trying to crash in through our window and i have a moral obligation, as does he, to make sure that the people inside that house are protected. We dont want people coming into our house indiana viuninvited. He needs to consider not only the p