tv US House of Representatives Special Orders CSPAN November 29, 2016 7:00pm-9:01pm EST
clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to establish a grant program at the department of homeland security to promote development between israel and united states on cybersecurity. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the bill and pass the bill as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 933, further expenses on energy and commerce in the 114th congress. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table e bill h.r. 5160 and ask for its immediate consideration. the clerk: union calendar 485, h.r. 4160, a bill to amend 4150 to include as part of the national gallery of art and other buildings and areas within the boundaries of real estate or property interests acquired by the national gallery of art.
the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is engrossed and read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 934, resolution providing for the senate amendment to the bill to authorize and strengthen the tsunami detection warning research and mitigation program f the noaa and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2, to amend the dodd-frank and consumer protection act to specify when companies may be subject to enhanced supervision and for other purposes.
the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from from indiana seek recognition? ms. walorski: i ask unanimous onsent to take the bill h.r. 4731 and concur in the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: is there any objection to consideration of the bill? the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: h.r. 3471, an act to amend title 38 united states code to make certain improvements in the provision of automobiles by the department of veteran affairs. senate amendment strike after the enacting clause and insert the following, section 1, short title, this act may be cried as
the veterans mobility act of 2016. section 2, personal selections of automobiles and section 393-b is amended one, by striking except and inserting, one, accept and two, by adding at the end the following new paragraph. two, the secretary shall ensure that to the extent, an ineligible person who is provided an automobile or conveyance under this chapter -- >> i ask unanimous consent that t is dispensed with. >> i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill s. 1950. the clerk: senate 1915, an act to direct the secretary mr. king: i ask that it be
considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. and the mokes is laid on the table. mr. king: mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table a bill s. 1808 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the clerk: senate 180 an act to conduct a northern border threat analysis and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. , the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee 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. the gentleman will suspend. he house will come to order. the speaker pro tempore: members will remove their conversation rom the floor. the house will come to order for a moment of silence.
>> mr. speaker, tonight, i rise to offer a moment of silence. on november 21, while many of us were preparing for the thanks giving holiday, tragedy once again struck my hometown of chattanooga tennessee. al beautiful elementary school, young, vibrant children, all so precious. there was a tragic school bus crash that happened that day in chattanooga, tennessee. the crash took the lives of six young children. tiante wilson. > cor dazea jones, diera
mateen. zowo nash and ziana nash. and other children were severely injured many still in critical injured. i can speak for all of us including my friends from the tennessee delegation where we are heart broken over this horrific tragedyy. nothing i say tonight can diminish the loss that our community has suffered. but i must thank the first responders, the chattanooga police department, the local officials and especially the staff, the doctors at children's for tal at er delip langer their immediate response. i went with our governor to see
the care and treatment these children were getting. one young lady about to gave me the thumb's up. these appreciateous limbs, these precious lives were lost and so many forever hurt. please join me now in a moment of silence for the victims, their families and for our chattanooga community. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute.
>> mr. speaker, i rise the day after my hometown, san antonio, laid to rest a hero who was taken from us too soon. detective benjamin mar kony. the son of a san antonio police officer, detective macc -- marconi was a 20-year veteran of the force whose life was tragically cut short last week while he was in the field serving our city. mr. castro: known for his big smile, his kindness, and his commitment to doing the right thing, detective marconi was a beloved member of our community. he leaves behind a son, grandson and extended family who brought him great joy. our city mourns the loss of detective marconi, an outstanding san antonioan who we dearly mills. his passing is a tragic reminder of the risk all of our law enforcement officers take when they go to work each day to keep us safe.
we are grateful for his service and theirs. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, the cuban people can finally close one chapter in their 57-year nightmare of a -- of oppressive rule. fidel castro has died. when i was just 8 years old i was forced to flee my native homeland of cuba with my family. we were not the first, nor were we the last to leave all that we had behind in search of freedom, democracy, opportunity and safety. many constituents i'm so humbled to represent have had family members who did not survive their journey. yet they all risked their lives in fleeing cuba because they felt the brutality of fidel castro, they witnessed
firsthand the ruthlessness of the tie rant and they felt -- tyrant and they felt that it was like having their human rights stripped from their very being. their stories, their experiences, the firing squads, the gulags, the torture, that, mr. speaker, will be fidel castro's legacy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, in this country, there are over 700,000 dreamers. mr. o'rourke: children and young americans brought to this country at a young age through no fault of their own, to improve their lives, their opportunities and those of their families. and they're every bit as much american as you or i or our
children. and picture next to me is izel, a 15-year-old sophomore at franklin high school, who came to a town hall meeting that we had last night, where 300 el pasoans came out to either tell their stories or show support for dreamers. we want to make sure that the president-elect and that the congress that we have here and the one that will be seated in january does everything within our power to keep these dreamers in our country, who will earn more than $4 trillion in taxable income during their lives, but more importantly, will contribute to the american dream, will improve communities like mine which happens to be the safest city in america, and large part because of the immigrants and especially these dreamers who call el paso home, and to give people like izel every chance to succeed, to improve their lives and the course of this country. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition?
without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, president-elect donald trump nominated south carolina governor nikki nail haley to be -- nikki hailie to be america's ambassador to the united nations. president-elect trump has announced, quote, governor haley has a prove be record of bringing people together, regardless of background or party affiliation, to move critical policies forward to the betterment of her state and country. she's also a profpk deal maker and we look forward to making plenty of deals she will be a great leader, representing us on the world stage, end of quote. governor haley has led the people of south carolina through trying times, such as the historic thousand-year flood last year, hurricane matthew flooding this year, and the tragic shooting at mother emanuel church in charleston. she has promoted a pro-business and pro-job environment by recruiting major companies such as boeing and volvo, along with mitch lynn, b.m.w. and bridgestone expansions. governor haley will be a strong
and effective voice for america, advancing freedom and democracy around the world. congratulations to the governor and her husband, michael, and children, rena and nalen on this achievement. your neighbors are very proud of you. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased that the house subcommittee on federal lands is holding a hearing soon on h.r. 5129, the guide and outfitter act, or we call it, the g.o. act. it makes it easier for americans to enjoy their public lands. i began working on this legislation after an annual endurance run in my district which had been held for years, it was cancel after federal agencies demanded a costly new study of the events' -- of the
event's environmental impacts, a study a small nonprofit group that held the event couldn't afford. that's right. federal agencies were concerned that people running on existing trails could have anythingtific impacts on the environment. the g.o. act cuts this red tape by creating a categorical exclusion to show that communities which have already been permitted don't need duplicative studies to continue. races and other events that might stretch across forest service land and park land, etc., don't need to repeat the permit process over and over and over with every single agency. the bill caps fees to keep them afford bledable and allowing existing permits to be easily extended so public access and events can continue. i'm proud to say this bill will help get more americans outside, mr. speaker, for less money, and with less red tape. that's a goal every member of this body can support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: yes, mr. speaker, i
am one of those americans who is very concerned about the conflict of interest that the president-elect faces as he assumes office. i don't think we've ever elected someone to office in this country with his vast wealth, but i must say as ranking member on the energy and water subcommittee of appropriations, let me give you one area which causes me concern. where he will separate his private interest from the public interest. the committee on which i rank handles the army corps of engineer budget. and we don't have enough money to deal with all the projects around the country. some of which are back up 20 years. an area in ens if florida faces flooding or any of the other coastal properties that the president-elect owns and the army is trying to make a decision on where to place federal funds? will his properties take
precedence over thousands of other projects around the country that have been backlogged for years? i think it's really important that the president-elect create a blind trust, put all of his assets in there, obviously he'll have a good life in the years ahead, but we simply must not allow the private interests of any american to pollute the public decisions that this country must make. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from michigan, mr. ben check, is recognized for 60 minutes as the -- benishek, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. benishek: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as a life-long resident of northern michigan, i know how important it is to protect and preserve our precious natural resources.
northern michigan's economy depends on our great lakes and our outdoor spaces, on tourism, on agriculture and sporting activities. generations of people in my district have grown up experiencing the outdoors from the shores of sleeping bear dunes national lake shore to isle royal national park. however, we need to make sure there's a balance and we do not undertake rash and unproven regulatory policies that almost guarantee to negatively impact our economy in the hope of some potential and often unquantifiable environmental change. i just got back from northern michigan, as a matter of fact. i was in the ottawa national forest hunting. and was what sprikes me -- strikes me about the regulatory nature of the federal government is it doesn't really take into account what's happening in the wild. the ottawa national forest, for example, hasn't been properly
managed. the regulations, as far as managing the forests, make it so difficult that forest is aging and the trees are actually falling down and rotting rather than being harvested. this is just one of the policies of this administration and i'm really hoping now that we have a new administration coming forward there's going to be a lot of change in the regulatory policies to actually develop policies that make sense for our environment and make sense for our people. and that's why i wanted to speak tonight about many of these policies that affect our environment, global warming, and a lot of the policies of the last administration, an maybe even the administration before that, that really don't have the globe at the forefront of solving these problems. what they've been doing is just writing more and more regulations that stop whatever we're doing and they don't have any particular effect on the
global environment. one of the reasons i'm bringing -- i just that brought this little pollution by country. this is the global pollution for the whole world. we know the united states is a pretty big part of that. e.u. is a big part of that. india is big. china is the biggest. and the rest of the world provides, you know, properly the largest. but what strikes me about this is the fact that we in america, you know, we haven't done things right all the time. ing to onstantly striving make improvements. my problem with the way that the regulations are written under this administration is the fact that we're killing our economy to improve the global environment and yet we're a relatively small part of the
problem of pollution and global warming, if you believe that it's man-made, and we're not really doing anything about the rest of this. well, we're putting so many regulatory burdens on our industry, like, for example, energy production. the cost of energy production is a big part of making steel, for example. and many of the countries around the world are buying steel, not so much from us, but from china and india, because they're polluting the planet in order to produce cheap steel and we're really helping the environment with all our regulations and everything, we're doing it to the point that we're losing all of our jocks. that doesn't -- jobs. that doesn't make any sense. if we were allowed to harvest our energy in a very environmentally friendly way, we would have more jobs here in the this country -- here in
this country. these guys would have less jobs . i want to keep jobs here in america. and this is just one of the examples. wait until you see some of the pictures i have. you know, my district was once a huge mining area and we mined iron or, -- iron-ore, construction, sand and gravel, salt, produced in michigan, copper, and these were all good-paying jobs. i'm going to give you a great example of some -- one of the weirdest regular lyings that's come out of this administration. we haveal mine in my district, the first nickel mine in over 50 years. and the road to the mine, there is no good road to the mine. there is 68 miles of road
through the downtown and around a roundabout to process the nickel ore. the local commission wanted to build a 22-mile road that would bypass the 68 miles of road, but they can't get a permit to build the road because the e.p.a. blocked it. now the federal government in washington, d.c., is telling a local county in my district that they can't build a road because it involves some wetlands. well, there is about five acres f wetlands that have to be filled to build the road. now, we have had environmental laws in this country that says if you are going to do some wetlands to build a road, you have to create wetlands to
mitigate the fact that you could create some habitat for some species. they put up the acreage that they were going to use for the roadway to mitigate. that wasn't good enough. the e.p.a. stopped the road without listening very well to the mitigation plan. this is bad for jobs. makes it difficult for the mines to do business and makes the longest of the mine not as good. more expensive to process the ore and creates more pollution because the trucks are driving 68 miles to the ore processing plant versus the 22 miles. the new road would open up a lot of areas for economic development as well.
this is the type of regulation that doesn't make any sense for people who want to protect their environment, fewer miles on the road with diesel trucks and provide economic opportunity in an area that means jobs. i'm hopeful that we will continue with the new administration to improve and stop this ridiculous rulemaking that has no effect on the environment, if anything, it makes it worse, because this administration knows better than the people in michigan who actually live there and cannot -- they can't make a decision for themselves because you can't know it will be good for the environment and you don't know what's what and that's my frustration in my time in congress. that's a good example of what's
going on. i want to show you a couple of around of some places the world that aren't managing the environment, such as the united states is. please put up a couple of those photos from some of our competitors from around the world. here, we have a factory, a chinese factory that is putting out all kinds of pollutants without significant environmental controls on them at all. and these are the kind of factories we are competing with with our factories, which are much better. we just had a coal-fired power plant stopped in my district, several years ago, by the e.p.a. because of this administration's war on coal. and this coal plant was a state
of the art coal plant and didn't produce co-2. in my district they are able to capture the co-2 and sell it and pump it into the ground to help with the production of oil wells. the co-2 wasn't an issue. we were competing with people who do this to our environment and losing jobs overseas because of the tight regulation we have he over here and we aren't doing anything about this and none of the policies we instituted on our industry. we haven't put any significant demands on the chinese to make them stop doing this. you know, i was talking to some biologists from the university of michigan. we have an environmental research station in my district that the university of michigan has been studying the
environment for the last 100 years or so. and one of the thirnings i found interesting was the fact that, one of the great concerns about coal mining and coal use for energy production was the mercury in the air. and it turns out that i was talking to these guys from the university of michigan and they said, no, we solved the mercury problem decades ago. that's not a problem. most of the mercury that is in our environment comes from china and india. because it is made over there, doesn't mean that is a global problem. it takes the jet stream and comes over here and it's the majority and the mercury is coming from places like this. and this administration has done nothing about it except for putting more stringent controls on our energy production and
making our energy more expensive and making people to buy steel and other products. this isn't the right way to deal with this issue. if we are going to deal with global pollution and global production of global warming, we have to talk to bad actors and make them do their part and not make our industries we'lly the joke of everyone else in the world because they are making money and we are losing our jobs and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. let's see another picture here. hand me that one from india. ok. this is a pretty good one from india. this is a river in india. this is all trash. in the middle of the river.
i went to india and i was palled how filthy it was and the lack of rules and this is what we are dealing with. i didn't know the indians and perhaps the chinese are not as developed as they are, but they are competing in the same environment for industry as we are around the globe. and i think -- i'm hopeful that the incoming trump administration will take this stuff seriously unlike the obama administration who has answered to put more and more restrictions on our industries, killing jobs in this country and giving more jobs to people around the world that do this. do you have any more pictures? yeah. this is a good example of the
way things are done. i come from a timber district where we want to harvest responsibly, the timber that we have in our national forests. and that means cutting trees down as they mature in a logical fashion so there is a lot of healthy trees that is not vercommed by disease and those forests are not being managed. our national forests were developed for harvesting for logs, for entertainment, hunting and fishing. i hunt and fish in a national forest. when the trees become overmature and not managed in a way that allow new growth, there is a limited amount of specie that can exist in that type of a forest. this is a forest in indonesia
that was clear cut for miles and miles and miles and this is the way it was left. that's not the way it's done in michigan. not where i live. not in my federal forests. we are not doing enough with the select cuts, limited clear cuts that allows sprouting of new growth. we are competing, our timber products that people do this to their environment. in this country, private forests, state forests are managed with the stewardship program where third parties who are registered, trained, how to manage forests, are given the opportunity to manage forests over decades, over centuries. there is always a healthy forest with long-term growth, new
growth. multiple species and people km hunt and enjoy that area. d i just want to try to, mr. speaker, make sure the american people are aware of the fact that our environment is a place where we live and want it to be good and healthy and also to provide jobs for the people that live in my district and across the country. some of the statistics are to -- above the chinese, for example, in 2012, china was responsible for a quarter of the pollution worldwide. and as you saw in that circle, total pollution in china equals the pollution from the united states and the european union combined and only expected to increase. now, china does not respect the environment or the concern of
the locals when it comes to major decisions of progress. this is the type of policy -- we can talk to the chinese and what they can do to improve their behavior. india is the world's fastest growing economy and fourth largest polluter. these emissions are going to continue to rise. you see from indonesia, defofferstation and clear cutting of the rain forest, i want to have a sustained forest because timber is a renewable resource. ow our environmental actions have an incremental in nature. until this last emission haven't been killing our industry. the administration's war on coal and significant areas of our rareomy have fallen into dis
nd soim so thankful that a new administration will put a stop to those policies that have been driving our jobs overseas and making it difficult for us here at home. i wanted to show another graph for u.s. employment in manufacturing industries. in 1980, to 2014, thousands of jobs in the manufacturing industries have gone down. i'm not saying environmental regulations are the complete cause of this, but i think this should be a major part of our decision-making process as to how we do these things. we have a regulatory and approval process in the united states that most of the countries don't even approach or pretend to go through.
having incremental change talking about industry and still having strict standards can all happen at once. but when the administration, the current administration has had a policy of killing our industry and not doing anything about these foreign people, we need to put a change to that and turn this manufacturing number around. bring manufacturing back to here it should be. here. this slide was made up before the election. i wasn't sure it was going to happen in the next administration, but here's economically significant regulations that this government has put out, all the way back to 2000. number of regulations expected to cost $100 million or more to the american people.
you can see that consistently from the beginning of the obama administration, that number has significantly increased. i'm so happy to hear that mr. trump has promised to cut regulations. let's start with the cutting. so at the end of the day, we need to protect our environment. we are hamstringing our economy will not save our economy. the people hole provide for the pollution and other things that people are afraid of in the environment more than we are by far. all too often the consequences of overburdenening regulations is the flight of industry to nations such as china, inneed yeah, india and i'm hopeful that
my colleagues in the house and senate and the new administration will change that and make logical regulations and will benefit our planet and will certainly benefit the american citizens. and we shouldn't be implementing expensive nonsolutions to a problem whose extent and impacts remain uncertain. . . anything you talk about the administration being overregulatory, then you're accused of being a polluter of the planet. i ran for election several times. these are the kinds of arguments that people will make you, to try to make you look bad, to make you look as if you want to pollute the planet. think, really, americans are tired of that bologna. we want to have a decent
living. we want to have a clean planet. we want to make sure that people are around world -- people around the world have the same values and interests that we do. if we're going to work hard to try to make our planet cleaner, they should too. that we're competing on an even scale here. because this, you know, what we're doing now is not competing on an even scale. though, it's very important that we don't allow people to intimidate us when we say, i want to have more mining in this country, i want to be able to use coal. they immediately say that you are anti-environmentalist. and that it's just torture. most of the people that say this kind of stuff, they've never been to a community that actually does mining. they just see it from afar. they don't see the end result of a mine that's been rehabilitated and now the covered with green. they don't have any idea what's
really going on. hey just use it as a fear so the american people don't really realize the truth of what's going on and they want their vote. they're causing fear, the american people, saying, well, this guy, you know, youe doesn't want to protect the environment. i want to protect the environment. i come from one of the most beautiful places in the country, i think. and want it to be clean and healthy for high children -- for my children as well. it's going to be really clean and healthyy if nobody lives -- healthy if nobody lives there because there's no jobs. we need to protect our environment and have policies that allow jobs to continue to occur in this country. and have reasonable regulations that make sense, that have ound scientific studies. now, you know, this administration has hid the scientific studies behind losed doors in many cases.
i'm a physician, i wrote i had to show my evidence to the world and have other people criticize what i wrote so that they could say, well, you didn't do that right or your technique was your study u -- doesn't show what it says it shows. that's what happens in a scientific research, is that you have to have your research open to criticism. when this administration has used science in a way that they say that the scientists say this, but they don't want to show you the data because they don't want other people to criticize what havret done. and they say -- what they've done. and they say other people who might criticize them, they're politicized. when they themselves are
politicized. they don't want the other side to speak because they say, well, you're just anti-environment. we need to have an open discourse of scientists on both sides of issues and consensus before we make policies, regulations, that kill millions cost families their raises for the last eight years that have been meager. we need mo make sure that science -- need to make sure that science is open and not politicized as it has been in this administration. i encourage my colleagues to not be afraid to stand up for what's right and for jobs in this country. and i encourage the people that may be watching too to think about what politicians that you're listening to are saying and how it affects jobs and how it really affects the
environment. because although we want a clean environment, we're not going to write rules that kill jobs and don't do anything about the real polluters in this planet, who care nothing about the environment, and are causing the majority of problems with this globe. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. under the speaker's announced -- cy of january 6, 2015, or -- is -- oh, good. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes. somewhere -- there he is. great.
mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, our previous speaker spoke about the need to revitalize the american economy and talked about regulatory environment as a way of one of the impediments, and certainly there are many, many regulations that could impede economic development. but there are also regulations that might enhance economic development. and today i want to continue what is now a six-year effort to -- well, yes, let's get this right side up. there we go. a six-year effort to make it in america. specifically today it's about manufacturing. because manufacturing matters. when i first came to congress in 2009, we were in the midst of the great recession. and millions of americans had lost their jobs. we saw the rustbelt literally
collapse. we saw factories close. we saw our shipyards opened with nothing happening. naval yards. u.s. so here we are, some six years later, the economy's recovering and we could talk about regulations. but what i'd like to talk about tonight is positive, positive regulations. regulations and laws that grow the american economy, not regulations that would hinder but rather that would grow. specifically as part of this we it in america agenda have these fundamental policies. so if we're going to rebuild the american economy, a big part of it has to be manufacturing. it does matter. so what are those issues that are involved in rebuilding the american economy?
well, there are trade issues, and we've heard a lot about that in the recent presidential campaign and undoubtedly the congress will deal with that. taxeses. the debate about taxes really wasn't very clear in the presidential election, but we're certainly going to be dealing with tax policy here. and we should. there's no doubt that the american tax policy behinders economic growth in many, many ways for small companies and encourages large companies to leave town, leave america, and leave american workers and communities helped. we've seen too much of that. so -- behind. we've seen too much of that. so tax policy becomes a very, very important part of this. energy and labor, i'm going to go specifically to those, but just quickly, educational policies, a lot of jaabering around here on the floor of congress and out around the world about educational policies. are our schools good enough, they don't measure up, we need to have charter schools, we
need to have -- and we're going to go into that in a big way with our new president. but one of the most important parts of education when we talk about rebuilding the american economy, is that we have properly trained workers, whether they are in the computer field and computer science, or whether they are in the shipyards welding the parts of a ship. so a well-trained, well-prepared work force is absolutely essential for the growth of the american economy. but education is not the subject today, nor is research. infrastructure, well, the part what have we're going to talk about today. i'm going too try to do this in maybe 10 minutes, but not much longer than that. what i want to focus on is energy policy and labor. did you know, does america know, that the united states has become a net exporter of natural gas? yes. we do have a boom in the energy
industry. the slowed down a little bit with the drop in the value of crude oil and natural gas. but nonetheless, as of today, the united states is a net exporter of natural gas. and that gas is exported to canada and mexico and other parts of the world. when it's exported to other parts of the world, it is exported in ships, in liquefied form. called liquefied natural gas. l.n.g. so liquefied natural gas on ships is part of the that export that has turned america from an importing country to an exporting country. good for all of us. but let us realize that that natural gas and, for that matter, crude oil, which is also now being exported, is a strategic national asset, a strategic natural resource.
it is absolutely crucial to the american economy. i'll give you one example. dow. the big chemical company. is bringing back to the united states much of the manufacturing that it once did overseas of plastic and other products because of the strategic national asset called natural gas. the price of natural gas was low enough that that big international, domestic american company, dow, is returning to the united states to manufacture. same thing with oil. so these are strategic national assets that we're now exporting. the question for us in public olicy is, can we in some way use this strategic national resource to expand the american economy? and the answer is absolutely
yes. not just to the benefit of the energy companies, and maybe we could wish them well as they export our strategic national asset to places arm the world and gain a healthy profit -- around the world and gain a healthy profit. ok, but shouldn't that be shared with the rest of america? i believe it should. and i know it could. and here's how. and it deals with this issue of labor. and manufacturing. make it in america. manufacturing matters. here's the deal. those exports -- export facilities for l.n.g. are big operations, lots of pipe, lots plumbing, lots of containers, all of which are or could be made in america. creating american jobs. now, once that natural gas is liquefied, that is compressed into a liquid, and goes on a
ship, the question is, where did that ship come from? and who are the sailors on the ship? well, it used to be, back when the north slope of alaska steel in that the the trans-alaska pipeline and the ships that would then take that oil to the west coast ports would be american ships with american sailors. it was the law. it was the regulation. so here you had a situation in which the law and regulations created american jobs for mariners and for the american shipyards. if we were to apply that same principle to the export of l.n.g., that strategic natural resource, think of what would happen.
this year, 2016, the first port facility in louisiana began exporting l.n.g. on ships, they were not american ships, there were no american sailors on shows ships -- those ships, the policy of the north slope oil was not extended to the export of l.n.g. to the detriment of american jobs. here's what we ought to do. there's an energy bill floating around somewhere in the senate and house, nobody knows exactly where it is, but in that energy bill, there is a section that enhances and speeds up the licensing of six other l.n.g. export facilities.
around the united states on various coast the east test, the gulf coast, as well as the west coast. why not take what we did with the north slope oil, requiring that it be on american built ships with american sailors and apply that same principle, same law, to the export of l.n.g. as these new facilities come online. it is said that the facility on the gulf coast, the new facility, in its first part, there are three different pieces of that that will come in over time, but the first part of that facility will take 100 ships to export the lick ied natural gas -- the liquefied natch wall -- natural gas from that one facility. we're talking a few hundred ships to export the liquefied natural gas not only from the
existing facility on the gulf coast but other facilities that will be built in the future. perhaps as much as 12% of the that natural gas, strategic natural -- national asset, will be exported, requiring hundreds of ships. but if we pass a law called energizing america, i like that title. in fact, we're going to introduce it tomorrow. energizing america. it's a piece of legislation that would require that we rovide 15% of the total export on american built ships. think about it. perhaps over the next decade our shipyards would be building maybe as many as 100 ships. let's just say it's 10, 20, 30 ships. perhaps more than 100,000 people could be employed in the
construction of those ships. this would be a good regulation, wnt it? it would be a regulation that would put america back to work. it would be a law that would say a strategic national asset of this nation will also benefit another strategic national asset. the american ship yards. our u.s. navy depends on those ship yards. every u.s. naval ship is built in america, in american ship yards, and if we were to expand those ship yards, we would find more competition for the naval ships, perhaps a lower price, perhaps we would also be able to employ marine engineers, welders, plumbers, steam fitters, steelworkers, not only at the ship yards but in the manufacturing of the engines here in the united states. make it in america. build it in america. all it takes, a couple of
paragraphs of law. that's all it would take. a couple of paragraphs of law that say, between now and 2024, in the next eight years, 15% of that liquefied natural gas must be on american-built ships and american sailors. now it turns out that these american ships and the sailors for strategic necessity our u.s. military because it turns out that if you're going to project american power around the world, you have to be able to get there. with the men, the women, and the materials. and that means ships. so we would build the u.s. merchant marine. we would build american ship yards so that they would be competitive around the world. and we would employ tens of
thousands and perhaps even hundreds or more thousands american workers in our ship yards. it's possible. all it takes is a law. so when this energy bill starting move -- starts moving around, maybe here in the lame duck session, i would pr pose a simple amendment. between now and 2024, 15% of that export of l.n.g. would be on american-built ships with american sailors. oh, by the way, there are some older american l.n.g. ships that could be reflagged for the purposes of meeting at least part of that 15% in the initial years. and then after 2025, let's ramp it up to 30%. let's keep our ship yards busy. let's keep our steelworkers our welders, our plumbers, our marine engineers, our factories, busy in the future with a very simple, very simple law that would be a really good
regulation. oh, i can hear the whining. of the oil industry thombing natural gas industry, oh it's going to be too expensive. not nearly as expensive as not having american jobs and not being able to project american power because we do not have a robust merchant marine and robust number of american ships. consider this fact. after world war ii, we had 1,200 american ships, american sailors on them, all american flagged. in the 1980's, we had 500. today, we have less than 80. we're seing the disappearance of the american merchant marine. american sailors, american flagged ships, american ship yards, are all diminishing and very rapidly disappearing. it's up to us.
your elected officials, myself, my colleagues, 434 other members of congress, and the 100 senators and i guess the new president is interested in making america great again, hey, here's how you can do it. president-elect trump. do it in policies that once again call for making it in america. so, what are my colleagues going to do? let this opportunity slip? let this opportunity disappear? forget about the strategic nature of energy in the united states, the strategic necessity of being able to project american power with american sailors in american ships to go wherever we want? oh, yes. i heard somebody say, we could contract to have ships sent to move our military.
eah. hello, i'm fining from washington, d.c. and yeah, can you folks in beijing send over ships so that we can send men and material to the south china sea? not likely to happen, right? we can't depend on other countries. we have to depend on our own abilities, you are own shipyards, our own mariners and we can do it. there are many bad regulations, to be sure. there are some that hinder the economy. but i would propose to you that a very good law could be used to build the american economy. by simply requiring that the export of liquefied natural gas be done on american ships, 15% between now and 2024, and thereafter, 30%.
echoing what we did back in the 1960's when the north slope of alaska opened up. and that oil came south. american steel, pipe, and americans made ships with american sailors. we can do it once again for the benefit of our country, for our national security, and for american workers. and american businesses. with that, mr. speaker, i yield ack. the speaker pro tempore: i lay before the house a couple of personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. jones of north carolina for today and the balance of the week and mr. poe of texas for today and for the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the requests are granted.
they are joined by a senior congressional order for the hill with the election, the democratic elections for the 115th congress coming up on wednesday morning. tell us why tim ryan is challenging into pelosi? >> i think there are several reasons. going back to 2010 with the democrats lost control of the speaker gavel and they were wiped out, there was grumbling then. the samen returning leaders to descend spots and it were not able to keep the majority. since then, each election cycle you have heard that grumbling but it has been behind closed doors. this year is very different because of the donald trump victory. they did not pick up significant house ethernet once was once my close doors is becoming public in the form of tim ryan's challenge. it down au can break couple of ways. one is generational. leader pelosi has been in charge
for 14 years, mid-70's. her two attendants have also been the for more than a decade, in their mid-seventies and there has been a constant kind of grumbling among younger members that there is no room to move up in the world of the democratic leadership. what you have seen is kind of a brain drain. you have seen in exodus of hollen,ike chris van like donna edwards who are moving on to other places because of the bottleneck at the top. tim ryan is say, we need a fresh face, new ideas and i'm the guy who can do it. the other component is original. tim ryan percents of youngstown, ohio, blue-collar manufacturing base and he points out the -- nancy pelosi is from san francisco, all of them from the coast without exception. he says they simply do not speak
for the working class, white, rust belt voters and he again is the guy to do it. >> this of the two arguments we're hearing over and over again. what is his track record on capitol hill and congress? >> he is an appropriator. he is young, 43. he does represent a new generation, but he is not a new guy. he has been around for a terms. he was a very young when he arrived, 29, the youngest democrat in the house when he did arrive, but he is season. he has been here entering his eighth term, hear the 14 years nancy pelosi has been a leader. a little bit of irony, he wants a change, but he does represent a manufacturing district that did go for trial and yet he was able to secure 68% of the vote and so he is saying, we need somebody that can go into the fresh fries, the church services. we need somebody that can go and talk to these voters.
>> to show our viewers the headline saying insurgent dems endorse pelosi challenger tim ryan. tell us about the supporters from the democratic caucus. >> dca kind of trickle of supporters. the number stands at 11. you might see a couple more. we are not sure how much people are going to come up publicly. today you have rep. gallego: elected to his second term, young hispanic for arizona and you had an iraq veteran. young and newlso from massachusetts. they have successfully delayed the leadership elections. policy one of them to happen two weeks ago. they said, no way, not after this election. we are going to take some time, have a reckoning and find out what went wrong. they were successful. they had not endorsed anybody until today so they were kind of holding their fire and now they are just trying to get a little
bit of momentum for ryan, even if it is a losing effort, they are young and it will be here when pelosi is gone and so they see it as a strategic move, i think. timeframe through the and the logistics on the vote. we understand it is going to be a secret ballot wednesday morning. >> it is always a secret ballot. that actually plays to be advantage of tim ryan. pelosi is extremely powerful force in this caucus. she is very well respected, but she is also feared to an extent. i think that is why you do not see so many people, publicly. the last time she was challenged in 2010 was heath shuler, not a senior guy, has not been around very long and he got 43 votes, very few of them were public. people will vote in a secret ballot because they can remain anonymous and not have any kind of political reprisal from pelosi who has in the past
denied people committee assignments or denied in campaign cash, things like that. as kind of a form of retribution is how she keeps people in line, how she keeps everybody so unified. tomorrow morning, starting the day at 9:00 in the morning, it will be in the basement of the capital which is what the democrats meet every week for the caucus. you will have somebody nominate pelosi and somebody nominate tim ryan. we do not know who those figures are going to be, and then you will have a couple speakers on behalf of both of the candidates . in can expect pelosi will probably grab a female lawmaker, someone from the chc come all the way someone from the black caucus. she will have a whole swath of people and 10 ryan will probably try to do the same thing. there,got some diversity marcia fudge, former chc -- former black caucus chairwoman.
she is from ohio who probably would speak on his behalf and then they voted to close ballot. whether or not we know the tally is another thing. the tally in the sugar vote was leaked, but this only do not know if we another tally immediately. >> we will look for your reporting on all of this. you can read more at the hail.com. think you for joining us. bad live from political, gingrich's slam stock from for false voting fraud claims. former house speaker newt gingrich warned president-elect donald trump on tuesday to watch what he tweets. didink the worst thing he was to treat the other night about the illegal votes. gingrich said this according to a interview. mr. trump tweeted sunday without evidence that he actually has more popular votes than democratic nominee hillary clinton, if you deduct the millions of people that voted illegally.
our later -- hours later, he writes that serious waterfront occurred. the article goes on to copresidents of the united states cannot randomly tweet without having somebody check it out, gingrich said tuesday. makes you wonder about whatever else he is doing, it undermines much more than just a single tweet. i would say that is probably the biggest single thing he has done wrong. you can read more at politico.com. president-elect donald trump has selected ciao to have the department of transportation. she's a former labor secretary and the george w. bush administration, married to senate republican majority leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky. up next on c-span, house majority leader kevin mccarthy talks about repealing the affordable care act, then senator bob corker, who chairs the senate foreign's relation committee discusses his meeting with president-elect donald
trump. after that, senate judiciary committee chair sen. grassley meets with senator jeff sessions was donald trump's k for attorney general. ♪ announcer: c-span's washington journal, live, every day with the news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, democratic vice chair congressman eric swalwell talks about the democrats legislative agenda in the next congress and political messaging and strategy. then, intelligence committee member congressman chris stewart on president-elect trump's emerging security team and four on ellis he challenges. new york magazine select all senior max read on his article, fake news and whether the internet is a reliable tool for furthering democracy. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion.
now, house majority leader kevin mccarthy gives a preview of republican legislative priorities in the next congress. the california republican talks about tax reform, a health care longer placement, border security. congressman mccarthy was a guest of the washington post the daily 202 series with national political correspondent james holman. [applause] james: thank you, chris. house majority kevin mccarthy we are obviously very lucky to have with us today. good turn out in the audience. on a rainy day, lame duck session. mr. mccarthy: if they feel tired i just flew in from california. [laughter] james: there is a lot going on.
the lame-duck is going to be as exciting as it possibly could have been. let's start with the news overnight. tom price, congressman from georgia, who you served with, is going to be the health and human services secretary. he's been a staunch opponent of the affordable care act. what's your relationship with price? what do you make of him? mr. mccarthy: tom and i could not be closer. he serves on the ways and means. he is a doctor, orthopedic surgeon. integral in the republican he has beenintegral in the republican putting together a better way of how to repeal and replace obamacare. i actually believe this is a very good decision on trump's part. i thought this would happen early on. that tom would be a perfect fit. which is nice. we've got mike pompeo going to c.i.a. tom price with him there. i mean, i talked to the administration elect almost
every other night, and how many are you going to take? you got to leave some people left. there's a lot of good people that have been working hard on these issues that are going to make it, in my perspective, easier to get the job done. james: who are you talking to in the administration? mike pence? mr. mccarthy: i talk to president-elect donald trump. i talked to reince priebus. i talk to bannon. i talk to mike pence. james: are they eager to work together? mr. mccarthy: i feel everybody feels very close about working together. one thing i'm going to do, i think i have been on a couple morning shows, sometimes my mouth says something that my head's thinking differently. i think i said today that i was putting the calendar out today. i'm not. i thought it was wednesday. i'm putting it out on wednesday. i have been redoing the calendar, one of the roles of the majority leader. especially for the first 100 days of this year. it is not just the idea of, oh,
what they should be in session? no, it's in concert with working with the new administration and working with the senate what , would we be doing that week, the next week, and other week? the house works faster than the senate. time wise. we don't have this gridlock of 60-vote world. so our movement will be faster. planning out one of the roles of majority leader, too, is managing the committees. so seeing what we can do, what we should be doing at this time, and mapping all that out. knowing things change, you have to be flexible. but you're never going to get all this done if we don't start working early. we'll come in early on the third. james: 2 1/2 weeks before he gets sworn in. mr. mccarthy: yes. james are there going to be more : legislative days next year? mr. mccarthy: we'll be in session more legislative days. i'll explain that all to the members. we'll walk them through what i give to everybody else. i will tell you the members are eager about that. weeks will be longer. the first 100 days will be more. there are certain times i wish
we could be in. the one week right before the inaugural, security wise, you can't use the capitol during that time. we have a couple of retreats. the democrats and republican retreats. i do think those are helpful. ours are done with the senate as well. to me that's still working in the process. i don't have the floor. james: talk about the first 100 days. you are mapping out your calendar. what is the benchmark for success in the first 100 days? if we came back 100 days after trump is sworn in, what's -- mr. mccarthy: i would like to see progress. first thing you'll find at the beginning, what i found in this past administration, the frustration with the country, is lack of growth. one of the elements happened to be -- especially if you look at the economic, is productivity is down. three straight quarters. that's because you're hiring new people to deal with regulation. we do know -- we no longer have co-equal branches. i think reorganizing where we have co-equal branches, bringing
that article 1 back, you are going to see the very beginning reign back the midnight rule, others going through. we have some other elements of certain things we can do from the prospect of the check and balance. we have a congressional review act that allows a different vote number in the senate based upon regulations that have passed. if you take the first six years of the obama administration, it was almost 500 new regulations through. how do we reign that back in during the congressional review act? those take 15 legislative days to be privileged in the senate. you really cannot start on that until the 24th. we have not done a budget for 2017. you'll see a budget start. probably start in the senate. as many of you know from being here, that gives you reconciliation. that is an element of how do you deal with the deficit. that's one of the elements that you can deal with obamacare and
you can't replace it under that, the repeal of it. you can't replace it under that, but you can start the process of repeal. you'll also have a budget for 2018. that gives you another bite at the apple on reconciliation when you want to do tax reform. if you want to do tax reform that way. when it comes to the border, the administration and others want us to get that done quickly. you'll see movement on that. you'll see talk when it comes to infrastructure. we're looking at ways that we make this economy start working again. i know there's administration you have to fill. that's going to take part-time in the senate. the supreme court 11 appointment it will have to fill. but we've got to get work being done and we can't waste any of the weeks and the times. v.a. needs reform. so all these things we have been working on, and a lot of those we have been working on in a better way ahead of time. so you've got a lot of that work through committees done. once january 3 comes you finish
populating, we're in a stronger position in the house than probably all the others. the democrats haven't even picked their leadership yet. if there's one person i can root for, i think nancy has more support in the republican conference for her to stay leader than maybe in her own conference. i am not sure. i'm just seeing if you are away, ok? james: you said last week that you feel republicans will have the house majority as long as nancy pelosi is democratic leader. mr. mccarthy: i firmly believe that. do you notice other some people in the senate that always get one term too long. the term in the senate is six years, file like nancy is at that point. i want to help her. i think that's a good place for her to be. i think it's very helpful -- james: you endorse her? mr. mccarthy: can you believe she puts out that she wants to dccc.he current
i would look into about firing what those people did. she wants to keep them. more power to them. she should be reelected. james: i want to talk about the issues, but while we're on this point, you were part of the -- integral, you were charge of recruiting that 2010 class. you were one of the young guns. if you were giving advice to young democrats, the young guns in that caucus right now besides the pelosi point, what would you tell them? how do you come back from being in the wilderness? this is the first time, you got elected and -- mr. mccarthy: the country has already decided your policies are not where they want to go. they rejected your majority. but you kept the same leadership. then their leadership, no disrespect, their leadership is 75 to 76 years old. that's not the future. when you look at what we did recruiting, you got to stop washington from recruiting. what i did, i went across the country, you don't want to talk somebody into running, you want to ask them why. if they have the right reasons
that they want to run, you want to enhance that but don't pre -pick. you want the competition to come from within and represent their own area. we always put measurement, so people had measurements of where to get. and that year of 2010 we defeated 63 democrat incumbents and 61 were young guns. the story i always look to kill steven fincher, if i go out and , recruiting and barack obama is 70% approval rating, and i sit down with steven fincher and he tells me he is from frog jump, tennessee. and i ask him, why do you want to run? mr. kevin i'm just a farmer. i have watched the country changed before my eyes and i do not want to come with children i did nothing. i said that's a good reason. mr. kevin, don't know film' the -- if i'm the best person. why? i have never been elected to anything. that's all right. you don't have to be elected.
oh, mr. kevin, i've never even been to washington, d.c., on vacation. i said as of right now you're my , top recruit in the nation. [laughter] mr. mccarthy: he ran -- he announced he was going to run. i came back to my conference and i said, i think i found the person that defines this election. they call laughed at me. -- they all kind of laughed at me. i said, here he is having never been to d.c., never run before, but is willing to risk all his lifeces, all of his because he watched his country change. it frustrated him that far that he was willing to do it. and truthfully a lot of the media laughed at me. so once he got in, the democrat opponent stayed in and then backed out. then these other people got in with millions of dollars. steven fincher won. you know what? when you looked at -- in congress, he's retiring right now. he has been there three terms. the first year the jobs act, which people say was one of the best bills, you know who the author of that was question mark steven fincher. james: let's unpack some of the
issues. the first 100 days, you mentioned several big-ticket things. let's start with obamacare. we mentioned it with tom price. yourentioned backstage putting something together. mr. mccarthy: ok. we'll repeal obamacare, replacing obamacare you want to make sure you get it right. one thing i always found -- the argument was you need to change the health care system. obamacare will not stand on its own. you look at 23 co-ops when they passed obamacare. what were they given, $3 billion? now 16 have failed. premiums are up 25%. you go through all of the rep occasions, people leaving the market, a lot of states only have one option we never thought . that would succeed, but repealing it, you want to make sure you replace it properly. this is a problem. they closed ranks, they didn't listen to anybody. they made it a political decision instead of a policy decision. we have done a lot of work on this. especially when it came to king-burwell when we thought there was going to be a supreme
court case. there was a supreme court case, but the decision was going to do differently. we put a little group together to map out where we would go. the time, it was the chairman of ways and means come up all right, tom price, myself, but the other thing we did, we brought governors in. listen to governors. they do have ideas. what we thought would happen, work at the very beginning, is not where we finally ended up because we sat there and talked policy. what's the best policy you can get through and make happen to work the process? what i'm going to do is putting letters out this week to all the governors and insurance commissions, give me your ideas on replacement. we want to make sure we get this done right. we're going to get it done. we want to make sure it's done right and people are engaged in the process as well. james: when do you think it gets done? mr. mccarthy: well, repealing is easier and faster because that could be a 51-vote. replacing is going to be 60 votes. i don't want to set a time limit
that this has to get done by this certain date. i want to make sure it gets done right. james: what do you envision -- there are a bunch of things that are popular. some of which are not that expensive. some of which are. mr. mccarthy: the first thing everybody talks about pre-existing conditions and your children 26. where do those ideas stem from? those are republican policies. it in those two instances i believe those stay. we've got an idea and a better way. that's one place to start. it's not easy because i sat around the room many times trying to come up with the replacement plan. it wasn't until king-burwell it forced us to make decisions. that will be very helpful. i also want to have the states out there because i think having more competition, having options for people. i always use the analogy, when i
want to pick a cable company to watch what i want to watch on tv, i love the options that i have. i love the ability to switch. i love the different packages that i can pick if i like a certain sports team. i want to watch hbo or something else. i can make it just tailored to myself. why can't we have health care in a manner that we can do something to that extent? that would be a better option. james: immigration. you mentioned the new administration is the high priority to do something about the border. what does that look like? is that the wall? is that going to happen? mr. mccarthy: you're going to have to secure the border no matter what you do. yes, this administration cares about it, but i would say that is a bipartisan issue. when you looked at what -- i would say the democrat plan was in the senate, when they did their bill, they put billions of dollars for border security. you have to have a secure border. i think you'll see people work on it. it can't be anybody in this room who thinks our current immigration system works. it doesn't matter what position
you are about immigration, if you believe the current system works, you're wrong. if we do nothing on immigration, we perpetuate the problem. 40% of everybody that's here illegally came here legally on a visa. so don't you think that program needs to be changed? the process and idea that if somebody comes here and they get an engineering degree and tell them to leave, but we do this just luck of the lottery and chain migration where you bring your whole family, i don't think that's a system that's working right in america. we are a country that stimulates, believes in immigration. i think we have to have greater control over what that means and how the process we do it. james: do you sense there would be any appetite for a larger comprehensive reform? mr. mccarthy: i believe there is, but i do not believe there's any trust to do any comprehensive immigration reform without proving you secured the border. there is a lack of trust out there. no matter what you look at from immigration, people believe you have to start with that.
let's start with that and move from there. james: you have a lot of relationships in silicon valley. you are the main republican appointment out there. mr. mccarthy: there are a couple others. james: immigration is important to them. they care about some of these visa issues you just mentioned. mr. mccarthy: h1b's and others. james: how important is the immigration component to what they want? you talk about your innovation agenda. mr. mccarthy: i think it's important there. remember where i come in california, i'm in a very diverse district. cesar chavez is buried in my district. so i also understand guest workers program. from the agriculture. two families in my district grow 80% of all the carrots in the country. you ever eat a baby carrot? the little ones? you want a secret? there is no such thing. they are regular carrots, we chop them, you buy them, we love you for it. we do not charge you more. that is what we do. silicon valley as well. h-1-b's.
we are sending people off. we want an economy that grows. want people that want to simulate, i think we can find an immigration system that works. james: there is some tension here within the republican party, of course, someone like jeff sessions. he wants to reduce legal immigration. not just securing the border. there is some current of people who supported the current president-elect who want to reduce legal immigration. sounds like you have no appetite for that. do you think there is a place for legal immigration question mark mr. mccarthy: i think there is a big place for legal immigration. newsroomno one person that cannot trace their family back. i'm irish and italian. we have the best fights in the neighborhood. palidino came from italy in 1921. just so happens it's my grandfather. then jeremiah mccarthy came in the 1860's from ireland. they made a great contribution to this country.
you know what? one of the grandchildren became a majority leader in the house of representatives. we want to keep that dream alive. i believe we can keep that dream alive. we also have to secure our borders. there is a logical way we can go about this that we maintain this, and we maintain the core and tradition of america with also protecting. there are people on the other side that want to have nothing and people just run in. you can't have -- you cannot keep a country strong without the rule of law. if you do not have a secure border, people are breaking the rule of law by coming into the country illegally, you will break down society. there is a value to being an american. you want to keep that value. you know what? people went through the process legally to make that happen. we want to make a legal system that works. james: moving on to tax reform. big-ticket item. the president-elect talked about tax cuts. do you see any prospect for big tax reform in the coming years, coming congress? what's that going to most likely
end up looking like? what do you think? sort of the elements of that. mr. mccarthy: i would say article 1, section 7 of the constitution says all tax reform starts in the house. we know it starts in ways and means. we did not wait for january to start thinking about this. we have already started working on this. if you look at a better way. you want to know, what would that structure be? it will be simpler and fairer. i think you'll end up with three rates not five. i think there will be a reduction in rates. how do you get the reduction in rates? how you craft it. if i look at across this country the frustration, the movement of what we saw in these last campaigns, why? the middle class were worth less today than we were eight years ago. stormtrooper the number one thing we have to do is grow this economy. every single budget that last administration sent to us had like a 3.5 or higher annual growth rate in their budget.
they never achieved that. we are dealing with 1%, 1.5% growth rate. you do not solve the problems. we cannot solve the challenges of america just by cutting government. we have to grow this economy. and tax reform, reg reform those are the key elements making this economy begin to grow. all the things people would try to say to scare you about having donald trump be president, you are finding they are not true. the market was going to drop, remember? thetion i, where was option, the best november we ever had on the market. why? because we assume if you look at the economic factors before, and business investment was down, consumer consumption was up. productivity was down. the key factors behind that. we could get business investment up. they know they can get a return. what's a good place to make an investment. productivity up, more people working, tax reform. right now we have a system where structure dictates behavior. you could have a benefit to have
a foreign country come by or leave this contry. we punish you to bring in a -- bring that money back into america. it is all backwards. some of my best friends who created companies from scratch somebody took them over simply because our tax advantage was a disadvantage. james: do you think that republicans have been very nervous about deficits the last eight years. they weren't as nervous when george w. bush was president. a lot of your members who have come in the in the last eight years put a high priority on deficit spending. mr. mccarthy: i'm one of them. james: you can do dynamic scoring. you mentioned the administration's budget came in with sort of high expectations of growth. how serious are house republicans going to take deficit spending? mr. mccarthy: we're very serious about it. you cannot have a debt equal to your -- size of your economy. every great society has collapsed based upon when they overstretch themselves.
you could manage debt, but it's different. the size and manage of the debt i have on my home is one i can manage. i still live in the very first home i every bought. instead of going and buying in million dollar house. i cannot manage that. we have to look at that. how do we solve this? this is what i talked about earlier. one, you have to grow the economy. you have to manage -- one, we were very successful in 2010 where we put the caps on discretionary spending. it's mandatory spending. discretionary is 10.67, right. trillion dollars, in essence. but medicare, social security, interest on the debt, that's making up 66% of the budget on his way during ronald reagan's to 75%. during ronald reagan's term that was 25% and discretionary was 75%. so we have to get a handle on mandatory. we have to grow the economy to get it out of this problem. that's why tax reform is still important. that is why regulation reform is so important. james: how important when
you're moving bills out of the house is it they'll be revenue neutral? one of the things -- we're talking about is infrastructure spending package that would be potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. mr. mccarthy: you want it to be paid for. these kinds of different principles and philosophies, right? is somebody keynesian or not? i believe of government lowers taxes, someone goes evidence course and says we are going to kill us, but when you going to do with that money? you're going to invest it, growth it, and make it grow faster than government? i believe yes. we'll get more revenue in. history has proven me right. it's where you want to look at it. when you're going into a infrastructure, you want to pay for things. but another key element of infrastructure we're going to find in our conference is, we're frustrated -- we put in a long-term highway bill you haven't had in quite some time. some of the things we did was reforms in it. why does it take 10 years to build a road that you voted for a decade ago? population doesn't stop growing. it moves right by it.
can't we bring common sense reforms were reconsidering the building of that road and others? let's be able to have the benefit of it at the same time you're going to find a lot of . streamlining. james: is part of this construction package. you think infrastructure can get done in the first 100 days? mr. mccarthy: i'm not going to put any time lines on it. i want to get results and get it done right. i put more days in so we get this done. i think there's always a window . we know in an election year, things are harder than the first year. we want to get as much done correctly as soon as we can and there is an order and basis to do it. james: do you feel like -- obviously you weren't around as much during the previous republican administration, but -- i guess you were. mr. mccarthy: no, i came with the minority. smallest republican class in the history. there was only 13. not one of them beat a democrat. james: that's amazing. 2006.
mr. mccarthy: that is right. james: do you feel like house republicans are getting to sort of set this agenda? to what extent -- mr. mccarthy: we all work together. i think the house has a greater working majority. i think the house by creating a better way is better prepared for some of the issues that we're going to deal with. the senate has some odd rules. i think the 60-vote is a guaranteed gridlock rule, but i also look at democrats who are city and state said donald trump carried that will probably be more helpful in this perspective. schumer will be new than harry reid. maybe schumer is more likely to work and negotiate on something. our committees are up and better prepared. james: on this bipartisanship point, you mentioned there are these red state democrats -- indiana, missouri, north dakota, west virginia up in 2018.
you set on obamacare replacement, you would need 60 in the senate. what else do you think you'll get democratic votes on not just in the senate but the house? of these things that we are talking about. mr. mccarthy: the house is a little different. i've always found if you study history, the first on months, that is the length of the time the president gets. when i came in there was six in 2006 and people were like 300 votes. then it slides down. it depends what we're moving. if there is a big challenge right now -- yeah, i think nancy wins, by think she has already lost the base of her conference right? , so they are going to be more willing and apt, realize they are sending in districts where a lot of their friends have lost and people voted for want to give this country moving again. i think tax reform. it will be interesting to see how many people will vote for repealing obamacare.
once it is repealed, why would they not be willing to vote for a replacement? you have no other options. are you going to play politics with it? reg reform. i think you'll find quite a few that are coming from rural america and others that watched the administration put in where they took out total industries. they watched their own constituents lose their jobs. i think you're going to find quite a few willing -- james: lk about governing, bigger picture. you have very good relationships with everyone in your conference across the ideological perspective. the house freedom caucus, there were 20 members or whatever the number was, you were -- mr. mccarthy: it's secret. james: who wouldn't vote for anything even when it was a good deal that had been negotiated just because it was voting to raise the debt ceiling or it was -- mr. mccarthy: make it a little better. james: how are those folks -- you know them very well, going to respond when a deal gets cut to get to 60 or whatever -- 70% good. do you think now that there is unified republican control,
some of those guys are going to come along, or do you think you will still have it doesn't, two dozen members who are just going to want perfect, be the enemy of the good? mr. mccarthy: do you know our conference? we are a microcosm of society. members are all different. i think structure dictates behavior. there was a perfect structure where you had a different party in the presidency. you had a senate that was slower. you could do those things. and if you utilized the freedom caucus to do that it made the , house republicans weaker because you had to negotiate with nancy pelosi. if we stuck together, then we're always stronger. i think you're going to see us sticking together more. i think there's less ability for the freedom caucus to do those types of things.
i'm sure those districts, donald trump probably did the best in. it would be hard for them to stand up if president-elect trump is asking for this fundamental change and they are say no to it. i think that is harder. i think we're more united. james: because of the election? mr. mccarthy: yes. i think speaker right has done a great job uniting the conference. james: the sequester, you have military resources in your district. obviously the sequester has been hard -- mr. mccarthy: the sequester part is difficult. that came from the obama administration. the challenge of it is we should , do our own work to work that out. if you want to do something investment in the military, that means you got to go do all this other stuff domestically that maybe might not need it or not where the investment is. if we are able to be together, i think we solve all of that. and we can be. james can you see lifting the : sequester or getting rid of
it? mr. mccarthy: you're not going to list the caps. you can talk about where you make the investment. if you have enough money, you're are going to invest, prioritize where you are going to do it. in the sequester, you are not able to prioritize. i look at the fact that one of the rules if you get elected you should take the responsibility of where you should make the i don't want to go in debt. i don't want to go in debt. decisions of where to spend that money. i got only a certain amount of money, but i want to invest in the right place that. -- that would solve pro-desk solve the problems. your home state. james: let's talk about california. your home state. you are lucky to represent the most republican district. california is one of the very few states where hillary clinton did better than barack obama. mr. mccarthy: if you talk about the popular vote and electoral college vote, first of all great , you cannot have an election redetermine the outcome one way and then argue after the election, you did better here.
like if the game of baseball is, you have the most scores you win, but i got the most home runs, it doesn't work, right? but if the game is played, i would have played it differently. she beat donald trump by three million votes. so if you take california out, donald trump won the popular vote in 49 states. so their ways i can always make an argument one way or the other. if we elect a president by electoral college, whoever got to 270 is going to become the president. you can't argue the other ones are out. california, we did not lose one congressional race in the -- and the democrats play very hard. we came close to winning one in sacramento with scott jones. i think california is the place where we can teach rest of the nation of how republicans can win. i will give you an example.
the district next to mine is one that is 72% hispanic district. david valadao represents that district. david valadao won by 57% of the vote. in a year where hillary clinton did very well. so, i think we have abilities to expand. i think we can teach the rest how to do it. james on the popular vote : question, following up on that. donald trump one of the things he tweeted on sunday was he said he would of won the popular vote if not for millions of fraudulently cast ballots in california. you're from california. any signs of fraudulent voting? mr. mccarthy: the election is over. i'm not into this recount. i'm not -- we have the campaign. i think everybody was ready for the campaign to be over. we made our decision. now let's go govern. what is interesting is all the arguments the or prior, which respect the election or not
question market is over. let's govern. let's move on. james: you do not see any signs of fraud in your home state? mr. mccarthy: i say let's govern. we have elected officials that carry this. county by county is different. i could go through every aspect. do you allow an absentee ballot in one county to go in one not. they can make any argument they want. you can put a fact based upon that argument. the election to me is over. i think the public wants us to govern out. the recount is not going to be any different as you go through, maybe a few votes one way or the other, but it is only counting the votes that it has. james: i get what you are saying, the public does want to move forward. it is important for the legitimacy of the election that the american people believe that the votes were counted fairly, that there was not any fraudulent votes. mr. mccarthy: let's move on. james: was there? mr. mccarthy: i looked at the election.
also the results come in and i trusted them like i have in the past. you can trust and verify. i don't have a problem. it is time to govern. james: moving on. donald trump is sort of the man, the leader. you got behind in may, when a lot of republicans around town were not willing to do so. you kind of helped in a lot of ways. mr. mccarthy: i was smart, wasn't i? james: now he is president. he is coming in. we talked a lot about the policy agenda. there is still, there are some conservatives who are a little worried about some things about him. kind of touching on a couple of the issues that have come up a lot the last few weeks. the potential conflicts of interest. the fact that he's not following the traditions that some other presidents have followed. does that were you at all? does about you? mr. mccarthy: i don't feel that's fair. let me tell you why.
i see this on a micro level where there will be somebody that runs for congress that has never been elected before and has been a small business owner and they are running because it want to change the country. they never think before they are going to run i'm going to have to change everything in my business because they don't know. they haven't had to do any of that, right? then when they get elected the ethics committee comes to them and they tell to you do their says coming up to do this or this. certain thing and change their mind. they never thought of that. they just want to go search. we set the rules up to really punish you if you have been in business. because we start with the idea that you would do something corrupt. i think the aspect that when he ran, he took this seriously. most of you probably know him. no one is going to tell me he is not one of the most ethical attorneys you have ever seen. he knows the law well. i think by naming him one of the very first, he'll work all that out. it is not the role, if i'm going
to go run for president, is laying out the general, letting you know what i'm going to do with my business. if i won, here the legal counsel. i did well in business. i'll let the legal counsel figure out what legal thing i'm supposed to do and not do. i think by appointing him, that kind of souls that answer. james could you envision house : republicans doing oversight of the trump presidency if some of these lines did get blurred? obviously, you trust don. mr. mccarthy: i would assume that -- take donald trump out of it. oversight committee is oversight the matter who is in. the same thing for the appointment of the attorney general. the same reason why my office looks across the supreme court with a blindfold on. this country has got to come together. we have to stop being red and blue states. we have to stop being, because you are one party or something else, oversight is oversight. i want oversight to hold me accountable, too. it is not based upon is it
donald? it is based upon what is the role of your jobs. terry at your jobs and put blinders on it. james you mentioned the party is : more unified. people have gotten onboard. mr. mccarthy: winning helps do that. [laughter] james we have to wrap up in the : next two or three minutes. taking a step back, you got the majority six years ago. if you could go back and talk to kevin mccarthy at the end of november, 2010, what advice would you give yourself? mr. mccarthy: 2010? james now that you have been in : the majority for six years. you have been around the track a few times. mr. mccarthy: i would have asked our members not to make expectations higher than you could actually achieve. i always believe surpass expectations. i think we told the american public certain things that we could do that we couldn't do. we should have brought the public along at each step of the way. but i'll give you this.
the senate never would have been a republican majority had the house not become a republican majority. it would not have had cory gardner, would not attend from louisiana down. you watch for this country has turned it. if you watch will republicans were when barack obama took over , the number of governors, number of legislative seats and others, we have never been stronger. but we did not run to win a majority. we ran to change a country. we should not miss this window of opportunity. when you asked me about the number of days, am i going to judge? no, i'm going to judge on getting the policy right. i'm going to judge on having an honest and fair government. it is not come are you going to use your power to benefit one person, party or the other? no. i have washed that. i do not like to the took place.
why do we leave a legacy that brings us back to three co-equal branches. that keeps people more honest and in check. the power rests with the people. her everything i have said about this election, i do not care what side you were on, you should feel good about the country. the pundits were wrong and everybody else. what does that tell you? nobody controls this government but the people. if the people get frustrated, they can change direction. regardless what everybody -- experts telling them is going to happen. to me, that's exciting. i'm excited and i feel very honored to walk into the building and be a small part of it. let's let history write for this window, for this moment in time, to be achieved what we said to the public we would achieve? james: kevin mccarthy, house majority leader, thank you for your time. really appreciate it. thank you to everyone who came. thank you to everyone in our television audience. watching online and on c-span.
mr. mccarthy: i read this every morning. i read it all the way through. you know why? might instagram pictures on. james: follow him. mr. mccarthy: no one does my instagram but me. if you like it, give him credit. if not, tell me to improve. james: thank you again. ♪ instagram but me.[captions copyl cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]