tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News June 3, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
i don't like drones and i don't know about the sound of that. kelly: that'll do it for us. we will be back at 4:00 eastern. journal editorial is next. >> as president, i can put no other consideration before the well-being of american citizens, the paris climate accord is simply the latest example of washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the united states. >> welcome to the journal editorial report i'm paul gigot, that was president trump announcing that the united states will withdraw from the paris climate accord making good of central promise of 2016 campaign, long awaited decision seen as major blow to president obama's legacy but is it a blow
that critics claim. dan henninger and kim strassel. mary, we will get to the politics which are corn here, but first just as a decision was it the right one? >> i think it was and i think there were three major problems with this agreement. the first is in a cost-benefit analysis, the numbers just don't add up. president, president obama committed to certain regulations that would cost the economy a lot and i think president trump is right. but the payoff very was small in its progression and not enough to make the cost worthwhile and there was also a huge money transfer of $3 billion that was supposed to go to a united nations green fund and we know that we would never see that money again. paul: right, dan, the argument,
though, for saying in, there was a lot of pressure, the business community, a lot of businesses really wanted him to stay in because they begun to think that this is good politics for them marketing. >> marketing. paul: that's right. the argument that scott pruitt of the epa made if you stay in even though maybe these were voluntary guidelines, estimates. you had to meet, you could be sued here in the united states by green groups that said, well, they may be voluntary but we committed to them, you have to stick with them in. >> well, exactly right which is to say that the agreement which is voluntary has no common metrics to evaluate it. it was a forcing mechanism. just like pruitt said, once it was in place because it's simply an agreement, something voluntary agreement, people say what's the harm, the harm is that it was going to enable them to then force those policies into play via the courts, in
other words, via a system that they couldn't do politically. if the paris agreement were that important, they would have had real policies in there with real enforcement mechanisms but that was politically impossible so now they have to come in through this back door. paul: kim, this was a conservatives oppose today populist, nationalist conservatives opposed to it while much of the business community was for it. how real was this debate in the white house? it looked like it was something like a cliffhanger. trump didn't know which direction was going to go. >> he was uncertain pretty much right up to the announcement because he seemed to be style and listens to opposing forces and you did have two different sides and guys like scott pruitt making forcefully the argument about the economy and how does agreement doesn't really help the environment and steve bannon
saying this is a campaign promise, you need to keep with it but then you had folks reportedly like jared kushner and ivanka trump, relatives of the president and also rex tillerson saying that for diplomatic reasons you really needed to stay in. blowback from the international community would just be too great. paul: well, what about the blowback, it's just substantial. donald trump said, look, we are going to renegotiate this, make it better terms but quickly angela merkel and european frenches and italians said, no way, it's not going to happen. i suspect it's not going to happen. >> look, i think that for many people and, you know, i heard vice president pence say this, this has become an ideology, global warming and that's very much the case in international nations and some of our allies. there's going to be blowback whether or not we pulled out of the agreement or whether or not we lived under our commitments
which by the way under president trump's agenda it was never going to be possible. this is a cleaner way to do it and the trump's administration way forward that they will lead in other agreements with our allies. paul: was it a mistake the president not to say, look, just submit this to the senate, submit it as a treaty, president obama submitted it even though he was making enormous national commitments, we are going to avoid congress. if he had submitted to the senate as a treaty, he might have democrats who voted against it and would look politically weaker. some of the opponents are going to try to wait him out. >> if you're going to try to circumvent the democratic process, this is the kind of thing you will have to live with because the next president who comes along can reverse what you did. you know, president obama used that kind of, you know,
executive power in a way that, i think really goes against what this country and the constitution stands for. >> and obviously he has thrown down the gauntlet in opposition, big time. what he did here was a political and economic reality check. he described the industry, paper, transportation, oil, steel, jobs would be lost and it's not that democrats are unaware of that, barack obama constantly and hillary clinton in her campaign would talk about all of the good jobs that were going to be created by people making solar panels. now, what that meant they knew that what they were proposing was going to cost jobs in these other industries and trump is saying, i'm protecting those jobs here now while wait if for promise of solar panel jobs. paul: the united states abided by whatever commitments we made but china, india and frankly europe, they have commitments that they don't live up to but we would have and that's a big
difference. with first trip abroad behind him president trump return this week to the washington from ongoing russia probe to renewed rumors of west-wing shake-up, how can the president keep his agenda on track? we will ask karl rove next. you diet. you exercise. and if you still need help lowering your blood sugar... ...this is jardiance. along with diet and exercise... jardiance lowers blood sugar and a1c in adults with type 2 diabetes. jardiance is also the only type 2 diabetes treatment with heart- proven to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. jardiance can cause serious side effects, including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing.
ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems, genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. so talk to your doctor about jardiance- the one and only type 2 diabetes treatment with heart. visit jardiance.com for a free consultation with a certified diabetes educator if you qualify.
paul: fresh off his first trip abroad president trump returns this week to the turmoil and leak that is have plagued his white house for months. shake-up continue with communications director mike dubke resigning and more departure rumors to come and how can the president keep agenda on track? let's ask karl rove, he served as senior adviser to president george w. bush. so karl, i want to ask you first about this decision to leave paris because you experienced something similar to this in the bush administration when the
president decided not to embrace uproar then and there was a internationally, what advice do you have for the trump administration on how to cope with something similar now? >> well, first of all, you're absolutely right. this is dejavu all over again and one of my white house colleagues at the time now teaches out of stanford blogged last night that this is another example of what he calls q-tips, quantitative total impact insignificant, total political impact significant. so this is -- you're right. this is the right decision to make. the question is is the president going to spend the next six or seven or eight or nine, ten days, he and his administration explaining to the american people in detail and giving an optimistic vision of what american leadership in this issue can mean or are they going to move on to the next thing and i think it's really vital that think win this issue.
what we had to do is explain why we had something that was better than kioto and focus on energy efficiency and by doing so we would reduce the absolute level of carbon emissions because at the heart of the paris agreement, paris accord is that the nations that commit to it are committee to make energy more expensive, more expensive to drive your car, to cool or warm your home, to power the plant at which you worked and as a result that's going to reduce economic growth in the prosperity of virtually every america and every american families so -- you have to make the argument. paul: okay, let's move on to the news, the reports of a potential white house shake-up. you wrote about this for us this week. what do you think it's the number one priority if the president really wants to get this thing back, this white house better organized and disciplined in. >> number one, go out and get the apparatus in place to handle
the russia investigation so that it no longer consumes the time of the communicators of the white house and degree policy, the policymakers of the white house but you have to get it done right. paul: do do you quarantine? >> that's right. has to be led by lawyers and not communicators. they are going to restrain the public comments. you put the communicators in charge particularly trump likes to talk to communicators as killers, you will stir up a lot of cable tv news and it's going to be fun and entertaining to watch but debilitating to the white house. down play it. paul: how do you control the president because one of the keys here has to be the president has to stop tweeting about russia, just ignore it. i assume that would be your counsel but doesn't look like he's containable on this? >> he better get himself contained, the most of the problems are problems that he
causes and particularly the tweets. it's not just the tweets on russia. a lot of the other tweets are unconstructive to the fulfillment of his agenda or the explanation of it to the american people. kim strassel whom you had earlier wrote a wonderful piece on friday on how all the great things are happening and nobody knows about them. this week as she pointed out the keystone, dakota access pipeline began moving energy and that's directly because the administration. why didn't we have a white house ceremony with the president bushed a button to begin the pipeline and instead got obscured by tweets. angela merkel trolled him for god sakes, she's on the campaign trail in germany and makes a comment that antagonizes and he goes after her, what the heck is that about? paul: that's the way he is. let's talk about the staffing issue because one of the problems with this white house is a lot of the factionalism inside it. does he need whatever -- i know
you respect reince priebus, i doe, but i don't think donald trump has given him the authority, does he need a new chief of staff? >> no, he needs to change his behavior because if he doesn't change his behavior, the same problems that are occurring today will occur under a new chief of staff. he needs to give reince the ability, reince priebus the chief of staff the ability to to have some low-level leaker and fire him as a message to the rest of the team. he needs to give reince the ability to give discipline somebody who is backstanding and sending a message that it's not tolerated. this has to start at the top. the president has to be committed when you leak against one of your colleagues, you're hurting me and hurting our agenda and when you are failing to -- when you've engaging in warfare, you're engaging in warfare with me. paul: what about the communications here, sean spicer
has taken so much abuse but my sense of things is you couldn't shuffle that and put in a new spokesperson and unless you have more discipline from the top, it's not going to matter. >> absolutely. the communicators are an expression of the rest of the white house, they're an expression of what you have a discipline plan of what you want the message to be and the message has to be connected intimately with what it is that you want your policy to be. results matter. at the end of the day it's not just about picking what's the nice message for today, it's about picking what is it that we are going to focus our taxi on and how do we explain that to the american people. paul: all right, thank you, karl, i appreciate it. >> you bet, thank you, paul. paul: when we come back the russia probe ramps up as former fbi director james comey prepares to testify before the senate and
paul: new developments in the russia probe as the house intelligence committee issued subpoenas to former national security adviser michael flynn and president trump's personal lawyer michael cohen but an unexpected turn the panel issued subpoenas related to unmasking of trump transition members by a trio of former obama administration officials, national security adviser susan rice, former cia director john brennan and former u.s. embassador to the united nations samantha power. we are bag with dan henninger, kim stossel and board member rigo. how significant is this in --
>> the only crimes that have been committed have been the leaking of classified information to deal with mr. flynn and others and what was notable about the subpoenas this week is that we have a new name of somebody who unmasked a trump official, we don't know who yet, which trump official. paul: are we sure samantha power unmasked? do we know that for sure? >> he would not be sending unless she hadn't done it. it's a very strong bet that that is indeed the case. paul: she has not commented on this, has she? >> not so far. we don't know. but we have had susan rice all but confirmed that she did, indeed, unmask trump officials and mr. brennan too. so it'll be interesting to see what she has to say because it's very difficult to come up with a
good reason for why the former embassador to the united nations would be unmasking officials. paul: all right, what about devin nunes and the democrats are hitting him, you're supposed to be out of the russian probe and why are you issuing subpoenas? >> he has never rescued himself from the question of who is doing leaking and who is doing unmasking in the white house or out of the white house. paul: all right, let's talk, joe, about this attempt in the white house now, we have news that they're hiring some lawyer lawyers, donald trump's long-time lawyer will lead the defense for donald trump and create a unit in the white house much as karl rove advised that would deal with this, isolated, try to quarantine it?
>> moving their agenda and managing a scandal, the benefit here is that you've got a lot of policy people that are getting pulled off on the russia news of the day and can't do their actually day job. paul: right. >> i think it's a shrewd move to try to put this in a dedicated movement and move onto other things. paul: it doesn't mean that the news won't come out. we will have comey testified, if i learned anything watching jim comey over the years he will have bit of news that will draw attention to his testimony and get back at donald trump for fireing -- firing him so it's utterly crucial. >> only one possible crime has been identified and that is
unmasking of some of the trump officials. for all of the volumes that have been written about this, no one yet has identified a crime specifically robert mueller, there are suggestions and then possibility of, it isn't clear and, you know, sean spicer then gets asked questions that have no answers. there's no reason why the white house should be dealing with this guest story and makes complete sense to give it to the lawyers who like robert mueller and want to talk to the lawyers, they can. paul: what about jared kushner, the report is he had meetings with russian embassador and requested to set up a back panel using the russian communication system, that was the big story on the weekend. how serious is this in terms of implicating kushner in anything
untoward with the russians? >> to dan's point, we don't know. the kushner story is emblematic of all the problems we have right now with the russia story and that you had unnamed sources and sort of half-leak reporting in the washington post saying that he had met with the russian embassador to establish a back channel and that, you know, had potentially asked to use russian facilities to do this and he had subsequent reporting in which people close to mr. kushner said that this is nonsense, that he set up one meeting, one discussion and that there was never any suggestion from him to use russian facilities, so we just don't know and we are going to have to wait until we get to the end of some of the investigations to get some facts. paul: and we shall be waiting. thank you, kim. amid rising tensions with north korea, the pentagon missile defense program scores a direct hit, so can we build on this week's success? we will ask alaskan senator dan
briathe customer app willw if be live monday. can we at least analyze customer traffic? can we push the offer online? brian, i just had a quick question. brian? brian... legacy technology can handcuff any company. but "yes" is here. you're saying the new app will go live monday?! yeah. with help from hpe, we can finally work the way we want to. with the right mix of hybrid it, everything computes.
dictator, republican senator dan sullivan from alaska, introduced the bipartisan advancing america's missile defense act in the senate last week, he joins me now. senator, welcome. >> thank you, paul. paul: you have been following north korea, can they hit alaska yet with a missile? >> well, look,ic they are very close if they can't already and been demonstrated by north korea, they've launched a satellite, so they have the capability in terms of range to range, you know, very far distances, the big issue that they are working on now is a reentry vehicle for a nuclear war head and that should concern every american not just people living in alaska. paul: well, and you read in the paper that five years or so the experts say they might be able to reach seattle or chicago, could it be earlier than that?
>> well, look, there's classified estimates but our intelligence community kind of history has underestimated where the north koreans are in terms of advances, in terms of developing nuclear weapons and in terms of their intercontinental capabilities and i think we need to assume that this is going to happen on a much sooner time frame than the five years that you layed out and the estimates are all over the map right now but they are making advances almost weekly and we are seeing it right before our eyes. paul: so you're saying this is an urgent threat? >> absolutely, it's an urgent threat and, you know, the leaders of the intelligence community, military leaders have stated publicly and it's no longer of matter of if but when they're going to have this capability. think about it, paul, intercontinental ballistic nuclear threat that can range not just my great state or hawaii but new york city, chicago, la, it is a threat on
our doorstep. paul: all right, we had the missile test this week, it's essentially described by the technicians as bullet hitting a bullet. >> pretty remarkable. paul: remarkable technical feet but we have had tests, so how important is this in your view in the development of missile defense? >> it was very important because this was the first test as you mentioned, we have done previous tests but this was the first time that was testing the ability to actually hit an icbm and very high altitude and -- paul: greater degree of difficulty. >> much greater. paul: we've had, i think, 17 tests of this system and nine of them have succeeded. that's only a 53%, if my math is good success rate and i think that the american people might say, wait a minute, if the threat is as real as you say, then i don't want one and two
chance we are not going knock this thing down. >> there's no doubt about it. we need to do much more. i think if we know that the threat is coming, it's the responsibility of the leaders in our country to say, we are going to be ready for it and be able to have a much higher successful than you just mentioned and 50% of shooting down a rogue missile from north korea or iran. paul: so we have 44 interceptors by this year, four in california. >> correct. paul: what do you want to do, what should we need to do next? >> the key things that my bill will do and by the way it's a bipartisan bill right now is that it would increase the ground base missile interceptors and would enable more testing and more silos.
it would accelerate the development of multiple kill vehicles, this allows missiles when they are shot up, it's not a bullet hitting a bullet but several kill vehicle off one missile that up the chance of hitting the missile and finally -- paul: that raises the chance that is you're actually going to hit the thing? >> absolutely. and the technology is being developed. i think it's actually there. we need to deploy and finally a space base sensor system that would integrate all system in the world, thaad, defense system back home as well. paul: we just deployed a thaad system to north korea. >> correct. paul: those are regional defenses, those would not be able to shoot down an icbm. >> if they with able to get something in the boost phase, correct. what we need is a system of
sensors that can be deployed in space that integrate the different systems, thaad, the ground base system back home and make sure we have what the military calls an unblinking eye to make sure that everything in our regional and homeland systems are integrated from a sensor perspective. this is what the experts say we need and this is why the bill has it. paul: youly try to put it later this year or when you go this summer. what democrats are supporting it because most democrats have resisted missile defense for years? >> well, i think that's changing. we just introduced this last week. senator brian from hawaii -- paul: too close to comfort to north korea? >> constituents may be asking what's going on and acting responsibly but i think we will
get a number of democrats on board in addition to those three and a number of republicans. what's encouraging from my perspective is we have arraigninged a very conservative republican, very liberal democrats who are already cosponsors of this bill and to me that's a good sign on getting broad base support. paul: all right, senator, thanks for being here, we will watching. battle continues in capitol hill over repealing and replacing obamacare, california liberals are embracing a single-payer system. is it a preview of the democratic platform in 2020? (avo) come with us...
not just the symptoms. where medicines once produced for all, are now designed to fit you. today 140,000 biopharmaceutical researchers go bodly to discover treatments and cures unimaginable ten years ago... ...and are on the verge of more tomorrow. paul: as the battle over health reform continues to play out on capitol hill democrats in california are moving ahead with a plan to make their state a single-payer system. lieutenant governor gavin, front runner to succeed brown next
year is running on the issue as the bill makes its way through the state legislature. so will national democrats adopt the golden state sing-payer stance in 2020? let's ask wall street editorial alicia. alicia, they're really going to make, they really want to make the state taxpayer, the state of california pay for all health care for california citizens? >> supposedly they say it's going to be free so taxpayers supposedly wouldn't be paying but, of course, you to fund it somehow. paul: yes, you do. what are they actually proposing here? anybody can get any coverage at any time? >> anyone and anywhere any time for free. no copays, no deductibles and no premiums. paul: you can't charge insurance premiums? >> you'll need a referral, if you want surgery you can go get it for free, mri for free. paul: what's the cost estimate of this. you say there's no such thing as
free lunch, but somebody has to pay for it, the cost of this is going to be -- >> they estimated the senate appropriations committee estimated about 400 billion. paul: that's double what the whole budget now. >> triple. [laughter] >> that's five bullet trains. paul: it's it's still moving. >> the state senate passed yet without any taxes because it does not have the funding so it is kicking it over saying you guys figure out how to fund this. paul: you guys figure out how to pay for it and meanwhile we offer you the free stuff, that's fun. somebody else will pay for it. has jerry brown said what he will do with it? >> he's throwing cold water in the idea but if it gets to his desk, i would imagine he would veto it. it's only because he wants the money to go to his bullet train
instead. paul: gavin running on it and if he campaigns and wins on it, presumably he will have to make some significant effort to pass it. >> right, you're going to need a two-thirds vote of the legislature plus for the tax increases to fund it. paul: california constitution. >> it'll have to go to voters regardless. paul: at some point. dan, this is, i think, they're responding politically to bernie sanders success in the presidential campaign and the grassroots left and the democratic party, this is where the party is moving? >> this is where the party is moving and you have to understand what the democratic party has become, the party of the public sector, rather than separate themselves from public sector and the goal here to gain power offering the public free entitlements like this and gain power and run with it until it falls apart. there's nothing more complicated
than that than what the democrats are doing, if they can get it they'll take it and go with it as long as they can. paul: governor of vermont, former governor of vermont, joe, ran on this in 2012 or 2014, said, i'm going to impose sing-payer in the people's republic of vermont, he failed because there was too much cost, he had to raise taxes so much and people would have fled the state? >> enormous increase in the tax burden which would apply to a rich state like california, the importance of these state-base movements is the states, the governors eventually find they just can't afford it but it's an exercise in signaling to say the national democrats we can't do this here but you can do it in washington, you can raise taxes to impose some kind of system like this. if republicans, i think, in congress can't pass the health care bill this is where the democratic party is going and it's going to be the next big
health care debate. paul: you think that's part of the agenda, platform, most of the candidates in 2020. andrew cuomo is moving to run for president, i don't think he resists, i think he endorses a version of it. >> i wouldn't be surprised. he's endorsed free college, why not free health care too. [laughter] >> i think this is going to be a real litmus test in the 2020 democratic primary and somebody saying, well, sort of hybrid system of obamacare is the best we can do, that's not going to be inspiring message, that's going to be a hillary clinton repeat. paul: alicia, would you like to see them actually pass this so the country can get a bird's-eye view of what somebody does? >> it would enormously constructive and destructive and california would be the perfect laboratory to test it on a large scale. paul: speaking as a californian, you still have relatives up there. >> they want a free prejudice and get somebody else to pay for
said i was a perfect candidate and i never said i ran perfect campaigns but i don't know who is or did and at some point it sort of bleeds over into misogyny. paul: former secretary of state joining another obama administration along this week and making return to the public stage with former vice president joe biden officially launching his own political action committee, indication some say that he may be considering a run in 2020. we are back with dan henninger, kim stossel and mary. >> paul, we know about one-third of the people that voted for trump actually voted against
hillary clinton and we got a pretty good example of why they did that. that could have been the president of the united states wining about what happened to her e-mail server and being a big nothing burger. hillary clinton has been in public life her entire professional career and her legacy right now is a she lost the democratic presidency to donald j. trump. paul: that is really hard to take. >> not only is it hard to take, she's getting hammered from within her own party and hillary in her way is now trying to give a rationalization for why she lost, she's now got this elaborate conspiracy about how the russians linked up with somebody in the trump campaign because no matter what they were doing it wouldn't have done unless they had a contact follow the trump campaign. she has reached the point of desperation. paul: do any explanations, mary, do they wash with you, the one thing she might have a point in my view jim comey's intervention late in the campaign, you did
see voters, late voters turn towards trump, i don't know if it was comey or that's what they wanted to change but anything else seemed fair? >> well, the problem with the comey argument is that she allowed the race to get so close that, yes, little thicks could push people over the edge. i was really astounded that she tried the voter suppression line in wisconsin. she never went to wisconsin and in the primary you had the greatest turnout since 1972 in the primary and that required voter id so then say that in the general because it was voter id requirement, that was voter suppression is a ridiculous claim and makes her look fool foolish. paul: basically said the fact that she was a woman was a disadvantage, does that make any sense to you? >> it doesn't make any sense at all.
all along throughout this entire campaign we talked about the power of woman voters and how they come out, they're such an important swing group and in the end she didn't get enough of them to come out because she did not enthused them or they deliberately voted against her in some very key groups. so she underperformed. there can be no argument here. look, this is a woman who has held some of the highest offices in the land. she has run for the presidency twice. there was no barrier. she was anointed by her party. paul: both times. >> both times and suggest that there was in-built in this country or within her party, animus against her because she's a woman is ludacris. paul: joe biden, vigorous at 74, does this make sense to you with an eye towards 2020? >> it makes sense if you're joe
biden, someone who always wanted to be president. these people are like the terminator that will be crawling on the ground until the last piece of energy has run out. paul: he's a joyful political character. he loves the game. >> they all love the game. they feel that donald trump is vulnerable. they have adopted a potential of total resistance. they're not participating in this presidency at all and they feel that trump is damaging himself and as well the republicans in the senate on things like health care and taxes are going to make it difficult for trump to score any legislative victories. under those circumstances, someone like joe biden goes, i've got an opening if the trump presidency starts to decline. paul: joe biden would have beaten donald trump. >> this is a fox news alert, we are watching vice president mike pence speak
to people with
senator in iowa. >> it's great to be back on a harley. thank you. i bring greetings today on behalf of my friend, the man for people of iowa made the 45th president of the united states of america, president donald trump. [cheers and applause] >> you know the president encouraged me to be here today to support our friends here at third annual and also to say thanks to all the good people of iowa who support led to historic victory in last fall's election, thank you so much. [cheers and applause] >> i'm really honored and delighted to be here on this beautiful day on behalf of senator and with a lot of my favorite people, senator chuck grassley is with us today.
[cheers and applause] great senator tim scott has been with us today out in the sunshine, congressman steve king, iowa grand-new governor, governor kim reynolds. [cheers and applause] >> governor, we know that you're going to do a great job, we also know that you have big shoes the fill, you're following one of the best governors in american history. i'm proud to say that our new embassador to china, embassador terry branstad. iowa, thanks for sparing the man, he's going to represent iowa well. thank you all for being here, it's deeply humbling for me to be here today to stand before you and as vice president as the united states of america. [cheers and applause] you know, it's the greatest privilege of my life to serve as vice president to president donald trump.
since day one of this administration, president trump has been fighting to make america safe again, to make america prosperous again and in his first 100 days president trump signed more legislation and executive orders rolling back red tape and excessive regulation than any president in mesh -- american history. [cheers and applause] >> this president has been reigning in big government, repealing senseless policies in washington, d.c. like the day he repealed the waters of the usa rule. [cheers and applause] >> he's been restoring access to foreign markets to american farmers and renewing optimism in america. president trump is a man of his word. he's a man of action and president trump donald trump has brought america back.
it really is amazing. they're investing in america again. they're creating jobs here in iowa and all across the country instead of shipping jobs overseas. in fact, thanks to president trump's leadership and the strong support we have in iowa and congress, over 600,000 new private sector jobs have been created this year and unemployment is at its lowest levels in 16 years. [cheers and applause] >> and president trump i'm proud to say has been standing with those who stand on the thin blue line protecting our families every day the men and women of law enforcement in the united states of america. [cheers and applause] you know, there's a lot of men
and women wearing the uniform of law enforcement and more than a few wearing the uniform of the united states here. would you mind giving these police officers and all these peace officers the big round of amaze they deserve? thank you for what you do to protect our families. [applause] and president trump has been work tirelessly with iowa's conservative leaders in washington. every single day to keep the promises he's made to the american people. and let me say from my heart as the proud father of a united states marine, i couldn't be more grateful. [applause] to be vice president to a president who cares so deeply about the men and women of the armed forces of the united states of america. [applause] already this year working with
this 23-year military veteran turned senator, joni ernst -- [cheers and applause] president donald trump has been rebuilding our military, restoring the arsenal of democracy. and congress, in fact, under the president's leadership and with your senator's support just passed the largest increase in military spend anything nearly ten years -- spending in nearly ten years. [applause] and, you know, working with that iowa farmer, chairman chuck grassley -- [laughter] president trump's been also keeping his word to appoint principled conservatives to the courts in this land like the newest justice to the supreme court of the united states, justice neil gorsuch. [cheers and applause] and i promise you, president trump will continue to appoint men and women to the courts of this land who will uphold the
god-given liberties enshrined in our constitution including the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. [cheers and applause] and, you know, working with my old friend, congressman steve king -- [applause] president trump's been busy securing our borders, ending illegal immigration, removing dangerous criminals off the streets of our cities. in fact, illegal immigration on our southern border is already down more than 60% this year alone. [cheers and applause] and it's going to fall even further, because president donald trump is going to build a wall. [cheers and applause] and working with all these great iowa leaders, president trump has stood,