tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN March 3, 2016 9:00am-3:01pm EST
the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of mercy, thank you for giving us another day. give us the resolve to bring an end to hunger in our world. quicken our spirits so that we will know the blessings of living together in unity and peace. we all have our personal aspirations and ideas of what is best. grant that we might know the satisfaction of sharing our common concerns and experience the joy of mutual accomplishment. bless the members of the people's house with the success and -- in bringing few igs to
all efforts to work toward common solutions to the issues facing our nation. solutions which often seem so distant. during the days of the coming week, may the american people be able to communicate their hopes for the efforts of their congress men and women. may they understand as well that a unified nation is equally the work of each of us where we live. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. thompson: mr. speaker. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be offered and led by the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. mr. welch: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman virginia tech -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. lamalfa: i'm not talking
about matters of nurebt but basic everyday government deliberations. yet the department of interior, the state of california, and state of oregon are meeting with select groups in private in places like portland, sacramento, and they propose san francisco to make public policy decisions feakting my district in the north end of california and south oregon. without public or legislative input. in order to be invited to join these meetings, individuals are required to sign confidential agreements and agree to a predetermined outcome. the possible removal of the hydroelectric dams. whether these dams should be removed and what policies should be done as a public policy decision. the deliberations should be made in public free-for-all to be involved. yet long distance locations a full day's drive away don't make that possible especially when they are held in secret. they have been happening for years and they are wrong. the agencies of government are
meeting in secret to create a 501-c-3 dam removal entity. this new corporation will be the recipient of taxpayer dollars. these need to be held in public where the people can meet and hear what they are doing to them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? mr. welch: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. welch: mr. speaker, this is pure vermont maple syrup made at a family farm, friends and neighbors. people love it. sugar makers from maine to michigan, it's a labor of love and real additional income in small farm economies. big companies have figured that out. they know that consumers love
maple syrup. but instead of buying maple syrup from those farmers, they provide fake labels to mislead consumers. these are some of the biggest companies in the world. take a look at some of these companies and products they claim have maple in them. quaker, kellogg's, hood, bakery on maine. they say they have maple, but there is not a trace of maple in it. the ingredients include rice syrup, artificial flavor, molasses. that is not maple syrup. you know, we who represent farmers, producing maple syrup, are writing the f.d.a. telling them to have truth in labeling. let's have real syrup not fake labels. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house
for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about an important issue that faces our society. domestic violence and sexual abuse. violence against women is a worldwide but underexamined problem. sadly, there are still far from a world where women are free from the threat of harassment, battering, and sexual assault. considering some of these statistics. according to the f.e. irkts, a woman is battered every 15 seconds. 2.4 million american women are abused each year. mr. katko: up to 50% of homeless women and children in this country are fleeing domestic violence. our country has a moral obligation to stand up against those who exploit their power to commit violence against women and children. in an effort to raise awareness and put an end to domestic violence, the vera house in syracuse will be kicking off the white ribbon campaign. this campaign is one of the largest efforts in the world to prevent and end domestic violence and sexual assault of the the campaign will begin friday, march 4, and run
through march 31. during this mopt, thousands of my constituents in central new york will be wearing a white ribbon band to raise awareness about domestic violence and sexual abuse. wearing the white ribbon demonstrates a personal pledge -- personal pledge to never remain silent about violence against women and children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of riverside city college, one of the oldest and most spreekted community colleges in california. since 1916, r.c.c. has provided thousands of students with an engaging and affordable educational experience that prepares them for successful careers. the college boasts of many great alumni who have gone on to lead remarkable lives.
the one i admire most is my favor. he attended r.c.c., for a degree in business administration, and with that degree he was able to earn a good-paying job that secured my family's place in the middle class. i was honored to serve on r.c.c.'s board of trustees for 22 years and i take pride in what the school continues to do for thousands of students every year. congratulations to riverside city college on your centennial and thank you for the incredible impact you have had on our community. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in recognition of the 10th anniversary of the pennsylvania tate floor hockey tournament
located in the pennsylvania fifth congressional district this. special olympic tournament is scheduled for this saturday and sunday. each year more than 300 special olympians and more than 100 coaches from across pennsylvania compete in this event which includes teams from a large number of the commonwealth's counties. i congratulate the athletes participating in this week's tournament in advance of their hard work and perseverance. rising above the challenges to excel in athletics. i look forward to seeing them in person this weekend. i also commend special olympics of pennsylvania for working and planning this annual event. mr. speaker, the thompson family has a special connection to these games. my younger son, kale, a music teacher, was the first director . along with the tournament, special olympics holds its summer games each year at penn state university in state college. this is great organization which helps so many people across pennsylvania and our nation. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, i rise today as part of women's history month to recognize and celebrate the life of isabella greenway, the first female member of congress from arizona. congresswoman greenway was a trail blazer, social activist, and dedicated public servant. she worked tirelessly to serve the people of arizona and the nation through the great depression and many years after. congresswoman greenway was particularly committed to ensuring that those who serve the nation in the first world war were taken care of after they returned home. she opened arizona hot, a manufacturer focused on employing disabled veterans and their families. during they are time in congress, she was known for her willingness to fight for the rights of veterans, including acting as a vocal depeerned of veterans pensions and expanding the v.a. in arizona. she was an inspiration for women in our state and throughout our country.
she refused to be limited or defined by her gender. instead deoat voting her life to serving and protect the most wonderful members of our society. i hope my colleagues will join with me in honoring the lasting legacy of ms. greenway. i yield back. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. he was a . speaker, son, a brother, and a soon-to-be groom. david's life was ripped from this world on march 1, two days ago, leaving behind his family and his fiance. officer huff was 29, from fort worth, texas, he was shot, coldly murdered after a gunfire exchanged with an outlaw at a nearby park. the criminal that gunned him down was a 20-year-old drug addict that had been released from prison that very day. fficeer hove served with the
eulis, texas police department. he previously served with nypd for five years. he dedicated his life to protecting the rest of us. mr. speaker, hundreds of blue plights lithes from patrol cars lit the way as office his body was transported from the hospital. mr. speaker, this is the 16th police officer killed this year. in fact, two officers now have been murdered in two days. mr. speaker, we must always honor and respect and mourn the loss of such valiant men and women. the thin blue line stands strong in the face of evildoers that live among us. the men and women that wear the badge are america's best. they sacrifice their lives to keep the home front safe from the dregs of society, misfits, and bandits that wish to do the rest of us harm. back the blue, mr. speaker. back the blue.
that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i want to give a little history on the efforts of the democratic party to secure our southern border. we had an immigration bill last session. in that bill that passed the senate with bipartisan support not only every democrat but also many republicans like john mccain and marco rubio, we had $40 billion to secure our southern border. talk about a secure wall, security, making sure that illegal products and illegal people do not cross across that border, we had that. thanks to the republicans' failure to take action in this body, the house of representatives, and simply pass the senate bill, there is still no security of the southern border. there are people illegal drugs, illegal products, sneaking across every day because this
body hasn't acted. now it's pie in the sky to think some other country is going to pay for a wall to protect america isn't going to happen. what we did is we actually had fines for people who are here illegally so the people who are here illegally were actually the very ones who contributed money back into our coffers to help secure our southern border. no to mention the additional economic benefit and taxes they pay going forward. it's time to act on immigration and secure our border. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor a beloved member of the hamilton county indiana community, jim belledon. mrs. brooks: he was a dedicated public servant, devoted husband, goodyear, and grandfather. he passed away after a battle
with cancer. he'll be dearly missed by the hoosier community, but what a legacy he left. he left his mark as family man, teacher, u.s. navy veteran, 23 member of the hamilton county council, he's best known for being one of the best football coaches in indiana. a indiana football hall of fame coach. i'm the daughter of a high school football coach as well. for more than 30 years jim coached and mentored young men in westfield, noblesville, and caramel high school. he led caramel high school to four state championship titles and is the 12th winningest coach in indiana state history. i attended his memorial service just last weekend. there were hundreds of players there. i heard from those whose lives had been touched, whether they were young men he coached who were now not quite as young because he coached in the 70's, 80 earks 90's, the 2000s. i heard from the students he taught, assistant coaches, faculty, the communities he
served, and most importantly his family who loved him so dearly. . i offer my condolence to his family, especially his wife, bev, which they celebrated their 50th anniversary. a legacy lives on in jim belton. thank you, coach. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the house committee on rules, i call up house resolution 635 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. house calendar number 964, house resolution 635, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 4557, to allow additional appointing authorities to select individuals from competitive -- to certificates
allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay products or for clay ceramics manufacturing before before requiring compliance with such rule. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment into to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the member of the committee on energy and commerce and, two, one motion to recommit. section to, on any legislative day during the period from march 4, 2016, through march 11, 2016, a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved
and, b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the institution, to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the debate only. i now yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pending which time i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. byrne: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, house resolution 635 provides for consideration of h.r. 4557, the blocking regulatory interference from closing kilns act of 2016. the resolution provides a closed rule. no amendments are made in order as none were filed with the
rules committee. additionally, the rule also provides for standard adjournment authority. h.r. 4557 is an important piece of legislation. it is a bipartisan bill that addresses an unfortunate recurring theme, overreach by the e.p.a. that takes jobs away from hardworking americans. last september, the e.p.a. finalized the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay products and clay ceramics manufacturing, mmonly known as brick mat, only would we string that many words and think it makes sense. the e.p.a. sets stringent standards of mercury and nonmercury pollutants as well as health-based standards for acid gases. e.p.a. previously promulgated
brick mat standards in 2003. that rule was vacated by federal court in 2007, but by that time, many bring manufacturers had already spent millions of dollars in irreversible compliance costs. now, let's be clear. those aren't just costs that are born by those businesses. those get passed along to the american consume -- borne by those businesses. those get passed along to the american consumers. now, the brick industry faces again the uncertainty of having to spend millions of dollars to comply with revised brick mack while the fate of the rule makes its way through the court system. mr. speaker, the brick industry employs thousands of americans thousands of brick plants. these facilities are located in 38 states. alabama, my home state, is one of the five states for brick manufacturing capacity and faces some of the largest job osses.
unlike other industries targeted by e.p.a. overreach, the brick industry is dominated by small family businesses that have been struggling in our economy. e.p.a. estimates industrywide annual compliance of brick mack will cost $25 million annually. the industry estimates are that the costs may be as much as $100 million per year. for a facility with two kilns, which is the industry average, costs are estimated to be $4.4 million. and remember, those get passed along to us, consumers, and the cost to bricks. these costs will likely cause many of these small facilities to shut their doors and they are, of course, over and above the millions of dollars already spent by the industry to comply with the earlier rule that was vacated by the d.c. circuit. mr. speaker, h.r. h.r. 4557 will ensure the brick industry
will not make millions of dollars in exexpenditures before it makes its way through the courts. h.r. 4557 will implement a legislative state to brick mack and block the rule until all related court challenges had been resolved by the federal courts. now, opponents of bill argue that a legislative stay is unnecessary because the brick industry can request a judicial stay in federal court. however, as an attorney, i can tell you that the standard to receive such a stay is incredibly high and such stays are rarely granted. the recent case of michigan vs. e.p.a. provides a great example of why this legislation is necessary. in that case, the supreme court found that e.p.a.'s ue entitle mack rule to be reelly flawed and remanded the case. however, by that time, utility companies had already been forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with utility mack and remember that gets
passed along to the consumers in our utility bills. the e.p.a.'s acting administer janet mckay, stated that although e.p.a. lost, the supreme court's decision was of limited practical effect because, quote, the majority of power plants were already in compliance or well on their way to compliance, closed quote. thus, they were in practicality, able to have any judicial review, which makes a mockery of this process. the e.p.a. should not get to do the same again to the brick industry while brick mack makes its way through the court system. thousands of american jobs should not be put at risk due to a rule which has already been vacated once and, again, the consumers of america should not be penalized for the same reason. i urge my colleagues to support h.res. 635 and the underlying bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. the blocking regulatory interference for closing kilns act, certainly a mouthful to say, is yet another of the endless list of attempts by this body that will not become law to block implementation of an administrative rule or regulation that some people don't like rather than tackling the issues that this country cares about and that i hear from voters back home when i have town hall meetings or at the grocery store. i hear about fixing our broken immigration system and securing our border. i hear about balancing the budget deficit. i hear about making sure that medicare and social security are solvent and there for the next generation. i hear about making sure we create jobs, that housing is affordable, that our roads and bridges are safe and that
traffic can flow quickly and safely, and yet here we are again spending an entire -- yes, an entire legislative day debating a bill that won't become law, which you'll certainly hear about over the next couple hours, regarding a series of regulations around brick kilns. once again, the republicans are approaching a complex rulemaking process with a knee jerk reaction in a closed transparent process with a closed rule, not even allowing debate for a single amendment. not only is this bill not transparent, not necessary, in this particular case it sets a bad precedent because the courts already have the authority to issue a stay of compliance in a final rule. as we saw through the recent delay of the clean power plant, they are separate for ran. let the courts do their work.
let us do ours. let us not preempt the courts from their normal process. our judicial and legislative systems are separate. individuals, organizations, companies have plenty of recourse and options through the court system to address this matter. this floor of the house is not the place to be requesting a stay. if there was something done that was illegal or wrong, the place to request the stay is the courtroom. but time and time again, legislation like this has come to this floor disposing of the judicial process, shortcutting the justice system that we have to delay a rule until all legal challenges are completed, which effectively means that frivolous lawsuits can jam up the rule indefinitely and forever. over the past 45 years, it's proven that clean air regulations are important to protect the public health and consistent with a growing and strong economy. of course, i understand the pressure requirements placed on
brick and clay ceramic makers. they have legitimate reasons to provide input to question or contest a rule, and the judicial avenue is and will be available to them. and that's the appropriate venue to request a stay, not the floor of the house of representatives. there's several brick and clay companies in my state of colorado, such as the summit press brick and tile company in pueblo, colorado, and i know these companies updated and changed their industry after the 2003 rule. but unfortunately, like so many rules under the administration of george bush, the rule was written so poorly it was vacated by the courts in 2007, which means there's no rule under the authority of the clean air act, which this congress -- which congress has made the law of the land. it sets standards for living and air pollution in this industry. not only is that unacceptable, of course it needs to be rectified urgently.
while there's nothing something about brick kilns, like anything else, of course they affect air quality. i have a picture of what we're talking about mere and, of course, like any other economic activity that creates issues regarding air quality, we need a nuance and thoughtful rule that ensures that economic activity continues subject to maintaining the public health. and in fact, the e.p.a. has responsibility under section 112 of the clean air act to control pollution from stationary sources of pollution like brick kilns. let me repeat that. the e.p.a. was actually required, yes, the e.p.a. was required by congress to implement a rule to cover this industry, because according to the judiciary, president bush enacted the rule incorrectly. if congress wants to look at the underlying statutes, let's have that debate. let's talk about what the e.p.a. should and shouldn't do. i believe that we should close down loopholes that exempt fracking from regulation under
the clean air act. i have -- we have a series of bills that would do that. the breeve act and the fresher act to ensure the small site exemps does not occur, does not exist with regard to fracking activities and in the aggregate have have a considerable impact in air quality. we've seen examples in our state that has worse air quality than downtown los angeles because of the extracting and fracking-related activity which is largely exempt from the clean air rule -- law, and that's a debate i'd be happy to have. let's debate the appropriate jurisdiction of the e.p.a. if there's something we got wrong in that with regard to brick kilns and their authority or their responsibility, that's a place to have the debate. it's not to give an indefinite stay to simply implement what is the law of the land and the will of congress, which is the e.p.a.'s responsibility.
congress has told the e.p.a. through the clean air act that they have the responsibility under section 112 to control pollution from stationary sources of pollution. they tried to do it under president bush. it was tossed out by the courts because it was improperly constructed, and they're doing their job, and yet congress is trying to use something that is normally a judicial procedure, a stay, over -- to get around the very mandate that congress gave to the environmental protection agency. it's simply the wrong way to go about it. brick and clay plants, if left unregulated, which is why they're covered under the clean air act, can be major sources of toxic air pollutants like hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride and heavy metal pollutants that can endanger people with everything from asthma to cancer. . i would rather have my children running around on a playground
in a town where plants put out hazardous pollutants are regulated in a responsible way, which is what this rule attempts to do. that's why opponents of this legislation include the center for biological diversity, league of conservation voters, league of women voters, national resource development council, sierra club, union of concerned scientists. all these experts understand that for 15 years congress is expected air lution from these facilities to be covered by the clean air act standards and the delay in the process further is irresponsible. prevents the e.p.a. from doing their mandate that congress has given them, and sets a dangerous public health precedent and will endanger lives of american citizens. not only is this a treacherous pattern, it's a waste of time. this bill won't become law. it came out of committee in a party-line vote, the majority knows that even in the off chance the senate were to consider this legislation, which i highly doubt, the president would veto the bill.
it was indicated in the statement of administrative policy i would like to submit o the record, mr. speaker. which reads in part h.r. 4557 would create a incentive for parties to litigate this rule making and receipt lated corrections notice for as long as possible to delay air pollution reductions, end quote. so long as even there are the most frivolous lawsuits, anybody can continually file lawsuits, so long as any one of them is pending, the rule does not take effect. it is indefinitely stayed. yet again we are debating something on the floor, going nowhere. we are not debating improving our roads and bridges. we are not debating securing our southern border. we are not debating balancing our federal budget deficit. we are not debating making america more competitive and bringing jobs from overseas and china back home here and creating a growing middle class. instead, we are wasting time on legislation that won't become
law, that shouldn't even become law because it's the inappropriate role of this body. and there's so many things we could be talking about, even within the energy realm and the e.p.a. realm, that would be productive discussions. i'll give you an example. i have had the opportunity in hearings in the natural resource committee to bring up a bipartisan bill that i have with mr. gosar twice this week. this is the third time. it's a bill that would create jobs and renewable energy, called the public lands renewable energy development act. why don't we have a rule on that bill or bring it up on suspension. mr. gosar and my bill would incentivize renewable energy development by streamlining the permitting process on public lands for renewable energy products. isn't that something we can come together about? making sure that we can find a way to expedite siting for renewable energy products on public land? creating jobs and creating clean energy. or we could be discussing the need for a permanent re-authorization of the land
and water conservation funds pfund, something that just last week was offered as a bipartisan amendment by myself and mr. grijalva and mr. sanford of south carolina. but of course that amendment was not given an hour of debate -- two hours of debate like this. we have the rule, we have the bill. entire legislative day is discussing a stay on brick kilns, should be in the courtroom not the u.s. house. we weren't even given 10 minutes. we weren't even given one minute to discuss that bipartisan amendment from mr. grijalva and mr. sanford and myself. the list goes on and on of what we could be doing. it's been sad that politics is the art of the possible. and when the american people look at our proceedings on the floor and what the republican majority is doing with congress, is iter that -- is it any wonder the approval rating of congress is 8%. the people look at congress and say, look, you are spending an
entire day debating a stay on kiln rules. first of all, why are you talking about it? it should be in a courtroom. second of all, aren't there critical national priorities that you need to be debating right now to create jobs, make america more competitive overseas, improve our schools, make college more affordable, balance our deficit, fix our broken immigrationcies terges improves our roads and bridges. aren't there? that's what 92% of the american people are crying out. there's still time for this congress to listen. i hope that we begin. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from
alabama for his important work on this issue and also the gentleman from ohio. i rise today in support of h.r. 4557, the brick act. this legislation delays an unnecessary e.p.a. rule that imposes overly strict emission standards on american brick kilns. manufacturers shouldn't have to deal with the hassle of an overzealous regulator in the first place, but they should at least get to have their day in court fighting this unreasonable regulation before incuring millions of dollars of expense to comply. since 2003, brick manufacturers have reduced emissions from kilns by 95%. however, e.p.a. decided to impose another washington mandate on small businesses which they may not even be able to meet. shuttering u.s. brick factories will lead to higher costs for american consumers, making it
even more expensive to open a business or raise a family. additionally, manufacturers will shed good-paying jobs in places in arkansas and once again our manufacturing needs will move off shore to a place that pollutes much worse than we do here. not only is the e.p.a. out of touch with reality on this issue, they exhibit no common sense when they regulate jobs away from america and send them to countries that pay subpar wages and have subpar pollution control technology. they have a lose-lose proposition. mr. speaker, this is the same e.p.a. that neglectly released millions of gallons of toxic mine water into the animus river, tried to cover up and minimize their actions, refused to take responsibility, and resist being held accountable. if anyone needs more lation -- regulation, it's this out-of-control federal agency, not hardworking americans.
mr. speaker, for the sake of our environment and economy, i urge the house to pass the brick act to keep the air cleaner and to save good-paying jobs here at home. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i want to talk a little bit more about when we say this bill will never become law what exactly we mean. i mean when i indicate that. there have been an enormous number of bills that have passed the house of representatives. as an example, repealing the affordable care act, obamacare, taking health care away from tens of millions of americans. that's passed this house in one form or other 64 times. so 64 times the house of representatives has voted to repeal the affordable care act. that's clearly what people who have been leekted to the house have decided to do -- elected to the house have decided to
dofment the house of representatives alone doesn't get to make the law. we have the united states senate and we have a president. the united states senate usually requires, as procedural matter, 60 votes to move legislation forward. of course even after a bill in the same form passes the house and the senate for it to become law the president needs to sign it. if the president vetoes it, it immediately comes back and will require 2/3 to override the veto. what we are talking about with this bill around kilns like this one here, we are talking a bill that probably will pass the house. i expect that's what we are spending a whole day on. i don't think the republicans would want to spend a whole day on it if it's going to fail. i have heard no indication whatsoever that the senate is going to take this up in any way, shape, or form. in the unlikely event the senate takes it up, they have the challenge of getting 60 votes. the bill had no bipartisan support in committee. it's hard to see how they would
get enough democratic support in the senate to get the 60 votes to pass the bill. even if they somehow did, president obama and the administration is, of course, against providing a stay against their own rule that they promulgated. therefore, we are spending an entire day doing nothing, talking about brick kilns, fiddling while rome burns. the american people are upset, mr. speaker. the american people want this congress to tackle the issues that affect them and their family. around their kitchen table. rising rents and mortgage prices. maybe the mom or the dad or kids lost their job and need to get back to work. making sure that they have a way to commute to work every day and that our roads and bridges are strong and they spend a minimal amount of time in traffic so they can spend more time with their family or at work earning money. balancing our budget deficit to secure a strong financial future for our country.
making sure that medicare and social security are there and safe. not only for today's retirees but for the next generation and next generation of american retirees. securing our southern border and replacing our broken and nonsensical and costly immigration system with one that works for america to make us more competitive, generate more revenues, unites families. and reflects our values as a nation of immigrants. we could be doing any of those things. we could be debating any of those things. no one says they are easy. it starts with time to debate here on the floor of the house. what a great way to spend a day, a thursday. by the way, speaker ryan and the rbles don't even have us working friday, tomorrow. they are sending us all home on thursday after spending a day debating brick kilns. we are not debating anything
tomorrow, friday. i know -- or monday. or tuesday or wednesday or thursday or friday of next week. i mean, look, the american people would love this kind of job which the republican majority has given themselves with the congressional calendar where we work 3 1/2 days this week. get friday off. all of next week off. and spend a whole day debating brick kilns rather than the issues that the american people care about. that's what's going on here. that's why congress has such a low approval rating. look, let's begin by debating the issues that people care about. they're hard. i get that. fixing our broken immigration system, balancing our budget deficits, securing medicare and social security. not easy issues. why don't we spend a day doing that, today, all day, having ideas from both sides of the aisle, having members speak about their plans to make america better and stronger, rather than debating a court
procedure, a stay, on brick lns all day and then rewarding ourselves with a day off tomorrow? job well-done, congress. we did a court procedure on brick kilns as our work product, and for that we deserve a week and a half off. that's the job that congress has defined for itself and it's why the american people are so outraged. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule that would require the republicans to stop their partisan games and hold a hearing on the budget proposal. president's budget. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, if we pass this previous question, motion that i'm making, we could begin the important discussion of how we can bring
our budget into balance and restore fiscal responsibility. let's have hearings on the president's budget proposal. let's talk about the tradeoffs around investments and savings. let's have those meaningful discussions rather than spend an entire day on brick kilns and then giving ourselves a week and a half off. we can still salvage, we can still salvage this congress for the american people. we can restore trust in the integrity and desire of the american government to do good and tackle the big issues we face. i'm confident we k that can begin by my previous -- by passing my previous question motion and getting to debate about the budget and balancing our budget and the tradeoffs and investment in our future. rather than debating kilns and giving ourselves a week and a half off. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.
the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, i was very interested to hear my colleague talk about what makes american people frustrated and angry right now. i have just come through a primary campaign in my seat in alabama, i spent a lot of time with the citizens of the united states in my district, and they are indeed frustrated and angry, and let me tell you why. they are frustrated and angry because we have a government in the federal sphere that's out of control. and it's taking away their jobs. this regulation will take away jobs from people in alabama. it will take away jobs from people in 38 states. that's what makes them angry. a federal government that cares so little about them that they would put out a regulation like this that kills jobs, that raises the price of bricks on those of us that buy them to build our homes, and the federal government thinks that's necessary. . we have to do this today because we have a federal government that doesn't understand that its role is not to do that. so let's get back to what this really means.
this is not a partisan issue. two of the sponsors of this bill are from the other party. my colleague from alabama, ms. sewell, is a sponsor for this bill. the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop, is a sponsor for this bill because they understand it's going to hurt their constituents. it's going to hurt the average working person in this country. my colleagues on the other side don't get that, and because they don't get that, there is no job too small for them in their minds to kill. there is no business too small for hem to put of business. there is no amount of money that's too much for them. they would kill every job that would hold back every consumers' ability to get a home at a decent price, to get some little small, almost nothing, benefit. there were no amendments offered -- part of this debate today because none was offered in committee and none was offered to the rules committee. so this is not a closed debate because we're trying to close
off amendments. there aren't any amendments. now, i heard a lot about a judicial stay. i said this in my initial remarks. saying there's the possibility for judicial stay says nothing about the practicality of it. addressed that in my opening remarks. let me just tell you, as a practical way, it's almost impossible to get this stay. yet, when they got this stay several years ago it was so late in the game that the brick industry had to go ahead and make all the changes, which cost jobs and increased the price of bricks for the rest of us. now, here's the truth. my colleagues said there's an obligation to have a rule here. there's already a rule on particulate matter and most of the benefits in the rule that's been proposed here is to particulate matter. it's already regulated. and oh, by the way, when that prior regulation that was turned back by the supreme court was put out there and the industry had to go ahead and comply with it, they've already reduced emissions by over 90%. so what are we talking about in
this regulation is another effort to get us some small little almost imperceivable benefit at the cost of hundreds if not thousands of american jobs. and i'm astonished that this administration is so insensitive to that. the people of america are angry and frustrated because of that. now, i know that we're going to be having debates about some of the issues that my colleague talked about, and i'm looking forward to those debates. but to the people who work in this industry, this is an important issue. it may not be important to other people in this house, but it's important to people that work for these brick businesses. it's important to me as a consumer looking at what it's going to cost me for buying new bricks. so i would hope that there would be greater sensitivity from my this administration for example my colleagues in the house, to people who are --
administration, to my colleagues in the house, to affected. are i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: does the gentleman have any remaining speakers? mr. byrne: we do. mr. polis: look, i want to congratulate the gentleman from alabama. he had a recent election and triumphed and, of course, we'll be excited to continue to serve with him. when we run, those are difficult. we have our ear to the ground. we hear people. the gentleman mentioned that people were angry back home. i think there's a lot of people in my district that are angry, too, but, again, i want to ask the gentleman, is what they were angry about, this brick kiln rule, or were they angry about the failure of congress to secure our borders, to secure our budget, those things? i want to ask was it about brick kilns or was it about other issues? mr. byrne: they're angry about
a federal government that's overreaching and hurting them. that's what they're angry about. mr. polis: did anybody who was angry bring up brick kilns? mr. byrne: they brought up the e.p.a. over and over again. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. as i indicated, it would be an appropriate discussion for us to talk about the statutory obligations of e.p.a. and we might have different opinions. i think they should have the authority and we should remove the small site exemption and they should look at emissions from the fracking industry and extraction. but that's a valid discussion to have. instead of that, we're saying, you are doing what we told you to do but we want to grant a stay. so congress, under the e.p.a. and section 112, directed the e.p.a. under the clean air act to promulgate these regulations. george bush, president bush did so. they were tossed out and now there is a new set of regulations going forward to implement what congress wanted
the e.p.a. to do. now, if the gentleman from alabama doesn't want the e.p.a. to do that, let's have that discussion about e.p.a.'s authority. i'm happy to do it. i have ideas. i want to -- you know what, maybe there's some areas the e.p.a. shouldn't have that mandate or authority. there's other areas like making sure we look at emissions from fracking where we need enhanced authority because there's something called the small site exemption in the clean air act where even though each particular fracking pad has a very small contribution to air quality, when you start having thousands of them in a limited area, which we do, it starts looking a lot less like a couple automobiles and a lot more like a large industrial factory. so they shouldn't be exempt just by nature of being small because when you have a lot of small things, guess what, it equals not only one big thing, it equals 10 bigs things, 100 big things. we have over 40,000 active sort of he greater
laird county alone and there is enormous impact in our air under the small site exemption. section 112 that directs the e.p.a. to promulgate these rules, if we want to open up the mandate that congress has given the e.p.a., let's have that discussion. you know what, i might, as an individual legislator, i might trade you this brick kiln authority if we can close the small site exemption. i'd say, fine, my constituents care more about the small site exemption. there are two brick kilns in the entire united states. i think my constituents and coloradans want to make sure our air quality is good and protected with regard to the emissions from the fracking activity than we are from the two brick kilns. so i'd be to that as a legislative compromise. that's how legislation is made, but we're not allowed to have
that debate. the gentleman mentioned, oh, no amendments were brought forward. we did a motion in rules committee, i'm sure the gentleman remembers, to do an open rule on this. if that had passed, and it failed on a partisan vote. not a single republican voted to allow an open rule on this bill. if that had succeeded, if that had passed, the open rule the democrats wanted, we could then introduce amendments, like the ones that i mentioned, to talk about the authority of the e.p.a. or other issues that we have to improve the statutory requirements and charge of the e.p.a. right on the floor. we would have the opportunity to do that. instead, we have an entire day on brick kilns without even being allowed to introduce amendments that affect our clean air and water in any way, shape or form. i think we can do better. the gentleman also was asked what the impact of the brick kilns and this is. the e.p.a. estimates that the
brick and clay rule would reduce national air toxins by approximately 375 tons in 2018. again, that is what congress has told the e.p.a. to do under the clean air act. if congress wants the e.p.a. to do something different, let's have that discussion. section 112, other sections of the clean air act of the mandate that congress has given the e.p.a. let's not use a court procedure, a stay, that won't become law to short-circuit something that congress has told the e.p.a. to do. it is positively schizophrenic for congress to require an agency to do something and then say we're not going to allow you to do what we told you to do. i re-. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. -- mr. polis: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: the gentleman wants an open rule. let me state, we had no amendments at the committee of jurisdiction and no amendments offered by the rules committee.
so that would fly in the face of our desire here to have regular order. what he's proposing is not regular order. he's proposing chaos, and i don't think the american people want us to be in chaos around here. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to the great conservative leader from the great state of illinois, mr. shimkus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for the time to speak on the rule. our process for a bill to get to the floor, it has to go through the rules and this is a very, very important bill. i was interested in the debate, listening to the sides because there is an argument by constituents of having clean bills. one bill, one issue, simply understood, vote on it. instead of this horse trading that sometimes gets proposed, you give me this for that.
i can tell you one thing i know, in my district, they really don't like this give. they want us to be held accountable for a bill. the -- and i also get frustrated with how easy it is to throw away jobs. i only have blank kilns in my state. well, those are good-paying jobs with families, and they're important to the fabric of those communities. just to say, i only got two, i don't need to worry about them, let's trade them off, is really troublesome and i'm sorry we .all into that type of debate the -- this is really part of a bigger debate in that the courts have already done this with the clean power plant, the climate change -- clean power plan, the climate change bill. the debate is, ok, e.p.a., you can do the regulation. do the regulation.
what the e.p.a. likes to do is do the regulation and they play this game. we know it's not legal. so we will impose the regulation. we know it's not legal. we're going to force industry to comply, and then when the courts say it's not legal, they've already gone too far and the jobs have been lost. that's factual. that's what happened in 2003. that's what happened when the e.p.a. promulgated the mact rules in 2003. the rule was vacated by the federal court in 2007. vacated which means you can't do it, but the industry was already forced to do it. spend millions and millions of dollars or they had to close. so fast forward. where are we at today? the courts have done this on the clean power plan, the big climate change rule. what the courts have said for the first time, the supreme court said, no.
we're not going to force the states to implement the clean power plan until it's litigated in the courts. everyone. stay on said don't do anything, let's have the legislative, judicial debate and fight. that's what this bill does. let's just have the litigation on the legality of this new rule, and if it comes up that it's legal, then the industry is going to have to comply, but if it comes out that it's not legal, guess what, we're going to save jobs. we're going to save communities, and we're going to save the family income for two kilns in a state or maybe more, depending upon the brick producing capability of individual states. so i'm down here just to thank
the rules committee for bringing this bill to the floor. i look forward to the debate. it's much more than brick kilns. it's about when can the e.p.a. force a company to do something we could hope they would do it after it's been ruled legal by the courts if someone challenges it and i yield back my time. i thank my colleague. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i would ask if the gentleman from alabama has any remaining speakers. mr. byrne: i do not. mr. polis: ok. i'm prepared to close. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the balance of the time. mr. polis: look, there's a way that our process works around here. if a rule is illegal, it will be tossed out by the courts. george w. bush's attempt to implement the clean air act, section 112, around brick kilns, was tossed out.
what this bill does is it says, so long as there is a court challenge, there is a -- some sort of presumption that the rule will be tossed out and, therefore, an indefinite stay. now, there can be challenges all the time. the minute one fails, another one can be launched. no bones about it, this would indefinitely prevent this rule from ever taking effect with regard to brick kilns. now, i have to say, mr. speaker, i haven't heard from a single constituent on this issue. like the gentleman from alabama, my constituents are angry. they're angry at congress, worried about the direction of the country. . they want congress to replace our broken immigration system. they want congress to return to fiscal responsibility. balance our budget. they want to make sure that college is affordable for the next generation. they want to make sure they have good jobs here at home and we make sure we encourage companies to locate and grow
here in america rather than give them tax advantages for relocating overseas or inverting their headquarters to occur overseas as occurs with today's tax code. those are some of the many issues that my constituents want me to talk about here. i just had a town hall meeting last week in fort collins, colorado, the biggest city in my district. 100 people came. not a single person was angry about brick kilns, but, yes, there was a lot of anger there about some of the issues i indicated. people frustrated with why congress refuses to act on making college more affordable. why congress has refused to act in making sure medicare and social security are there for the next generation. why congress doesn't put our country on the course of fiscal responsibility and reduce our debt to g.d.p. ratio. butt instead we are debating a bill that won't become law
without allowing amendments here on the floor, that's what a closed rule means. if it was an open rule i would be able to offer my amendment to close the clean site -- small site exemption with regard to fracking , but i can't. we are debating a bill that won't become law. attacking a rule that is merely implementing what congress has told, not just this president, any president to do, george bush tried, obama tried, because congress under the clean air act tells the executive you have to do this under section 112. then when they do it, the issue that went through the courts, that's appropriate. that's their role. but when they implement what congress has told them to do, we are saying no, there is an indefinite statement that's what this bill would do. i know, mr. speaker, regardless of what we think about any of the policies or rules put out by this administration or any administration, it's not the place of congress to issue stays on rules. it is the role of the courts. the constitution established
three branches in our government for a reason under our constitution. it is the court's job not congress' job to interfere with the legal process and it is not congress' job to take that responsibility away from the judicial branch, especially with a bill that would encourage -- actually encourage more frivolous litigation by rewarding frivolous litigation and endless appeals when we already have too much of that in our court system. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no the. to defeat the previous question, which if we succeed in that vote we can immediately get to hold hearings on the president's budget proposals. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule as well. again, a closed rule, not allowing amendments here on the floor of the house. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: mr. speaker, the american people are sick and tired of a federal government that is out of control. i can't imagine the founders of
this country and that constitutional convention in philadelphia in 1787 saying, now, let's think about a government agency established under our constitution that's going to regulate bricks. no wonder the american people look at the federal government and say, have you lost your mind? what are you doing? these other issues that my colleague talked about are important, but we have to stop here in this congress to deal with another out-of-control federal agency and the e.p.a. is one of most out of control federal agencies, to protect american people. yes, to protect their jobs. to protect the consumers of america from unreasonable increases and the cost of things like bricks. because another agency's done something to them. yeah, i think the american people are sick and tired of that. and i do think it's the role of this congress to do something about it. now, the e.p.a. would have no power except for the fact that
this congress has delegated its own legislative power to the e.p.a. so, indeed, it is our role to not only provide oversight to that power, but on a particular occasion, to take it back. and frankly, in my judgment, we don't take it back enough. if we took it back more, we would be protecting the american people more and their jobs and the cost of things that they buy for -- buy every day. so i understood what my colleague just said. i heard it. but once again i don't think he's thinking about those people that work for these brick companies. and i don't think he's thinking about the consumers of america. who are ready for the congress to do it's job to protect them. this is one way that we can do that. mr. speaker, i again urge my colleagues to support h.res. 635 and the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my
time and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and suspend the rules and passing h.r. 1826, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 174. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the clerk: senate 1826, an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 99 west 2nd street in fond dulak, wisconsin, as the lieutenant colonel james "maggie" megellas post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the howls suspend the rules -- house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas. >> on that qui the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's requested the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the house will come to order. members will take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, seek recognition? mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 635, i call up h.r. 4557 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 336, h.r. 4557, a bill
to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick and structural clay products, or for claire, ceramic manufacturing before requiring compliance with such rule. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 635, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and to heir remarks include extraneous material on h.r. 4557. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. whit ffel: --
mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: today we have the important opportunity to protect the american bring manufacturing industry and the ceramic kiln industry, and its 7,000 employees from a costly regulation that has yet to survive a judicial scrutiny. at this time i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, one of the original sponsors of this bill, mr. sanford bishop. i yield him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. i rise today in support of h.r. 43557 -- 4557, the blocking regulatory interference from closing kilns act, or the brick
act. this legislation is important to preserving the viability of brick manufacturing facilities all across the country. simply put, the brick act causes the e.p.a.'s 2015 national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants until court challenges of the rule are resolved. i'm very concerned that bring manufacturers in my district, as well as those in the districts of my colleagues, may be required to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to satisfy an e.p.a. requirement similar to the e.p.a.'s 2003 rule, a rule, it should be noted, was vacated by the federal courts. for example, cherokee brick and tile from macon, georgia, spent over $1.5 million to install controls in order to comply with the e.p.a.'s invalidated 2003 rule. cherokee is a small family-owned business and as my colleagues with small
businesses in their districts can attest, $1.5 million is a very substantial sum that can cut heavily into the bottom line. this rule impacts more than just cherokee brick and tile in my state, but also general shale and pine haul among others. a basic material for home building and construction, bricks are more than just a figurative cornerstone in the united states construction industry. passing this legislation would guarantee the e.p.a. would wait until its 2015 emission standards are reviewed by courts before implementing the rule and before manufacturers across the country are needlessly required to spend millions of dollars. . i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 4557, the brick act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, is recognized. mr. rush: i want to thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, h.r. 45 bill that ecessary would set a terrible precedent. as the statement of administration policy, which outlines the justification for president obama's veto threat, 57 es, and i quote, h.r. 45 would undermine the public health protections of the clean ir act by allowing further emotions of approximately 30 tons per month of toxic air pollution from brick and clay product production facilities. hese toxic emissions include
mercury, gases and other hazardous metals, which are associated with a variety of acute and chronic health effects, including cancers, end of quote. mr. speaker, the statement from , esident obama goes on to say threatens the 57 health of americans by allowing more toxic air pollution, if the president were presented , his senior advisors would recommend that
e veto the bill, end of quote. is the ker, h.r. 4557 wrong remedy at the wrong time. mr. speaker, this bill is premature. while i understand that the industry feels that it has been penalized for complying with is not rule, that sufficient reason in itself to settle a unique process that incentivizes all parties that object to this rule to file endless challenges to the rulemaking. the brick and climax mum
achievement -- the brick and are aximum achievement the subject of ongoing legal actions by industry and by public health communities across this nation. the courts already have the ability to grant a stay on this rule. yet, for some reason the that y has not yet made request to the court. but there are a number of pending cases filed by the very rule. this this week, mr. speaker, it was reported that the industry petitioned the court to put poor students on hold until the
e.p.a. decides whether to grant their request to reconsider the regulations. the pending decision by the court and by the e.p.a. indicate that had there's no as there are 4557 ample remedies available under the clean air act to address concerns about this rule. additionally, mr. speaker, h.r. 57 does not actually address merits with the brack and clay mact rules. instead, what this bill does -- with the brick and clay mact rules. instead, what this bill does is it takes this rule and this
rulemaking outside of the process in the clean air act that allows the e.p.a. to issue final rules for deadlines for the implementation. the ut waiting for conclusion of all the appeals and all the reviews. mr. speaker, this bill would so delay any subsequent rule issue that is similar in scope, any ar in objections until legal challenge to it were completed as well. in other words, mr. speaker, this bill allows an opportunity for endless lawsuits on this very issue. and i fear, mr. speaker, that
f h.r. 4557 were to become law, we will end up in a situation where we will never, ever control air pollutant emissions from these facilities. no matter how cost-effective or how necessary that rule might be. mr. speaker, this is a policy that we must reject. as the statement of administration policy also noted, if rules cannot go orward until all legal actions are complete, there's a strong incentive to use frivolous legal challenges to prevent any rule from being implemented. under that scenario, we would have achieved
improvements in air quality and in public health that have been accomplished under the clean air act, and we know, mr. peaker, that the clean air act has delivered many cost-effective health benefits to the american people over the years. it has been demonstrated many times that we do not have to make a choice between healthy air and jobs. his nation, we cannot agree, mr. speaker, to set this precedent and establishing a process that will delay important public health protections and encourage at the same time frivolous legal
hallenges to our clean air rules. the brick, clay and tile industries would be better served by pursuing the options available to them right now under the clean air act. for all of these reasons, mr. speaker, i must urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill, and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from ohio, mr. bill johnson, for introducing this important bill. this is an industry that has been hard hit by the recession. lost 45% of its jobs. there are 70 of these plants around the country. they employ 7,000 people. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from ohio, the sponsor of the legislation, for three minutes.
thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: well, thank you, mr. speaker. the brick act would simply allow for the consideration and completion of any judicial review regarding the e.p.a.'s 2015 national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for the brick, clay and tile industries before requiring compliance. so why is this important? because this rule needlessly jeopardizes good-paying jobs all across america as the chart right here next to me clearly demonstrates. and for what reason? why are they jeopardizing these jobs? the e.p.a. itself concedes in the rule that, and i quote, we do not expect that the combined emissions would result in substantial cumulative health and environmental effects. instead, the real health impacts due to this rule will be felt by the workers who lose their jobs, their health benefits and even the education
and training opportunities offered by their employer. the brick industry primarily consists of small family-owned businesses. they are often located in small communities that depend on the plant for good-paying jobs. to comply with the e.p.a.'s requirement, these small businesses will be forced to borrow millions of dollars to pay for the required control technology. many brick companies are already struggling to find the capital for plant modernization. i can't imagine how difficult it will be for these companies to secure the needed investments to pay for new control equipment, equipment that provides zero return on investment. and let's not forget that the brick industry has already been through this before. the e.p.a. finalized a similar rule in 2003 that required brick companies to spend millions of dollars on control equipment. a few years later, a federal court vacated that rule. unfortunately, the brick industry couldn't roll back the
clock and recover the investments they had made. and worse yet, the e.p.a.'s new emission rules used the reductions achieved by the vacated rule as the baseline for further reduction requirements. so the industry essentially got no credit for the hard work that they had already done. this history further underscores why this legislation is so important. it also baffles me when i hear some of my colleagues say the brick act is not needed because parties can already seek a judicial stay. however, the e.p.a. has effectively indicated in a statement for the record, submitted to the energy and commerce committee, that they would oppose any requests to stay the rule. further, while the e.p.a.'s clean power plan was recently stayed, the parties were only able to obtain relief by going to the u.s. supreme court. here the e.p.a.'s rule threatens the very existence of small brick and tile companies. these companies do not have unlimited resources to litigate
against the federal government, and their jobs should not be put at risk due to a rule which has been vacated once already and has yet to be reviewed by the courts. mr. speaker, the brick industry is part of our american culture. it has helped build some of the most iconic buildings, cities and towns in our existence in our country today. we must make certain our regulations and laws preserve this industry, not destroy it. the brick act will do that. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i reserve my time if you have some additional speakers. mr. rush: i have no additional speakers right now, mr. speaker. i reserve my time. mr. whitfield: then, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. for two minutes. mr. chabot: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i
want to rise in favor of this very important, i think, legislation, sponsored by my colleague from ohio, mr. johnson. i want to thank him for his leadership on this bill because it's a very pro-growth jobs bill, and i think it's very important we pass this. i happen to be the chairman of the house small business committee, and our nation's brick industry is primarily made up of small family-owned businesses that employ thousands of workers. in ohio alone, brick companies directly employ more than 700 workers and ensure the livelihoods of thousands of other workers. brick is used to construct, as we all know, residential homes and has been used to build some of our country's most iconic landmarks, such as independence hall, the birthplace of in great nation. with the severe downturn in construction during the great recession, the brick industry suffered significantly and still has not fully recovered.
the industry is operating about 50% of its capacity and suffered a 45% job loss from 2005 to 2012. now, small brick manufacturers are facing a costly new e.p.a. regulation that may make it impossible for them to keep their doors opened and that means those jobs would go away. complying will require many companies to remove and replace costly air pollution equipment with new devices and may not be able to meet the new stringent emissions standards. it's estimated to cost $4.4 million to retrofit two kilns. the average number of kilns in a facility with a new pollution control equipment. while the regulation is being challenged in federal court, it just makes common sense to delay the compliance deadlines until those matters are resolved. as speaker of the committee on -- excuse me. as chairman of the committee on small business, i urge my colleagues to stand up for
small brick manufacturers and support this bill. this is a jobs bill and, again, i want to thank the gentleman from ohio, mr. johnson, for having leadership and moving this bill forward. thank you. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois has 21 1/2 minutes much the gentleman from kentucky has 22 1/2 minutes. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, the ranking member on the energy and commerce committee, mr. pallone, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. pallone: thank you. i rise in opposition to the brick act. i agree with my colleagues that the brick, clay, and tile industries are in a tough position.
the bush administration issued final brick and clay emission standards, or brick and clay mact standards in 2003. three years after they were supposed to be completed. unfortunately, the rule was flawed and when challenged the court vacated those standards as unlawful. as a result, the e.p.a. administrator was ordered to redo the brick and clay rule. i'm sympathetic to the fact that the brick, clay, and tile industries have been facing some real challenges since 2007 when the housing market began to decline. but some proponents of this bill will have you believe that all of the challenges are a result of the improvements the industry must make to meet the 2015 brick and clay mact rule. what they refuse to acknowledge are the real health benefits that will come with the reduction of several major air pollutants. i understand the industries stakeholders reluctance to make pollution control technology to comply with the rule given their previous experience with the 2003 rule, but the clean air act provides a number of remedies that are available to
them. the courts are the proper venue for resolving issues with the brick and delay mact. -- clay mact. today industries have fall lawsuits but none of the parties have asked the court to stay the rules. the industry can also ask the e.p.a. to reconsider the rule, which i understand has already happened. earlier this week industry groups asked the d.c. circuit court to postpone consideration of the their pending lawsuits until e.p.a. makes a decision on whether to reconsider the rule. neither of those remedies require action by congress, but a legislative quick fix is the only remedy the proponents of this bill appear to care about. h.r. 4557 does not resolve the ongoing issues with this rule. in fact, it's far more likely to create a drawn out rule making process fueled by an endless stream of court challenges. that wouldn't resolve any of the industry's problems with he brick and clay mact rule. so the bill sets also in my opinion a terrible precedent by
delaying all the rule's compliance requirements until all legal actions are complete. if this remedy sounds familiar, that's because it is. the majority included a similar provision in the bill we considered earlier in the congress, h.r. 2042, the ratepayer protection act, i opposed that bill and i oppose this one for the same reasons. if we had included a litigation delay policy in the clean air act, we would never have achieved the improvements in air quality in public health we enjoy. the act provides ample opportunities for industry and the public to influence the development and implementation of regulations. these tools should be used in this case. finally, do i not support legislation to resolve the issues being raised by the bill's supporters. these issues can and should be resolved by the courts. i urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to get around the courts. i ask that they vote no on h.r. 44 -- 4557. i yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is
recognized. mr. whitfield: i would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished lady from alabama, one of the original co-sponsors of this legislation, miss sule -- ms. sewell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for two minutes. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, today i rise to voice my support for h.r. 4557, the brick act. i want to tell a story about a small company in my hometown of selma, alabama. henry brick company has been a family-owned business since 1945, providing jobs and economic support to the black belt of alabama. in 2003, the e.p.a. passed a rule requiring henry brick company, along with all other brick and structural clay manufacturers, to reduce their air pollutants emissions. in order to meet these new regulations by 2006, henry brick company of selma, alabama, spent $1.5 million to come into compliance with the rule. this was a major financial
burden for this small company. but henry brick company is a good corporate citizen and understands the importance of protecting our environment. however, one year after they spent $is.5 million, the court vacated the e.p.a.'s 2003 regulation. so the e.p.a. went back to the drawing board to create a new rule. but the e.p.a. did not give these brick companies credit for emission reductions achieved under the previous rule. on the contrary, in their new rule the e.p.a. actually used the emission reductions achieved under the vacated rule as a base line for further reduction requirements. now henry brick company face as new brick and clay manufacturing rule with even stricter emissions requirements. and must come into compliance by december, 2018. this time the small company may have to spend up to $8 million to comply with the new emission standards, leaving henry brick
company one step closer to being forced to close their doors. i am supportive, mr. speaker, of reducing emissions, and i'm also in favor of protecting our environment. but this must be done in an economically viable way. it is simply unfair for regulators to continue to move the goal posts on small brick manufacturers like henry brick company. that is why i am supporting this legislation. i ask the gentleman for one more minute, please. mr. whitfield: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: thank you. that is why i support this legislation to delay the enforcement of the new e.p.a. rule until all of the legal challenges have been concluded. this is necessary and commonsense bill, and i ask my colleagues to vote yes on final passage. i want to thank representative johnson of ohio. i want to thank all of those working hard to make sure that small brick companies like henry brick company of selma, alabama, do not have to close its doors. thank you, mr. speaker.
i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i would like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 4557, the brick act. once again american businesses find themselves facing millions of dollars in compliance costs due to burdensome e.p.a. regulations. it's estimated that the e.p.a.'s brict act rule may cost the brick and ceramics industry up to $100 million per year with the cost of compliance for the average facility at approximately $4.4 million. in addition, the industry will not be able to meet the requirement deadlines imposed by the rule, which is currently being challenged in federal court.
the e.p.a.'s first attempt at a brick act rule was judicially vacated but not before the industry spent millions in compliance measures that were ultimately found to be invalid. small brick and ceramics businesses have been the hardest bit hit by the rule and if this situation repeats itself, many of these businesses will be forced to close their doors for good. h.r. 4557 would provide much needed regulatory relief to brick and ceramic businesses by stating no additional compliance measures shall be mandated by e.p.a. until judicial review of the rule is completed. i encourage my colleagues to support this bill which will protect a vital industry and thousands of jobs from potentially devastating regulatory uncertainty. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman
from mississippi, mr. kelly, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for yielding. today i rise in support of the blocking regulatory interference from closing kilns act, the brick act. rules handed down by the e.p.a. have real world consequences on businesses and our economy. you have heard the back story today regarding the 2015 brick mact standards and the impact it will have on the brick manufacturing industry. in my district, columbus brick company, a fifth generation family-owned small business, will be forced to spend millions of dollars in compliance costs and significantly downsize or go out of business or either tell 85 dedicated employees to find a new job. what is even more disappointing is that columbus brick has been forced to navigate this decision before. the e.p.a. promulgated brick mact standards in 2003, and then the rule was vacated by the federal court in 2007, but
not after -- but not until a significant monitorry investment had been made by columbus brick in attempt to be in compliance. that is why it is imperative that we pass the brick act today. companies like columbus brick aren't asking for zero regulation, but they are asking to be regulated fairly. to have a seat at the table in determining new roles and some certainty when it comes to making future business decisions. the american people deserve better. they deserve a government that can assure citizens have clean air to breathe without eliminating essential industries. that is why i urge you to support the brick act. let's wait until judicial review is complete so our businesses aren't forced to make unnecessary costly decisions with minimal or unknown environmental benefits. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i don't
know why we are even here that is an issue important issue, but it's not a prevailing issue. this is an issue that concerns one industry, and it's of under that is already consideration by the courts and by the administration. in fact, mr. speaker, it is a problem that is more appropriately addressed by ose branches of government than by this congress. there are many other issues that this congress has before it, and it is our job to
address. yet, mr. speaker, we are not time on those things that are closely tied to the economic benefits and the jobs for all americans. our water infrastructure, mr. dire need of . pair and maintenance e spend little to no time on our water infrastructure and the problems associated with t. we have super fund sites, brownfield sites that need to be cleaned up and put to productive use.
time, no energy, no congressional resources used to ddress these vital issues. our states need support for modernizing and hardening the energy grid. we are awol on these issues. here are still, mr. speaker, many americans who are underemployed, who are unemployed, and many other americans who are underpaid for the work that they are doing. where is the time allocation, the resource allocation? where is our efforts on behalf
of these people? all of these things, mr. speaker, particularly and especially the infrastructure issues, must be addressed by the congress. there is no other place that can address these issues as appropriately, as effectively, as efficiently except this congress. nd they -- these issues, these infrastructure issues affect , ry industry, every state every american in our nation. so, mr. speaker, let us use this body's time and efforts on
the critical issues that are of great importance to the american people. mr. speaker, our time can be better served if we would just address some of the prevailing issues of the day. i thank you, mr. speaker. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is ecognized. >> mr. speaker, i will conclude for our side. i was listening to debate on the bill -- mr. whitfield: i might say to the 7,000 people employeed in this industry, to the owners of the companies, this is very important.
because some of them may very well lose their business, may very well lose their jobs. so we have two goals with this legislation. one is simply to say this regulation coming out of e.p.a. needs to be considered by the courts before these companies are required to invest significant sums of money. in fact the industry itself has said that the average plant has two kilns and a plant with two kilns would have to spend roughly $4 million to meet the requirement -- the requirements of this regulation. now remember, in 2003, e.p.a. came out with a regulation and -- for this industry. and by 2006 the industry had to comply. and they did comply. and they reduced emissions of he regulated substance by 96%.
and we see a pattern developing at e.p.a. they know full well that this president would veto any legislation that changes in any way anything coming out of e.p.a. so the only avenue left to the regulated parties is to file a lawsuit. so just as the brick industry filed a lawsuit in 2003, on that extreme regulation, they had to comply by 2006, and then the court in 2007, after they had already complied, ruled that the regulation was illegal. but the money had already been spent. and now the money has already been spent, 96% reduction has occurred, and now the e.p.a. is coming back with a new regulation. so these people involved, they have no avenue, i mean, they are
talking to e.p.a., pleading with e.p.a., and e.p.a., as usual, is not response i. so all this legislation does say, we're not trying to reverse the regulation, change the regulation. we're simply saying, let the court decide. and guess what? a pattern is also developing over at e.p.a. because they're losing these court cases. now, on the clean energy plan, which was one of the most extreme regulations ever to come from e.p.a., three days before judge scalia died, or three -- he supreme court issued a stay on the clean energy plan saying that you cannot implement this plan until the judicial remedies have been exhausted. and then even under utility mact, that also went to the supreme court and the court said, well, you didn't consider
certain costs. we're remanding this. but most of the industries have already spent the money, met the requirements, and some of them have closed as well. so the question becomes, are we going to let an e.p.a. adopting extreme rules under this administration make all the decisions? or will the congress of the united states try to stand up and pass some legislation, not reversing, not changing, but simply saying, since lawsuits have been filed, let's give the court the opportunity to determine if the regulation is legal or not legal. so that's all we're doing here and i want to thank those who introduced this legislation, both the democrats and republicans, and i would urge our colleagues to pass this legislation, to simply provide some commonsense balance and let
the courts make a decision before we require the companies to spend all this money and many cases, lay off employees, and in some cases even close the business. so i would urge the passage of 4557 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 635, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for brick or structural play products or brick manufacturing before requiring compliance with such rule. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.
>> mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a five-minute vote on agreing to the speaker's approval of the journal if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238. the nays are 163. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor will vote aye, those opposed, no. mr. whitfield: i ask for a recorded voment -- vote. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have it. recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.
this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
vote, the yeas are 217, the nays are 154. and one answering present. the journal stands approved. the chair lays before the house n enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 1596, an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 2082 spring town road in grove city, ohio, as the specialist joseph riley post office building. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition?
>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 4:00 p.m. on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the president has a history of legislating through government agencies and his flavor of the week continues to be the e.p.a. using faceless e.p.a. bureaucrats, this administration issues new rules and regulations daily, passing them out like candy. not only are they costly and time consuming, these rules
affect the heart of america's prser -- prosperity and economic growth, our small businesses. i rise today in support of legislation that works to block the overreaching hand of this administration and protect americans and american businesses from more burdensome regulations. the brick act delays a harmful e.p.a. rule from being implemented until all judicial review has been completed. to me, this legislation is plain common sense. congress needs to stand up to this administration that continues to legislate outside its jurisdiction and increasingly the courts confirm my claims. this legislative process begins an ends with congress and i commend my colleagues today for passing the brick act to prove we will stand up to washington agencies that overstep their boundaries. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. i ran for congress on the idea of no budget new york pay. if congress can't do its job and pass a budget they don't deserve a paycheck. no hardworking american gets paid for not doing the job, so why should we? a few months ago, we passed a bipartisan, two-year budget agroment that moves us away from the harmful sequester and now many of my colleagues are threatening to go backen that agreement and keep us from having a budget at all. that's what gridlock looks like and that's what people hate about congress. what are we going to do to fix it coming to work 10 days in the entire month of march. maybe if we came to work we could debate and pass a budget and spending bills to spur economic growth and create high quality jobs. instead, we have two month this is year that we don't come in to work at all. a five-day work week is expected from most americans, why should congress be any different. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to celebrate march as women's history month. as this is also red cross month, i want to recognize one woman in particular, clara barton. she was a nurse in the civil war and a teefer -- teacher before founding the red red cross in 1851. she served as the organization's first president. her compassion and accomplishments are truly inspiring and her work has literally helped millions. unfortunately , in our society today, women make up less than 5% of c.e.o.'s and are equally underrepresented in other areas. as a father of two daughters, ensuring that young women can achieve anything they set their mind to is personal for me. in the 10th congressional district we run a young women's leadership academy. this is designed to help young women develop the leadership skills necessary to overcome any and all challenges thrown their way. this unique program gives young
women the opportunity to learn from other inspiring female leaders such as our own colleague, congresswoman stefa nick, the youngestwoman elected to the united states congress. i encourage my colleagues to start similar programs in their district so we can do our part to help young women become leaders in their chosen fields. this is just a small part of the solution. we must rededicate ourselves to do more to tear down barriers and ensure gender equality in our country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rides today to honor the services of captain edward chao jr., a decorated army veteran awarded the bronze star for his selfless service in the vietnam war.
ms. duckworth: his service to our nation didn't end after the war. he's continued to serving his fellow americans, dedicating his life to supporting fellow vets. his i'll lust res you career culminated in leading maryland's veterans affairs. as ed's friend i witness his dedication an passion for helping the men and women who defended our country. ed never hesitated to help whenever i called him on behalf of a veteran needing assistance. i, like so many others, thank ed for his admirable career of military and public service and want him to know his legacy will endure. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the 5th anniversary of an iconic american candy
first made in the great state of new jersey. on march 3, 1941, in newark, new jersey, mars began producing m&m's as military rations for those serving in world war ii. over 75 years since then, since their founding m&m has grown to be an internationally recognized brand and a symbol of american innovation and quality. to this day, mars continues to produce m&m's in my district. mr. garrett spst -- mr. garrett: it's also home to mars headquarters. mars has remained active in new jersey's communities e-- communities over the years and i i plaud their failen thereoner endoerrs. no doubt new jersey is a sweeter place because of m&ms. on behalf of the fifth district of new jersey i'm pleased for the opportunity to recognize the extraordinary anniversary of m&m's. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, america and the world lost an indefatigable champion a distinguished gentleman and charismatic friend with the death of james kinsey this past tuesday. he was larger than life. everything he touched has become part of the history and culture of our community. from gold feathers to a.o.l. to the orphanages in vietnam from the kennedy center to the international commission on missing person, jim kinsey has been a transformational leader. despite his too short life, his resume is long an deep. founder a.c.e.o. of a.o.l. mr. beyer: library of congress trust fund board. executive committee of the national symphony orchestra. an army tour in the dominican
republic and two in vietnam. the army ranger hall of fame and so much more. but for jim's myriad friends he was so much more than a list of achievements. he was visionary, strategic, generous, mischievous and always had a smile on his face. who else could be tossed out of high school two movants before graduation, graduate from our archrival and still be a jep rouse and loyal gonzaga friend for decades? his funeral will be this saturday at the cathedral of st. matthews in washington. we'll miss you for a long time. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence request for ms. roybal-allard of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker' announced spoil on -- speaker's announced
policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. i yield mr. speaker back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to recognize my friend, mr. rothfus, for such time as he may consume. mr. rothfus: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this week the house select investigative panel on infant lives began hearings to
look into planned parenthood's harvesting and trafficking of human body parts which was revealed in a series of undercover videos last year. these videos were even democrat presidential frontrunner hillary clinton, in her words, quote, obviously found disturbing, close quote. since the release they have videos last year, some have rushed to defend the organization and planned parenthood and its allies have been in full damage control mode. among the more bizarre defenses has been that the videos were heavily edited, as if the statements made by planned parenthood officials and the worker who harvested body parts aren't what they appear to be. i do not serve on the select committee but if i did, i would want to take a hard look at that. the term heavily edited suggests important qualifying context may have been omitted in these
videos but i struggle to understand any context that would soften the language in these tapes. for example , in what for example, in what context is this ok, quote, we've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so i'm not going to crush that part, closed quote. what about, quote, a lot of people want in tact hearts these days, closed quote, or, quote, always as many in tact livers as possible, closed quote? do the defenders of planned parenthood think they're talking about chicken hearts or livers at a butcher shop? as opposed to baby body parts? just in what context does this sound right? quote, yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs, closed quote. how about, quote, some people want lower extremities, that
would be legs, i don't know what they're going to do with it, i guess they want the muscle, closed quote? again, mr. speaker, what is the situation where these statements would not shock a sensitive conscience? and what about this line, when is this an acceptable statement? quote, using a less crunchy technique to get more whole specimens. in that phrase, the context, you have a planned parenthood official talking about a, quote, less crunchy, closed quote, type of abortion, which begs the obvious question, what does that even mean? can anyone who defends planned parenthood give me the context where this sounds good? quote, i know i've seen livers, i've seen stomachs and plenty of neuro tissue. usually you can see the whole brain, usually come -- brain usually come out, closed quote. what about, quote, i don't think
it would be as war-torn, closed quote, when discussing what fetal remains look like after a second trimefter abortion? -- trimester abortion? what would that sentence sound like in an unedited video? at one point in a video, a clinic worker brings in another fetal body saying, quote, and another boy, closed quote. a boy. in another context, you might hear, and another boy if a mom is giving birth to twin sons. but that's obviously not the context in these videos. finally, mr. speaker, can someone please tell me the context where this dialogue does not mean what it says, quote, this is a really good fetus and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. we're going to procure brain, closed quote. and further, quote, so she combave me the scissors and she
-- gave me the scissors and she told me i have to cut down the middle of the face ainled can't even describe what that feels like. and i remember picking it up and finishing going through the rest of the face and just picking up the brain and putting it in a container and i'm just sitting there like, what did i just do? closed quote. what is the context where these words might not be what they seem? i can think of one perhaps. if you had a screen writer talking about a new horror film she was writing. but this is no horror film, mr. speaker. these words are direct quotes from a technician engaged in a real world practice that is appalling, barbaric and indefensible. the harvesting of fetal body parts for money. it is not easy to come to the floor of this house to speak these words. i would prefer not to. it is uncomfortable to listen to these words. and many people would prefer not
to hear them. if that's the case, mr. speaker, if i don't like talking about this, and people don't like hearing about it, why are we allowing hardworking taxpayer dollars to go to the organization responsible for them? we are a better nation than what is revealed in these videos. there are 13,000 other health clinics capable of providing health care for women. clinics which do not perform abortions. it is past time that the $500 million in federal dollars that planned parenthood receives every year be redirected to those clinics. i thank the gentleman from texas nd i yield back. mr. gohmert: i want to thank mr. rothfus, my friend from pennsylvania.
exactly right. we have so many people across this nation who understand the tragedy that is taking a child's ife before the fully born. and i know there are some people, like our friend, donald trump, that says planned parenthood, they've done a lot more good. but the trouble is, so often planned parenthood takes money from the federal government and then just refers the women out. of course, that's been perpetuated by this dministration, making it sound like planned parenthood does mammograms and other things that they don't do. they refer people to other people. why not have that money not get held up at planned parenthood,
why not have that money go directly to the thousands of health care providers that actually provide the care that the women are seeking and not have them go by planned parenthood so they can get money from the government and then keep their abortion business going? that also leads right into this article today from national review, regarding obamacare. headline, deductibles increased in 41 states under obamacare. says, freedom partners unveils a new deductibles tracker showing how much deductibles have increased on average in each state. i know this will shock you but most people are fining their deductibles are going up --
finding their deductibles are going up and in some wayses -- cases way up. their analysis shows deductibles have increased in 41 states under obamacare. and in some states like mississippi, by over $1,000. 17 states representing over half of total exchange enrollment are seeing double-digit spikes. the largest increases were in mississippi, went up 39%, washington state, went up 31%, south carolina went up 26%, louisiana went up 24%, florida, 23%. minnesota and vermont, 22%. arizona, 21%. north carolina, 20%. mr. speaker, what makes it so incredibly difficult is knowing there are federal dollars that are being used for abortion and areg used for purposes that against the religious beliefs of
so many americans. and when we think that the whole object we were told for having obamacare and passing it against the will of the majority of the american people was so that we could make sure everybody had insurance, and now it appears that there's not been much change in the net number of people covered under insurance. oh, yeah, it's true, there's some people that were paying for their insurance who no longer have it, they can't afford it any more. and it is true that we have some people that were not paying for it, that are having it provided now. but it really appears to have een more a transfer of working people's money to people that were not working. i mean, it appears that we've been moving into a socialist
agenda for some time. and that goes back to what president obama said when he first ran. telling joe the plumber that he wanted to be about spreading the wealth around. and the pilgrims found out that at least in this world, if you try to share and share alike, the early new testament church tried, it didn't work, if you start allowing people who are not working to have the same benefits as those who work, will you have more and more people not working. and i hear from so many of my constituents, i know i hear from other of my friends here in congress, that constituents are hurting. their insurance is costing more. and like this article points out, the deductibles have gone higher.
ask one of my staff. not making very much. you make $30,000 and you have to pay -- you have a deductible of $6,000 as a young person, healthy young person, what that basically means is that every dime you're paying into health care is not going to help your health care whatsoever. you're paying for the new i.r.s. agents, the new navigators, the new government union workers who put a band-aid on anybody's cut, they'll just keep adding forms, adding requirements, taking more time away from the true health care providers, more money away from the true health care providers, for bureaucrats. and i know back when i was an exchange student in the soviet ion, and i went and toured
some of the most up-to-date facilities in what was the oviet union at the time, i thank god that i lived in america. i thank god that we had such incredible health care and that i didn't have to rely on what appeared to be 30, 40-year-old antiquated -- heament care methods and equipment -- health care methods and equipment for my health care. even living in a small town, mount pleasant, as i did, i knew we had a lot better health care facilities in my hometown, where i was growing up, than they did in one of the largest cities -- well, the largest city in ukraine, i can ev, where i toured -- kiev, where i toured facilities. toured a medical school. i couldn't believe how far behind our medical schools they
were. it's what happens when you continue moving toward socialized health care. and know mr. trump initially wanted the government to provide everybody's health care. but apparently being informed that conservatives don't like that, he's now saying, no, that's not where he's going. but we know that president obama , back before he was president caught on video saying, we want to go to single payer, in other words, socialized medicine, where the government is in charge of everybody's health care. and know i've got conservative friends that say, we don't have to worry, we don't have to fight obamacare, because socialized medicine always fails. and they're wrong. socialism always fails, as margaret thatcher said, eventually you run out of other people's money. you incentivize not working and penalize working.
and that's what we're doing here in america now. we're moving that direction, towards socialism. and the only time true capitalism, true, free liberty in the marketplace, entrepreneurism, the only time it fails is when it starts moving into socialist tendencies and adopting socialist ways, then that can spell doom for apitalism. and those who want to have a dictatorial federal, national government, that's where they want to see things go. but it's ironic that when a free market society struggles, it's when they start incorporating socialist tendencies and rewarding improper conduct or nonworking. then you have a lot more people not working. you incentivize people not to
hire, you penalize people for hiring, you penalize people for hiring more than 50 people, like obamacare does, i've talked to people that are still, they are -- they could hire more, but they're not going to because of obamacare. that means there are people walking around today looking for a job that will not find that business that will hire them ecause of obamacare. when you have young people with $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 deductible health insurance, they're paying for the bureaucracy. they're not paying for health care, they apparently fund some abortion, some religious beliefs , dictate against birth control. mine doesn't. my christian beliefs.
but i absolutely respect the religious beliefs of those who are against. they should not have to pay for people to violate their religious beliefs. . that used to be the way this country grew and was blassed by god. -- was blessed by god. but as we turn further and further away from what was a blessing to america, then the world hurts. seeing it in africa, middle east, asia. south america. when we are not strong, as i've said numerous times, quoting south african gentlemen, when you get weak, we suffer. please tell people in washington, quit getting weaker. we suffer when you're weaker.
these kind of programs, obamacare, make us weaker. provide the resources, the ability for the largest supporter of terrorism in the world to have over $100 billion, which they say is definitely, some of it is for sure going to be spent on more terrorism, that's the kind of activity that will not be blessed. that is the kind of activity that brings to a nation's demise. so health care is costing more, deductibles are going up, people are paying more for higher deductibles, less coverage, and yes, there are some who, because of the government subsidies, they're saying, well, mine is a little less than it was before. but the people that are working
are paying more and it's devastating. so mr. speaker, it's critical that those of us who have a voice in this city make our voices heard for those in our districts. and you can't be listening to the talking heads in this town and think you've heard from america. i mean, look at politico, last week they said i had a close race. tuesday, with one opponent spending tremendously more than was , two opponents, one 82%. that's what politico calls a close race. mr. speaker, i know that i didn't win with 2% because of my looks, certainly not because
of the way i sound, it's because i make my voice heard for the huge majority of people in east texas. with all the common sense they've got. and that's what i'm hearing from them. they're outraged that we've allowed obamacare to last as as long as long as it has. they are suffering. they're outraged that this administration has turned on our friend israel. and seing that iran is rewarded for the massive misconduct and as they've continued to be the largest supporter of terrorism in the world, with this administration as an accomplish accomplice, as an enabler. there are consequences to that and governments enable crime and misconduct and
terrorism and abuse. for those who believe in the bible, it was in hosea, god was explaining why he was about to come down on the children of israel and i love the rather loose translation, when he saysing it's because they have selected leaders who were not my choice. so people around the country can say all they want, well, this president is not my president. this governor is not my governor. this person is not my elected representative. i don't agree with them. but everyone in the country will suffer the consequences of poor choices as leaders. that's the way self-government works. now, i've been reporting, mr. speaker, from this very podium and ars about the misuse abuse and providing our security
by homeland security. and i am very grate to feel judicial watch, their lawsuit against homeland security, they've been able to obtain records that verify what some of us have known to be true because of whistleblowers providing us information while some, whether cnn and other places, belittle what we've said. we knew what we were talking about though we couldn't give the sources. judicial watch. this headline says homeland security records reveal officials ordered terrorist watch list scrubbed. it says, judicial watch announced today that it obtained 183 pages of documents from the department of homeland security revealing that the obama administration scrubbed the law enforcement agency's, quote,
terror screening database, unquote, in order to protect what it considered the civil rights of suspected islamic terrorist groups. the documents appear to confirm charges that obama administration changes created a massive hands off list, removed data from the terrorist watch list that could have helped prevent the san bernardino terrorist attack. mr. speaker, i would also submit that we have seen the email, senator grassley requested more information about it and to my knowledge we have not seen additional explanation or information about the email in ,hich a person's terrorist ties indication that he was a radical islamist, and the email response was, oh, this guy's on the
secretary of homeland security's hands off list. we have read stories about the white house allowing at least one or more individuals with terrorist ties to come to the white house. there are consequences for ignoring the law, ignoring the lawbreakers, and not protecting our homeland. but the article says these new documents were produced in response to a judicial watch february 2015 freedom of information act lawsuit filed back february 13 of 2015. it should be noted, i mean, that's over a year ago but it -- freedom of information act should have been answered promptly but this administration is too caught up in trying to cover up their own tracks.
that's why we haven't even gotten the attorney general to provide members of congress the documents showing support for terrorism the boxes of documents that were provided to people who were convicted of supporting terrorism. the justice department provided it to them. i've asked repeatedly and the most i've gotten is reference to a few websites. they covered up their own wrongdoing, they've wovered -- covered up ties to terrorism. they've covered up for people who have supported terrorism. and there are consequences for that. you learn more when you leave this town, washington, d.c., but when you have people in africa nd egypt and jordan, u.a.e., india, afghanistan, telling you that your administration in violence supporting
not standing up against radical islam, and when you hear that from muslim leaders who recognize the failures of this administration, then you know, the whole world is seeing what's going on, and it's only here that people have become so blind. i know there are people in the establishment, the republican establishment, that just cannot believe that a man like trump who spent his whole life taking one position, could be leading so big in different contests. and yes, my friend ted cruz is doing quite well, it's nice to see somebody that's been consistent doing well. but around the world, they see what's going on. and the republican establishment doesn't seem to understand.
people are furious. they're furious about obamacare. they're furious that we turned on our friend israel. they're furious that we have enabled iran to continue their terrorist ways. and then all of this at the same time, of course this was donald trump's big issue that shot him to the top, border security. this article from today says, this is from krwg news, border crime taking a toll on residents in southwest new mexico and arizona. it said new mexico and parts of southern arizona say human smuggling and drug trafficking is taking its toll on the region. the dimming headlight reports that residents are scheduled thurs to express their current concerns to federal officials during a meeting at the community center in animus, new
mexico. judy keeler, a longtime resident, said her home was recrenly burglarized and it's not an unusual episode for other residents. residents have said state highway 80 has become a favorite for mexican cartel drug runners manage to navigate out of the mountains along the arizona-new mexico border. they want an even more increased present from the -- presence from the u.s. border patrol and aparaphernalialy they're not going to get it. we still hear people say there's no way to secure our entire border, but this brings back recollection in history, one of my least favorite presidents, woodrow wilson he, secured the ordering after panco villa had some of his thugs come across the border and kill american families. americans back then with good sense said, we can't have that. they spurred the president on
until he sent tens of thousands of what we call national guard troops now, they secured the border. nobody came across our border that we did not want to come across. he did it back in the early 1900's and we can't do it now? well the truth is, mr. speaker, we could do it now, but you have to have an administration with the will to provide for the common defense for the american people. instead we have enabled massive amount of crime across the border regions that is spilling into other areas of the country, drugs are spreading around the country, we've heard also from the f.b.i. director himself, there are isis cells, there are isis investigations in every state in the union. so when are they going to be triggered? we know that when they are
triggered, with reports like we've just read here, that the administration has continued to cleanse our homeland security records to purge training material for the f.b.i. for intelligence, homeland security, they don't actually learn exactly what radical islam is. they don't actually learn the verses in the koran that are relied on by radical islamists. and when we do finally have a muslim leader like the president in egypt who stands in front of a room of muslim us i imams and demands they take back their religion from radical islamists, this administration chooses to try to punish him and not help him like this administration did and wanted to do more for the muslim brotherhood.
i'm tired of hearing from foreign muslim leaders their question, why is your country still helping the muslim brotherhood? don't they know, don't you know, the muslim brotherhood has been at war with you since 1979? and you keep helping them. that's the way you lose a country. you lose it, we got our choice -- fiscal irresponsibility, which is immoral. when one generation, instead of doing like all preceding generations in this country, which have always had as their our we want to make country better for our children than we had it, and now we've gone through a couple of generations who said, you know what, forget the future generations, we want future generations' money spent on us
now. you would never have seen bumperer stickers -- bumper stickers 50 years ago, 75 years ago, 100 years ago, even when cars were first invented, would you not have seen a bumper sticker like is not uncommon today, retired person say, we're spending our children's inheritance. you wouldn't see that. because they wanted to make a country better than they had it. mr. speaker, i know you personally and know you and i colleagues, we talked about it, we've talked about it today, heated conference. because we want a better country even than we've had. more opportunity, more freedoms, as we see freedoms slipping away. adam credo has a story here that the flow of illegal immigrant
children into the united states is expected to rise to record breaking numbers in 2016, as deportations decrease. according to leading members of the senate judiciary committee. at least 20,455 unaccompanied minors have been caught during fiscal year 2016, along the u.s.-mexico border, as of last month, according to committee chairman senator grassley, who warned that if this trend continues, the number of illegal minors could eclipse a massive 2014 surge that strained the resources of the department of homeland security and prompted investigations into the obama administration's handling of the issue. now, the -- one of the many problems is, you have people that are coming to america because there are more opportunities here. which begs the question, why are there more opportunities than in their home country? and when you analyze the
situation, what you find is, the reason they don't have businesses booming in their home country is because of corruption or a corrupt government or a dictatorship. because, as the old saying goes, capital is a coward. money to capitalize or invest always goes to where it feels safest. that's why it's capital is a coward. and it's not very safe in countries where the government is corrupt and the rule of law is not applied across the board, and the laws are not enforced across the board. one of the great ironies in the world right now is that people are leaving countries where there's violence, the rule of law is not enforced, coming to america where for most of our history we've done a better job than most any country ever in
enforcing the law across the board. and once here illegally, those same people are saying, now that we're here, we want you not to enforce the law across the board, we want you to ignore your law on immigration and law on becoming citizens, ignore it. which, if we do, will make us like the corrupt countries they ame from and make us a land of no opportunity. where people will have to go to some other country, where they enforce the law. and i've had even members of congress say, well, you know, if it all goes bad, we'll all pack up, head to australia. but i was talking to some people from australia this year, and i mentioned that to them, and they didn't laugh. they looked very somber. they said, you know, if something happens to the united
states, you're not going to be coming to australia because china will take us over like that. if the united states is not standing strong, they said, our country, australia, will be gone. china would grab us up in a heart beat. it's important that america stands strong. you can't stand strong when you're financially bankrupt. you can't stand strong when you're morally bankrupt. and we seem to have our choice of ways we can meet our demise. our military being degraded ,nder this administration, navy going back to its size back in, was it early 1900's', before rld war i, weakness is
provocative. i haven't heard n.i.h. anybody maybe -- i haven't heard anybody else notice, maybe there's no correlation, maybe there is, seems historically from my studdy of history that when a nation's enemy sees that nation's biggest friend pulling away and not being as good a friend, then that enemy is provoked to attack. but it was in may of 2010 when this administration sided with israel's enemies in demanding that israel disclose all their ing any stems, include potential nukes -- including any potential nukes. i was shocked by that. the united states had never sided with all israel's enemies like that before. i thought about the bible story of king hezekiah.
when the babylonian leaders had come to visit and shmoozed with him, and isiah asked him, what have you done with the babylonian leaders, and he bragged about, of course this is the texas paraphrased version, bragged about, iving taken them and shown -- i've taken them and shown them all of our treasure. the most literal transladies and gentlemen from the heebru -- translation from the hebrew said, and i showed them all the defenses we had in our arsenal, our armory, and isiah explained, you're going to lose the country. you don't show your enemy, you don't even show your friends all of your defenses. yet we were demanding that of israel. and it was within 48 hours israel's enemies launched a flow filla -- flotilla to go challenge the lawful blockade of the gaza strip. all israel was doing was trying to prevent more rockets from going in, because the rockets
were being launched at them every day. totally legal, trying to defend themselves against rocket attacks. and created a terrible situation at the blockade. but as america continues to fund , help fund iran's desire to support terrorism, and as this administration has turned its , ck on nations like nigeria ethiopia, kenya, and i hear from leaders in those countries where they say, you know, all we wanted was a little help against our enemy. i was in nigeria, having been there and met with so many of the parents of girls that were kidnapped by boko haram, radical islamists, and then to hear that our administration here says,
oh, yeah, we'll give you some help, you've got that to change your religious beliefs, you've got to change your -- you've got to change your religious beliefs, you've got to change your laws and then we'll give you more help. as the president in kenya basically said at a news conference, in effect, you take of your country, you're not going to come tell us what our religious beliefs and laws should be. and as a nigerian catholic bishop stated, our religious beliefs are not for sale, not to president obama, not to anybody. but there are consequences in world history when one nation tries to destroy the religious beliefs of another country that are closely, firmly held religious beliefs. there are consequences when a nation forgets to say, thank
you, god, for all of our blessings, thank you, god, for protecting us, thank you for allowing us to live in the greatest country, country in which there's more opportunity, more assets per person than anywhere in the world, the one country where the number one health problem for our nation's poor is obesity. it's a terrible problem that we need to deal with. but we're where in history do you have a country where the nation's poor have as their number one health problem obesity? this nation has been blessed beyond anything that people could have ever dreamed when this nation was founded. but the founders did see one thing, they saw the threat of giving more and more power to a ederal government.
i was fortunate to call justice scalia a friend. and the explanation he gave to seniors from my hometown of tyler, texas, they came up from my church, green acres baptist, they said, hey, you're supposed to be friends with justice scalia, we'd love to meet him, that's one thing we really want to do in washington, so i called over and justice scalia, bless his heart, he says, sure, come on over. so they arranged it. we had the meeting. he walks in. they're all seated there. the senior yors from my church -- the seniors from my church. justice scalia, he can be very talkative, i treasure meals with him, exchanging jokes and stories, made you feel good about the world. he walks in, leans up against the table in front, so, you wanted to meet me. what's your question? what questions you got? kind of took them by surprise.
one said, do you think we're the freest nation in history because of our bill of rights? his e scalia, in inevitable style said, oh, gosh no, no. he said the soviet union have a -- had a better bill of rights than we did. i made an a on a paper i did in college on the bill of rights and the constitution of the soviet union. yeah, they were promised all kinds of rights. but the government was given the power to erode all of the rights that were said to be protected. he said, no, the reason that we're the freest country in history is because our founders did not trust government. so they want to make it as hard as possible to pass laws. see, the founders thought that gridlock was a blessing. gridlock was a great thing because it meant that, as people
anticipated passing laws, it would be tough because many laws regulate what you can and can't do. and the more laws you pass, just as this administration has shown the american people, as it has set all-time records for the most pages of regulations, there are over 79,000 new pangs of regulations every year -- pages of regulations every year, how can maybe make a living with that kind of -- make a living with that kind of regulation coming out year after year, certainly for the last seven? incredible. the founders knew that. they wanted to make it hard for any governmental agency, any government bureaucracy to create laws that took away freedom. because they had some libertarian tendencies. justice scalia said, so, they wanted hard to pass laws, so what did they do? they create a legislature with
two houses. certainly that was part of the compromise. but in england, the house of lords is not particularly powerful. but they wanted both houses with the power to stop what the other one was doing. and they wanted it very difficult in one house to pass a law. i think they would cringe if they saw all the bills that are just passed with unanimous consent or on suspension, just more and more and more. because they wanted it tough to pass laws. , you guys say should be in session more often, i say, you don't know what you're asking for. because every day we're in session we pass some new bill. we pass some new law. too many of those laws take away freedoms of americans. founders knew that. that's why justice scalia said, so they created two houses so even if one house got a law through that house, the other one could stop it cold.
but that wasn't enough. to protect our freedom. they said -- and we want an executive, but not like a prime minister, because the prime minister's elected by the legislator, we don't want that. we want it tough, we want independence. so we're going to have a chief executive, a president, that's elected, totally separate from the legislature. we'll give him the power, even if the house and senate agree on something finally, we'll give him the power to say, no, not going to let it happen. but that's not enough. we want more gridlock so let's create a judicial branch, as they did in article 3, that can turn around and say, no, the house, the senate may have agreed, the president may have agreed, we don't agree, it's not consistent with the constitution. he said, justice scalia said,
that's why we're the freest nation in history, because our founders did not trust government. so mr. speaker, it concerns me when i see voters begin to think that our hope is going to arrive on air force one. one of my greatest thrills was becoming friends with chuck colson and as chuck colson said, our hope will not arrive on air force one. the old saying, the axiom is true, democracy ensures a people are governed no better than they deserve. you want a good president, you've got to be a good country. because an immoral country is not going to elect a great leader. they're going to elect an immoral leader. when you see christians who believe that the only way to the
saving grace of jesus is to ask for forgiveness and as the bible says, believe on the lord jesus christ and you'll be saved. so it's amazing to see even christian leaders saying, so we're going to put our faith in a guy that says he's never had to ask for forgiveness. but then that was modified later. well, i don't think god's concerned with trivial things like that. if i were god, i wouldn't be. but thank god i'm not god. he seems to care about every individual. if you believe the bible, that's what it says. and then if there's not enough ad news, here comes today from kpnx, attorney general report that there's possible smuggling trail between the middle east and the arizona border. gee, we talked about that before. long before the attorney general
indicated that there appeared to be a trail between the middle east and the arizona border. then, we have this story this week from steven denen from "the washington times." top border chief to agents who object to obama amnesty, quote, look for another job, unquote. yeah. there you are, mr. speaker. when the head of homeland security, when the het of the border agency, says we're not going to enforce the law as it exists, then one of two things. either that's what the country deserves because it has become immoral and lawless, or the country rises up and says we'll never have another administration like this as long as we're alive. we're going to make sure we have
an administration that enforces the law no matter who it is. but, apparently, since people govern no better than they deserve, we now find out that hillary's highly paid i.t. guru at state department had no actual national security experience. so apparently we elect an administration that ensured people were governed no better than they deserved and aparaphernalialy they felt like we didn't deserve a state department with national security experience. is it any wonder, i thank god that there haven't been more benghazis under this kind of attitude. one was too many. and then we see yesterday, justice department grants immunity to the staffer who set
up clinton email server. i've been a prosecutor, i've been a judge, i've been a chief justice, and i'm telling you, , en someone grants immunity they're closing in on a prosecution. that's the intent. you don't grant immunity to someone and someone doesn't normally seek immunity unless they're concerned that they may have violated the law. they seek imnune -- immunity because they're afraid they violated the law. immunity is granted when the prosecutor, the investigator , in this case, the f.b.i., feel that laws have been violate sod we're going to grant immunity to this person so we can get the person further up. but i still maintain that as does s as hillary clinton not condemn or expose the obama administration to any of the truth about what went on at
benghazi, about so many of these things, about the -- perhaps the hands off list of terrorists, homeland security, as long as she does not expose the obama ad mrgs, i really don't -- administration, i really don't see her being indicted. it's a good insurance policy. another article from "the new york times," as campaign unfolds, so does inquiries into hillary clinton's emails. but so many people don't care why? because people are governed no better than they deserve. if they're more concerned about themselves than their children, they're going to get what they deserve. then we have mitt romney come out today, just before we voted, condemning donald trump as phony and a fraud and i don't know, it
sounded to me like that might have been something, i mean, everybody knows that people are furious across this country with the establishment, so if that idea was donald trump's to get mitt romney to come out and condemn him it was a brilliant plan because that's like asking marv levy to tell you thousand win the super bowl after he lost four of them. in any event, mr. speaker, this country is in grave danger. nd there are so many people, all over 12 counties i represent is country has so many great citizens. they deserve better than what they're getting. and i hope and pray the majority in the country will wake up, see the dangers, financially, from our own national defense, from our own national security, from
our government intrusions into our private lives, from drugs that are coming in through mexico. through terrorists that are coming in to this country so that the f.b.i. director himself says we've got them in every state. we're in big trouble. and it's time the american people woke up and said as our parents did, we don't care what's happened before, we're going to make sure this country is left in better shape, with more opportunity, than we had growing up. and mr. speaker, we're going to have to hurry, the clock is ticking. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 161a of the trade act
of 1974, 19 united states code 2211, and thed orer of the house of january 6, 2015, of the following members on the part of the house as congressional advisors on trade policy and negotiations. the clerk: mr. brady of texas, mr. reichert of washington, mr. nunes of california. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. "post." -- those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the hous
crimes against humanity. we are. we are ready to say this. we need to elect nice these atrocities with clear eyes. we need to continue to pray for the persecuted. second, the obama administration is in the final stages of preparing its so-called fiduciary rule. this would raise costs and limit options for people seeking advice on retirement planning this could hurt millions of middle class savers.
we have already passed a bill in the house to delay this rule and we have passed bills in two committees laying out responsible alternatives. when this rule comes down, we will be ready to do what we can to protect the savings of hardworking americans and when we do, i hope that we will be joined by the dozens of democrats who have expressed concerns about these regulations. lastly this afternoon, i will be attending cpac to talk about ideas for getting people out of poverty and reclaiming the american ideal. this beautiful idea this notion that the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. this is one of the planks of our policy agenda we are working on right now. you can get all the details on the project at speaker.gov/confidentamerica. this is going to be our contribution to this campaign. the 2016. a bold agenda that unites conservatives and gives the country a clear choice. with that in mind, i'm going to
brief all our presidential candidates on our agenda project. the goal here is to have an election like we had in 1980 where we unite around bold ideas and earn a mandate from the country to get the country back on track. with that, i'd be happy to answer your questions. >> have you had any conversations with governor romney on the message he wants to send to the party about donald trump and have you and donald trump talked about an expectation you could get along well? mr. ryan: mitt romney is one of our party leaders, he cares deeply about the future of our party. he's going to be giving a speech soon, i don't know about the content of the speech. mitt and i are close friends, we talk about lots of things but i'm not sure exactly i -- exactly what he's going to say. he feels the need to speak out on behalf of his republican party. i would say it this way. we're in a primary process.
the nomination has not been sewn up by anybody. these things happen in a come pet ty primary. as speak ore eff -- as speaker of the house, what can i do about it? what can i control? i can talk about our agenda. that's what i'm worried about. as far as the presidential candidates, i'll reach out to each and every one of them to talk about our agenda because we want to work with whoever the nominee is when that time comes. >> what about the supreme court nomination. it appears this will be an issue going into the campaign. what do you say to those who disagree fundamentally, republicans have said we're not going to consider anyone the president brings up. most of them say that's regular order. mr. ryan: you know we don't have a say in this because we're the house. i'll say what i said before, the
president has ever right to put a nominee up, the senate has ever right not to consider a nominee. nd there's precedent here. i think it makes sense not acting on a nominee in a very contested, open presidential election. i think we should let the people decide. the whole thing is up for grabs. the whole thing meaning, supreme court, congress and the white house. let's give the people the choice in this upcoming election. > speaker ryan reporter: one of your relatives is reportedly being vetted for the supreme court nomination. you, at the time of her nomination to the federal court, you wrote a letter saying you support her. mr. ryan: i spoke at her hearing actually. i love her. she's family. but my point is the same. which is, i said we should not be acting on a nominee for the
very reason i just answered chad's question. regardless, my position is the same, as it always has been. that the senate has every right not to consider a nominee. i think the senate is right in making the decision that they've made. reporter: i know you say you want to keep your powder dry on this presidential election but you're seeing more and more republicans speaking out about donald trump, are you worried in any way that if you don't speak out against donald trump, that history may judge you, you could get blamed for not doing more at this point in history? mr. ryan: i don't worry about that. i see my role as speaker of the house as a unique role. chairman of the convention is a unique role. here's what i can control. if i see episodes where conservatism is being disfigured, if i see ideas and comments that mislead the people as to who we are as republicans, i'm going to speak out on those. i've done this twice already. i just did it the other day on tuesday. so i'm going to do that when i see conservatism being disfigured. i'm going to speak out for who
i am and what i believe and what we as house republicans believe and what conservatism is as we understand it. point number two, what can do i about this? well, i can help lead the house republicans to offer an agenda. i can help put substance in this campaign. the way we see our role in this campaign through our agenda project is to add a keel and rudder to this ship of the republican party and give it direction, so that we can take the american people a real choice. this is what i wish we could have done better in 2012. is give the country a very clear and compelling choice so that they get to decide which way we go as a nation. we think that people are stuck in poverty, we've got to do something about it. we think this economy is flat and stale and people aren't getting raises and they're not getting good opportunities. we think obamacare's bust. we think it's going to bankrupt the country and we need patient-centered health care. we think our military is under duress. we don't have a foreign policy to keep us safe. and we think the constitution's being ignored and we as elected
representatives of the people are not actually writing our laws. we think a fourth branch of government, unelected bureaucrats, are effectively writing the laws of america so that the founding principle of this country, governing by consent, being a self-determining people, is not at play here. we want to reclaim that. these are ideas. these are choices. and this is what we can do and this is what we can do to add value to this presidential campaign and this congressional election. reporter: what confidence do you have that trump would embrace this agenda? mr. ryan: we'll see when we have a nominee. reporter: on the same point, you always like to say that you're a policy guy. three of those policies that you're most associated with, trade, taxes and entitlement reform, trump takes pretty much the exact opposite position. he's anti-free trade, he wants to raise taxes and doesn't want to do anything on entitlement reform. what goodwill your agenda be if he's the nominee? mr. ryan: we're going to speak out for who we are and what we believe. we're going to run on our
beliefs and ideas. i'll leave it at that. reporter: regarding the budget, discussion about that this morning. do you have a timeline for deciding when you're going to go and no go? and the summary, the full funding of base defense, i wonder if that means a change in the allocation or an additional $2 million on top of it? mr. ryan: i'll refer you to the budget committee. tom price sworking with mac thornberry on that, our house chairman. we had a very good conversation in our conference this morning. it reminds me of the kind of conversations i led our conference through when i was running budgets. we are still on track and on schedule. remember, our deadline's not until april 15 for the budget resolution, so we still are a good month ahead of where we otherwise would be. i wanted to start this conversation early because we're losing a couple weeks in july. so i want to get the process up front so we can consider all of our appropriation bills. we're still on track for that. ultimate -- ultimately this is going to be a decision made by our team. the kind of speakership i'm going to have is not going to
be the top-down, jam things down people's throat kind of speakership. this is going to be a bottom-up, we make decisions joinltly as a team as the house republican conference. i fundamentally believe we need to pass a budget and that we need to have a full functions appropriations process. i laid that out to the members, why i think that. tom price has spent the last month listening to the members of our conference, working with the members of his committee, to put together a plan forward for how to get not only a good, conservative budget and vision, but an active appropriations process, but ultimately this is going to be up to the members of our conversation. reporter: in mid march? what's the type lime -- what's the timeline? mr. ryan: i'll leave that up to the budget committee. reporter: some conservatives are saying they don't support the plan that was laid out this morning. you said you're willing to put up bills on the floor that will go down. so can you commit that you're going to put a budget resolution on the floor regardless of whether there's support for it? mr. ryan: i'm going to let our team decide that again. i'm going to let the house republican team, our conference
members, decide how we proceed on this. that's just how i think the kind of leadership style we need to have around here. reporter: what did you think of trump announcing that if you don't get along with him you'd pay a big price? what does a comment like that suggest? mr. ryan: i watched it live. i was sitting in my office watching it live and i just laughed out loud, i think. sometimes reality's stranger than fiction around here these days. i don't think anything of it. reporter: what does it suggest to you about the kind of partner he'd be to work with? mr. ryan: i don't know him. we're obviously going to get to know each other if he gets the nomination. we'll cross that bridge when we get to. it i'm a good-natured guy so i get along with everybody. reporter: the f.a.a. funding, re-authorization running out -- mr. ryan: we'll have to do an extension. the senate isn't as far down the path on f.a.a. re-authorization as the house. is an extension will be put together. we're working with the senate to decide the duration of the extension. we don't have an answer on that one yet. reporter: we do know what mitt romney has said about donald
trump. he just gave a speech. he called him a phony and a fraud. when you hear that from somebody from mitt romney, whom you respect a lot, he was here on a special day when you were elected speaker of the house. mr. ryan: he's a good friend. reporter: does that make you want to, you know, use your bully pulpit more? do you have an obligation to use your bully pulpit more to speak out against donald trump? mr. ryan: what i can control is what we do here as house republicans. i'm the speaker of the whole house and the chairman of the convention. what i believe i can do to add value to this process, look, the republican primary's going to play itself out. these are the kind of things you're going to see in an increasingly competitive republican primary. what can do i as speaker of the house? i can help offer the country a choice. a vision. an agenda. that's what i'm focusing my time on. thank you very much. appreciate it. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
>> shortly we'll go live to remarks from republican presidential candidate donald trump. he's expected to offer reaction to comments made by former republican presidential candidate mitt romney this morning. mr. romney called donald trump a phony and a fraud. his propositions are as worthless as a degree from trump university. mr. trump will respond in a few moments. he was scheduled to start at 1:15 eastern. we understand he's running a little bit behind. we'll is it have it live for you here on c-span as soon as he starts along with your phone calls and comments. right now, though, mr. romney's speech from earlier today.
mr. romney: thank you, jason. thank you to the hickly institute. it's good -- hinckley institute. it's good to be with you today. thank you. [cheers and applause] i'm not here to announce my candidacy for office. and i'm not going to endorse a candidate today. instead, i'd like to offer my per spective on the nom -- perspective on the nominating process of my party. back in 1964, just days before the presidential election, which incidentally we lost, ronald reagan went on national television and challenged america saying that it was a time for choosing. he saw two paths for america. one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for
all. and the other, an oppressive government that would lead america down a darker, less free path. i'm no ronald reagan. and this is a different moment in time. but i believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing. one that will have profound consequences for the republican party, and more importantly, for our country. i say this in part because of my conviction that america is poised to lead the world for another century. our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, the ambition and skill of our people are going to propel our economy and raise the standard of living of americans. america will remain as it is today, the envy of the world. you may have seen warren buffett. he said, and i think he's 100% right, that the babies being born in america today are the
luckiest crop in history. that doesn't mean we don't have real problems and serious challenges. we do. at home poverty persists and wages are stagnant. the horrific massacres of paris and san bernardino, the nuclear ambitions of the iranian mullahs, the aggressions of putin, the growing assertiveness of china and the nuclear tests of north korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times. but if we make the right choices, america's future will be even better than our past and better than our present. n the other hand, if we make improve dent choices, the bright choice horizon i've described will not materialize. if
we republicans choose donald trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished. let me explain why i say that. first, on the economy.
if donald trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. a few examples. his proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee america. his tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements, and to honestly address spending, would balloon the deficit and the national debt. so even though donald trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for american workers and for american families. but you say, wait, wait, wait. isn't he a huge business success? doesn't he know what he's talking about? no, he isn't. and no, he doesn't.
cheers and applause] look, his bankruptcies have crushed small businesses. and the men and women who work for them. he inherited his business. he didn't create it. and whatever happened to trump airlines? how about trump university? and then there's trump magazine. and trump vodka. and trump steaks. and trump mortgage. a business genius he is not. now, not every policy that donald trump has floated is bad, of course. he wants to repeal and replace obamacare. he wants to bring jobs home from china and japan. but his prescriptions to do those things are flimsy at best. at the last debate, all he could remember about his health care plan was to remove insurance boundaries between
states. successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make america the place businesses want to come,
want to plant and want to grow. you can't punish business into doing what you want. frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with a broad range of national challenges we confront today come from ted cruz, marco rubio and john kasich. [cheers and applause] now, i know that some people want this race to be over. they look at history and say, a trend like mr. trump's isn't going to be stopped. perhaps. but the rules of political history have pretty much all by shredded during this campaign. if the other candidates can find some common ground, i believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. given the current delegate selection process, that means that i'd vote for marco rubio in florida and for john case in ohio and -- kasich in ohio
and for ted cruz or any one of the other two contenders has a better chance of beating mr. trump in any given state. let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. mr. trump's bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enemyity of our enemies. insulting all muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in their urgent fight against isis. and for what purpose? muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country. and then what he said about -- on "60 minutes," did you hear this? it was about syria and isis. had has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the entire campaign season. let isis take out assad, he said. and then we can pick up the remnants. now, think about that. let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over an entire country?
this wrecklessness is wrecklessness in the extreme. donald trump tells us that he's very, very smart. [laughter] i'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy, he is very, very not smart. cheers and applause] now, i'm far from the first to conclude that donald trump lacks the temperament to be president. after all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter. who attributed a reporter's questions to her men central cycle. who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance. who bragged about his marital affairs. and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity. donald trump says he admires vladimir putin, at the same time he's called george w. bush a liar. that is a twisted example of
evil trumping good. [applause] there's a dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the vietnam war. while at the same time john mccain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured. dishonesty is donald trump's hallmark. he claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into iraq. wrong. he spoke in favor of invading iraq. he said he saw thousands of muslims in new jersey celebrate -- celebrating 9:. wrong. he saw no such -- 9/11. wrong. he saw no such thing. he imagined it. he's not of the temperament of the kind of stable, thoughtful person we need as a leader. his imagination must not be married to real power.
the president of the united states has long been the leader of the free world. the president and, yes, even the nominees of the country's great parties helped define america to billions of people around the world. all of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and our grandchildren. think of donald trump's personal qualities. the bullying, the agreed, the showing off, themy sodgeny, the absurd third grade theatrics. you know, we've long referred to him as the donald. he's the only person in the entire country to whom we have added an article before his name. and it wasn't because he had attributes we admired. [laughter] imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. would you welcome that? haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the
basic responsibility of honorable conduct? we have. and it always injures our families and our country. watch, about the the way, how he re-- watch, by the way, how he responds to my speech today. cheers and applause] will he talk about our policy differences? or will he attack me with every imaginable low-road insult? this may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability and his suitability to be president. mr. trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. but polls are also saying that he will lose to hillary clinton. think about that. on hillary clinton's watch, the state department, when she was
guiding it and part of the obama administration, that state department watched as america's interests were diminished at every corner of the world. she compromised our national secrets. she dissembled to the families of the slain. and she jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power. for the last three decades, the clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. they embody the term crony capitalism. it disgusts the american people and causes them to lose faith in our political process. a person so untrustworthy and dishonest as hillary clinton must not become president. [cheers and applause]
of course a trump nomination enables her victory. and the audio and video of the infamous tapper trump exchange on the ku klux klan will play 100,000 times on cable and who knows how many million times on social media. there are a number of people who claim that mr. trump is a con man. a fake. >> we love mitt! mr. romney: thank you. cheers and applause] let me say that again. there's plenty of evidence that mr. trump is a con man, a fake. mr. trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign. and on the ku klux klan daily
for three days in a row. we'll home know if he's a real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the "new york times." i predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. i predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. i predict that he told "the new york times" that his immigration talk is just that -- talk. and i predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, that he will never, ever release his tax returns. never. not the returns under audit, not even the returns that are no longer being audited. he has too much to hide. nor will he authorize the release of the tapes that he made with "the new york times." if i'm right, you'll have all the proof you need to know that donald trump is indeed a phony. attacking me as he surely will won't prove him any less of a phony.
it's entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. all he has to do is release his back taxes like he promised he would and let us hear what he said behind closed doors to "the new york times." ronald reagan used to quote a scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations wouldn't last much longer than a couple hundred years. and john adams wrote this. remember, democracy never lasts long. it soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. that's john adams. i believe that america has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons. first, we've been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us, men of character,
integrity and selflessness have led our nation from the very beginning. none were perfect. each surely made mistakes. but in every case they acted out of the desire to do what was right for america. and for the cause of freedom. the second reason is because we're blessed with a great people. people who a at every critical moment of chooses -- choosing have put the interests of the country above their own. these two things are related. our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. john f. kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union. i understand the anger americans feel today. in the past, our presidents have channeled that anger and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose and into the will to defeat the
enemies of freedom. our anger was transformed into energy directed for good. mr. trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. he creates scapegoats of muslims and mexican immigrants.
he calls for the use of torture. he calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. he cheers assaults on protesters. he applauds the pros pects of twisting the constitution -- prospects of twisting the constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. this is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss. here's what i know. donald trump is a phony. a fraud. his promises are as worthless as a degree from trump university. cheers and applause]
he's playing the members of the american public for suckers. he gets a free ride to the white house. and all we get is a lousy hat. his domestic policies would lead to recession. his foreign policies would make america the world -- and the world less safe. he has neither the temperament nor judgment to be president and his personal qualities would mean that america would cease to be a shining city on a hill. i'm convinced america has greatness ahead and this is a time for choosing. god bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality. thank you and god bless you all. thank you. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2016] >> and we're standing by to hear reaction from donald
trump. he's scheduled to appear live here in maine. and respond to what mitt romney had to say about him earlier today. mr. trump in a couple of minutes. we'll have it live here on subpoena along with your phone calls.
until then, the weekly press briefing with house minority leader nancy pelosi. she spoke for just over 15 minutes. ms. pelosi: yesterday we had our annual celebration of women's history month honoring the service and sacrifice of our women veterans who defended our rights and our freedom. we were honored to be joined by first lady michelle obama and dr. joe biden, as we honored brigadier general, most decorated woman in our national security history. unfortunately, their select
committee attack on women's health, republicans were working to undermine the rights and freedom of all women. in the select panel hearing, republicans sadly chose to continue their witch hunt, not only against planned parenthood, but against scientific research, wasting time and taxpayer dollars on their radical obsessions. at the supreme court we're hopeful that the justices will uphold the supreme court decision roe v. wade, and four decades of precedent. and reject texas' politicians' brazen stault assault on -- assault on women's reproductive rights. this deals with a court, a court that continued to obstruct with even the refusal to consider interviewing or having a hearing to fill justice scalia's empty seat. so ironic because justice scalia was such a devoute of
the constitution and here they are undermining it, ignoring the fact that it says the president of the united states has not only the opportunity but the responsibility to fill the kay vansy and the senate has -- vacancy and the senate has the responsibility to confirm. on the house floor the house republicans soon will bring forward a resolution to present their fears -- their fierce opposition to immigrant families in our country. they are putting forth an amick us brief to the supreme court and they want the house to validate this extreme position. we're asking for a similar -- we have a brief as well. -- signed by almost every democrat. we would like to have a vote on the floor as well. we'll see. republicans continue to doubledown on their radical anti-immigrant agenda. the immigration executive actions that president obama took are well within the president's broad authority under the law and the clear
legal precedent established by every administration, republican and democrat, since president eisenhower. just as presidents ronald reagan and george herbert walker bush did before him, president obama took executive action to make our immigration system better meet the needs of our country. they didn't say anything then. as i remind you, president reagan -- president obama is acting in the absence of congressional action. president reagan acted after congressional action, saying congress didn't go far enough, we want to have the family fairness initiative that he and president george herbert walker bush then implemented and covered a higher percentage of immigrants than president obama's actions are. but for some reason, with this president, it's a different story with the republicans. as i said, we will file our own amicus brief and we hope the speak already allow it to come to the floor for a vote. just as he has the republican one.
we heard but have not seen that today the house republican budget chairman is finally presenting a budget to the republican conference, from the news reports that we hear. the budget proposed is deeply troubling. but we look forward to seeing more details. their budget continues to be on the path to a road to ruin for america's working families, by demanding $6 trillion in cuts. republicans are putting at risk key initiatives, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, to name a few. the republican budget plan erodes our nation's promise of basic economic security for all americans, continuing to stack the deck for the wealthiest and well-connected at the expense of everyone else. republicans and democrats should come together to pass a budget that is fair, that creates jobs, that erases pay -- that raises paychecks of the american worker and invests in the future of our country, while reducing the deficit.
tonight i'm headed to flint to meet with the families impacted by this manmade catastrophe. and to meet with officials on the ground, to hear directly from both of them how we can do much more. o help these children, these families. while at the same time we think in a larger sense of how we can make sure this doesn't happen other places in the country. we have a responsibility right now immediately to flint's children. we cannot let the nation forget it. with that i'll be pleased to take any questions you may have. yes, sir. good morning. reporter: do you feel -- i saw your statement the other day about donald trump -- [inaudible] -- the ku klux klan. ms. pelosi: my statement was about house republicans. reporter: but it was predicated on some of the things -- ms. pelosi: referencing that, you're right. reporter: do you think there's any potential where democrats or hillary clinton or whoever the democratic nominee is might overplay their hand here,
thinking, well, this is a great opportunity to run against issues you have with republicans and their policies issues with ] -- david duke and donald trump. do you think there are chanceness folks could overplay their hand and this could back fire in a way? ms. pelosi: i don't know what you mean by overplay our hand. what we're about in the campaign is about the economic and national security of the american people. economic security to make sure that we make decisions here that help grow the economy, increase paychecks, as we reduce the deficit. as i mentioned our budget should do. in terms of our national security, in terms of our homeland security in terms of our neighborhood security, protecting and defending the american people is our first responsibility. that's what the campaign is about. my statement the other day was just to say, oh, my gosh, felt like i was in the movie "casablanca." can you believe somebody's
associating themselves with the statements of these kinds of white is you premmistist groups? -- white supremacy groups? my sentiment is that i don't think that what trump and the others are saying is a reflection of republicans at large in our country. but it is an accurate reflection of the actions taken or not taken by the house republicans. while they disassociate themselves from the trump association with potential or whatever association with right wing is you premmist groups, -- supremist groups, they voted against our move to remove the confederate flag from the cap toll -- capitol. at the same time they want to associate themselves with selma and the foot soldiers of selma, with gold medals last week, and all the rhetoric you can drum up, and go to selma last year
for the 50th anniversary, they do disassociate themselves from any attempt to pass a voting ights act. if they are sincere about honoring the bridge to the ballot that selma was, give us a vote on the voting rights act. how do they respond to lincoln, the founder of their party, that they are obstructing voting in our country? at the same time as they are about family values and the rest, they are -- and the spark of divinity that exists in every person, they are shutting the door to women and children from latin america and syria who are trying to come here as refugees. and they are again saying to, as they do in their amicsu -- amicus brief, they're saying these dreamers, our young people, should go back to the country of their family's origin. countries that many of them have never really lived in,
some of them don't even speak the language. , the case, my point was sanctimony of what was displayed, oh, my gosh, can you believe he said that, is stuff that we hear around here all the time. reporter: hillary clinton's campaign is arguing that the delegate map makes it impossible for mr. sanders: to get the nomination -- for bernie sanders to get the nomination. do you agree and are you willing to endorse hillary clinton for the election? ms. pelosi: i think republicans have to take the time they need to make their nomination and the voices will be heard of democrats and others who vote democratic across the country. i have a great deal of respect for the voice of the american people, 35 states have not voted yet. and i think that it would be important to hear from them. i think that it's important to note that with all the
hoop-ti-do on the republican side and all the voting that's taken place, hillary clinton has gotten more votes than donald trump. did you know that? as you also know, i'm not a believer in the sway of superdelegates deciding who is going to be the nominee. i think we have a democratic process where people vote on both sides of the aisle, actually, both sides of the -- both parties, and that that should determine who the nominee is. i don't think that any of us should count out 35 states. although the math is clear that anyone other than hillary clinton, bernie sanders, a lesson for all the young people he's attracting, people who might not even be paying attention to the political scene, that he's attracted, i think that's very wholesome for our country. but i also think that it is -- well in to do very
those 35 states to overcome the advantage that hillary clinton has in pledged delegates. that is pledged as opposed to superdelegates. yes, sir. reporter: is it clear to you that it would be good for house democrats to run against donald trump? ms. pelosi: it's turning into a political kind of thing that you all talk about. politics, politics, politics. we're going to have to move to another venue. we have to talk about, at least a large percentage of our time, about the issues before the congress. i say, let the republicans nominate who they nominate and then we will have that debate then. you wouldn't want to even know who my personal favorite is on the republican side. reporter: i would. [laughter] ms. pelosi: there's so many that are vying for that. anyway. again, it is -- the people will speak, we'll have our election and you never know how elections are going to turn
out. so no w.h.o. knows who would be a stronger candidate -- so who knows who would be a stronger candidate or not. i would say to the republicans, it -- if they think they're going to upset the verdict of the people in terms of the elections, that can really be opening a very big pandora's box. reporter: you're talking about a brokered convention. ms. pelosi: again, if it's competitive. but if somebody has a majority of the delegates from the votes of the people, i think that you change that to your peril. whatever party you are. yes, sir. reporter: here's a nonpolitical question. ms. pelosi: all right. reporter: what do you know either directly or indirectly about the republican dealing p's intent for with the president's zika request or your desires to give money, to provide money for --
[inaudible] ms. pelosi: there was a very important meeting yesterday. we were having our celebration of women in the military. unfortunately they scheduled it at the same time -- not enough hours in the day -- at the same time. but mr. hoyer led up our side with mr. mccarthy and our appropriators and all were there. as i understand the meeting, there was some interest in using ebola money for zika. that would be very wrong. that would be very wrong. we have to recognize that zika is its own threat and that we have to address it with research, with all of the arrows in our quiver to stop the spread of zika. i also -- but i do associate zika with flint in that there are two public health issues that are very major, that we have to allocate resources, and they have to be fresh. they cannot be at the expense -- we cannot cannibalize other
public health budgets at this timement i don't know -- time. i don't know the full outcome of the meeting yesterday. i just know that was part of the discussion. my appeal to the speaker is that we -- and actually, steny, our democratic whip, mr. hoyer, and mr. mccarthy, have talked about having a fema-like account where you have resources for these kinds of issues so they're not always trying to go find money once you learn about it. but that it's there in the event of. and that would be good. but that fund should not be coming out of the ebola account. i don't know what decisions have been made. you'll have your chance to ask the peeker -- speaker shortly. but what we want to see is an appropriate response to flint, an appropriate response to zika. and i see nothing but goodwill coming from the other side in that regard. that's it?
thank you all very much. as we are all watching the returns on tuesday night, i was listening, as my daughter held the phone up to my ear, at 12:00, 12:30, to hear the golden state warriors win again in overtime without steph curry . without even their star on the team. reporter: you're wearing your san francisco giant -- ms. pelosi: it's because i'm going home. i'm a human -- i have a theory. when you go in a direction, take something. i'm taking this home as a human garment bag to be ready for opening day when that comes. ok? our year. every other year. the giants. reporter: those are the years -- the years they have won have been years the democrats haven't done too well in the house. [laughter] ms. pelosi: any assumption about politics are obsolete and stale. it's all fresh and new.
thank you. bye-bye. reporter: thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> here on spee span we'll take you live to portland, maine. donald trump has been campaigning in maine topped and he's expected out shortly for what we understand is a news conference, though certainly some of the video you may have been seeing has the feel of a campaign rally here in portland, mabe. donald trump expected to respond to criticisms made by former republican presidential candidate, former governor of massachusetts, mitt romney. in a speech today at salt lake city. here's what we're going to do. we're going to stay here live and take your phone calls and your thoughts on what you're hearing from mitt romney. you may convenient the speech earlier. queer going to wait for donald
trump to come out and then show you the speech in its entirety from mitt romney. host: this appearance by donald trump in maine today, ahead of a weekend appearance at the conservative political action conference, the cpac conference, which we are covering on the c-span net,s with, we will tell you about our coverage plans, some of hich is already under way. a look at the reporting on mitt romney's speech. this is from the "politico." just a quick bit from this article. they say, mitt romney opened a new front in the republican party's civil war on thursday, going after donald trump in a salt of the earth speech that eviscerated the republican frontrunner as lacking the temperament, business record and substantive policies to
occupy the white house. they write that romney immediately said at the outset of his remarks he would neither endorse a candidate nor announce a third presidential bit of -- bid of his own. instead he focused nearly the entirety of his speech, a stunning intervention in the already chaotic 2016 race, on the urgency of stopping trump. that's from "politico." you can read more at politico.com. we'll show you some comments as well on twitter. if you'd like to send us a tweet and your thoughts, that's @cspan. here's patty from wisconsin on our democrats line. welcome. caller: thank you. just someone maybe could enlighten me or explain why mitt accepted trump's endorsement when he ran for president a few years ago. and also, i just was disappointed in mitt trashing mrs. clinton. i just think that's uncalled for. if someone could enlighten us, i would appreciate it. thank you. host: mitt romney was critical of hillary clinton in that very same speech. again, we'll show that to you in its entirety. you can also find it online at
c-span.org. let's hear from daniel next in michigan. republican caller. caller: yes. just wanted to say that i grew up, my first president was ronald reagan. i'm almost sitting here in tears as a republican to hear these people come out against a guy, they forced him to make a pledge yet none of these people are pledging to him. we are the americans voting. we want trump. thank you. host: ed's next up, an independent in california here on see spafpblet we're waiting for donald trump in portland, maine. should be on shortly. ed, good morning. go ahead. caller: hi. ed from california. only volted once in my 60 years of here. we need to bring our jobs back and the best deal maker and the best man talking is him. host: tie in the similarities that you may see between ross pa roadway and donald trump --
perot and donald trump. caller: here for us. ross perot was talking like he was my grandpa. he was talking a lot like bernie sanders. i'll tell you what. independent, if trump don't get there, then my vote is going to go for sarn -- bernie sanders. if he makes it. because i'll never vote for hillary, because the biggest guy in there, bill clinton, is the guy who kale -- who killed this country with nafta. host: let's go to our democrats line next. memphis, tennessee. tom. hi, there. caller: yes, sir. i actually had a question. if mr. trump gets the popular vote, can -- because there seems to be so many republicans that are against him, actually in the process, can he just be denied the nomination? ould that be possible? you've got senators, people signing off that they don't care for him at all.
in his own party. can they just say no, you can't be nominated? host: that's a good question. it's still a bit early in the process. with delegates being won in these various primaries and caucuses. the man who writes the washington secrets column in the washington examiner d has a piece today that headline says, race on, trump-cruz delegate gap. just 94 --
host: here on c-span and c-span radio, waiting to hear from donald trump. he's campaigning in portland, maine. he's going to react to the comments earlier at a speech from utah from mitt romney. this is painted post, new york, sandra's on our republican line. caller: yes. i think mitt romney should be ashamed himself. he was really quick to take donald's endorsement when he was running. a lot of people stayed home. i didn't. we pulled the lever for romney and we held our nose while we did it because he wasn't the best candidate. but he's coming against donald and the republicans every time have lied and lied. they tell us every election time what they're going to do and they do nothing. and it just seems like, you know, i mean, why bother to vote for them? donald's at least offering some sort of solution. as a republican, i'm voting for donald. host: it was a strongly worded speech. here's some of what mitt romney
had to say about donald trump. mr. romney: here's what i know. donald trump is a phony. a fraud. his promises are as worthless as a degree from trump university. [cheers and applause] he's playing the members of the american public for suckers. he gets a free ride to the white house. and all we get is a lousy hat. [laughter] his domestic policies would lead to recession. his foreign policies would make america and the world less safe. he has neither the temperament nor the judge to be president. and his personal qualities would mean that america would cease to be a shiping city on a hill. i'm convinced america has greatness ahead. and this is a time for choosing.
god bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality. thank you and god bless you all. [cheers and applause] thank you. host: mitt romney from earlier today at the university of utah in salt lake. we'll show you all of that speech in just a bit. here on c-span. and c-span radio. we're waiting to hear from donald trump. he's in portland, maine, campaigning. we're expecting a news conference any moment now. join the conversation on the phone -- host: send us a tweet @cspan. a couple of them here. this is from lisa who tweets --
host: back to calls. here's john in georgia. independent line. caller: yes, sir. thank you. for taking my call. i have something very important i need to make in the way of a point for my fellow citizens. and this regards mr. trump. mitt's speech, sour grapes, four years later. he had his chance, he ran a timid campaign, it didn't work. because he was too timid. we don't have to worry about that with mr. trump. he will stand up for his campaign and he will do what is right. but primarily our beloved country, in addition to being that, just happens to be the largest, most complicated business on earth. who better than a businessman
to fix this mess? who can save the republic. because believe me, sir, i don't have to tell you, we are in a real mess. host: you're on independent line. john, you're going to vote for donald trump if you get the chance or did you in the primary the other night? caller: he got my vote in georgia here. just tuesday. i will vote for him again in november if he's on the ticket, which i hope he is. because this country's future depends on. it host: let's go to the democrats line and this time so seattle. we hear from ana bell who is a democrat there. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. yes, i am voting for someone who has experience, the one who has -- is qualified to be president. and i'm a democrat, but i also agree with a lot of republican
policy and i have to say that i'm very happy that mitt romney stood up and did not allow the republican party to be taken over by trump. it has been going on too long and the republican establishment needs to stand up for all americans. we have a two-party system, we have three branches of government that need to work. together. in tandem. and i'm really afraid. i know a lot of people are angry right now, but we need to focus on policy and fixing our problems. scapegoating, you know, immigrants, latinos, muslims, that is not the problem. that is not the problem. the problem is our trade policy , the problem is this drug war, social justice needs to work on that. our educational system. and jobs. e need to focus on jobs. i'm just very concerned for our
country and i am going to pray that everyone makes a sound decision because our future and our children need us to make a good decision. thank you. host: thank you. just a little bit before 2:00 on the east coast. waiting to hear from donald trump. he's in portland, maine, campaigning. and he's supposed to respond to mitt romney, the speech that mitt romney made earlier today in salt lake. our plans to show you the news conference here in portland with mr. trump and follow that and show you all of the comments from mitt mitt. we'll take your tweets as well as your phone calls too. here's one from joshua. host: the republican line. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. i'm reverend phil meecham from south carolina. i'm a baptist preacher and a
christian. i'd like to know why the media, after watching the interview with david duke, and he denied anything about trump being one of his proteges, and with mr. trump denying that he received an endorsement from david duke, and david duke said, no, he did not endorse mr. trump, but the media and mr. romney, everybody else are trying to make a big deal out of it. also, we need somebody that will stand up and fight. i watched mitt romney against obama. m.i.t. looked like a whipped -- mitt look like a whipped dog chained in the backyard. he had no fight, no guts. and now he thinks that, with a majority of the people supporting mr. trump, why does he think we want to hear what he has to say?
this is supposed to be a country where the majority rules. and it looks to me like the republican establishment does not want to abide by what the american people want. host: did you vote for -- did you vote for mitt romney in 2012? caller: yes, i did. i won't vote for him for dog catcher for anything else. but why do these people think in the washington establishment that their votes and what they want should matter more than what the average hardworking american wants? host: certainly part of that, the washington establishment is john mccain, the 2008 presidential candidate, who issued a statement earlier today after mitt romney's speech, which said in part, i share the concerns about donald trump that my friend and former republican nominee, mitt romney, described in his speech today. i would also echo the many
concerns that mr. trump's uninformed and indeed dangerous statements on national security sues have been raised by republican deaf and foreign policy leaders. part of the statement earlier today from john mccain. from john mccain's office. here on c-span and c-span radio, waiting to take you live to donald trump in just a bit. in portland, maine. we go to michael who is also in connecticut, -- in new england, but in connecticut, stratford, connecticut, on our independents line. caller: yes. hi. thank you very much for taking my call. i have seen enough of mr. trump that i am very happy to follow him. i have a trust in where he's going. i'm seeing leadership. and economy in order to make our country strong again. it's one of the most important things that's going on right now. and where the democrats are
trying to take with this trying to raise the money minimum -- minimum wage. it doesn't work. for hamburger workers at $15, it will not work. what the democrats are doing. and mr. trump hit the nail right on the head. now, i also don't see him as being a radical. i think he's a smart person. i think there's enough control that the people will be supporting the people behind him. he's just a hat in some regards, the president. but i trust he has a leadership and we can follow mr. trump and he will correct our country. i fully support mr. trump and to see ly embarrassed mr. romney and what he was doing. i did talk to the state of connecticut republican party. give them my view on this. he's telling me
and he actually said he spoke up and said guys, keep your mouth quiet and stop embarrassing the party. i'm independent and this is why. i thank you. host: that is michael in connecticut. the camera giving us a look of some protestors in the crowd. one had a dump trump sign. and this was build billed as a news conference but it is a political rally. give you a flavor of what mitt romney had to say. >> if we make the right choices, america's future will be better than our past and our present. on the other hand, if we make terrible choices, the bright horizon i described will not materialize. and let me
put it very plainly. if we republicans choose donald
trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished. let me explain why i say that. first on the economy. if donald trump's plans are ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. a few examples. his proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee america. his tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. so even though donald trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what has been said, it would be very bad for american workers and american families. you say, wait.
wait. wait. isn't he a huge business success? does he a huge business success? no, he isn't, and now, he doesn't. [applause] host: mitt romney earlier in salt lake city. and live to donald trump and his reaction. couple more calls and tweets and reaction from viewers. one from shane said hit's speech was six months to late. this one says mitt romney, you had your chance in 2012 and couldn't get the job done. why should we listen from you. i agree with every single thing that governor romney said. jay is in south carolina. caller: thanks for taking my call. what i would like to say if mitt
thought he was such a crook, why did he take his money and endorsement in 2012. the governor of maine stepping to the podium. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> welcome. welcome. thank you all for being here, for greeting the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause] people say i'm a lot like donald trump. i find him a little bit shy, so we are going to get him out of his shell. in all seriousness, donald trump
is a little bit like i am, but he says what needs to be said. [cheers and applause] >> it is not afraid of the political establishment. he's not afraid of lobbyists, special interests and most of all, folks, he's not afraid of the united states liberal media. cheers and applause] much as theyhim as hate me. but don't worry, because they said the night before the election, i had no path to victory, and we set a record for the most votes for a governor. [cheers and applause]
>> so donald trump is here today and he only has one constituent, the american people. [cheers and applause] >> he's going to fight for us while the establishment has left us behind. the gridlock is so bad, nothing gets done in washington. but now, the establishment is trying to defeat him. those who have been sitting on their hands are now saying, you're not going to be our president. guess what? we're going to prove them wrong. [cheers and applause] is against romney donald. [crowd booing]
i will sayay this -- this about donald trump. he's a businessman. he's a tough negotiator. and that combination creates jobs. [cheers and applause] >> politicians don't create jobs, business creates jobs. [cheers and applause] >> you know, our country is facing many challenges. we have to fix our immigration. we have to fix our health care. e have to rebuild our military infrastructure. and most of all, which most people don't want to speak and don't want to even think about and as i look out here and see the young people is the $19 trillion debt that is on your
backs. we need to get rid of it. and we also got to get rid of the people that put us in this mess. you know, donald trump has been a businessman and he has lived the american dream. he has been very successful, as i have. he, unfortunately, made a little bit more money than i did. [laughter] >> so i want a president that is going to be strong for the american people. because as the president, the american people are his family. and let me tell you, it's family first. [cheers and applause] >> however, being here today is great. it's wonderful, but remember,
you have to vote on saturday. please vote on saturday. there are 22 places and if you're not sure where your caucus is being held go to maine g.o.p..com/caucus and you will find your location. democrats will vote next sunday. don't tell them this week. yesterday ie sanders said -- [crowd booing] >> bernie sanders said yesterday, i don't like poor people. bernie, if you are listening, put on my shoes for one people and tell me i don't know what poverty is. ladies and gentlemen, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to
introduce the next president of the united states, donald trump. cheers and applause] ♪ mr. trump: thank you so much. what a turnout. what a turnout. wow! [cheers and applause] mr. trump: thank you. i want to thank paul. i love tough people. you need tough people and he's a tough cookie. and when we got his endorsement,
we were thrilled, i tell you that. he is a great guy. you know, i was doing a little bit of a thing called the bates -- [crowd chanting] mr. trump: get them out, please. et them out. what are they doing? what's the purpose? i guess a little television time, i guess. you know, i was going to the debate and i was going directly in florida and doing really well in florida. and campaigning against the guy who has the worst voting record in the history of the state of florida named rubio. i call him light weight.
he's a light weight. worst history in florida. let's hope i do well there. i love florida. but i was going to detroit and i said to my people, i have to stop in maine. i just had to stop in maine. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i wouldn't say it's a very direct route. instead of going this way, i went this way and that is good. and i'm so glad. to put this incredible soldout crowd and thousands of people outside, to put this crowd together in a period of what, 24 hours? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: and maine is amazing. maine is one of the most beautiful places on earth and people don't realize how large your land mass is. as large as all of new england when you think of it. that's some piece of land. can i buy some? can i buy some
[cheers and applause] mr. trump: i have been watching with great interest, we have had amazing results and with new hampshire, it was an amazing and incredible thing. and every single time i went to new hampshire, whenever i met with people, they would say number one problem, number one problem, heroin. number one problem. and i would say how is that possible? you look at the beautiful fields and beautiful little roads and everything is so beautiful and it was the number one problem and comes from our southern border and we are going to close up that border and going to build a wall and stop the drugs from coming in. believe me. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: and people are going to come into our country but going to come in legally. going to come in legally. and we are going to solve the problem. i watched these pundits, my wife and i came down the elevator and first started and it was amazing. i said we have to do something
because we have people who don't know what they are doing, don't know what they are doing in running our country. just in hearing some of these things. we have to do it. and it takes guts to run for president. i'm not a politician. all talk, no action, nothing gets done. any way, we are coming down and i said to myself, you know, there's so many things and i watched the pundits and they said, trump, i don't know, we have some debate talent running and i'm trying to figure out where? where? what's the talent? you come down and start talking about trade and see what happens with trade. trade has been such a disaster. but the pundits all said, i came out at 3%, first one. my wife said if you run, you are going to win. you can't say, even if they call it, people still say you aren't going to run. if you run, you are going to win.
she's my pollster. i pay her less money. you know what happens? i started at 3, the first day or something. which i wasn't thrilled about and went up to 6, 12, 18 and kept going up and every time i went up, they would say he was plateaued. we'll, he's always going to get 6. then i went up to 12. then i went up to 24. and that's for 17 people. we had 17 people. 24, 17 people, that's a lot. and they said that's the max and went up to 28, 32 so cnn just came out with a poll. trump, 49. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: that's high. and i'm very proud of it, because this isn't a plateau but a movement. we have a movement going on,
folks. time magazine did a story recently, a couple of weeks ago talking about what's going on and never seen anything like it. they say actually and i don't think i'm ex ager ating but many of the great writers which there are very few because many of the writers are among the most dishonest people i ever dealt with, but they said in the history of this country, there has never been anything like this. we were in huntsville, alabama, we had 35,000 people. 35,000 people. we were -- we went to arkansas. oh, is that another one? get them out. get them out. get them out. they just don't stop. get them out. thank you. bye-bye. bye-bye. terrible. incredible. now you know, you can be nice if
you are nice, they will say you were soft. and you can be vicious, get out of here! and then say -- please get them out. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: it's incredible. i love you, too. i love you, too. i love you, too. i'm self-funding my campaign and putting up my own money. but you have to do -- i don't want your money, i just want your vote on saturday. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: don't forget, i did that big long turn, slightly long. big turn. so you can get out the vote, ok. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: so -- thank you. thank you very much. so our country and our theme is make america great again. and over the last little while,
i have met so many people, thousands and thousands and thousands of people. we have like this -- we are only confined by the size of the room. this is packed but this is the size of the room. thousands and thousands of great, great americans. and i have more confidence in this country now than i ever had before. i have seen -- i mean millions of people, really, because when you get 35,000, 40,000 people for rallies and we have by far the biggest rallies. bernie is second. i have to give him credit. but we have by far the biggest. and i see by far the most people and this country has unbelievable people that love our country. just remember that. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: i want to see the day in the not too distant future when apple makes their iphones in this country and not in china and all of these other countries. [cheers and applause]
mr. trump: now, i heard and i saw just a little bit of it but i heard that mitt romney made a fairly long speech. and honestly, i'll address it quickly because it's irrelevant. [laughter] mr. trump: hit is a failed candidate. he failed horribly. [laughter] mr. trump: that was a race i have to say folks that should have been won. that was a race that absolutely should have been won. and i don't know what happened to him. he disappeared. he disappeared. and i wasn't happy about it, i'll be honest, because i'm not a fan of barack obama and that was a race that i backed mitt romney. and
i backed him. you can see how loyal, he was begging. i could have said drop to your knees. he would have dropped to his knees. he was begging me.
and he said i'm not big like him and great businessman. since then,
i have done much better. but we'll talk about it in a second. hit was thinking about running again. he ran a horrible campaign. it was a campaign that never should have been lost. you are running against a failed president. he came up with 47%, he demeaned 47% of the people in our country, the famous 47%. once that was said, i'll be honest, once that was said, a lot of people thought it was over for him. the last month and a half, he disappeared. i called his people and said you have to do yourself a favor. obama, he was on jay leno and david letterman. hit was looking for zoning for nine-car garages. who cars about a garage. you are running for president. and hit was a disaster as a candidate. so what happened, and it was
very strong and i think if the press goes back, they'll see it. when i heard he was running again and i wasn't sure i was going to be running, but i was very, very strong to hit and everybody, because i didn't want to talk to him. i was so disappointed, because he let us down. he let us down. one thing you lose and you work and you work, he let us down. he should have won. something happened. he went away. he was gone. he was horrible in the third debate. it was a horrible -- something happened. i don't know what happened. maybe someday they'll write a book. his campaign guy was terrible. he is always on television. stuart stevens. he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of modern politics. and hit ran probably was the worst one because most people thought that the republican candidate would win. so when hit started raising his
head a few months ago, i very strong. i said mitt romney should not run. he is a choke artist and i said it very strongly. and then jeb bush actually convinced hit not to run. can you imagine jeb, jeb told him. jeb, he is a good salesman. jeb is a good salesman. he's a high-energy salesman. but hit was afraid of jeb because he was afraid that jeb would get the money and jeb would get whatever. i wasn't afraid. i wasn't afraid of jeb. i can tell you that. jeb bush convinced hit not to run. this was going to be a third one. second a great catastrophe. and what happened was he went to see jeb and jeb had him convinced he has the money and hit chickened out. i'll tell you the real reason he
chickened out, it was me. if you remember hit was all set to run. i know this from people that are close to him and i think he has a desire maybe at the convention to get some kind of a thing. hillary clinton will destroy him. assuming she is allowed to run and assuming she is not arrested for the emails dch [cheers and applause] mr. trump: which is so terrible. but let's assume that the democrats are going to protect her, let's assume that i will be running against hillary. i would love to run against hillary. and by the way, we have numerous polls show me beating her easily. she called me sexist and i hit her with the husband and that was the last time i ever heard the word sexist. so that was it. they had a rough weekend.
bill was not happy. i guarantee you, he said don't you ever say that to him again. say it to somebody else, but not to trump. that was a rough, rough weekend. but hit was going to run as sure as you are standing here. but he was going to run i you was very, very angry that he was going to run. i didn't know i was going to be this, but i felt i wanted to. nbc wanted to extend "the apprentice" for 26 episodes. steve burke, please, donald, we would like you to do "the apprentice." the ratings after 14 seasons were still debate. and i said steve, i think i'm going to run for president. no. no. no you're not. they didn't want me to because the show does great. and ultimately i decided to run.
and equal time laws, you can't do both. how is arnold schwarzenegger doing? arged? trump? well, we are going to find out if arnold is quick, because if he's not quick" and when the them coming at you, you have to be quick and smart. i hope he does well. i hope arged does well. they -- arnold does well. they renewed the show with me in the upfronts and i gave up a lot of deals and things to do this, takes a lot of effort. those are the people trying to get in. can you believe it? how about everybody clear out and let a new group come in? when i heard hit was going to run a little before this period of time, i was very tough. i said he can't run.
he can't run. he was going to run. he can't run and i said look we have to keem him out. he is a choke artist. and i started hitting him so hard. we cannot take another loss. we cannot take another loss. and hit is indeed a choke artist and choked like i never seen anyone choke other than when rubio when chris christie was grilling him. that was one of the great chokes. he was standing there, shaking and sweating. right over here. i'm getting ready to grab him because i thought he was going down. but hit did a big sulk. a couple of things i heard he said. first of all, he doesn't mention the fact that i built a city on the west side of manhattan or buildings on the west side of manhattan and talking about a
beef and water company. i supply all my clubs with the water. numerous those things. the magazine, other things. get them out. get them out. get them out. speaking of mexico, i won the hispanic vote by far in nevada, right? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: we won the hispanic vote in nevada in the polls. we won nevada, we won south carolina, new hampshire and then the big, big tuesday where we won a tremendous number. and i have to tell you this. so ultimately hit chickened out and now he's saying that hillary is very weak. but ultimately he didn't. he would have gotten beaten very badly. a couple of things were mentioned that we have to discuss. first of all when he talks about me, i wrote a couple of them down. they don't want to talk about
92-story buildings all over the place, don't talk about the bank of america building in san francisco, 1290 avenue of the americas or the west side rail road yards where i built a city on the west side of manhattan and don't want to talk about 40 wall street but want to talk about water, which i still have. i supply all my clubs. they want to talk about a magazine and i have a magazine that goes to all my clubs. by the way, a school, little deal, but i loved it when it was there, trump university, but i will tell you, just so you understand, the school had 98% approval rating. an attorney felt i could sue trump and get something. 98% of the people took the courses we signed report cards. you put somebody up in the
stand, did you right this -- write this. they did a commercial that took it down where two people were saying negatives and we showed the statements and had to take the commercial down. 98% of the people that took the courses said really wonderful things about it. it got an a from the better business bureau. i think how do i settle a case like this. b-plus would be ok, too. but we did better than a b-plus. so and here's one thing i say about business. i watch these bankers and they get millions of dollars a year. 40 million and 50 million and will settle with the government $5 billion, $12 billion. i say why dornt you fight it? if you don't fight it, someone is going to sue you.
next week they get sued again. you have to fight these things out. you have to do what's out. with the university, i knew i could get some bad publicity. do we agree with that, by the way? it's a very small case, civil case and i'm going to win it in court and cost me more money to win it in court than to settle. lousy timing because too busy it wasn't later because i happen to be running for president. any businessman or woman has lawsuits. people sue to get their money back, they sue for this and sue for a million different reasons. 98% approval rating, a from the better business bureau. we are going to win the case. it will be forever because it takes forever. i don't like to settle cases. because once you settle cases everybody says he is a settler, let's sue. a lot of people don't sue me
because they say it's too hard. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: one of the things that hit brought up which is so serious he said about trade. we have to keep trade, nobody knows more about trade than me. i made so much more money than hit. i have a a store that's worth more money than hit. i made that statement jockingly when i was in iowa and "the "des moines register" which is a terrible paper, but they said that's a terrible statement, that's a terrible statement. and the people put me on and said what are you saying. they said you have a store that is worth more than hit. i said what's he worth? they said $150 million. it's the gucci store. i said it's much more. we don't believe the store is worth $150 million.
they got three appraiseors and said that store is worth from $400 million to a billion two. check your local "des moines register." i'm not sure it's still open. i built an amazing company. and one of the reasons you know what's amazing, the hottest development, the hottest development site probably in the history of the general services administration, g.s.a., that's the government service is the old post office site. that's where it is built in washington, d.c.,, an entire block fronting on pennsylvania avenue. if i did don't get there, i'm getting to the white house. fronting on pennsylvania avenue but one of the most beautiful buildings. and the g.s.a. for many, many years owned it and wanted to develop it for 30, 35 years and never worked out. big job.
and never happened. and went to bid. and in bidding it they had morbiders and more high-level bidders. let's assume just about the hottest job that they have ever put out to bid. every hotel company wanted it. i'm building a 300-room super luxury hotel. everybody wanted it. they went out to a public bid. and one of the things in choosing the bidder is how strong is the bidder and how good is the bidder's idea. they loved my idea. this bib one of the great hotels in the world. two years ahead of schedule. going to open in september. we are two years ahead of schedule and the g.s.a. people are terrific and we are under budget. the reason is that i'm using marble instead of terraza. a lot of different things. we are going the highest end.
the reason i got chosen was because my financial statement was so strong because it could guarantee completion. and number two, we had the best idea. when i listen to this myth and this is in the obama administration. i wouldn't say i had an advantage. i said to my daughter and she was very much involved with that, i said maybe, maybe we aren't going to get it. but my financial statement is so strong and i put it in -- romney talks about taxes. taxes maybe this. very little do you learn from taxes. you can't learn very much. but i did file almost 100 pages of financial statements with the federal elections and it shows that i have a net worth that could be over $10 billion, probably over. and i don't do that in a bragging way. i tell you because that's the kind of thinking we need. we have $19 trillion was -- paul
was saying. $19 trillion in debt. i have very low debt and tremendous cash flow. and i found my financials. he said maybe there is something in his tax return. but i get audited every single year and because the company is so big, fortune 500 companies every year. because my company is so big or some of the reason which is unfair. let's leave it at that. they audit me every year. i think it's unfair. but i have been audited every year for many years. i have nothing -- and nobody in this room would say you are being audited. you get audited and finish up the audit, routine stuff and release the tax returns. if hit would like to go down to the federal election office you will see 100 pages of financials that were filed ahead of schedule. i could have delayed it for six
months. i filed them for 30 days and i had to work with the accountants and they worked overtime because i didn't want them saying he is asking for extensions. so with hit, i just wanted to tell you, he came out, it was very nasty. i thought he was a better person than that. i helped him. i raised money for his campaign and two fundraisers for him. the first one was so successful that we had the second one that same day. his wife which is a really lovely woman. she came up and had a fundraiser in my apartment at trump tower. i did a great job. they couldn't have caredless. they said donald, he is a stiff, he's not going to win. i should have listened to the guy. but we had a fundraiser and it was so big and raining out, i won't forget about this. it was a miserable, miserable
day and people came in, hundreds of people phase one and said there's too many people to put them in one and called for another one after. and because everybody's shoes were so wet, i ruined my carpet. this carpet was wiped out and nobody thanked me for the carpet. maybe i could send hit a bill for carpet ruined. when you help somebody, when you help somebody, i made six robot calls. every single place i made, he won. north carolina. six different places. you helped somebody and then he turns. now, i will say this. i will say this. i will say this. he probably had a right to turn, because nobody could have been nass nastier than me. and the reason i said that. i love our country too much. if he would have run and even if
he would have won, it would have been bad. he doesn't have what it takes to be president. he doesn't have what it takes to be president. so i do want to mention one thing because it worked so well because his speech was so long and covered a lot of territory. he didn't mention the many buildings and building over 120 jobs all over the world. we just got turnberry and d omp ral and they are having the world championship today in florida and nimea in maine. roary and everybody is down there. and tiger is going down there. but they're all there. all at my place and here i am making a speech in maine, ok. so if i don't win on saturday, i'll say boy, was a mistake.
any way, i think we will. he talked about trade. talked domestic. bye-bye. bye-bye. bye-bye. get them out. et them out. i love you, too. these people. i tell you what, your police are fantastic. do we love our police? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: where would we be without them in all fairness? they are so abused and one stupid incident or bad incident or one bad person, which happens out of the whole country and it's the biggest story in the news and it plays forever and people don't realize how great a job the police of this country do, i have to tell you.
so one of the things that hit was talking about was domestic policy and we need trade and we need trade and we have to deal with china and deal with all these people, look. last year in terms of a trade deficit we lost with china $500 billion. we lost with mexico. that's why mexico is going to pay for the wall, folks. mexico, look, the wall, it's actually 2,000 miles. we have a lot of natural barriers. wall is going to cost $10 billion. going to be a trump wall and bring it in under budget. i have to name it after myself because maybe -- should i name it after myself? i don't think so. but we are going to have a real wall and going to be great. stop drugs pouring into maine and new hampshire. walls work. properly done, walls work.
they come up to me and say, but mexico will never pay. politicians say, but donald -- first they said there is no wall. you can't bilt a wall. china built a wall that is 13,000 miles. 2,000 miles, we can do it. i hear cruz saying we can't build a wall and we heard him say, we are going to a build a wall. i don't know if rubio said it. i think rubio has bigger problems than worrying about walls. here's the thing we have with mexico a $58 billion trade deficit. if the wall costs $10 billion, a tiny fraction, i guarantee you that mexico is going to pay for the wall just as sure as you are standing there. a politician wouldn't say that.
and vincente fox threw the f-word out. f-bomb. can you imagine if i used that word? that would be a big story. he threw it out and nobody cares. and then we had our vice president apologize to them. i love mexico and the mexican people and i have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of mexican people, thousands have worked for me. the hispanics are phenomenal people. i won the poll in nevada. i won nevada and i won with the hispanics which is so good. so good. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: but look, here's the problem, their leaders are too smart. we are getting killed at the border and trade. nabisco is moving in from chicago and closing their big plant. look at ford, they are building a massive car complex and
closing in michigan and other places and closing and going to mexico. the other day, carrier air conditioners. good air conditioners. i'm not buying them anymore. they announced 1,400 men and women are being laid off. big, big story. 1,400 and this manager -- well, ladies and gentlemen we are closing our plant and moving to mexico. he was pretty tough. this was not a guy with social grace. they are going to move to mexico. mitt romney said we have to keep free trade. if we keep free trade, we aren't going to have any companies left at all. you more -- know more about nafta but we are going to do something much different. i built a tremendous fortune and i started off with very little. they say my father. if my father would have given --
my sister and brother called me up and said don, are they kidding. and now it's worth billions and billions and billions of dollars. i will tell you something. with the carrier plant, what you have to do is you have to be smart. so this isn't free trade. we have to have smart trade. china charges tremendous tariffs and taxes. i have a friend who is a manufacturer. he makes great product and puts it into china and they send it back. third time they take it but pays a tremendous tax. you have no idea how tough it is to negotiate with china. and when they take the product, they charge you the tax. china when they sell their product. no tax. take our jobs, no tax, no nothing. not going to work that way. mexico the same thing. ford builds this plant going to
make cars, trucks and parts and going to send them into our country. no tax. where is that good for us? when i watch a guy like romney who truly is a light weight. think of it. he is talking about trade. and i love free trade. i'm a free trader. a lot of the conservatives say donald trump doesn't like free trade. i want smart trade. i don't want to be losing $500 billion a year. i don't want to be losing $58 billion a year. i want to make money or break even at worst. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: so i tell people, if you had like light weight rubio as president, he is all controlled by the special interests, 100%. remember, i'm self-funding and they aren't paying me anything. a guy like ted cruz getting a lot of money from oil and other
places, ok. honestly that's the way life works. oil, 100%. he'll get a lobbyist, 100%. me, it's different. here's what they will do it. they'll carry it to anyone who will listen. only way we are going to stop this tremendous outflow of companies and pfizer, great drug company leaving going to ireland. wonderful. but you aren't going to take advantage of us. you aren't going to take of us. here's what happens. let's use carrier. i know it's not presidential and my wife called before and said darling, would you ask presidential like you were the other night when you had those victories. i said, but i have incoming. when you have incoming, you can't be too presidential. i said i have incoming. here's what happens.
they said act presidential tonight. i said i'll act presidential, but if somebody hits me, i'm going to hit them back harder. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: it's one of those things. what happens is they won't do anything, the lobbyists will say you can't do anything to carrier or f omprmp d. they have been loyal to you and very good. and good. that's the end of that. here's what i do. i call up and i would like to use one of my guys. many of the great businessmen and women endorse me. i would announce them but nobody cares. these are the most important people. i will use the greatest business people, greatest negotiators in the world. this is so easy. i want to do it myself but it's so unpresidential for me to call up carrier. call up say hi, i'm president
donald trump, president of the united states. i hope you enjoy your stay in mexico and i hope you build a beautiful plant and i want to wish you well, but let me tell you something, you moved out. you hurt 1,400 people. these people were devastated. i watched it and did a great job. you hurt 1,400 people and there's no free trade. their politicians are smarter and streeter and smart-wise. i said here's the story, every air conditioning unit you make and every single air conditioning unit you make and comes into the border into the united states, we are going to charge you a 35% tax, ok? [cheers and applause] mr. trump: and that's it. here's what happens. as sure as you are standing here. you have to speak to the president. they can't speak to me. i didn't take their money. here's what's going to happen.
they are going to call me up within 24 hours and say, mr. president, do you have any second thoughts. i say absolutely not. sir, we decided to stay in the united states. we've decided -- now, we can be cute or say we are coming -- in washington they are playing with all sorts of formula. when hit made the statement saying he will ruin free trade. if i'm losing $500 billion with china, $58 billion with mexico in terms of deficits, what do i want that trade for any way. who needs that kind of trade? seriously. who needs that kind of trade. hit admitted i'm a much better businessman than him. i am. we will have better relationships with mexico. we will have better relationships with china. they'll respect us. they don't respect us now.
they think we are the dumbest people in the world led by the dumbest people. china in the south china sea is building a massive military rce with runways, tremendous complex. they aren't supposed to be doing this. they have no respect for our country. with me, i'm going to rip up those trade deals and make really good ones. we have the cards. remember, i wrote "the art of the deal," which is the number one business selling book of all time. we have the cards. we have rebuilt china with the money they have taken out of our country for many years in all fairness. it is the debatest single theft in the world. you go to china, they have trains that go 300 miles an hour. we have trains that go chug, chug, chug and then have to stop because the track split.
they have trains in china and japan. we are like third world. go to our airports, you go to dubai and qatar and different places in asian see airports like you have never seen and come home and land at kennedy or l.a.x. and land at la guardia. la guardia with the potholes all over the place. it is a very sad thing. what is happening to our country is very, very, very sad. we are going to make it a lot better and make it different and get rid of those horrible trade deals. at some point we can't continue to lose $500 billion. we can't continue. you add it up whether it's india, vietnam, whether it's anybody, every single country in the world that deals with us takes advantage of the stupidity of the united states and a lot of it is because they have the right lobivities and negotiators
and hire the right people on pennsylvania avenue. they have the right people. and they are negotiating with political hacks, not our best people. almost our worst people. so we are going to make our country so strong. we are going to make it strong militarily. our military is very depleted [cheers and applause] mr. trump: our military is very badly depleted and everything -- the whole country is depleted and we are going to make our military strong. our vets are treated horribly. horribly. e have to get rid of ork and repeal it and -- obamacare and repeal it and replace it. and get rid of common core which is a disaster. you know, in the world educationally, of the 30 countries that they look at, we are number 30 in education, meaning we are the worst.
and yet per student cost, number one so far, number two doesn't exist. we are number one in costs and we are number 30 in terms of success. so we are ranked the worst and yet we spend the most. and part of that is common core, it's terrible. part of it is a lot of theft, waste, fraud and abuse. but we are going to straighten it out. when i won new hampshire, they came out with a report, donald trump spent $2.5 million and i won't mention names but other people spent $45 million. >> who? mr. trump: i don't think he likes me, do you agree? wouldn't it be nice -- so i have the lowest expenditure by far and i have the biggest results by far. way, way number one. wouldn't it be nice if we could
do that for our country? we can do that. that's what we are going to do. [cheers and applause] mr. trump: so we are simply going to make america great again. we are going to win so much. you are going to get so tired of winning, you are going to say please, let us have a couple of losses. we are going to make america great again and you'll say ok. thank you very much. i love you very much. go vote on saturday. i love you. thank you. thank you. thank you everybody. cheers and applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
jimmy nd man, did he look pretty ill we decided that we would have a soda my favorite flavor cherry red sung my song to mr. jimmy yeah and he said one word to me and that was dead i said to him ♪ ♪ you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want you can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes you just might find ou get what you need ♪ ♪ you get