BURGER KING FAST FOOD RESTAURANT BLACK LIFESTYLE. PEOPLE HAVING TOUGH DAY: MAN AT ATM MACHINE THAT RUNS OUT OF MONEY, TRIES TO HAIL A TAXI BUT IT PASSES HIM, WOMAN AT HAIR DRESSERS IN CURLERS WAITING FOR HAIR DRYER, DOCTOR WITH PUPPET TRYING TO MAKE LITTLE GIRL STOP CRYING. "OVERLOOKED & OVERWORKED". "WAHT D'YA SAY". BURGER COOKING.

1450 WH RESTAURANT ROUND TABLE FS23 73 ABC POOL President Donald Trump Round table meeting with members of the restaurant association WASH 3 PRESIDENT TRUMP RESTAURANT EXECUTIVES ROUNDTABLE POOL 144747 TRUMP>> Well, thank you very much. We're here with the leaders of the restaurant industry. It's a -- an industry that's been tremendously impacted by what's happening with Covid. And it's an industry that we're working very hard with and on. We're looking at doing deductibility so that a corporation can use a restaurant, entertainment clubs, etcetera, and get deductibility. I think that'll really have a big impact. Steve can, maybe, talk about it -- Steve Mnuchin. 114815 But I'd like to have some of these leaders talk about, real quickly, about their company and the industry and any ideas they have. And I think we can do it in front of the media for a little while, and then we can answer a couple of questions, and then we're gonna get back to business. Okay? Please. 114833 JOSE CIL>> Well, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Scalia and everyone else here, including my brethren from the restaurant industry -- thanks so much for having us here. It's an honor for me to be here representing 10,000 restaurants in the US. We have Burger King, Popeye's, and Tim Horton's. These restaurants are owned by small businesses. 144855 We have franchises from coast to coast that work day in and day out. We have team members that are in the restaurants day in and day out. We have -- we've been in the restaurants working as an essential service since the crisis in March. We have had our drive throughs open and deliveries open and we've still had a tremendous impact on our business, and so we're really looking forward to the process of reopening the economy, reopening the country. 144922 We already have about 1000 locations around the country that have started to open the dining rooms with reduced capacity. We've added PPe, we've also added safe -- social distancing in the restaurants to ensure that people can come in. we have acrylic screens in the front counter. We have masks and gloves for the employees to ensure that everyone feels safe, pur guests and our team members. And I just wanted to thank the president, Mr President, and your administration. I think you've acted quickly and swiftly and with good measure. The CARES act, the PPE had a tremendous impact on our businesses, and I think there's a lot we think that can do to make a very good program even better. 145006 One of the things that we've talked about as we were kind of chatting here is this idea of extending the eight week deadline. We think that eight week deadline, when it was implemented was probably, you know, eight weeks seemed like an eternity but today we're in the tenth week of the pandemic and I think it's gonna take some time for our restaurants and our owners to get back to the capacity levels and the traffic levels that we were seeing pre-covid 145036 And so a little more time, we think probably taking it to 24 weeks would be appropriate, to allow for restaurant owners that are participating in the program to be able to -- to -- to manage through a rehire the employees which is what the purpose of ppp was intended for. There was two other things that I think are important for us. One is we think business liability protection for small businesses is important. You know, we're going to see potentially with the reopening of the economy, with the reopening of small restaurants, we're going to see frivolous, and I think unfounded lawsuits against restaurant owners, against small businesses, that are trying to do the right thing. 145118 That are trying to survive and trying to keep their businesses going so we firmly believe that protection from these types of frivolous lawsuits would be helpful. And then finally, to the extent that there is additional federal assistance that's targeted for the restaurant industry, I think that the restaurant industry as a whole took about -- participated to the tune of about nine percent of the pp and we think there should be additional funds available for us to be able to weather and continue to weather the storm, but we're really proud to be here. 145149 Proud to be part of this extraordinary group of restaurant leaders and thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. TRUMP>> Well, thank you. That's a lot. Ten thousand restaurants and that's some big -- that's some big group and good group too. I know -- I know your chains and a lot about your company. It's a great company so you' ll be back very soon and no doubt about it. And some of the things you mentioned we'll be talking about. I do want to say before we go further. So, this was a very big day therapeutically, cure wise and vaccine wise. Tremendous progress has been made as i've been saying for two weeks because I've been seeing what's going on and think spearheading it largely. 145225 And this was a very, very -- some big announcements are coming and have just come out. And the market's up almost 1,000 points. You'll check your market, your -- I'm sure you did before you walked in the room. But I imagine your company's doing better today than it was a week ago, right? CIL>> We're focused on the profitability of our franchises. That's my focus. TRUMP>> Okay. Yeah, good. So what we have is big announcements coming. Big announcements have already come. And tremendous progress has been made. 145254 Therapeutically, cure-wise and also, obviously, vaccine. To me, therapeutically and cure is more important than vaccine because it's immediate and we have something -- even people that are very sick right now, we're trying to expedite everything so it goes really quickly -- really, really quickly. Like let's get it going immediately. So, if you have somebody who's not going to make it, if you have somebody that's going to pass away -- going to die -- and if we have something that we think works, we want to get them immediately into those hospitals or wherever the people are located. 145330 So, that's being talked about also with the FDA, with Dr. Stephen Hahn who's doing a fantastic job. And so we're trying to expedite things, but very importantly, just overall, what big news it is medically. We are so far ahead of where you would normally be, just from a logistical standpoint. And that's the other thing. We're also gearing up, and close to geared up because we have tremendous people in the military so they'll be able to deliver service very rapidly. 145359 So lotta good things are happening, and let's see what happens in the very near future. Stever, do you have anything to say? MNUCHIN>> Just want to add, Mr. President, that -- thank you for all being here. We appreciate how many people who employ, as an industry, and the special issues that we have. And we look forward to continuing to work with you. TRUMP>> Good. Thank you very much. How are you doing on deductibility, Steve? How's that going? Good? Good. Please. 145424 RODRIGUE>> Thank you, Mr. President. Really appreciate you gathering us here today. This is a great representation of restaurants from across the country. Jose with his 10,000. My two on Bourbon Street. I am the President and CEO of Galatoire's. We've been there since 1905. TRUMP>> Yeah, right. RODRIGUE>> And you know, restaurants are the cornerstone of so many communities. Where some big business is absent, restaurants are there, and we employ so many people. We just appreciate how swiftly y'all have acted to bring relief our way. 145455 We think with just a few small changes in cover period and length of the cover period on forgiveness of PPP, you have a real great opportunity. And you know, just the very nature of restaurants in general -- we rely on social interaction. 145514 So it makes us really unique that we were hit hard quickly, and it's going to make our comeback really difficult. That being said, I'm glad to hear your news, that there's -- TRUMP>> Well, my news negates what you just said because you would you would be back into business like you had it. RODRIGUE>> Yeah. TRUMP>> No seats lost, etc etc. You'll -- we'll see what happens, but it certainly negates it RODRIGUE>> Yeah, yeah. So you know, in the interim, we appreciate the opportunity to be in front of you. Longer cure periods on the, on the test periods on the loans would be incredible. You know, a city like New Orleans, we have 1500 restaurants, but only 400,000 people. 145556 And so, when you look at that, where, how do we survive? We survived with with leisure and business travelers, 19 million visitors last year, and that being said, you know, it's going to take us a little time to ramp back up. So we're looking forward to that period of time. And, and we believe that you guys have the opportunity to help us. We greatly appreciate it. We survived Hurricane Katrina, we've survived the BP oil spill. Restauranteurs are a resilient group, very tenacious. 145629 And so, we're there and we appreciate your help. TRUMP>> So your area was amazing because it was hit hard, but it was very late. We didn't think it was going to be hit at all and then all of a sudden it spiked up. After you had a certain event. And who knows what caused it but maybe it was that. RODRIGUE>> Yeah. 145647 TRUMP>> And then it, it's doing incredibly well right now, it's really down at a low number. RODRIGUE>> Yeah, we've really made great progress. The governor's done a really good job. That being said, you know, 25% capacity is tough. To literally saying -- TRUMP>> I agree. RODRIGUE>> -- that this week when we reopen at 25% we'll lose more money -- TRUMP>> No. RODRIGUE>> -- than last week because now we're incurring expenses. TRUMP>> You got to get 100% Okay? RODRIGUE>> Yes sir. TRUMP>> Got to get up and I hope it's going to be very fast. I hope the governor does that pretty quickly. Let's see how it goes. A lot has to do with what I said in my opening remarks. Ivanka, do you have anything to say? I know you like this industry. 145723 IVANKA TRUMP>> Well I've spoken with many of the people around this table over the course of the past several weeks and beforehand. And I do think it's worth noting the paycheck Protection Program has given restaurants alone, that industry alone, over $30 billion of relief, representing a quarter of a million restaurants nationwide. And that's just where we are today so the feedback has been tremendously helpful. The Secretary's made some changes in the guidance and to of course informing new policy as we come out of this, but we really appreciate your being here and we thank you for the feedback. TRUMP>> Thank you. 145801 GUIDARA>> HI, Mr President, Vice President, Secretary, all of you. Thank you for having us. My name is Will Guidara of 11 Madison Park in New York City. But I'm also a founding member of the independent restaurant coalition. We started just seven weeks ago. And we're here because we got together to represent the 500,000 independent restaurants across America. I'm talking about the mom and pops, your local diner, the pizza place, the pasta joint and the three Michelin star restaurant. And honestly, everything in between. 145833 And the things that represent the cultural fabric of our cities and of our towns and the things that I believe, as a country we need to fight to keep. We also represent the 11 million people that work in those independent restaurants across the country. Listen, it's clear that this administration cares about our industry. And it's also clear that all of you understand the extent to which we are more specifically vulnerable than a lot of other industries in America. 145905 And I think that's why we're here today. And so I think it's just important to take a moment and acknowledge that and say thank you, that we're taking this time. TRUMP>> Thank you, Will. Very much. GUIDARA>> PPP is important, and the changes that have already been talked about and are going to continue being talked about today are very important. And if those changes are made such that people feel confidence that they can spend that money and have it forgiven. I think that will be the thing that allows our restaurants to reopen. That said, We need something more than that, that is specific to independent restaurants in order for our restaurants to stay open. 145943 Everyone here knows that last month alone I think in the first half of April, more than one out of four people that applied for unemployment were restaurant workers, one out of four, it's just insane. And so we've put forward a plan to members of Congress and to this administration that we put forward because it'll put all of those people that are currently unemployed back to work, such that by the third quarter of this year, we're going to be looking at unemployment reports that are astonishingly good. 150018 Not to mention the supply chain that we represent. If restaurants go down, the commercial real estate industry, the farming industry. And so our plan helps bring unemployment back to where it needs to be. And it supports a lot of our other industries that rely on independent restaurants for their survival. And so we appreciate being here. We'd love the opportunity to talk more about this. I know that in times like this a lot of people have their hands out. I don't take that lightly. I do believe that independent restaurants are more vulnerable than most. And a really important part of this nation. And I don't want to lose them. So we appreciate your consideration and your support. 150059 TRUMP>> Okay, thank you very much, Will. Appreciate it. Larry please. KUDLOW>> Thank you, sir. 48 states are opening. That's a big plus. And the vaccination research news is great today. So we see it in the stock market. I want to thank everybody for being here. We are working hard. Steve mentioned the tax deductions for restaurants. We're also working very hard on the COVID-19 liability restrictions. That's going to be a key part of our next package, and I just want to say, I guess I'm usually the optimist, but we're in a terrible pandemic contraction here in the second quarter. We know that. 150136 There's a lot of hardship, and a lot of heartbreak. But there's also a few glimmers of hope of recovery because I know you, sir, believe in the second half recovery and I do too and I think with the right policies we can have a booming next year but the signs are housing demand looks better, gasoline demand looks better. The Apple mobility index looks better. That's, you know, people dialing up to see who's -- where to get from A to B. New York State's Empire State manufacturing index was up enormously. 150209 I don't know where that came from but it was. Unemployment claims each week look terrible but they're a lot less terrible. You know 7 million to 3 million. So there are some glimmers of hope. Kevin has some data on better credit card numbers so it's a tough haul, but I think things are starting to turn, that's my take. I wish everybody luck. TRUMP>> I think so Larry. Maybe much more than people understand and you start to see that. Going to come back strong, please. 150242 BODENSTEDT>> Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Secretary Scalia, Secretary. I want to thank you for having us here today. I have restaurants across the United States. We average 27 employees per restaurant. These are the small businesses across in each of these communities that those 27 people have families, have mortgages, have rents, have car payments to make every day, and being able to stay open and work with the governors and get the PPP money, and to be able to give people reassurances that tomorrow is going to be better than it was today. 150316 And to give them that hope has been really important for us, our business, and those families, and I want to thank you for your leadership and your team's leadership in doing so. One of the things we talk about in the business is how well we -- we talk about treating others and bringing people into the family and bringing them into the restaurant like you're bringing them into your home. And that's what we do in the restaurant business every day. We treat everyone like family and doing so, and having the leadership here has been really helpful to us and the entire industry. And frankly, you know, eight weeks, nine weeks ago, I was thinking about this Chinese nightmare, and I didn't want it to affect the American dream that we all had. 150354 And, and I'm a success story about the American dream. Going from 3.45 an hour starting at the front counter in a fast food restaurant to what we have today, and I couldn't be prouder -- TRUMP>> How many? How many restaurants? BODENSTEDT>> I own and operate 765 restaurants across the United States. TRUMP>> That's fantastic. BODENSTEDT>> And it's -- I couldn't be -- It's an American Dream sir, and I appreciate everything everyone's doing here to keep that dream going, and tomorrow's gonna be better than today and I appreciate that. Thank you. TRUMP>> If we get the deductibility, you'll do better than you did two months ago. BODENSTEDT>>Thank you, sir. TRUMP>> that's my opinion. 150429 Please, go ahead, Kevin. Give it -- let us know what's going to happen. HASSETT>> Yeah. Sir, you know, first of all, you might recall when we first started talking about the economic damage that was coming from the shutdown that we emphasized right from the beginning that this industry, and the travel industry, were going to be the hardest hit. And so we've been focused like a laser beam on coming up with policy ideas to do something about it and, as you said, we've got a really good plan. 150457 The thing I could say is that, if you look at the real time data as Larry said, that you really are starting to see glimmers of hope, and maybe even like you could even characterize it a little more optimistically than that. Larry's being super conscious but the credit card data are really going up, the number of businesses open in the country is skyrocketing. I mean the country is getting back now and I think that there's a great reason for optimism for this group because you can really see things going much much faster forward than I expected. I know you know I was pretty depressed about how bad it looked and how slow it was gonna be a few weeks ago but now you can really see it turning on faster than I thought. 150532 TRUMP>> Yup. It's a tremendous demand, tremendous pent up demand. It's true. Don't forget we turned it off artificially you know we just stopped. We went from the greatest economy in history of any country to "we have to stop." And we saved by doing that millions of lives. We saved hundreds of thousands, but probably millions of lives. And we did the right thing and now we have to open and now we're going to do great and if we, if this comes along what we're hearing medically from these great companies, these great geniuses If this happens, it's really, it's really going to be something. 150609 So, great job. Thank you. Please. IRBY>> Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Secretary Scalia, Secretary mnuchin. It's an honor to be here today. My name is Marvin Irby. And on behalf of the National Restaurant Association, thank you for convening this meeting, these industry leaders on this very important subject. 150634 To be honest with you, normally at this time I'd spend a lot of time telling you about this industry. But what's been clear over the last several months, is that you get it. This administration gets it. You know everything about our world famous chefs, our esteemed independence, our beloved brands that dot every community in this country. And I'm proud to say that for 100 years the National Restaurant Association has represented all restaurants that play a key role in our society, and an integral role in our food chain. 150711 I have the opportunity that I get to speak to restauranteurs every single day. And I can confirm we desperately want to reopen. Our restaurants are just (?) and are heartbroken that at this time we can't provide the support and the comfort to the communities in which we serve. 150733 For too many restaurants right now, an incident happened 60 days ago, and it's crippled us, and before today's news, we did not see an end date until later this year. Programs like the paycheck protection program are an incredible first step. And thank you, secretary Mnuchin, for this program, which has benefitted millions of small companies throughout this country. 150802 We also appreciate Ivanka Trump's dedication to our industry. And I personally want to thank you for the time you've taken to talk to our board over the last months of this crisis. Mr. president, the payroll protection program will be a godsend if we can make one change. If we could extend the time that we need, that we have, to spend the proceeds. In too many communities today, the eight week period is simply not enough time. 150835 TRUMP>> So how much? How much time do you want? IRBY>> 24 weeks? TRUMP>> How about 30 weeks? IRBY>> 30 weeks works. 30 weeks works. TRUMP>> How about 75 weeks? I know a couple of you, you'll never stop, right? I know a couple of guys in this room. Now I understand, so you think it needs to be what? What would you say would be a minimum length? IRBY>> 24 weeks. TRUMP>> How much? 150856 IRBY>> 24 weeks. You need to give our smaller restauranteurs the opportunities to open, to begin to have demand, and bring back the employees. TRUMP>> Is that what were you going to say in terms of timing? LOVE>> Yeah, I think for the PPP fixes, if we can take it from eight weeks to 24 weeks -- TRUMP>> Is that the term? LOVE>> Yeah. TRUMP>> More or less the term you're thinking about? LOVE>> And then move June 30 to October 31. 150926 If those two changes were made to that program, it would change it dramatically. TRUMP>> What's more important, that or deductibility? IRBY>> That. >> Yes. IRBY>> Deductibility is amazing, but it's almost like we need to build the house first. Deductibility is the thing that makes the house -- TRUMP>> Does anybody disagree with that? Because I think deductibility is the biggest thing you can possibly do. Does anybody -- >> Mr. President, I think that if you -- if what he's saying is -- if we could get the 24 weeks, which gets us to October 31, basically, right? 150958 This allows us to -- to get the young restauranteurs going -- TRUMP>> Yeah. >> and spend the money that you intended for them, so that we can get out and show them what a great job you guys are doing. TRUMP>> But you're pretty unified on the number, 24? Yeah? >> Yes sir. TRUMP>> 24? >> Yes. TRUMP>> Okay. >> And -- TRUMP>> Go ahead, please. >> And the best thing about it -- it's no additional money. It's an extension of the current program. TRUMP>> Okay. >> So -- IRBY (?) >> The deductibility thing is great -- >> Can I just add -- ? IRBY (?) >> I just don't want to not support that. 151028 I think it's just a matter of waiting. We need to get the restaurants open first, and these changes allow us to get them open. MNUCHIN>> I just wanted to clarify because you said it's no additional money. Are you saying just the time period goes -- it's eight weeks, going to 24 -- you still have 8 weeks of money or you want 24 weeks of money? >> Oh, no, we want 24 weeks in order to spend. MNUCHIN>> To spend the 8 weeks? >> Correct. MNUCHIN>> Got it. Thank you for the clarification. >> We believe that if we elongate -- TRUMP>> is that correct? Does everybody agree with that? >> Yes, sir. 151057 RODRIGUE>> If we can elongate the test period, it gives us more staying power and we can spend that money, and really get where we need to be. MNUCHIN>> Good. TRUMP>> And what about the payroll tax, by the way? How do you feel about that? Is that a big deal? >> Yes, sir. >> That would be an extraordinarily big deal. >> Huge. TRUMP>> And how does that compare with what we're talking about, with the time period? Payroll tax. >> I would say deductibility, payroll tax deductions -- all those things are spectacular and we need them and they would be greatly beneficial, but we're viewing the pay -- the PPP fix as what we need to get us out of the -- 151136 TRUMP>> So the PPP was really a big deal. >> Yes, sir. TRUMP>> So we hit it right. When we did it, we hit it right. Okay, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> It was such a big deal, sir, that we haven't laid off a single person, and there's 20,000 people that are paying their taxes. They're paying their bills, and they're doing all that every day. And without that, I don't think we would have been able to do that, sir. That's how big a deal is great. TRUMP>> Great. 151209 CHAUDHARY>> Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, good afternoon. Thank you so much for your leadership. Ladies and gentlemen, it's an honor to be here, and I deeply appreciate the opportunity. My name is Niren, I represent Panera Bread. Panera has two and a half thousand cafes, revenues of about $6 billion. And we employ 140,000 people. The pandemic impacted us very deeply, as it did everybody else. 151236 We lost close to 50% of our revenue in the first week. Since then, it is slowly coming back, but we still have a long way to go. Now, the health crisis -- TRUMP>> So you got down by 50%, or more than that? CHAUDHARY>> 50 to 60% was the revenue decline. TRUMP>> That's not bad. CHAUDHARY>> And we're 00 -- and I think what's good is that it's actually coming back since that time. TRUMP>> Good, good. CHAUDHARY>> Thanks to a lot of the innovation that we've been able to do TRUMP>> Good. So you got maximum, though, 50% of revenue loss? CHAUDHARY>> Yeah. 151307 TRUMP>> How'd you keep the other 50%? CHAUDHARY>> So, the 50% that we have, by ensuring -- so fortunately, I think, in Panera, we have very strong Omni channel business. So we have delivery, rapid pick up, drive thru -- TRUMP>> You did very well, that's great. CHAUDHARY>> -- and so on. TRUMP>> That's a great job. Go ahead. CHAUDHARY>> So I think we've had to innovate very quickly. And I'll share some, some of those ideas. So, I believe that the health crisis is now becoming a financial crisis, you know, with 36 million Americans unemployed and a humanitarian crisis as well, with about 54 million Americans fighting hunger. 151342 And therefore, I think opening up the economy right now in a phased manner is the right thing to do. I also believe that we, as leaders, need to also step up and do the right thing at this time, and do what we can do -- what's in our control. And I'll share some ideas and thoughts, in terms of what Panera has been doing, largely with the intent to innovate and do that with compassion and heart. So for our furloughed employees, you know, we have free family meals every week for them. 151411 Emergency Relief funds, and also we've made arrangements with peer companies that are actually hiring at this time like CVS, Walmart to hire our furloughed employees temporarily and then return them back. For customers, we've innovated very quickly. We've launched the curbside pickup service with geofencing, and also free Wi Fi outside the cafes, because life is moving to outside the cafes, and also doing a lot for our communities, especially those impacted most by the pandemic. 151442 So doctors and nurses -- we're serving about 50,000 means to doctors and nurses in New York, children in the state of Ohio with our partnership with USDA. And also, we've launched a program called Together Without Hunger, with Feeding America, and have pledged to serve half a million meals to children and families through -- through Feeding America. TRUMP>> Great. CHAUDHARY>> So I think it's very important, at this time, that I think we need to also step up and contribute. We were able to keep 85% of our cafes open. We were determined to keep them open so that we could keep our associates employed at that time. 151512 And therefore, now we are beginning to open up the dining areas in phases, following all guidelines, but also have stringent protocols that we've put in place like Plexiglas barriers, wellness stations for temperature checks, social distancing norms, etcetera. TRUMP>> Will you be keeping any of that -- I mean there are some innovations that have been made. Some people say, "maybe we'll keep it." Would you be keeping any of that or not really? CHAUDHARY>> Yes, we -- I think this is -- there's gonna be a shift in how the consumers are going to interact with brands. 151543 And I think it is time for us to innovate. So, another example is -- TRUMP>> Would you ever keep the Plexiglas barriers? CHAUDHARY>> So I think we'll keep the Plexiglas barriers -- TRUMP>> I mean, on a permanent basis, I'm talking about. CHAUDHARY>> I think, at least over the next six to nine months -- TRUMP>> Right, but could you see that being permanent because hopefully you're not going to have it that long, by the way, nine months, but would you see a thing like that -- you'd have to build a nicer version of it, you know, as opposed to quickly throwing it up. 151612 But would you see something like that being permanent, possibly? CHAUDHARY>> I think, hopefully, if the virus is under, under control and we've gotten the other side of it, I think then we can get back to life as we once knew it. TRUMP>> You'd rather not have it? CHAUDHARY>> We'd rather move back to life as we once knew it, right. Rather not have it. TRUMP>> I agree. CHAUDHARY>> Yeah. TRUMP>> I agree. CHAUDHARY>> Exactly. TRUMP>> Okay. CHAUDHARY>> Another, I think, interesting situation is that -- recognizing that there's so much high friction with high demand grocery items, where you can't get them home delivered. We launched a new line of business called Panera grocery, in 10 days. 151642 And we're delivering, you know, bakery items, fresh produce, dairy to customers in less than an hour on the same day. So, I think the good thing is it's forced us to really innovate and be very responsive. TRUMP>> CHAUDHARY>> I think the restaurant industry is deeply, deeply appreciative of all the support and the efforts that you and the administration have made. I think the CARES Act has been hugely welcomed. I would like to, in particular, thank you for the PPP program because it's made a huge difference to our franchise partners and our associates. 151710 I think, of a few of the amendments that we talked about, I'd fully agree with the eight weeks to 24 weeks. I think that is badly needed. I think that will be hugely welcomed. And -- TRUMP>> Steve, does that make sense from our standpoint? What do you think? 151723 MNUCHIN>> We're working on a technical fix that we do have bipartisan support for to extend it. I'm not sure it's that long but I've spoken to the SBA committee, and there is bipartisan support so we're working on that. CHAUDHARY>> I think we've talked about the limited liability. I think that's also a very important aspect and thirdly-- TRUMP>> The democrats don't want to give you the liability provisions. They just don't want to have that. And it's crazy that they don't, but the democrats do not want to give that to people, and that's not a good thing. 151751 CHAUDHARY>> And I think the third thing -- TRUMP>> We'll get it anyway. Go ahead. CHAUDHARY>> The -- our employees are, I think if we can eliminate the friction in the following employees being able to access the unemployment benefits that will also be fantastic. And, TRUMP>> and that the problem there is the states have old equipment in many cases and they're unable to get the money. You know, we gave the money out immediately but the states are -- some states are unable to give it out. They have 40 year old equipment. CHAUDHARY>> Yeah. TRUMP>> And some states are unable to get their act together. But we gave that out long ago as you probably know CHAUDHARY>>Yeah TRUMP>> Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. CHAUDHARY>> Thank you very much. TRUMP>> Brooke, Would you like to say a few words? 151827 ROLLINS>> Mr. President, thank you. Just a few words I am -- I am so grateful for all of you being here today. I am struck by the stories of true American dreams. I mean, starting at 3.45 an hour and then ultimately owning so many restaurants and hundreds of thousands, but I'm also -- hundreds of thousands of employees. But I'm also struck by this President and Vice President's commitment to our most vulnerable populations and their American dream and their American dream working in all of your restaurants. 151857 This President is the jobs President. I think that none of us, other than maybe my boss realized the economy that we would achieve in just three short years where there were more people, more jobs available than people to fill them. And what I am so encouraged by is the resoluteness and the conviction of this president, this vice president, but -- but truly the American entrepreneurs that are sitting around the table today, and working alongside all of you as we bring this country back to even greater heights than we ever knew possible. The transition to greatness is -- is really what America and the American Dream is all about. 151935 So thank you all for being here. Know that we are here to help you always and we are here to make sure that what this president lead on and has achieved will be once again, very very soon so thank you Mr. President. TRUMP>> Thank you very much, Brooke. Great job. LOVE>> Thank you, Mr President, Mr. Vice President and secretaries for having me here today. My name is Tim Love, I'm a chef and owner of a few restaurants in Texas and Tennessee. I also am the chef of four major music festivals and food festivals around the country. 152007 So, I've been greatly affected by, obviously, what's happened here, along with everybody else in this room. But I wanted to speak to you about today's that -- to touch on the PPP and to kind of clarify what we're saying is the 24 weeks is only set up because certain restaurants aren't able to open now. In Texas, we're able to open on May 1, and I quickly activated the PPP and tried to get employed back. I've hired 80% of my workforce. I started with 490 employees, we've got about 400 employees already back. 152037 And I will say: it's encouraging to see people come out. They're excited, they want to be out -- TRUMP>> What would have happened if you didn't have PPP? LOVE>> Well, if I didn't have -- TRUMP>> Would you have survived it? Would you have gotten by? LOVE>> Probably would've gotten by, but this allows us to do it the way that we feel like it should be -- to take care of the employees first. We want to take care of our employees, and make sure they're safe. Same -- same activation we're having open the restaurants. We want to open the restaurant safely, make sure our employees are safe first, so our guests can be safe. 152104 I'd ask, from the administration, to put out that confidence, to get the American people understanding that it is great to go out and that our economy is going to be great again because we know where it was before it started. We know how to get there, clearly. So now, just with a couple of adjustments to things that are already written -- to the Secretary's point, we don't need -- we're not asking for more money. We're just asking the opportunity to spend it the way that you want us to spend it, the way it was intended -- to take care of our employees when we're able to open up. 152134 That's it. TRUMP>> That should be easy, Steve, honestly. >> Yes, sir, Mr President. I think, I think you can take care of that for sure. MNUCHIN>> [inaud] process. TRUMP>> That should be easy. LOVE>> And so -- TRUMP>> That's like one of the easiest requests I've ever heard, Larry (?). Love>> But that -- that leads me to my next requests. [laughter] The 75/25 -- the way that it's spent, I know it's tough, but I'm speaking for my friends who are in New York, not necessarily for myself, even in Texas where the rents are higher. 152204 And they need the ability to spend the money on rent, if necessary, so long as they're hiring their employees back. So, while the number one thing is to get the workforce back, reduce unemployment, get people back to work which is what I'm doing at 25%. Believe me, I'm not going and building new houses on my 25% of occupancy. But what I am doing is putting the great American people back to work that I love, and the way we get the economy going is getting the workers back to work so they're able to spend money and earn money. So, therefore we can keep the economy moving. 152232 And so those two adjustments to the PPP which -- which, you know, don't require any extra money from the administration, from Congress allows us to really move the economy forward, which I know is one of your number one things, especially as we're moving along this year. And I think you can get a lot of people in our industry -- the workers -- that people work very, very hard to get behind you, just to show that kind of confidence. TRUMP>> I think you will. How many restaurants are there total -- everything in the United States? How many are there? >> [grumbles] TRUMP>> How much? >> 650,000 TRUMP>> 650,000 restaurants. Who would -- ? >> [inaud] 11% of the United States (?) 152306 Who would think that's 11% of the overall? 650,000 restaurants. Who would ever think that's possible, even? Right? That's good and it's been a great business over the years, and it'll be better than ever. LOVE>> And it'll be 650,000 again so long as you keep doing what you're doing, sir. TRUMP>> That's fantastic, though. Yeah. No, I think deductibility gets that. Actually, I think you'll -- LOVE>> I would agree with that. TRUMP>> -- go up very substantially. They got rid of a lot of restaurants when they ended that -- people don't realize that. 152332 Then you get -- you still get fewer restaurants. They rent it to other things. Now, I don't know what they're going to rent to -- LOVE>> And to your point about that, sir. The deductibility which you can easily identify with and it does spread wealth amongst restaurants, most definitely. We're talking just about an immediate concern with the PPP to get people moving forward -- TRUMP>> Yeah. LOVE>> So that it gets -- TRUMP>> I -- I agree. LOVE>> -- the deductibility going. TRUMP>> No, I agree. We'll -- we'll look at that very strongly. LOVE>> Yes sir, thank you. TRUMP>> Okay. 152358 FERTITTA>> Hello Mr President, and it sees how important this is to all of y'all, this subject because I haven't seen this much firepower from all of y'all except at a steak dinner or a Christmas party so I appreciate Mr. President, that all of you guys are here because I know you're really trying to get something done. I own a company Landry's which is in 40 states, and is all full service restaurants, so I average like 150 employees per restaurant. 152427 And it's everything from Dell frescoes to (?) to palm but then it's on the other side the Bubba Gump, the rain forest and they're all company owned. This, it's been devastating and it's, you know it's funny you brought up about China I should have realized it was going to be a bad year for China when my general manager tweeted out, you know freedom for Hong Kong so that started my year. (laughter) TRUMP>> And you kept it quiet. FERTITTA>> So, so I'm still trying to work that out. And here comes something else. TRUMP>> He owns the Houston Rockets, in case you didn't know. And by the way, he's a great guy, great everything, and yeah, he did cause you a little ruckus. Whatever happened to him by the way? Is he still working for you? 152512 FERTITTA>> Yes, he is. TRUMP>> He must be pretty good. FERTITTA>> Because it's -- It's a trick question. But he is. (laughter) So, but but but Mr President. Everybody's talking about the PPP and when, when your team designed the PPP and said let's bring it through, through the SBA I think it was an unbelievable idea and you did exactly what you needed to do. 152537 But I'm one of those people when it started being pitted against because I'm a sole proprietor, but I do 4 billion in revenue, and I would have been that billionaire that took the money from the little business. So, I was not able to take the PPP money. And I caught so much criticism because I was the first person who did lay off 40,000 employees, because the world doesn't understand that when you shut everything down from your casinos which you and I did a few deals together from the rainforests to the Trump Marina. 152619 Your tale of your payroll was 150 million dollars the next two weeks and we all pay -- TRUMP>> That's right. FERTITTA>> -- yesterday's bills with today's income and, and I wanted to put 40,000 people back to work May the first, but couldn't take the criticism and even from the administration there was some that bigger companies shouldn't be taking this money. 152643 But, but I don't have the ability to put those 40,000 people back to work. So, I just wished that, don't add any money, but just divide it up. TRUMP>> So you're saying that because your restaurants aren't split up among thousands of people that own restaurants, and you have it yourself, the company -- FERTITTA>>Yeah, that it would have been one person taking this money, but your team specifically wrote the bill for any restaurant under 500. It -- this was for the restaurant business, which is only gotten 9% of the money. 152711 But if you would just split it up and I'm not saying add any more money, but add a category for the larger private restauranteur that could go out and take this money and put it in a different bucket so it wouldn't be me taking this money away from the little beauty salon -- TRUMP>> So what happened to you then? Tillman so where are you on that whole thing how did you do with the PP? How do you, how did it work out for your company? 152737 FERTITTA>> I took the money and sent it back and did not spend $1 of it because as -- TRUMP>> Because they found that you're very rich, and they said, what the hell. FERTITTA>> You know what, but also was the first person that opened the leveraged finance market and went and borrowed 300 million -- TRUMP>> Yeah. FERTITTA>> -- at 12%, where just three months earlier borrowed at 3% because I needed that liquidity, to keep the company afloat. 152802 TRUMP>> So so what did you do? You went out very early right for the money? And you've, you found the market, it was open, even at that early date. FERTITTA>> Yes I borrowed 300 million to add to liquidity but I still, it wasn't enough to to hire back all my employees which I would have loved to have done with the PPP. TRUMP>> What do you do with your basketball players that are making 25 million a year? FERTITTA>> I have two of them that make 40. Russell and James. TRUMP>> By the way, they are good players. 152834 FERTITTA>>They are good but they yes they are getting paid which -- TRUMP>> Could I ask -- FERTITTA>> -- Bargaining Agreement, and that's why -- TRUMP>> Tillman, what's going to happen with basketball? Could you give us a because I would be interested. You have any idea what they're doing? FERTITTA>> Yes, yes. So I think what they're doing is is waiting to see what happens in certain states and if we're going to be able to play, making sure the virus continues to go in, in the right direction in the next few weeks. 152858 And -- and I think that if things keep going the way that it's going I think the NBA, the commissioner Adam Silver, who has done an unbelievable job through this, and the 30. The owners I think will make the decision to try to start the season up again. TRUMP>> Will you finish the season, or not? FERTITTA>> I think that there's talk about finishing the season, playing X amount of games, the players need to play to get paid and right now they're taking a 25% pay cut. And because they -- they own 50% of our revenues, the players, unlike the other sports. 152934 And so they -- they want that revenue and that television revenue, even if it's not the people in the stands revenue, so they can get paid. TRUMP>> Could you go immediately to playoffs or is that not really possible? FERTITTA>> I think that they would use the -- I think that we would play some games just to get it going again. TRUMP>> I agree. FERTTITA>> --And to create the interest, and then go right into the playoffs, but I think it'll be great for America. We're all missing sports and everybody, you know, wants to see these great NBA teams but -- TRUMP>> Good luck with it. FERTITTA>> Thank you, but just create a category for us, Mr. Secretary. TRUMP>> Steve, what do you think about that? I mean he's got a unique situation. You know, he has a lot of restaurants, it's a big company but you know-- 153019 FERTITTA>> I can't pay them -- TRUMP>> you have other people where the company is the same size but you have 2,000 owners. What do you think of that? MNUCHIN>> Well, it's a complicated issue,Mr President, as I said before -- TRUMP>> It's complicated. MNUCHIN>> We didn't anticipate the Los Angeles Lakers who I'm a big fan of would be taking a PPP loan. And as a result of that, there was a lot of backlash around it-- TRUMP>> Who paid it back? I'm saying that for the media. They -- MNUCHIN>> We went through the certifications and again, we realize the issue, how it impacts your workers and we're sympathetic to that. 153049 This was a program for companies that were not necessarily quite as big-- TRUMP>> But this is different than the Lakers. The Lakers are a basketball team. This a man that owns many -- how many restaurants do you own? FERTITTA>> 600 restaurants, but they're all full service restaurants. You know, I have 60,000 employees and you don't have the ability -- ability to pay them. MNUCHIN>> I'm happy to follow up with you. We don't need to have this in front-- TRUMP>> But it is interesting for the press to hear because they understand the complexity of it. 153119 So, if he had 600 owners and he franchised them out or something -- but he had 600 owners, they qualify. If he has -- you know, if he owns it, it's a different situation but I can understand what he's saying. So let's take a look at it. FERTITTA>> And then just one more thing. If we could just do something with lease terminations because, like, I'm the largest operator in New York for full service restaurants. And the million dollar leases -- let them protect their rights, the landlords -- TRUMP>> What's your largest restaurant? What is it, in New York? FERTITTA>> Del Frisco, Mastro's, Morton's, the Strip House, Bill's Burger in Rockefeller Center. 153154 You know, Dos Caminos. TRUMP>> Yeah. FERTITTA>> You know, on and on. So, but -- but, if we could just -- TRUMP>> Good job you've done. I mean you got hit by the plague. [FERTITTA LAUGHS] Right? But outside of that, you've done a hell of a job. FERTITTA>> Just trying to keep up with -- TRUMP>> It just brought you back to Earth a little bit. FERTITTA>> We were definitely brought back to Earth. [laughs] TRUMP>> You really have. You've done a fantastic job. Hey, you're a friend of mine for a long time. FERTITTA>> Thank you sir. TRUMP>> And I have to say, you paid me rent for a long time. Right? 153223 FERTITTA>> Absolutely, and never missed a payment. TRUMP>> And you were never late. And now -- FERTITTA>> You're a tough landlord. TRUMP>> No, you're a great -- a great gentleman, really a great gentleman. Steve, it's an interesting case. Okay? Do the best you can. Good luck with the basketball. FERTITTA>> Thank you, sir. TRUMP>> You have a hell of a team. FERTITTA>> And thank you all of you -- TRUMP>> Say hello to those two great players -- all of your players but, and man, they are -- they can play. FERTITTA>> They can play. TRUMP>> So you say they make 40 a year. FERTITTA>> Russell and James both make 40 million a year, and they were still getting paid. So a lot of my employees really wanted that PPP money. 153252 TRUMP>> You want them -- you want them to play this year. FERTITTA>> Yes. TRUMP>> How many more years do you have together? Right, so you -- FERTITTA>> I have both of them for three more years. TRUMP>> You want them to play this year because magic can happen, right? FERTITTA>> Absolutely, a little magic and -- TRUMP>> Good luck. FERTITTA>> -- all of the sudden, you get a big ring. TRUMP>> Good luck. Thanks, Tilman. FERTITTA>> Thank you, sir. 153310 KUSHNER>> I just want to thank everyone for being here, it's been incredible to watch all the innovations that you've been doing in your business models to give more confidence to the public to get open. The President identified this very early as a critical industry for us to focus on for a few reasons. One is you're a major employer there's a lot of people who are hurting right now because the restaurant industry is closed but also you're a gem of America. 153330 People love getting entertainment and enjoyment from the great work that you do so, this has never really been an issue before because the restaurant business has never been closed before for a period of time. So this is truly a unique historical situation that's occurred and you know we're all in this together to try to figure out the best way back. But the quicker that we can help you figure out how to get demand up the quicker you can hire back employees and we can get Americans back to enjoying all of your fine establishments so thank you for all you're doing. And thank you, Mr President, for your leadership. 153358 TRUMP>> So you know, Tillman, he took a ventilator job, where the country basically had no ventilators, essentially, and built an incredible empire for building ventilators in a period of very short time. And now we're supplying ventilators all over the world. It's an amazing thing. We got no credit from the fake news media, but what are you going to do? Can't win them all. And now the testing today in the Washington Post, they actually had a headline that the testing is there but the people aren't there. We have so much testing. 153429 I'm sure the person that drew that headline in the Washington Post will be fired today sometime. >> In the state of Texas I know for, for six weeks, any employee of mine could go to numerous places and get tested, and not even stand in line. So when I'll watch and see everything that people cannot get tested in America -- and I don't know about all the other states, but I do have employees that have been tested in other states. I just follow it closer. There has not been an issue of people getting tested. 153500 TRUMP>> And, you know, they sort of knew it, but -- >> And we were even tested here this morning. (laughter) TRUMP>> See I think he should be entitled to that now, Steve, definitely. But, no we've done -- really it's been an amazing -- >> 100% TRUMP>> -- an amazing job, been an amazing job. We made a lot of Governors look good. KUSHNER>> and Mr President, I will say, yesterday, you had your number one day in America 422,000 tests performed and you're about 11 and a half million tests performed now in the US thanks to your leadership. 153530 TRUMP>> Numbers that would have been unthinkable, I think you could say that, right? Numbers that would have been - John, those are the numbers that could have been talked about nobody would have believed it. So anyway, you know, So, please. FEENEY>> Mr. President, like yourself I'm a New Yorker, and a career changer. I was a former bond trader at Goldman Sachs and now I own restaurants in Brooklyn, most notably Lilia, and Missy in Williamsburg. We help make everyday a good day. 153558 Along with Thomas, and Will, we're founding members of the independent restaurant coalition. And we're grateful to have a seat at this table for the first time. The impact catalyzed by this pandemic is enormous, the prolonged economic shutdown created challenges for our industry that has to be met with policy to inject liquidity, investment, consumption and hiring. The immediate and coordinated response by your administration to support out of work employees, was inspiring. And it should make us all proud to be Americans. 153630 The intention of PPP to support small businesses and restaurants, was pragmatic and encouraging. We have all agreed that it wasn't perfect, but we're working on it, to fix it so that it could help us. But we need those fixes now, like me, I have it, I can't use it. I'm in the clock zone of eight weeks. PPP is a bridge -- 153658 TRUMP>> So, do you agree with what they're saying in terms of timing? FEENEY>> Immediately. It must happen. TRUMP>> And you agree with the 24 number? FEENEY>> Yes, absolutely. TRUMP>> Did you guys meet before this or something? No, did you have a little meeting to discuss this perhaps? Yeah, okay. FEENEY>> We -- TRUMP>> Now I feel better because everyone knows exactly the same thing. FEENEY>> What is, what is incredible about this independent restaurant coalition. This did not exist seven weeks ago, restaurant owners didn't talk to each other. Ever. And we -- TRUMP>> I bring people together. You've seen that in government. I bring the democrats together with the republicans right? 153733 FEENEY>> And it was -- it's been a beautiful thing. TRUMP>> I'm only kidding. FEENEY>> We've been able to, we've been able to talk. We've been able to be creative and figure out ways to bring this industry back -- TRUMP>> That's great. I think it's great if you got together and a lot of good suggestions have been made and it's been made uniformly so we really know your opinion as opposed to having all different ideas. FEENEY>> That's correct. TRUMP>> That's really great. That helps. FEENEY>>So PPP is a bridge that will help restaurants reopen our doors. It'll help restaurants reemploy 11 million workers that are currently not working. In an effort to keep those doors open, and to keep our people employed, we propose a stabilization plan, and we look forward to discussing more in the future with you. 153813 TRUMP>> Okay. FEENEY>> Thank you very much. TRUMP>> Thank you. Great. How did you go from Goldman Sachs to the restaurant business, how did that happen? FEENEY>> David Solomon didn't think I was very good at Bond trading. TRUMP>> I'll bet you were. I'll bet you were very good. Are you glad you made that move? FEENEY>> I am. It's changed my life for the better on every, every -- TRUMP>> So you love the restaurant business, right? FEENEY>> I love it. TRUMP>> I have friends in the restaurant business, they love it. They love the -- there is no business they want to go into. FEENEY>> We view you as one of us. TRUMP>> Yeah. FEENEY>>We do. TRUMP>> Well, it's true. 153838 TRUMP>> Yeah, no, it's great. I know your business very well. People. Unlike -- well, you know there are other businesses but just about as much as any business they love being in the restaurant business so that's great. FEENEY>> It's good to get out -- TRUMP>> So you made a good move. FEENEY>> Oh yes. TRUMP>> Did you make a good move financially? FEENEY>> I did very, very well. TRUMP>> It worked out fine too. FEENEY>> Our restaurants are more profitable than the hedge fund that I worked at for seven TRUMP>> Wow that's fantastic. FEENEY>> Yes. TRUMP>> Now we don't have to give them anything. 153906 FEENEY>> But -- but I want to go back to that because I want to reopen as soon as possible. TRUMP>> Yeah, no, I agree with it. Okay, good, good job too. I know the one restaurant I know is great. FEENEY>> Thank you very much. TRUMP>> Gene. This is a man of great genes. His name is Gene and his father was a terrific gentleman. You know that right? Great talent. Go ahead, please. SCALIA>> Great Mother too, right? TRUMP>> Maybe your mother's even better. 153933 SCALIA>> Well, there are few industries where the workers have been hit as hard as in this particular industry as Will was touching on. We announced 20.5 million payroll job losses, basically from the middle of March t the middle of April, and 5.5 million of those, more than a quarter, were in restaurants, Mr. President. You saw this coming. You acted with really extraordinary extraordinary speed and I think as we said, generosity, among other things in the unemployment benefit that was provided in the cares act. We at the labor department have been working extremely hard with the states to enable them to make that payment. 154008 As you touched on they've had -- they've had some problems because their computer systems which are old, Secretary mnuchin, I cautioned the Congress that there would be problems but we will continue to work with them to get those payments out, but -- but even as we do that, we know that we're pivoting. We're opening. We're reopening across the country. It's -- it is -- there are glimmers and more than that, as we begin that reopening and so we will be focusing too on helping workers transition from unemployment back onto the job and you hear a lot of numbers. A number that really sticks with me is a couple different surveys have shown -- federal surveys have shown that 90% of workers who are unemployed right now have said, it's temporary. 154047 And I want to make that right. I want to make that true. That's why, Mr President, you want to safely, but -- but promptly reopen and so we'll continue to work with -- TRUMP>> That's a very important number. SCALIA>> 90% TRUMP>> If you go into a real big recession and, you know, have a number like that, that's a tremendous number. It's really a great -- it's -- it's a testament, because again it was artificially turned on and off. But now it's off and we're going to turn it back on, it's been turned on. As of, I don't know it almost feels like today's the first day. I think last week didn't feel the same, now it feels good. People are starting to go out. They're opening, they get it. 154122 We understand the disease much better than we did when it first came in, nobody understood it, nobody's ever seen it before. And it feels much different. I mean, Today is almost like the first day, but the expression that we like to use, right? Transition to greatness. We're going to be back, and what you said is a very important thing. People expect to go back. SCALIA>> And by moving quickly, but safely, we get them there and I had discussions with several of you about -- about safety. We're very focused on that at the Labor Department, giving workers and I know you're focused too on getting customers confidence as they return and we'll -- we'll continue to work with CDC and others to help on that front. 154159 TRUMP>> And Gene, you have to help the truckers also. SCALIA>> We've been talking about the truckers. Mr. President-- TRUMP>> Because they've been out there and I'll tell you. They're -- they work hard and they have brokers that take a lot of their business away. They don't work so hard. They sit in an office someplace. It's not good. So I'd like to help the truckers. SCALIA>> Elanie and I've been talking about that. TRUMP>> Alright? Good, please. KELLER >> Mr. president. Secretary Mnuchin, Vice President Pence, secretary Scalia, thank you for having us here today. Of course I'll echo what everybody else has said about how proud we are to be sitting here at the White House in your home, to be able to share some of our struggles and hopes and aspirations. 154239 The restaurant profession is a profession that's always dynamic and you've seen that around this table with some of the things that my colleagues are doing, but we're also very united. As you've seen, and you just responded to the 24 weeks. Did we have a meeting before? Certainly we had a meeting before. Did we talk about it, sir? We talked about it, because we want to be unified in our approach whether you have 650 restaurants, two restaurants, six restaurants thousand restaurants, it doesn't really matter we all are nurturers at heart. And we want our restaurants to reopen so that they can nurture our guests, our communities. And finally, our country. 154319 There's something to be said for going last because I just want to agree with everything that everybody else has said around this table. So I won't -- I won't repeat it and bore us with -- with more of the same, but I will tell you a story, a personal story, two personal stories, if I may, one about the PPP and thank you very much because it's been a lifesaver In many ways for me. I have restaurants, of course where I have not been able to use the PPP yet, but I also have -- TRUMP>> And why is that? KELLER>> Because we can't open yet, and there was no point of me hiring back my staff. TRUMP>> Where was that? Where? KELLER>> California, New York. Las Vegas, and South Florida. TRUMP>> I mean I hear they're gonna keep Los Angeles closed till the end of August, is that a fact? 154402 KELLER>> That's a good question. I'm -- I'm in Napa Valley, but I'm not really sure about Los Angeles, I'm sorry. Yeah. TRUMP>> That's the mayor who wants to do that. That's a death wish. Because you know there's death on both sides. You know that. There's death on both sides. It's not just a one way street. And we solved a big problem, but you have to understand the other side of it too, and they don't understand the other side of it. Okay, please? 154430 On the other hand, our consumer product division where we have four different businesses, has been thriving. And we have taken our ppp money, and we hired 100% of the staff in those four companies so I look at that and I'm extremely thankful and grateful for all the work that you and your team have done so quickly to help us on our restaurant side I echo what everybody else says. It's a little more, more complicated. I also want to thank you for voicing your support of big, which is our business interruption group which started with a couple other chefs, and has grown quite large, and we've started to make some inroads with -- with the insurance companies. 154511 With some of the congressmen and some of the senators so we continue to work on that for all businesses, not just for restaurant businesses. Finally, I want to talk about a small farm in Orwell, Vermont. A small farmer named Diane St. Claire who is by herself with her husband. And this is about the supply chain and how important restaurants are in -- in so many different aspects. Reduce it down to individuals that we know, that we love, that depend on us, as -- as restauranteurs and as chefs. It's a woman who has eight cows, who gets up every morning seven days a week to milk her cows, 154549 Let them out to pasture, begin to make her butter, bring her cows back at four or five o'clock, milk them again and put them to bed every day. I am -- I am the sole source of her revenue. She's not able to sell her butter anywhere else. So she's not making butter today. The impact that restaurants have in our -- in our communities, in our states and in our country are extraordinary. We are in many cases the first job people have. 154618 My first job was in a restaurant as a dishwasher making a little less than 3.50. But that was because of my age, and being able to move up. We are the -- we give people the second chance in restaurants, and finally people's last jobs are in restaurants. Those who are retired and on -- and on benefits -- are augmenting their benefits by working in restaurants. We don't really care about your education, we're not concerned about where you come from, your religious beliefs. We are open to everybody, we employ the most women of anybody besides the federal government, the most single parent women. 154659 It's just extraordinary how, how much we embrace our entire country. And what we do. And what we do at heart is we nurture. I became a chef, and I remember the day I decided to become a chef. I'd been cooking for several years, July in 1977 in Narragansett Rhode Island working for a French chef named Roland Henan who asked me one day "Why do cooks cook?" And I was certainly intimidated. I was young and as a chef, I don't know, why do cooks cook? 154729 He said "we cook to nurture people." And there was something inside of me that that resonated with and I embraced the idea of nurturing people and I have 1200 employees. There are over, 1180 who are unemployed today that I desperately want to bring back to work so that we can not only nurture each other but nurture those who come into our restaurants. Again I want to thank you for, for having us here today, I want to thank all my colleagues for for articulating everything that we wanted to say in such a profound way. I appreciate the opportunity so thank you Mr. President. 154806 TRUMP>> Thank you very much. Beautiful story of the woman with the 8 cows. KELLER>> Yup. TRUMP>> I think that -- restauranteurs do especially I guess, some with an individual restaurant or a couple of restaurants, they do that a lot, don't they? They buy directly. KELLER>> They do, yeah. We support so many small farms around the country. I started an initiative called big hearts and small farms with five other chefs just so that we can offer people an opportunity to buy some of the some of the food from some of these small farms around the country. TRUMP>> Tillman doesn't do that. I don't think you do that with your eight cows, right? (laughter) He doesn't know. KELLER>> It's [laughter, cont.] a little different, but -- It goes from the very small to the very big, and that's what restaurants are all about. And I'm proud to be part of this community. 154851 TRUMP>> What's the difference in butter? Tell me the difference in butter between what she sells you and what you would normally be able to buy, out of curiosity. KELLER>> I don't want to -- It is extraordinary because it is truly, truly a seasonal product so the butter changes flavor and color depending on the season, so in their early -- in the spring when they're eating green, when they're grazing on grass, green grass, the butter -- TRUMP>> That's fantastic. KELLER>> -- a beautiful orange hue. 154913 And of course, in the summertime, it turns lighter because they're eating hay. And so -- TRUMP>> Mike just said, "There's no comparison." He knows. [laughter] He knows. He's from Indiana. KELLER>> There's a -- there's a tremendous difference in the butter from -- TRUMP>> [inaud] KELLER>> Oh. TRUMP>> And you probably pay less too, right? KELLER>> Well, I don't know how much I pay. It's not about how much I pay, it's about supporting her and what she's trying to do. TRUMP>> Right, but would you pay less, generally speaking, when you do those things -- you deal directly with the farm? KELLER>> You know, I -- when we deal directly with the farmers, I never talk about price. It's always about quality, because we're about quality and building relationships with people building, building -- 154948 I've been buying Diane's butter for over 20 years. TRUMP>> No kidding. KELLER>> She, she did tell me one time -- I'll tell you the story again, if I can -- that she had to raise the price of her butter and I said " Diane I really don't know how much your butter costs but I appreciate you telling me this," and she says, "but I also want to tell you why." And I said, "Okay, tell me why, Diane." She said, "my son was accepted at NYU, and I need to pay for his tuition." [laughter] This is what happens when a guest goes into a restaurant and spends $1. >> That's right. KELLER>> You're supporting all of these people. 155017 You're supporting this young man who's going to get a degree from NYU. Do I -- should I, should I, you know, negotiate with her on price? TRUMP>> Yeah. KELLER>> No. TRUMP>> I think it's great. Thank you very much. KELLER>> Thank you. TRUMP>> Beautiful. Okay, Mike. Well, I think the media wants us to go quickly. PENCE>> Yeah. TRUMP>> I think Jon is -- [inaud] PENCE>> I'll be very quick. TRUMP>> Everybody wants to hit us with a question so bad. 155037 PENCE>> Well, thank you, Mr. President, and I have had the great privilege of sitting in this room, alongside the president, on many occasions over the last three and a half years. I don't know that I've ever been more inspired by the optimism, the resilience, the love of what you do, and the people that you employ and the people that you serve than I've been today. So, thank you all for sharing your stories. 155105 The President has brought together here the -- our topic economic team: secretary of the Treasury Secretary of Labor, all the people that have been involved in standing up the whole of government response. But from the standpoint form the White HOuse Coronavirus Task Force, let me just say thank you. This industry, 650 thousand restaurants strong, had to make very very hard choices. I want to assure you, you said, Sean, that you will consider the president to be one of you. 155135 And I can tell you, my friend considers himself to be one of you. And he always will. And, but he understood when we asked the American people, and we ask businesses like the thousands represented here to shut down, to go to drive through services, to find ways to innovate to meet your customers we knew the sacrifices that were involved in that. 155201 The President directed our economic team to find a way paycheck protection to stand up and come alongside, but your decision, your company's decisions put the health of your employees, the health of your customers, the health of your community first, saved lives. And you are to be commended on behalf of the President, and all of us who've worked, seven days a week on this issue here at the national level I want to say thank you. 155227 The President are going to dismiss in a few minutes and we're going to go to our weekly call with America's governors, and I'm proud as the president is, that as we sit here today 48 states have announced plans to reopen. It was a month ago the president had our task force release a plan to open up America again. And America is opening up. And I just want to assure you that the counsel that you have given us today will continue to inform ways that we can support not just this industry and the communities, but support your states efforts to safely and responsibly reopen and put America back to work. 155304 One last thing, Mr President. One of the great success stories of this pandemic has been that the food supply has not been interrupted. And I honestly didn't know, Mr President, before we got into this, but roughly half of America's food needs are met in restaurants, and in those 650 thousand establishments that we were talking about here today. 155329 And through this pandemic, not only did you innovate, you found ways to continue to meet that food need of -- keep food on the table of Americans. But I also heard just a week ago that it was restaurants that were transferring what you had in storage to your local grocery store, to your local food banks to make sure that Americans didn't miss any meals in the course of this pandemic. So for all those reasons I say thank you and just know that in this president and in this entire team, we are going to be partners with you and we're going to bring back America and all of America's great restaurants bigger and better than ever before. 155406 And it's going to be sooner than you think. TRUMP>> Mike, what are the two states that did not open? PENCE>> 48 states have released plans. There's two that we expect them to be releasing plans very soon. TRUMP>> Who are they? PENCE>> I'll get that to you before we talk to the governors. >>(inuad.) TRUMP>> Is Connecticut? >>(inaud.) . restaurants there, can't do anything. 155430 TRUMP>> It'll open. It'll happen quickly. So just briefly, the paycheck protection program has delivered over $30 billion in aid to more than 250,000 restaurants, up to 95% of that funding is going directly to the workers payroll, you know. On Friday the SBA published the loan forgiveness application which ensures that all businesses including restaurants will not be penalized as long as they make good faith efforts to rehire all of their employees. You know that. 155500 I signed a bill providing federal funded pay to sick people. People that are sick and for family leave so you have for sick and for family leave and that's a very important bill so you have federally funded paid sick and family leave. And I think some of you are taking advantage of that. Businesses can defer paying income taxes until July 15th. We gave that extension. Businesses can claim tax refunds by deducting their losses from the 2018 through 2020 against taxes they paid for the previous five years. 155535 That's a big deal. And then, as you know, we're going to congress and this is more pertinent to what we're talking because you knew all of what I just said. You've been living through it. Restore the restaurant deduction to help jobless restaurant workers so if a company pays or if somebody pays they get a deduction. That's gonna create a tremendous amount of business. I think you're gonna have to open a bunch of additional restaurants in this country. I think it's frankly more important than even the other things we're talking about. You got a short term which you're talking about is more important, but long term, the deduction would be phenomenal. Create and explore America. That's "explore" right. Explore America. 155614 Tax credit that Americans can use for domestic travel including visits to restaurants. That's a big deal. Grant restaurants more flexibility under the PPP. That's what we're talking about, right? And protect workers and businesses alike with curbs of frivolous litigation -- frivolous litigation. A thing I know something about. There's a lot of frivolous litigation. So we don't want somebody going and sitting in your restaurant, Tilman, and then suing you for 10 million dollars because something happened. Now they'll do it anyway. No matter what we give you, they're going to do it anyway. You know that. So I thank you all for being here. We'll take a couple of questions. Jon, and if you have any questions for these great restaurateurs please ask. ------ Q&A 155655 JON KARL>> Mr President, Attorney general Barr says he is unlikely to have any criminal investigation of either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. You've been talking about -- you called it the greatest political crime in American history. What do you think of Mr. Barre's decision? 155709 TRUMP>> Well, I think if it was me they would do it. I think for them, maybe they're not going to, I don't know. I'm surprised because Obama knew everything that was happening. I don't think Barack Obama does where he, you know, is in a lot of ways. I saw his statements the other day and I think that frankly they weren't very good, it's president obama. 155727 As far as Biden's concerned I can't -- that I can't tell you. Only he knows what he knows. I don't think he knows too much. But I think Obama and Biden knew about it. They were participants, but, so I'm a little surprised by that statement. I don't think he said it quite the way you said it. I think he said it as of this moment, I guess. But if it was me, I guarantee that they'd be going after me. In his case, they're not so -- I think it's just a continuation of a double standard. I'm surprised by it. 155755 I'm surprised by it but that's where it is and I don't know what he said about those. You have to understand I was coming into this room as that statement was being made. So I'm -- JON KARL>> Something interesting he said, "we cannot allow this process the legal process to be hijacked by efforts to drum up criminal allegations investigations of either candidate." You seem to be suggesting -- 155817 TRUMP>> Well, I think you'd have to ask him what that means, because I'm in no position to tell you that. I've stayed away from it. I'm relying on the Attorney General to do the job. And so I don't know exactly what he said because I was in this room. JON KARL>> Will you be disappointed if there is no criminal investigation of Biden or about -- TRUMP>> I don't know about being disappointed or not. 155834 But I have no doubt that they were involved in this hoax. One of the worst things ever to befall this country, in terms of political scandal. I have absolutely no doubt that Obama and Biden were involved and, as to whether or not it was criminal, I would think it would be very serious. Very, very serious. It was a takedown of a president, regardless of me -- It happened to be me. 155906 And in my opinion, it was an illegal takedown. And, but I'm gonna let the Attorney General make all of those decisions. I've stayed out of it because it's the appropriate thing to do, I wouldn't have to stay out of it, as you know, but I've decided to stay out of it. So, I would say that I heard that just a little while ago, a few minutes ago. I'll have to look at it exactly, as to what was said, what was meant. I will say this: we have an honorable Attorney General. He's going to do an honorable job. He's a very honorable man and he's going to do a very honorable job. 155939 But I am surprised only in that I have no doubt -- personally, I have no doubt, but he may have another feeling. I have no doubt that they were involved in it. It's a hoax. It started off with a Russian hoax. They went to a Ukraine hoax. It's just a whole big disgrace. And this country has better things to do. It's a disgrace. That they've done to this country with these phony investigations -- the Muller investigation was a waste of time from day one. 160009 They knew it was a waste of time. It proved to be a waste of time. I think there are a lot of bad people involved and they should pay a very big price, if they were caught. So we'll see what happens but I rely on the Attorney General. He's a very honorable man. Okay, any other questions. 160025 Q>> Do you agree with Peter Navarro who said the CDC "let the country down" in terms of testing? TRUMP>> I think they work very hard. Don't forget, they've been here for many years. It's not -- they don't work for me. They work for the country. They've worked very hard. We, when we took over -- in terms of, you know, getting involved -- Mike headed up the task force. He worked with CDC, and I could ask Mike to give you part, you know, part of it but I will say: they -- originally, they had no tests and one of the tests had a problem very early on. 160059 But that was quickly remedied. And now, we have the best tests anywhere in the world. I think we -- I give ourselves a lot of that credit. A lot of the brilliant people that worked on testing, a lot of their brilliant people that work on a ventilator to the point where we have the best testing in the world. We have the best ventilators and distribution, and the most ventilators in the world. It's not even close. So I can't -- I would like to ask Mike that question. CDC, you work with them all the time. Certainly, much more than I do, Mike. 160125 PENCE>> We do, Mr. President. And let me say, I think -- I think Peter Navarro's point was that CDC and our public health labs at the state level were operating with an arcane testing system. And it was one of the reasons why, early on, we brought in all of the commercial labs around the country. The president created a consortium with these commercial labs, and we in reinventing testing in America. 160155 And that's the reason why, at the end of February, we had done a total of 8,400 tests at that time, using state and public labs and the CDC labs. But because of the president's efforts with, basically, innovating testing in America, we've now reached 11 million tests. I think you heard the statistics. More than 400,000 tests yesterday. And we are actually hearing, as the president said earlier, we are hearing reports of excess capacity that I think the state of New York -- Governor Cuomo reported that he has the ability to test 15,000 people a day. 160234 But they were only testing 5,000 people. We're -- we have heard the same reports from Florida and other states from around the country. But, again, it is all a testament of the fact that president trump essentially brought in the power of the private marketplace, private laboratories. -- reinvented testing in America. And that's how we've been able to be at a place where, as we talk about opening up America, every state in America today has the testing capacity and the supplies to be able to move into Phase One Reopening. 160305 And we're gonna continue to make that a reality. TRUMP>> We've made a lot of governors look very good. That, I can tell you. I'm reading some of the reviews on some of the governors, and they're getting these reviews, well -- We were able to get them ventilators that they didn't have. We were able to get them testing that they still would not have. We were able to get them things that they didn't have, including helping fill us their stockpile -- who -- which really, they should have had done. They didn't. They were not supposed to be using us for that. But we made a lot of governors look very good. And that's, frankly, good because it's good for our country. 160337 Q>> Why did you pass up an opportunity to speak to the world health organization earlier, the virtual meeting today? TRUMP>> I chose not to make a statement today. I will be giving them a statement sometime in the near future.But I chose not to give a statement. I think they've done a very sad job in the last period of time. And again, the United States pays them $450 million a year. China pays them 38 million dollars a year. 160404 And they are a puppet of China. They are China centric to put it nicer. But they are a puppet of China. And I think they've done a very -- even when I did the ban,Mike remembers this very well. When I did the ban, they thought it was inappropriate to do. I did a ban very early. If I didn't do that ban you would've lost hundreds of thousands of more people in this country. It was a very important ban. People don't like talking about the ban. 160429 But it was very important. I was the only one that wanted to do it. And we dit it, and we saved thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of lives, probably. And Dr. Fauci said that, and other people said. Deborah said that, you know that. But the world health organization was against it. They were against me doing the ban. They were against, they said you don't need it. It is too much. It is too severe. It's too all of these things. And they turned out to be wrong. Sleepy Joe Biden said the same thing. He came out, he said I was xenophobic. Can you believe that one, Tillman? 160502 I was xenophobic because I said you can't come in if you come from China. You can't come into our country. Very early. And Biden said I was xenophobic. FERTITTA>> (inaud.) . San Francisco at the same time. TRUMP>> This is my guy. [Laughter] We always got along, didn't we? The twins, they call us. So, no, it is a very sad thing. So I'm not happy with the world health organization. And guess what? There are some people around this table who would understanding being a business and in some cases international. I'm not happy with the world trade organization at all either. 160539 Q>> Mr. President, can you explain, sir, why you decided to fire the inspector general of the state department? TRUMP>> Yeah, I don't know him at all. I never even heard of him, but I was asked to by the state department by Mike. I offered most of my people -- almost all of them, I said, you know, these are Obama appointees. If you would like to let them go, I think you should let them go, but that's up to you. He is an Obama employee. I understand he had a lot of problems with the DOD. There was an investigation on him, on the inspector general. I don't know anything about it. 160610 So I don't know him. Never heard of him, but they asked me to terminate him. I have the absolute right as president to terminate. I have said who appointed him? And they say president Obama. I said look, I will terminate him. I don't know what's going on other than that, but you would have to ask Mike Pompeo, but they did ask me to do it, and I did it. I have the right to terminate the inspector general's. I would have suggested and I did suggest in pretty much all cases, you get rid of the attorney general's because It happens to be very political whether you like it or not. And many of these people were Obama appointments. And -- so I just got rid of him. 160650 Q>> You got some criticism from Democrats in congress who are saying this is a pattern of you -- TRUMP>> Yeah, I know. Q>> trying to avoid having accountability. TRUMP>> Yeah, I know and If I didn't fire him, they would've criticized me too. They criticize no matter what you do, you know. If you have too many ventilators, they will say, gee, that's too many ventilators. If you don't have enough, they will say he doesn't have enough. No matter what you do between that and their partner, the fake news media. They'll find something. No, I don't know the gentleman. I was happy to do it. Mike requested that I do it. He should have done it a long time ago, and my opinion. He is an Obama appointment and he had some difficulty. But, I just don't know who he is. I really -- I don't know. I never heard his name. 160732 Q>> Do you believe there's a role for inspector general's to keep in an administration like yours or anyone else's accountable? TRUMP>> Yeah, but I think they have to be fair. Sure, but I think they have to be fair and I think it's a death wish when you -- and I told my people. I said I think you should, you know, study your situation, but let us know. I think we have been treated very unfairly by inspector general's. I can go into instances, but I'm not going to do it now. But the inspector general's when they're put in by Obama. Just like it could be that if they were put in by me and it was somebody else's administration, especially the other party. 160805 It could very well be that you'd be treated unfairly. But we've had a lot of cases. Where we thought that was unfair. So, yeah, they asked me to do that. I think the big thing is they should have asked me to do it a long time ago. Q>> You said you don't know him, sir. What was he doing that was treating you unfairly? TRUMP>> I don't know. I don't know anything about him. I don't know. I don't know anything about him, other than the state department and Mike, in particular -- I guess they were not happy with the job he's doing or something. 160832 So -- because it's my right to do it, I said "sure, I'll do it." I've gotten rid of a lot of inspector generals. Every president has. I think every President has gotten rid of, probably, more than I have. A lot of our people kept the Obama inspector general. And I think, generally speaking, that's not a good thing to do. But they have kept them. But I told them for three years. I said, "anyone who wants to get rid of their inspector general's, because they were appointed by President Obama, I think you should do so." Some of them didn't but now they're doing -- a couple of them are doing it now. Yeah, go ahead. 160905 JON KARL Q>> Mr. President, isn't there at least an appearance of a conflict of interest if Secretary Pompeo is asking you to fire an inspector general that's investigating -- ? TRUMP>> That I can't tell you. I don't -- I don't think so. I think, maybe, he thinks he's being treated unfairly. Again, he wanted to -- he asked me if that would be possible. I said "I'll do that, sure." I think it should have been done a long time ago, frankly. And this is a man that has had some controversy, this inspector general. 160932 But -- so again, I don't know anything. I haven't even read much about him. I see that it's a little bit of a story, not much of a story. 'Cause everybody agrees that I have the absolute right to fire the inspector generals. I think they should have done it a long time ago. Yes, please. 100946 Q>> Mr. President, some of these executives today told you they expect the recovery to be a little bumpy. Could take a little while. Are you forecasting a faster bounce back? TRUMP>> I think they are forecasting a very fast bounce back.I mean I see great optimism. These are big restaurant people that are really up on the business. They are very successful. They've been very successful. They will be, I think even more successful again. Especially if we get deductibility. No, I really enjoyed this -- this was a long meeting for me. You know, normally, I wouldn't in a meeting this long, Tilman, but I like hearing about your great basketball team. 161020 I did not know those guys got paid 40. I thought they made 25. That's interesting FERTITTA>> For the record, my casino in Louisiana opened up today and it opened up extremely, extremely busy in Louisiana. TRUMP>> Good. FERTITTA>> So that is good and other people are coming out. TRUMP>> That's great. What you do works, you know. I've watched you for a long time. What you do works. We are very proud of you. FERTITTA>> I appreciate that sir. TRUMP>> Great job. 161042 Q>> Sir, you sounded genuinely surprised about this PPP extension proposal? TRUMP>> Why was I surprised? You men, that they'd ask for it? Why would I be surprised? Q>> You sounded surprised that they would -- TRUMP>> [inaud] -- of course, they'd ask for it. Q>> [inaud] TRUMP>> I'm surprised that's all they asked for, actually. I know too many of these people. I'm surprised that's all they ask for. No, I think what they are asking for is very reasonable, Steve, you know. I mean, we're gonna have to go and get it approved. And again, we have saved and will continue to save the restaurant business. 161112 And ultimately, we will be paid back many, many times, because they pay a lot of taxes. Q>> Mr. President -- ? TRUMP>> And they, you know, create tremendous numbers of jobs. Think of that. 600, 650,000 restaurants. Who wouldn't think that's even possible? Q>> have you made a final position to fully defund a contribution to the WHO, going forward? TRUMP>> Well, I have a concept, because we paid 450,000. And somebody came out because we have different ideas. 161143 One was that -- I mean, I could ask these brilliant people. So, we help fund the world health organization. We use it like everyone else does. They gave us a lot of very bad advice -- terrible advice. They were wrong so much, always on the side of China. China paid $40 million last year. And we've been paying $450 million a year for many years. Somehow, that doesn't work out very well. So I was thinking about bringing our 450 down to 40. And some people thought that was too much. 161113 So we're gonna make a decision fairly soon. But I think it's very unfair when we are paying 450 -- For many, many years, we've been paying 300, 400, 450, almost 500 sometimes, and we are not treated right. And we are not treated -- by World Trade, we are not treated right either. The world trade organization. China, there, is considered a developing nation. If you're a developing nation, you get massive tax advantages and other advantages. Well, I want the United States to be a developing nation then, okay? 161243 We should get the same advantages as Chine gets. Why should China get advantages over the United States? Because they got somebody to say they're a developing nation. And so, that is under review also. Q>> And then, Mr. President, Secretary Pompeo was reportedly under investigation both for having staffers do personal errands like walking his dog and picking up his dry cleaning, and concerns that may have subverted the will of Congress with Saudi deals with -- Saudi arms deals. Are you concerned that he may have made this request to avoid an investigation into --? 161318 TRUMP>> Well, I don't know anything about it. I heard about it at the same time, maybe you heard about it. I don't know anything about it. I mean, do you mean that he is under investigation because he had somebody walk his dog from the government? I don't know. Doesn't sounds -- I don't think it sounds that important. I mean, you have a man that is supposed to be -- and he's a brilliant guy. Number one at West Point. Number one at Harvard -- I believe Harvard law school or close. But he was number one at west point. Number one at Harvard law school or very close to number one. 161348 And they're bothered because he is having somebody walk his dog, as you are telling me. I didn't know that. I didn't hear that. I didn't know about an investigation. But this is what you get with the Democrats. Here's a man, supposed to be negotiating war and peace with major, major countries, with weaponry like the world has never seen before. And the Democrats and the Fake News media, they're interested in a man who'se walking their dog. And maybe he's busy. 161419 And maybe he's negotiating with Kim Jong Un, okay, about nuclear weapons. So that he'd say, please, could you walk my dog? "You mind walking my dog? I'm talking to Kim Jong Un," or "I'm talking to President Xi about paying us for some of the damage they've caused to the world and to us. Please, walk my dog" -- to who? A secret service person or somebody, right? I don't know. I think this country has a long way to go. The -- the priorities are really screwed up when I read this. 161451 Now, I don't know anything about the investigation. But you're just telling me about walking a dog. And what did you say -- doing dishes? Q>> Saudi arms deals, sir. TRUMP>> What Saudi Arms Deals? Explain. Q>> Congress passed -- Congress passed a law to restrict sales to Saudi Arabia over certain arms -- TRUMP>> Yeah -- Q>> Out of concern over their using the [inaud] crisis. So the question is whether Secretary Pompeo tried to subvert the deal with actions that he may have taken on? 161517 TRUMP>> I don't think so. I mean, I think that when someone pays us a fortune for, you know, arms, we should get the deal done. I will tell you that. I don't -- I don't know what you are talking about. I know this. That we have countries that want to buy our arms. And we make it so difficult for them that they end up going to Russia and China. And under my administration, if they are friendly countries, I try to make it as easy as possible. If they want to buy our fighter jets, and if they want to give us billions and billions of dollars, and they have other alternatives including China, Russia, and others, I think we should make it as easy as possible for them. 161549 And we should take the jobs and take the money, because it is billions of dollars. And in past administrations, they waited so long that people wouldn't even want to do business with us. And one of the things that we have done -- and we make the greatest equipment in the world, by far. And especially now, under this administration, because we have upped the scale a lot, as you know. And we've bought a lot. We've totally rearmed our military. $1.5 trillion. But if somebody wants to give us billions of dollars to buy an airplane or a number of airplanes and missiles and all of the other things that we make better than anybody in the world, we should take the money and make the deals fast. 161625 I would certainly say that. Q>> Even if it leads to human rights abuses-- TRUMP>> Why don't you take your mask off? You know, you're -- just for a second, please. Don't worry about Jeff. Jeff, why don't you move out of his way so he doesn't infect you please. Q>> Sir, even if they're -- TRUMP>> I don't want you to become infected [laughter] Q>> Even if it results in human rights abuses? That was Congress's concern with these. TRUMP>> Human rights? Q>> Abuses. TRUMP>> I don't know. That, I don't know. I mean, you know, you tell me something that I never heard of. Now, you're talking about human rights abuses. You will figure something out, I'm sure. Look, he's a high-quality person, Mike. He's a very high-quality -- he's a very brilliant guy. And now, have you telling me about a dog walking, washing dishes. 161706 And you know what? I'd rather have him on the phone with some world leader than have him wash dishes, because maybe his wife isn't there or their kids aren't -- you know, what are you telling me? It's terrible. It is so stupid. You know how stupid that sounds to the world? Unbelievable. Okay, yeah. 161723 JON KARL Q>> --your reaction to President Obama's speeches over the weekend? TRUMP>> Okay, look, I think he was an incompetent president. I think president Obama was one of the worst presidents in the history of our country. I think he was an incompetant president. I know what he left us. He left us a broken military. He left us a military that ISIS was all over the place, and I got rid of it. I knocked out 100% of the caliphate -- and even you will admit that, Jon. 161745 And when I came in, it was a mess. But we had a broken military. We had a depleted military. We had little on the shelves. If you talk about pandemics, we had a country that was a mess. We were paying high taxes. We were paying -- and outside of this artificial event that took place two months ago -- and I'm going to build the country into stronger and better than it was even then. 161807 And it's already happening, and you can see it. You can see it today. Just take a look at the stock market. Look at what is going on. Look at the great numbers that are being called. And look at these medical companies calling in. And we're talking about more than one. So many things are happening. But I think president Obama was an incompetent president. He did a terrible job. And by the way, there was great division in our country with president Obama. You didn't see it as much, but there was tremendous division in our country. 161838 JON KARL Q>> (unintell.) ... division now, too. TRUMP>> I think we'll have great -- I mean, success springs. We had a great success going. Things were really going along and then China gave us a wonderful gift. Okay, and it wasn't pretty. What -- it came out of China, just in case you had any questions, Jon. It didn't come out of -- it came out of China. It spread to Europe, but also came here. And the whole world became infected by this horrible thing that they unleashed one way or the other day. Not a good situation. 161908 Not a good situation. I'm not a man that likes taking that. What happened to us and it was totally preventable. They could have stopped it at the source. They knew it was happening. We wanted to go in. Others wanted to go in. They wouldn't let -- they wouldn't the world as you know -- they wouldn't let, they wouldn't let other countries go in. They wanted --other countries wanted to. World health wanted to. 161933 In all fairness to world health, they wouldn't let world health in. and we're a part of world health. They wouldn't let them in either. They could have stopped it at the source and they chose not to. And yet, they stopped them from going to Wuhan into different parts of China. So, you couldn't go into beijing. What do you think of that Tillman? You couldn't go into China but --- I better not get you involved in that China thing. You got enough problems with -- FERTITTA>> (inuad.) ..they are back though. We are doing business. 162003 TRUMP>> I'm asking the -- an interesting guy that question. But seriously, look. They wouldn't let them into China. But they let them into Europe, and they let them into all over the world including the United States. It's lucky I did the ban. That's all I can tell you. It is lucky that I did the ban. Okay. How about one or two more? 162020 Q>> How are you specifically going to make China be held responsible if -- TRUMP>> Well, i'm not going to tell you that question. Why would I tell you? Go ahead. Q>> Will they be held responsible? Will you take steps to hold China responsible? TRUMP>> Yeah, China should be held responsible for what they've done. They have hurt the world very, very badly. They've hurt themselves also, but they've hurt the world very, very badly. Yeah, they should be held responsible. Okay? Q>> You tweeted recently that this whole whistleblower racket needs to be looked at -- TRUMP>> Sure. sure. Q>> --very closely and it is causing great injustice. 162051 TRUMP>> Sure, I had a fake whistleblower. Sure, I had a fake whistleblower originally. He was a faker because when he looked at my -- he wrote down a conversation that was totally different from that conversation I actually had with the president of Ukraine. It was a fake whistleblower. And by the way, everybody knows who he is. He's a political operative. You know that. John knows who he is. You know him better than anybody, John, right? He's a faker. And he's a fake whistleblower. 162120 And it was a phony, disgraceful period of time. And we came out well. You know why we came out well? Because everyone recognized it for what it was. It just a political witch hunt. But, he was a fake whistleblower. He wrote a story that bore no resemblance to the conversation that I had with the president of Ukraine. Nothing whatsoever. And by the way, the inspector general, he went by the whistleblower. He didn't want to see the conversation that I had. When he saw the conversation that I had, he said well that bears no resemblance to what the whistleblower said. 162155 Why didn't he look first before he ran to congress? He ran to congress, like, he couldn't get there fast enough with a whistleblower report. But, when they offered him to see the actual conversation -- we called the head of Ukraine and we said, we would like to expose their conversation that we had, if you don't mind. He said what was wrong with that? That conversation as I say was perfect. It was a perfect conversation. Not a thing said wrong. That is why we had other than half a vote from Romney and Romney is, you know, a loser. 162229 But other than a half a vote we had from Romney, I got 52.5%. In the house, we had 196-0. 196-0. The Republicans were so unified, not because they all liked me, but because they knew this was a horrible thing that happened. But he was a fake whistleblower. He reported on a conversation that didn't happen just like shifty Schiff. Shifty Schiff, went up before congress, and because he has immunity, in other words you can't put him in jail if he lies, because they have immunity in the halls of -- in the great hall. So he made a statement that was totally different from what I said. You know that. 162312 Eight times quid pro quo. There were no quid pro quo's. Nothing. Zero. Eight times, over and over again, and he made it as though that was the conversation. But he knew that wasn't the conversation I had. And any place else, he would have been thrown out of office and put in jail for what he said, but he had immunity because he made it in the halls -- It should be the opposite. If you make a statement like that, if you lie, you should get double penalties, okay? So, you know, that's the way it goes. So, you had a phony whistleblower. 162345 And this other guy with the hydroxychloroquine, okay, well he -- he went out, and he is the one that approved the hydroxychloroquine. He is the one that signed the application. He also happens to be if you look -- see whether or not. I won't put it on me, i'll put it on you. See whether or not he was a big contributor to the Democrats. See whether or not he wanted the Democrats to win. No, there's a lot of bad things coming out about him. But you people don't want to write the news, you know, but if you look -- but he is the one that signed the application. The very important form. He signed it. Now, if he doesn't believe in it, why would he sign it? 162428 And a lot of good things have come out about the hydroxy. A Lot of good things have come out. And you'd be surprised at how many people are taking it, especially the front-line workers before you catch it. The front-line workers -- many, many are taking it. I happen to be taking it. I happen to be taking it. Q>> Hydroxychloroquine? TRUMP>> I'm taking it. Hydroxychloroquine. Q>> When? TRUMP>> Right now, yeah. 162454 A couple of weeks ago, I started taking it. Q>> Why sir? TRUMP>> Because I think it's good. I've heard a lot of good stories. And if it is not good, I will tell you right. I'm not going to get hurt by it. It has been around for 40 years for malaria, for lupus, for other things. I take it. Front-line workers take it. A lot of doctors take it. Excuse me. A lot of doctors take it. I take it. No, I hope to not be able to take it soon, because you know, I hope they come up with some answer. But I think people should be allowed to. 162519 I got a letter from the doctor the other day from westchester, New York, around the area. He didn't want anything. He just said, sir, I have hundreds of patients, and I give them hydroxychloroquine. I gave them the Z pack which is azithromycin, and I give them zinc. And out of the hundreds of patients, many hundreds, over 300 patients, I haven't lost one. 162544 He said please keep pressing that, sir. And if you look at that phony report that was put in, that report on the hydroxy was given to people that were in extraordinarily bad condition. extraordinarily bad. People that were dying. No, I think for whatever it is worth, I take it. I was -- I would have told you that three or four days ago, but we never had a chance, because you never asked me the question. 162610 KARL >> Did the white house doctor recommend that you take that? Is that why you're taking it? 162614 TRUMP>> Yeah, White House Doctor did recommend -- No, I asked him, "what do you think?" He said, "Well, if you'd like it." I said "Yeah, I'd like it. I'd like to take it." A lot of people are taking it. A lot of front-line workers are taking hydroxychloroquine. A lot of front -- I don't take it because -- hey, people said, "Oh, maybe he owns the company." No, I don't own the company. You know what? I want the people of this nation to feel good. I don't want them being sick. And there is a very good chance that this has an impact, especially early on. But you look at front-line workers. You look at doctors and nurses. 162645 A lot of them are taking it as a preventative. And they're taking -- totally unrelated -- but they take the Z-Pak or the azithromycin for possible infection. Now, I haven't taken that, other than an original dose, because all you need -- you don't have to take it simultaneously. But the zinc, you do take. So I'm taking the two. The zinc and the hydroxy. And all I can tell you is, so far, I seem to be okay. 162715 Q>> Can you explain, sir, though, why you started taking it. TRUMP>> Yeah. Because -- Q>> Have you been exposed? 162719 TRUMP>> No. No, not at all. I just said that -- I've had so many letters from people, like the one I told you about. I got it last week. I'll give you -- Would you like a copy of it? I'd love to give you -- if you ask Molly, she'll give you a copy of it. But this is a doctor -- he doesn't want anything. I don't know him. Never heard of him. But he treats people that are -- that we're talking about. And he said, out of hundreds of people that he's treated, he hasn't lost one. And he just wanted me to know about it. That's all. It wasn't -- he wasn't saying, "gee, could I have dinner with you, Mr. President? Can I come to the White House?" 162749 But I've received many such letters. I've received a lot of positive letters. And it seems to have an impact, and maybe it does, maybe he doesn't. But if it doesn't, you're not going to get sick or die. This is a pill that has been used for a long time, for 30 or 40 years on the malaria and on lupus, too. And even on arthritis, I guess, from what I understand. So it has been heavily tested in terms of -- I was just waiting to see your eyes light up when I said this. But, you know, when I announced this. Yeah, I've taken it for a week and a half now. And I'm still here. I'm still here. Q>> Can you explain, what is the evidence that it has a preventative effect? 162832 TRUMP>> Here we go. Are you ready? Here's my evidence. I get a lot of positive calls about it. The only negative I've heard was the study where they gave it -- was it the VA where, you know, people that aren't big trump fans gave it and we've done the greatest job maybe of anything in the VA. Because I got VA choice and VA accountability both approved. Accountability, Tilman, is where you can fire bad people that work in the va. That you couldn't fire them. We had thousands of people that were his sadists, that we are stealing, that were robbers, that were horrible people. They beat up our veterans. They couldn't do it in prime time, but they did it when they were sick. And we got accountability. Nobody thought you could get it because of the unions and civil service. 162912 I got it passed so that now, you fire bad people in the va. We got rid of tremendously bad people that should've never been there. But I also got probably even more importantly if you can say that, maybe not, va choice. So if you have to wait in line for a doctor, you go outside, you have a private doctor, we pay the bill. We worked out deals with doctors. We have pricing. So you go out, you pay the bill. And it was a great thing that we did. So we've done a great job with the va. 162939 But they had a report come out. And the results of the report -- it was very unscientific report, by the way. But I get a lot of tremendously positive news on the hydroxy. And I say, hey, you know the expression I've used, John? 162955 "What do you have to lose?" Okay, what do you have to lose? Q>> So have you been taking medicine? TRUMP>> I have been taking it for about a week -- for about a week and a half. Q>> Every day? TRUMP>> At some point -- Yeah, every day. I take a pill every day. At some point, I'll stop. What I'd like to do is I'd like to have the cure and/or the vaccine. And that will happen, I think, very soon. Q>> And you have no symptoms, sir? 163016 Zero symptoms. No, I haven't had any symptoms. No, I tested -- we -- I test -- every couple of days, they want to test me, you know, for obvious reasons. I mean, I am the president. Alright? So, they want to test me. 163025 I don't want to be tested, but they want to test me. So, every couple of days, I get tested. And I've been -- I've shown, always, negative. Right? Negative, is that the term you use for this? Right? 163040 Negative, totally negative. No symptoms, no nothing. But, no, I take it because I hear very good things. Again, you have to go to front-line workers. Many front-line workers take it. And they seem to be doing very well. 163054 Q>> Sir, have any other members of your administration, vice president pence or your family members -- TRUMP>> No, but I -- Q>> -- taking it? 163058 TRUMP>> I would not be surprised. I don't want to ask them, because that's a personal decision as to whether or not you want to say. I just want to be open with the American public. Because, you know, I happen to think it is good. I do want the letter given, because this letter made -- not in terms of my taking it. But I thought it was a very well-crafted letter by a man who is a respected doctor up in westchester, maybe a little beyond westchester, a little, up higher, in New York. And he just -- he didn't want anything. 163127 He just wanted me to know the results of what he's doing as a doctor. He was so happy with the fact that I fight for this stuff. And then we have this crazy whistleblower, this fake whistleblower get out and try to knock it. Who signed the application? He did all the signing. He was a believer at one point, I assume. Otherwise, he shouldn't have signed it. No matter who told him to, he shouldn't have signed it. Okay, one more question, that's it. Thank you all very much. Thank you, fellows.

1730 SENATE FLOOR RS102 90 SENATE FLOOR DEBATE: The Senate proceeds to Executive Session to resume consideration of the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, voting on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination, when invoked, proceeding to debate on the nomination, post-cloture. 17:41:50 CRUZ (R-TX):mr. president? THE PRESIDING OFFICER:the senator from texas. CRUZ (R-TX): mr. president, i rise today to discuss the impending nomination of judge brett kavanaugh. it now appears that tomorrow judge brett kavanaugh will become justice brett kavanaugh, 17:42:05 an associate justice on the united states supreme court. it's worth pausing for a moment to reflect why that is of such great consequence for our country. in recent decades, the courts have seized more and more 17:42:21 policymaking authority, have intruded into the authority of the democratically elected legislature, has taken policy issue after policy issue from the hands of the american people and usurped it instead to the hands of five unelected judges. 17:42:37given those stakes, the 2016 election in a very real sense was waged over what direction the supreme court would go. and there was a markedly different vision, a markedly different promise that was made 17:42:52 by donald trump and hillary clinton. donald trump promised to nominate institutionalists who would defend the constitution, who would defend the bill of rights. mr. president, that's what the people of texas want. i believe that's what the american people want. 17:43:08 judges who will follow the law, who will be faithful to the constitution, who will uphold our fundamental liberties, free speech, religious liberty, the second amendment, the tenth amendment, the fundamental liberties protected every american in the united states 17:43:23 constitution. the stakes here are high, particularly with this seat, the seat that was held by justice kennedy, a justice who has been the swing vote for three decades now. even though the stakes are high, mr. president, what we have 17:43:39 witnessed the last several weeks is unprecedented in the annals of confirmation battles. we saw initially a confirmation hearing that was relatively straightforward. 17:43:54 it was marred by protests, coordinated with democratic senators, according to media reports. on the first day of the hearing, 70 individuals were arrested for protesting and disrupting the hearings. but at the end of that opening 17:44:10 week of hearings, not a single senator on the committee had made the argument that justice kavanaugh was not qualified to be a justice. by any measure he's one of the most respected appellate judges 17:44:26 in the country. nor did any of the senators on the judiciary committee make any meaningful argument that raised serious concerns about judge kavanaugh's jurisprudence. he's been a court of appeals judge for over a decade. 17:44:41 it appeared at that point that the confirmation was a foregone conclusion and that it indeed -- and that indeed judge kavanaugh was likely to get a substantial bipartisan confirmation. then on the eve of the vote it 17:44:56 was leaked in the press that there were allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual assault. those those allegations, sadly, had been in the possession of the ranking democratic member of the 17:45:13 committee since july 30 in the form of a written letter that had been submitted by dr. ford on july 30, detailing the allegations. the allegations were serious. the allegations deserved to be treated with respect. and dr. ford in that letter 17:45:29 requested to stay confidential. she did not want her name thrust in the national news. now, the judiciary committee has a process for handing allegations, nominations go forward, there are all sorts of 17:45:45 allegations that are raised. and the proficiency -- and the process would be to refer that letter to the chairman, refer it to thephyte for a an investigation, and then the committee has standing process to engage in a confidential hearing, a closed hearing where 17:46:00 the allegations raised by dr. ford could have been considered without dragging her name that the public. that would have been the right way to do that. that would have been the senate operating the wait we are supposed to operate. but, sadly, it didn't apartmentst -- operate that 17:46:18 way. instead, it appears the democratic members of congress made the decision to leak the letter to the president and to drag dr. ford unwillingly into the public square. that did enormous damage to 17:46:33 dr. afford her family and did enormous damage to judge kavanaugh and his family. when this happens, the judiciary committee, the republican members of the committee met and i urged my colleagues once these allegations were made public that there needed to be a public 17:46:49 hearing and dr. ford deserved a 17:46:51 full and fair opportunity to tell her story. and that she needed to be treated with respect. and that, i'm glad to say, is exactly what happened. i also believe judge kavanaugh deserved a full and fair opportunity to defend himself, 17:47:07 and that he, too, should be treated with respect. that, sadly, is not what happened. the hearing we had last week featured one democratic member of the committee after another dragging judge kavanaugh and his family through the mud, raising 17:47:25 smear after smear after smear -- not just the allegations that dr. ford had raised but other, more far-fetched, in some cases absurd, allegations that partnersly the threshold for dragging a man's character and besmirching his family, the 17:47:41 threshold in washington is nonexistent. that thursday hearing we heard powerful testimony from two witnesses, dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. it was clear that both were 17:47:56 hurting. it was clear that both had been done emore must damage by the -- enormous damage by the way the democratic members of that body launched these allegations in the media. even though we were seeing political games, that didn't 17:48:12 relieve any members of this body from the solemn obligation we have to advise and consent, the obligation we have to have a fair process, to consider the allegations and to make the best judgment we can. and after two witnesses presenting powerful testimony, 17:48:27 it became clear their testimony was directly contradictory. and so we were called to assess the evidence before us. now, typically in a court of law when you have conflicting testimony the way a court of law will assess that is to look to 17:48:43 other corroborating evidence, whatter evidence is there that indicates whether particular allegations are true or not? in this instance, dr. ford had identified three fact witnesses, three named fact witnesses, all of whom gave statements to the 17:49:00 judiciary committee under penalty of perjury. all three of the named fact witnesses, not only did they not corroborate the allegations, but they affirmatively refuted the allegations. and they did so on penalty of perjury, mean if they were 17:49:16 lying, they could face up to five years in prison. now, for me, the fact that all of the corroborating evidence contradicted the allegations and the fact that judge kavanaugh 17:49:32 has a many-decadelong record as a distinguished public servant with no allegations whatsoever prior to the 11th hour political allegations that were launched by the democrats, the 17:49:49 balance of that, i believe, leads a fair decision-maker to make the decision that i had made and this body is preparing to make, which is to confirm judge kavanaugh. even so, at the insistence of a 17:50:05 number of senators, the judiciary committee went further and asked last week for the f.b.i. to conduct supplemental background investigations, investigating these allegations. the instructions to the f.b.i. were to investigate all current 17:50:21 credible allegations. the f.b.i. went and did ten interviews. i flew back to d.c. from texas last night. at 10 00 last night, came to the capitol in a classified session 17:50:36 and read all ten of those 302's, the reports that the f.b.i. prepare coming out of these interviews. having read every single one of those reports, not a one of them provides additional 17:50:51 corroborating evidence for dr. ford's allegations. and indeed the key fact witnesses who had previously given statements, unsurprisingly, their statements are very much the same. they're more detailed. they're more extensive because the f.b.i. agents questioned them at greater length. 17:51:08 but at the end of the day, all three named fact witnesses still continue to refute the allegations. that means that this body, if we are to be fair and impartial, i 17:51:27 believe, should confirm judge kavanaugh. the that does not mean, as some have seen in this deeply politicized time in our country, that allegations of sexual assault should not be taken seriously. 17:51:43 to the contrary, the fact that we had an extensive public hearing to hear those allegations, to treat dr. ford 17:51:52 with the utmost respect, that the f.b.i. investigated those allegations, sought out the fact witnesses, looked for corroborating evidence, all of that demonstrates the seriousness which which those -- with which those charges should be taken. sexual assault is a growing 17:52:08 problem in our nation. it is a problem pervasive in our nation. the me too movement, we have seen powerful men in hollywood, in journalism, we've seen powerful men in politics, we've seen powerful men in business 17:52:24 abusing their positions of power and harassing or assaulting women. that is unacceptable. i am glad to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in passing legislation through this body ensuring that there are tough standards and 17:52:41 that we end the process of secret taxpayer settlements if a member of congress is guilty of harassment or assault. we should have no tolerance for that sort of misconduct. so anyone at home that is 17:52:58 watching these proceedings, it would be a mistake to take the politicized charge of democrats who want to defeat judge kavanaugh before these charges came along -- virtually every democrat who voted no was voting no before any allegation had 17:53:13 been made. indeed, a great many of the democratic senators announced their opposition to judge kavanaugh within minutes or hours of his being named. every member of the judiciary committee announced their opposition to judge kavanaugh 17:53:29 before the opening minutes of the confirmation hearing, before hearing a word that judge kavanaugh had to say. so the circus we saw last week was a whole lot of political theater. 17:53:44 it featured some democratic senators i believe vying for the 20920 presidential -- for the 2020 presidential nomination and seeing who could be more extreme, put on a bigger spectacle. but the american people expect this body to be fair. 17:54:03 the american people expect this body to respect the law and the rule of law. we've been through a process that i believe has been fair, has heard out these claims, and it is my hope that coming out of 17:54:19 this, the anger and rage that has been stoked needs to dissipate. it is my hope that members on both sides of this aisle and, more importantly, americans on both sides of the political aisle across the country can 17:54:37 remember who we are, can remember how to disagree, to disagree passionately. we can have passionate arguments about whether taxes should be higher or lower. we can have passionate arguments about immigration policy. or any other policy matter. 17:54:56 but i hope that we can remember how to disagree without being disagreeable, to disagree while being civil, to disagree while respecting each other, while respecting each other's humanity. it would have been wrong to vilify and demonize dr. ford, 17:55:12 and i am glad that the judiciary committee did not go down that road. but it is equally wrong for democratic senators to demonize and vilify judge kavanaugh. -- based upon a lone accusation 17:55:28 without corroborating evidence. that's not fair, that's not right. it's empty politics. and if we continue down this politics of personal destruction, we're going to find fewer and fewer people willing to step forward and serve, fewer and fewer people willing to serve on the federal judiciary, 17:55:44 willing to serve in the cabinet. there was a time when this body was called the world's greatest deliberative body. that's been a long time ago. i do think it's possible for us to get back to that, for us to 17:56:03 keep disagreements focused on substance and issues and remember the fundamental humanity even of those who disagree with us. the american people, certainly the people of texas, i think a 17:56:21 great many were horrified by what they saw last week. some in the media have characterized that women should necessarily oppose judge 17:56:38 kavanaugh's confirmation because they're women. i don't think that's right. that certainly is not true from the women i've heard from from the state of texas because women want the constitution followed constitutionally, want our fundamental liberties upheld. 17:56:53and women, like men, wontst want want a rule of law that is fair. yes, if there's serious credible evidence of sexual assault, it should be dealt with seriously. but women and men, our mothers 17:57:08 and fathers, our husbands and wives, our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters, every parent of sons should want a system where due process is 17:57:24 protected and one lone and uncorroborated allegation is not enough to end the career and reputation of your son and every parent of daughters -- and i will the parent of two daughters -- should want a regime where your daughters are protected and 17:57:40 their lives can't be ruined with an uncorroborated allegation, either. but if god forbid they face assault or harassment, there is a system of accountability and the wrongdoers are held 17:57:55 accountable. we want a fair system, a just system, we want a system that recognizes the rule of law. there are many countries that are ruledly mob, ruled by accusation, ruled by insinuation. but we need a process. in this case, we have gone 17:58:12 through a process that was designed to be fair. and given the evidence, the right decision, i believe, is the decision this body will make tomorrow to confirm judge kavanaugh as justice kavanaugh, the newest associate justice on 17:58:27 the supreme court. i yield the floor. 18:02:26 KLOBUCHAR (D-MN):mr. president. THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senator from minnesota. KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): mr. president, are we in a quorum call? THE PRESIDING OFFICER: no, we are not. KLOBUCHAR (D-MN) :thank you. mr. president, i come to the floor today to speak on the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh 18:02:41 to serve as an associate justice on the united states supreme court. as a member of the senate judiciary committee, i said on the first day that judge kavanaugh appeared before the senate that this proceeding was 18:02:57 not normal. on its face, it looked like a normal confirmation hearing. the family was there. he was sitting in the chair with a table in front of him, ready to address the committee. the cameras were on. the senators were all seated, 18:03:13 prepared to ask questions. all of it looked normal. but nothing about this confirmation process has been normal. these hearings began at a time when we only had access to a tiny fraction of the documents 18:03:29 from judge kavanaugh's records. in fact, the night before the proceedings started, we got a document dump of 42,000 pages. even less of the information, the three years of his time as a staff secretary in the white 18:03:46 house, has been available to the american people or to us. that's still true today. these hearings were abonee in ts handpicked by a president, a nominee who had good credentials. there is absolutely no doubt 18:04:02 about that, but there are many nominees, potential nominees who have good credentials. but in this case, this particular person was picked at a time in our history with perhaps the most expansive view 18:04:17 of presidential power possible, a nominee who has actually written in an opinion that a president should be able to declare laws unconstitutional. these views go beyond the mainstream, and this confirmation process has only 18:04:34 gone farther astray. while what happened during the last few weeks, with what happened and in light of dr. ford's compelling testimony, it was deeply troubling, and i will talk about this at length. i want to begin where i first 18:04:50 started. what we know about judge kavanaugh's record and what it suggests about the kind of justice that he would be. in the last decades, the supreme court of the united states has decided who you can marry, where you can go to school, who can 18:05:06 vote, and for people like my grandpa who worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines in elie, minnesota, his entire life, the supreme court has decided how safe your workplace is. the next supreme court justice will make decisions that affect 18:05:24 people across the country, their lives forever. the next supreme court justice will rule on cases that could determine whether health insurers can deny coverage to people who are sick or who have 18:05:40 preexisting conditions and whether women's rights are protected, and the next supreme court justice will be in a position to serve as a check, as a check and balance on the other branches of government. that person must be someone who is fair and impartial and who 18:05:58 demonstrates a commitment to the truth without consideration of politics or partisanship. so it has been our responsibility, every senator in this chamber to determine if 18:06:13 judge kavanaugh would protect the careful balance of power among three co-equal branches that our founders designed. we must determine if he would stand up for the rule of law without consideration of politics or partisanship. 18:06:30 if people leave and the simple idea that no one is above the law. we knew coming into the hearing that judge kavanaugh's views of executive power were among the most expansive we've ever seen and that he has been making the case for strong presidential 18:06:47 power for decades. in a 2009 piece in the university of minnesota law review, judge kavanaugh wrote that a sitting president should not be the subject of an investigation or even be required to answer questions as part of a special counsel's 18:07:04 investigation. in that article, he argued it's not a good use of the president's time to prepare for an interview or questioning by a special counsel, and he made no exception for an investigation addressing threats to our national security even when a 18:07:21 foreign power has somehow interfered in our country's affairs. and it's not hard to see why 18:07:28 these views are relevant during this critical constitutional moment. there is an extensive ongoing investigation by special counsel, and the president's private lawyer and campaign chairman have been found guilty 18:07:44 of multiple federal crimes. a man who has served with distinction under presidents from both parties has been under siege from the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. in the same article that judge kavanaugh wrote, he made the 18:07:59 point that if a president did something, quote, dastardly, then congress could act, arguing that a criminal investigation should be put on hold until the end of the president's term. but when i asked him what 18:08:15 dastardly means, he could not answer, even when i asked about a president who -- who knows what he or she could do? commit murder, jeopardize our national security, obstruct an investigation or engage in 18:08:30 white-collar crime. i still didn't really get an answer about what dastardly means. and the judge's expansive view of presidential power is part of a much broader pattern of writing and commentary. more than a decade before in a 1998 piece in the georgetown law 18:08:47 journal, judge kavanaugh wrote that the president should be able to remove a special counsel at will. this is the opposite direction from what we did in the judiciary committee when we passed bipartisan legislation earlier this year on a 14-7 vote 18:09:02 to enact additional protections for the special counsel and all future special counsels. at a 2016 event at the american enterprise institute, the judge was animated and almost gleeful when he said he would put the 18:09:19 final nail in morrison v. olson, a supreme court decision which upheld the now-expired independent counsel statute. it's hard to imagine that he would respect a 30-year-old precedent and protect the integrity of a special counsel investigation in light of that 18:09:35 statement. and in a roundtable discussion in 1999, he criticized the supreme court's unanimous ruling in u.s. v. nixon that compelled president nixon to comply with a subpoena to produce tapes and documents written by a 18:09:53 minnesotan, justice warren burger. when this came up in the hearing, judge kavanaugh repeatedly characterized the case as one of the greatest moments in our country's judicial history, but he refused to answer when asked the question of whether that case was correctly decided. 18:10:10 these are incredible statements with implications that are clear when you think about what is going on in our country today. the dedicated public servants who work in our justice department, including attorney 18:10:26 general, deputy attorney general, special counsel, and the f.b.i. have been subjected to repeated threats and have had their work politicized and their motives questioned. so i ask judge kavanaugh if these statements reflect his views today, but he only said he 18:10:43 wasn't making constitutional arguments. he did not dispute that he believes as a matter of policy that these are the types of broad powers that a president should be able to exercise. he said he was thinking of ways to make the presidency more effective. but these are not just abstract 18:11:00 legal concepts, mr. president. they are ideas that could directly impact the future of our democracy as well as the lives of americans. and there are other pieces of this puzzle that make clear what 18:11:15 a broad view of executive power judge kavanaugh has. to cite just one example, his opinion in seven sky v. holder discusses when a president can decline to enforce a law even if a court has upheld it as constitutional. the judge wrote the president 18:11:30 may decline to enforce the statute. when the president deems a statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute unconstitutional. the statute constitutional. 18:11:46 what does that mean? well, that means that the president could just decide he do could -- he could just hold a statute unconstitutional even if a court has held that it is, in fact, constitutional. that's what this means. it's not a law review writing, 18:12:03 it's not something written when he was in college or in law school. it is actually something he wrote in a case. what would that mean for women's health? what would that mean at a time when the administration is challenging protections for people who are sick or have 18:12:19 preexisting conditions? i asked him if he believed the president could declare these protections unconstitutional even if a court upheld them. 18:12:30 this isn't a hypothetical example. the administration is now arguing in a texas district court that the affordable care act pre existing conditions protection is unconstitutional. and the judge refused to answer 18:12:45 whether a president could simply ignore a law, even one upheld by the court. he didn't answer when senator durbin asked it, when senator blumenthal asked it, when senator harris posed the same question. the days of the divine rights of 18:13:01 kings ended with the magna carta in 1215, and centuries later in the wake of the american revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of our country's constitution. 18:13:18 for it was james madison who wrote in federalist 47 the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. 18:13:35 and there is more. none of the judge's colleagues joined a section of his opinion in akin county outlining his views on when a president can ignore the law, and one who was an appointee of 18:13:51 president george w. george h.w. bush stated explicitly that reaching that issue was unnecessary to decide the case. judge kavanaugh has made very clear over the years that he has an incredibly broad view of the types of protections that should be extended to a sitting 18:14:07 president, and without further answers from him during the hearing, we are left only with his writings and his previous statements. these writings say that a sitting president should not have to be subject to a criminal investigation, that a sitting president should be able to 18:14:23 remove a special counsel, that a sitting president should not have to agree to an interview with a special counsel, and that a sitting president has the legal authority to ignore the law. at this time in our history, we 18:14:40 need a justice who is independent and who will serve as a check on the other branches. that is what our founding fathers set up. not a judge who would allow the president to avoid accountability or who believes that the president's views alone 18:14:56 should carry the day. and despite many opportunities, judge kavanaugh did not convince me that he would be an independent jurist who would maintain the fundamental idea that we all learned in grade school. 18:15:11 what is it? that no one is above the law. another concern i have is what judge kavanaugh's views would mean for american consumers. in one opinion that was later overturned by the entire d.c. 18:15:27circuit, judge kavanaugh argued that the consumer financial protection bureau was unconstitutional, calling it a threat to individual liberty. he said this about the consumer financial protection bureau. 18:15:42 the bureau was founded in the wake, as you know, the wake of the financial crisis, and has now helped more than 30 million consumers obtain more than $12 billion in relief. the bureau helps protect consumers as they deal with financial institutions that 18:15:59 offer credit cards, loans, and mortgages. what did the judge say? he found it unconstitutional. thankfully the full d.c. circuit came to the opposite conclusion. all the other judges, the majority recognized that millions of families were 18:16:15 devastated by the financial crisis, with about 4 million families losing their homes in foreclosure and even more slipping seriously behind on their mortgages. judges appointed by presidents from both parties came to the 18:16:30 opposite conclusion of the nominee that's before us today. and the majority on that court concluded that the bureau should stay in place like congress intended. well, the d.c. circuit made the right decision in that case. what struck me was just how far 18:16:46 the judge goes in his opinion. the judge was not just talking about the consumer financial protection bureau in that case. his opinion referred to independent agencies as a headless fourth. that's a quote -- of 18:17:02 government. and they could threaten other agencies like the federal trade commission that protects consumers from scams and anticompetitive mergers. or the agencies that help to stabilize our economy after the financial crisis, like the federal reserve and the 18:17:17 securities and exchange commission. or the social security administration which distributes benefits to more than 60 million elderly and disabled americans, which has had a single director, just like the 18:17:31 consumer financial protection bureau, for decades since 1994. and judge kavanaugh has called independent agencies a threat to individual liberty not just onc. in that same minnesota law 18:17:45 review article i mentioned that outlined his expansive view of executive power, the judge criticized the 80-year-old precedent that upheld the constitutionality of our independent agencies. i asked judge kavanaugh about 18:18:01 his conclusion that the bureau was unconstitutional. he did not dispute this conclusion, but he did say that his opinion simply called for a change to the law so that the director of the bureau could be fired by the president at will. i found that answer problematic. 18:18:19 when congress drafted the law that created the bureau, it made the choice. we made the choice right here in this chamber to give the director a five-year term to provide some independence from politics. this was a choice that we made 18:18:36 in this chamber. not everyone agreed with it, but by majority vote it passed. it passed in the senate and it passed in the house. we made that decision. and during our discussion on the judge's expansive views of executive power at the hearing, 18:18:51 he kept telling me that the scope of presidential authority was a matter of policy that congress should decide. he repeated this answer often to me and to others when it comes to presidential power, he said, congress should decide. 18:19:07 but look at what happened here. when it comes to protecting consumers, in this case congress did decide. we actually passed a law. we said we wanted this independent director to have a five-year term over this very 18:19:22 important agency that's returned $12 billion to consumers who have been victims of scams and mortgage fraud. congress' decision, though, did that matter to the judge in this dissent that he wrote? it did not. it seems to me, just looking at 18:19:39 all these opinions, that the judge's record is this, when he likes what congress decides, he says, hey, congress has the final say. but when he doesn't like what congress decides, he then thinks the judge should make the 18:19:54 decision. what does that mean? in this case he would have rewritten the consumer protection law over the wishes of congress. and what would that mean for the lives of americans? after what this country has been through, after families who worked hard and tried to save for the future lost billions of 18:20:11 dollars, he ruled that the agency that is designed to protect them was unconstitutional. it's not an isolated example. in another case he argued that the net neutrality rules were unconstitutional. those were the guidelines developed by the f.c.c. to help 18:20:27 consumers and small businesses have an even playing field when it came to the internet. those net neutrality protections would have prevented internet service providers from blocking slowing and prioritizing web traffic. 18:20:43 once again the full d.c. circuit, those other judges, decided against judge kavanaugh, and these key consumer protections were upheld by a panel of judges appointed by presidents of both parties. 18:20:59 the question i always come back to is what will this mean to americans? here's the kicker. the outcome that the judge went out of his way to reach in the net neutrality case protects the first amendment rights of 18:21:16 corporations at the expense of the first amendment rights of individuals. that's why that case is such a problem. but these aren't the only reasons why there's great concern for consumers. 18:21:31 in announcing the judge's nomination, the white house touted the fact that he has overruled federal agency actions 75 times. the white house also said in a document that it sent out that he led the efforts to rein in 18:21:50 executive agencies. when i asked him about this in his hearing, he said that he had ruled both for and against executive agencies, but his record makes clear that he has ruled against them in an overwhelming majority of cases. judge kavanaugh's record 18:22:07 that health and safety standards and environmental standards would be at risk if he is confirmed to the supreme court. he has called the 34-year-old precedent a case called chevron the same precedent that ensures these protections stay in the 18:22:24 books, he has called it an a textual inventions of courts and 18:22:32 a quote, judicially orchestrated shift of power. that's what he said. and to make clear, this is not just one case that happens to be out there, sitting out there in old dusty law books. it's the most cited case in 18:22:47 administrative law. it has been referenced in more than 15,000 legal decisions, and it has been championed by scholars and jurists across the ideological spectrum, including justice scalia. that is that case. 18:23:04 what would happen if we didn't have this case? well, i guess we would have the judge making decisions instead of agencies with technical expertise. a judge with no scientific background should decide the best reading of dictating how 18:23:19 pollution is acceptable in our air or lakes or rivers rather than scientists. these decisions have real implications for people across the country. these are the rules that protect our drinking water and keep our workplaces safe. 18:23:35 for in the end it wasn't a federal judge who was helped by the d.c. circuit's reliance on chevron and interpreting a labor department rule. it was an hourly minnesota grocery store worker who got to keep his hard-earned pension. 18:23:51 and as a granddaughter of a miner, i can tell you it wasn't a c.e.o. or a corporate board share whose life was saved buy mining safety -- by mining safety rules. it was the minnesota iron other 18:24:07 workers who like my grandpa would go in a cage under ground every single day with their black lunch buckets. that's what my grandpa did every day. all my grandpa wanted, who never got to even graduate from 18:24:23 high school, was to send my dad and his brother to college. my dad ended up as the first kid in his family to graduate from college, a community college, a two-year community college. and from there he went to the university of minnesota and got his four-year degree. 18:24:39 all that because my grandpa went down in that mining cage and saved money in a coffee can in his basement to send my dad to college. and everyone would gather at the mines and run over there every time the sirens went off because it meant someone died or someone was hurt. 18:24:55 and my dad still remembers the coffins in st. anthony's church lined up in the front. that's what workplace safety rules have changed. it was the worker protections coupled with the ability to organize a union that finally 18:25:11 made those miners' jobs safer. americans rely on these protections to keep them healthy and safe, and we can't have a supreme court justice who would throw those protections in doubt. the final point i would make 18:25:27 about the legal record is what would happen to our antitrust laws. in recent years the supreme court has made it harder and harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws when you have big 18:25:42 consolidations and market dominance. and their cases called trinko tromle, legion and ohio v. american is expes. there's been a -- american express. why does that matter to us? 18:25:58 it matters. we're seeing a wave of industry mergers. americans know it in their own life, companies are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. we have now it two companies that have surpassed $1 trillion s. and doing merger filings with 18:26:15 our agencies in washington have increased by more than 50% in just the last five years. so we already have a court that's going conservative right when i think americans need this protection. but instead we have a judge nase 18:26:32 us today that has written two major cases in this area, and both of them were even more conservative than where the court was. both of them made it even harder for mergers to be checked by the federal trade commission, even 18:26:48 by a federal trade commission that was run by the republicans. they thought the merger was troubling in one case. they brought it to court. this judge went the opposite way. our exchanges in the hearing did not convince me that the american people and all those in 18:27:04 favor of strong antitrust enforcement that promotes competition and protects consumers should not be concerned. i think back to my favorite game growing up, monopoly. the basic premise that the more you own, the more you made has 18:27:20 always been true in american capitalism. if you monopolize the board by buying up multiple properties in the same color or all those railroads, you can take your 18:27:32 opponents out of the game. what does that mean today? well, the failed merger between norfolk southern railway and canadian pacific, something i took on immediately when it was in, we defeated that. 18:27:48 where are we today? 90% of the freight rail traffic is handled by only four railroads, that's the same number of railroads on the monopoly board. i don't think that's a coincidence. so as we look at his rulings in this area, we realize this isn't just a game. 18:28:04 no, this is our economy, and we want judges that are a check and balance just as the founders wanted. the founders cared a lot about monopolies, actually and they wanted a check and balance in our courts and they set up an independent judiciary. the last point i want to focus 18:28:20on is judge kavanaugh's record and his views on campaign finance. i requested a number of these campaign finance documents to become public because i thought they raised serious concerns about judge kavanaugh's views in this area of law. i actually got those documents 18:28:37 public and it's one of the reasons that a number of my colleagues who are opposed to the judge have been able to talk about those records right here on the floor, and the public has been able to see them. in one e-mail from march of 2002, he discussed limits on 18:28:53 contributions to candidates saying, and i have heard -- this is his words. and i have heard very few people say that the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional, although i for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional 18:29:11 problems. that is a big deal because we have very few campaign finance laws left that allow us to be protected from dark be money and unlimited money coming into campaigns. he also said in another e-mail, 18:29:26 he described his 1-a, that's first amendment views, as pure. this is very concerning when it comes to campaign finance. i have serious doubts based on his record as to whether he thinks that congress has the authority to pass any campaign 18:29:42 finance reform and take action to rein in the flood of dark money that has drowned out the voices of ordinary citizens. what does this mean? well, when the courts stripped away the rules that opened that door to unlimited super pac 18:30:00 spending -- and that's what we have right now -- it wasn't the campaign financiers or the ad men who were hurt. no. it was the grandma in leansboro, minnesota, who thought it mattered when she sent in $10 to support her 18:30:16 senator. that's what we're dealing with. and if we get even narrower or get rid of all the limits on campaign finance it's only going to get worse. but the american people would not have p even know about -- 18:30:31 have even known about judge kavanaugh's extreme views on campaign finance unless i had made them public. there are still 186 pages of documents not produced to the judiciary committee, they've been produced to is, but they've 18:30:48 not been made available to the american people. even now only about 7% of judge kavanaugh's white house record has been produced to the judiciary committee, and even less, that's about 4%, is available to all of us, to the public. 18:31:03 on top of that, we are missing three years of documents from his time as staff secretary so we have no records to review from that part of judge kavanaugh's previous work in the white house. we also don't have 102,000 pages of documents that the white 18:31:19 house has withheld under a claim of constitutional privilege even though executive privilege has never been used to block the release of presidential records to the senate during a supreme court nomination under presidents from both parties. 18:31:36 as a former prosecutor, i know that no lawyer goes to court without reviewing the evidence and the record, and a good judge would not decide a case with only 7% of the key documents. 18:31:52 in fact, as i mentioned, we received 42,000 documents the night before right when -- we could not even look at them when we were starting to ask him questions because we had only gotten them the night before. 18:32:07 so i asked him if he thought that a judge would grant a continuance in a situation like that when one party dumped 42,000 pages of documents on the other the night before trial. i didn't get much of an answer. 18:32:22 we have already learned that the information and documents from judge kavanaugh's time in the white house is relevant to our consideration of his nomination. we should have those documents 18:32:33 before we have this vote, but we don't. and having full information about the judge's record brings me to the compelling testimony of dr. ford. since dr. ford came forward, 18:32:49 we've all thought a lot about our justice system. before i got to the senate, i was a county attorney in minnesota. in that job we used to say we were ministers of justice, and that meant we would work to 18:33:04 convict the guilty but also protect the innocent. i hope my colleagues think about this question tomorrow. are we truly protecting the innocent in how we're moving forward? what have we don't? 18:33:20 -- done? a critical part of carrying out justice is having a fair process, that is something that judge kavanaugh has repeatedly said that he wants. i appreciate dr. ford's willingness to come before the judiciary committee last week but it was unfortunate she had 18:33:35 to do it before the white house had asked for the f.b.i. to reopen its background check investigation -- background investigation and follow up on what she had said. when i think of my work, we always would have those investigations and that 18:33:51 information before any kind of a hearing. back in minnesota our office handled all the judicial matters in our county and for the juvenile area. in fact, we had about 12,000 18:34:07 cases every year as well as all adult felonies. we investigated reports like dr. ford's. that job gave me a window into how these kinds of cases hurt women and impact everyone. i would always tell those stories of those coming before 18:34:24 us. i would tell them, you know what, this is going to be hard. you have to tell your story to a jury box of strangers, but you're doing it for justice, you're doing it for the right reason. dr. ford, she had to tell her story to a nation. 18:34:41 it was a moment so many people in our country were watching her. i don't think people thought they were going to believe her when they first went in there and first turned on their tv's, but then they watched her. 18:34:56 they watched her grace and her dignity, but, sadly, in the afternoon from my colleagues on other side we saw a lot of anger and chest beating. i believe the strategy was to distract and deflect from the moving and incredible testimony 18:35:12 of someone who told her story to the nation. this was a woman with no political background who made an attempt to call the front office of her congressional representative. that's all she did, and she didn't do it. all this stuff about her being are part of some kind of smear 18:35:30 campaign, she did it even before he was a nominee. she read he was one of the people under consideration, and she thought she should warn people. she wanted her name confidential. she explained all of that during the hearing, but she simply 18:35:46 called the front desk of her congressional representative. this wasn't the first time that the senate has confronted this type of situation. when anita hill came forward with her allegations against 18:36:04 then-judge clarence thomas, president george h.w. bush, immediately requested that the f.b.i. reopen its background investigation. dr. ford was another person who made a credible claim. chairman grassley thanked her 18:36:20 for her bravery in coming forward last week. several of my republican colleagues talked about how much they respected her. i said, you know, if you want to respect her and be brave, then you at least have to give her the modicum of respect by 18:36:36 following up on her allegations, and that should have been done the minute that letter went public, and i found out about it, by the way, on the very same day that my republican colleagues found out about it, and that was just a few weeks ago. 18:36:51 i heard a lot of complaints about that, and i'm not going to get into that issue except to say one thing, the justice system is messy. things come out at the very last minute sometimes. evidence comes out before trial. but the issue is, when that 18:37:07 happens, what do you do with it? what do you do with it when you're in a position of power? do you just sweep it under the rug as has happened too many times in this chamber, in this building? no. you give them a chance to make 18:37:23 their case but also to give them that underlying investigation and reopen a background check. not a criminal background check. 18:37:34 simply a background check like we do for any other high-level nomination in the senate. and as i told my colleagues last week, if you want to make a political speech about keeping nominees off the floor, here's exhibit a for you, merrick 18:37:50 garland. ten months -- ten months he was kept off the floor, yet people have acted in a sanctimonious way that this was some kad cataclysmic event to simply go back in and do an f.b.i. 18:38:06 investigation. dr. ford's testimony was powerful. i asked her not about what she remembers about that night but what she couldn't forget. here's what she said. the stairwell, the living room, the bedroom, the bed on the 18:38:22 right side of the room, the bathroom in close proximity -- clos close proximity, the laughter. the uproarious laughter. we also heard from dr. ford about how she came forward 18:38:38 because she felt she had a civic duty just week we -- just like we have a civic duty. that's why she came forward. she talked about how she brought this up in therapy six years before. how she had given her husband 18:38:54t he name of judge kavanaugh. this is before he was famous. this is before he was up for this supreme court. as a former prosecutor, i understand the critical role that law enforcement has in gathering the information 18:39:10 necessary to evaluate reports like this one. i don't like living in an evidence-free zone, and while i am glad that the white house reopened the background check and at least went in and talked to some of the witnesses, if you 18:39:26 go down there, what you can't do, but i could do and the other senators could do, you realize, and you can see this from the public reports, that a lot of people weren't interviewed. a lot of the names that dr. ford and one of the other alleged 18:39:43 allegations, a victim involved in some allegations, was not able to have ms. ramirez, those witnesses interviewed. that's what you see when you're down there. this has not been the fair 18:39:59 process that judge kavanaugh said he wanted and that dr. ford said she wanted. what we heard from the judge later in the day could not have been a sharper contrast from what we heard from dr. ford in the morning. she told her story and it was a 18:40:15 story that so many times in our nation's history has been, as i said, swept under rug. because for so long people have been told that what happens in a house should never end up in a 18:40:30 courthouse. and now what we can say to dr. ford is, well, this may not end up the way you wanted and it may not feel worth it to come forward to have your life turned upside down, but you know what, 18:40:47 there is one reason it was worth it, and that is because the american people learned something. and they are speaking out because the times are changing. to conclude, i want to return to some of the thoughts on what 18:41:03 this nomination means at this uncertain moment in our history. this nomination comes before us at a time when we are witnessing seismic shifts in our democracy, foundational elements of our government, including the rule 18:41:19 of law, have been challenged and undermined. today our democracy sees -- is facing threats that would have been unbelievable not long ago. a man appointed special counsel in the investigation going on right now involving a foreign 18:41:35 country interfering in our democracy, a man who served with distinction under presidents from both parties is under siege, dedicated public service under siege and a -- and our 18:41:50 courts have been under assault, not just by a solitary disappointed litigant, but by the president of the united states. our democracy is on trial. it is our duty to carry on the american constitutional 18:42:05 tradition that john adams stood up for centuries ago, and that is to be, quote, a government of laws and not of men. the next supreme court justice should serve as a check on the other branches of government, 18:42:21 someone who is fair mind and independent, who will uphold the motto on the supreme court building to help all americans achieve equal justice under law. we have all fought a lot about 18:42:36 the separation of powers in the last few weeks. all the attacks on the rule of law and our justice system have made me, and i would guess some of my other colleagues, pause and think many times about why we came to the senate in the first place and in my case why i 18:42:53 decided to go into law in the first place. so i went back and i found an essay that i had written back in high school. now, i can tell you that not many girls in my high school class said they dreamed of being a lawyer. we had no lawyers in my family 18:43:08 and my parents were both the first in their families to go to college. but somehow when i was in high school my dad convinced me to spend a morning sitting in a courtroom and watching a state court district judge handle a 18:43:23 routine calendar of criminal cases. the judge took pleas, listened to arguments, and handed out misdemeanor sentences. it was nothing glamorous and nothing glamorous like the judge before us is being nominated to do, but it was important just the same. 18:43:40 i realized that morning that behind each and every case, no matter how small, there was a story, a person. each and every decision the judge affected that day affected someone's life. i knew he had to make gut 18:43:57 decisions and take account of what his decisions would mean. it was something i said back then in that essay that i still believe today, and that is this -- to be part of an imperfect system, to have a 18:44:12 chance to better that system was and is a cause worth fighting for, a job worth doing. our government is far from perfect, nor is our legal system, nor was this hearing, but we are at a crossroads in our nation's history where we 18:44:27 must make a choice. are we going to dedicate ourselves to improving the justice system or not? is this nominee going to administer the law with equal justice as it applies to all citizens regardless if they live in a poor neighborhood or rich 18:44:43 one, in a small house or the white house? many americans are troubleled today. and when they -- troubled today. and when they watched the hearing, they were given some hope and they wanted to be fair and they wanted due process, and i get that, but they also saw 18:44:59 the blind partisanship of washington and its crushing weight. for many of us, this nomination process does not look like it's going to end like we want it. but dr. ford opened a window on 18:45:16sexual assault that is never going to be closed. anyone that works here knows that they've heard stories and people tell stories that they had never told before. and then there are those who want to see change in 18:45:32 government. well, they've opened a door that will never close. and we welcome them. we could need some new people around here. so i'm going to end with a quote from a song i listened to this morning, and it's a minnesotan. 18:45:47 it's not print. it's bob dillon. he was born in duluth and he grew up very close to where my dad grew up on the iron range of minnesota. these are the last words of this song. as the present now will later be 18:46:03 past, the order is rapidly fading. and the first one now will later be last for the times they are a changing. and they are changing. people's reaction to what happened this week and their 18:46:19 focus on government and their focus on making things better, that is changing. as i said last friday at the committee hearing, the constitution does not say we the ruling party. the constitution says we the 18:46:35 people. and last week the american people responded like never before. they stood up for something real, for something larger than themselves, for the hope of tomorrow. so that is how we the people prevail. 18:46:50 because the times they are a changing. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. JONES (D-AL): mr. president? THE PRESIDING OFFICER:the 18:47:05 senator from alabama. JONES (D-AL): first of all, let me thank my colleague and friend senator klobuchar for those incredible words. as a former prosecutor, we share a lot of the same bonds and 18:47:20 knowledge, and we come to this? an -- in different ways sometimes than our colleagues. and you express so many sentiments that i'm going to try and not as eloquent as you express today. so thank you for those comments. mr. president, i come to the 18:47:37 floor today both as a new member of this body and a long-time admirer and student of the senate to offer my perspective on a situation in which this distinguished body finds itself in today. 18:47:53 i am deeply disappointed and concerned by the process, the posturing, and the partisanship that has degraded what should be one of the most serious, deliberate, and thoughtful decisions that we as the united 18:48:08 states senate are entrusted to make. over the course of my almost 40-year career as a trial lawyer, i've represented just about every kind of client you can imagine, from the indigent to the c.e.o., major corporations and small business 18:48:24 owners, individuals charged with serious crimes and those charged with petty offenses. i've also had the incredible honor of serving in the department of justice and representing united states of 18:48:40america. every one of my clients and every one of those who were on the other side of the litigation in which i was engaged expected and deserved fair, impartial treatment in our courts. and rightly so. 18:48:57 but from the moment justice kennedy announced his retirement, the conversation about his replacement seems to have rarely been about fairness and impartiality. 18:49:13 instead it's been about power and politics. this nomination almost immediately turned into a divisive political campaign with millions of dollars being spent to sway senators on both sides of the aisle including me. 18:49:29 in his partisan-fueled tirade last week, judge kavanaugh lashed out at the so-called liberal groups that have spent so much money attacking his nomination. but he never acknowledged and others in this body have never acknowledged that conservative groups have also spent a like 18:49:46 amount of money, if not more promoting judge kavanaugh. i want to make it my position clear today i think that this kind of political campaign for a seat on the supreme court of the united states, a political 18:50:02 campaign run by either political party should be condemned as completely contrary to the independence of the judicial branch of our government. throughout this nomination process, i have repeatedly, repeatedly expressed my concerns 18:50:18 about the way that it has been conducted. it was flawed from the beginning, and it will be incomplete at the end because of a needless rush to a confirmation. from the beginning i've done my 18:50:34 best, the best that i know how in my experience to exercise my constitutional duty, my duty of advice and consent in a fair and impartial manner, putting aside the political considerations that were being thrown at me 18:50:50 from every angle. you know, i have always said in the last few months that it seemed that for those that supported judge kavanaugh's nomination, if i had voted to oppose, that i'm going to be seen as nothing but a puppet for 18:51:05 my party. on the other hand, for those people that opposed judge kavanaugh, if i was to vote in favor of judge kavanaugh, i would be seen as bending to a political way to try to get reelected from a conservative state. neither which is true. 18:51:20 neither of which are those true. my staff and i have devoted an incredible amount of time, almost every single day since july 10 in reading judge kavanaugh's opinions, his speeches, his articles, reviewing documents from his 18:51:36 time working at the white house. at least those documents that we were able to get hold of. watching his senate judiciary committee hearing testimony and his television appearances, meeting with my constituents and advocates and reading statements, letters, and e-mails 18:51:52 both in support of and in opposition to judge kavanaugh. this was all done in a very serious effort to give thoughtful and fair consideration to judge kavanaugh's nomination without regard to party or politics. 18:52:07 the one thing i did not get a chance to do was to meet with judge kavanaugh. judge kavanaugh and the white house called my office a couple of times early on in the process to try to get a meeting with me. and i told them at that time or 18:52:22 my staff told them that at -- that my process was to listen and to read, to understand and do my deep dive into his record, and to know all that i can know about him. and as a lawyer, i wanted to watch that hearing. i wanted to see what would occur 18:52:39 at the hearing and how he presented himself and the questions that he answered and the questions he avoided so that when i did meet with him following that hearing, it would be meaningful, it would not be a meet and greet like so many of us have in this body but a 18:52:54 meaningful, a meaningful meeting. so as soon as chairman grassley called for the hearing shortly after labor day, as soon as that was called in august, my staff started calling the white house to tie to get a meeting. we were told that they would still want a meeting but we 18:53:10 continued to be rebuffed. we never got that meeting. we continued to call after the hearing, and then we continued to call at least until the time that dr. ford's allegations were made public. and at that point we knew that a meeting was probably not likely 18:53:26 to happen. so for all of those detractors who say that i didn't -- i did not try to get a meeting and i did not find the time, i did my best to follow the process of deliberation that i felt appropriate for me to do in my process to make that meeting 18:53:42 meaningful, and it never happened through no fault of me or my staff. after all of that, we find ourselves in this moment of historical significance where we as a body have an opportunity to 18:53:58 send a loud and clear message to women and men throughout this country. as i have previously said, i believe that dr. ford made an incredibly brave decision to come forward publicly and to testify to the full senate 18:54:14 judiciary committee. it's marred to do -- it's hard to do knowing how she would be vilified. as a former prosecutor, i know how hard it is for victims to talk about these experiences, particularly in cases of sexual 18:54:30 assault. i've been moved by the many reports of thousands of women who have felt compelled by recent events to reveal similar stories that they have buried for many years, some for decades 18:54:46 the last few weeks women have shared with me intensely painful and personal descriptions of assaults. some who i've known for a period of time but never knew what they were carrying within them. 18:55:01many of these happened so many years ago, high school, college, as young professionals. often they hadn't told anyone, even their closest friends and loved ones. their experiences while different in detail have so many 18:55:19 similarities. their feelings of fear and shame and guilt were overwhelming at the time of their encounters. those emotions exert a powerful hold on these women's lives, even if they go on to find 18:55:34 professional success and fulfilling relationships, it is still buried within them. and they don't speak up because they do not want to be known as victims or they don't want others to have to bear their pain knowing that nothing can 18:55:50 undo what happened to them. and last week's public hearing i found dr. ford to be compelling and credible witness. yes, there were gaps in her testimony, but there always are, always there are gaps and lapses 18:56:06 of certain memories in situations like these. those who have worked with victims of assault know that the most traumatic details are seared into their memories while extraneous facts may fade over time and reactions of the women when they see their perpetrators 18:56:22 are different depending on the circumstances. but they never forget the pain. they never forget the pain of what happened to them but rather than relive it or face condemnation or retribution, they simply keep it to 18:56:38 themselves and go on day after day after day. if you watched our president this past week at his political rallies, you could understand exactly why these women are afraid to speak out. 18:56:54 i was absolutely appalled at the president's attacks on dr. blasey ford just days -- just days after he called her a credible witness, just days after so many in this body called her a credible and compelling witness. his message was simply this, 18:57:13 keep quiet. nothing happened here. don't ruin this man's life. and let's continue to stoke the political fires surrounding his nomination. we have heard time and time again that victims must be 18:57:29 heard. time and time again, so often have we heard that in the last two weeks, that victims must be heard. but the message from the 18:57:39 president of the united states and those that have surrounded him is, yes, let them be heard, just don't listen. just don't listen to them. unfortunately, that message isn't new. the president used his platform 18:57:55 to try to intimidate survivors into staying quiet and hiding their pain from the world, but i think he's going to find that while he is focused on stirring up his political base with the mass son i.n.s.ic comments that women around this country are 18:58:11 rising up and they are gaining their strength, they are finding their foothold. they are finding their voices in an effort to expose what for too long, for far too long has been swept under the carpet. regardless of the vote tomorrow, we cannot and will not ignore 18:58:29 where we are in this moment of history. this is a movement that will que quieted. for judge kavanaugh's part, i was very disappointed in his testimony last week. 18:58:44 if the incident did not happen, and i understand full well his frustration and his anger. i get it. any man would be. it is understandable. both he and dr. ford have endured the ugliness of our 18:59:00 society. but in my view he simply went too far. by leveling unnecessary and inappropriate partisan attacks and accusations demonstrating a temperament that is unbecoming a sitting judge much less a 18:59:15 supreme court nominee. his testimony ran completely counter to the image he attempted to portray in his earlier hearings, in all of his interviews on television, and in the photo opportunities with the 18:59:31 various senators. in addition -- and this was incredibly important to me -- because i'd watched it for some time that in simply refusing to acknowledge the need for further investigation, for a further review of his record as senator 18:59:48 klobuchar discussed a few moments ago, by failing to acknowledge the need for further review and investigation into these allegations, he demonstrated anything but the independence necessary for our 19:00:04 judiciary. instead he has vowed to the white house and the majority of the judiciary committee to plow through this nomination process without a full review of his record and without a full, fair, and complete investigation into the very serious and credible 19:00:20 allegations made by dr. blasey ford. i'm certainly not alone in my views. it's not just people in the democratic party or senators on my side of the aisle. at last count, i saw where there are some 3,000 law professors, 19:00:38 about 40 of which are at yale law school where judge kavanaugh graduated. those law professors have called for his nomination to either be withdrawn or rejected. religious organizations, including the editors of the 19:00:54 jesuit review, have done the same. i'm told that just this morning, the american bar association, the gold standard of review for judicial nominations, has notified the judiciary committee that they are reopening their 19:01:10 evaluation of judge kavanaugh's character and fitness based on what they witnessed in the testimony last week. that's a significant development that just occurred this morning shortly before our vote to proceed. 19:01:26 but even before the recent serious allegations of sexual assault, i call for a pause that we would get the documents we need, including those that chairman grassley himself have requested. the national archives reported that due to the volume, even producing those documents on a 19:01:42 rolling basis would not take place until sometime this month in october. well, it's october now. although we don't have those documents, we have had two hearings and now are scheduled to a vote on confirmation 19:01:57 tomorrow. many of those documents could have been produced for review or withheld after being screened by a lawyer representing a number of people under investigation or at least witnesses in the investigation by special counsel mueller, which raises serious questions as to what documents 19:02:14 we got and which ones were being held and why were they being held. despite the lack of documents, the judiciary committee forged ahead and conducted its hearings. before a vote was taken, dr. blasey ford courageously 19:02:29 came forward with her very serious allegations regarding a sexual assault that occurred when she and judge kavanaugh were in high school. again, again, not for the first 19:02:41 time, but again, i know there is call for a pause, to allow for further investigation, to update the background check that every nominee goes through. faced with actually that call was rebuffed for some period of 19:02:57 time. but finally, faced with mounting public pressure, the judiciary committee agreed to a second hearing. both the committee and the white house consistently rejected any additional background check, any additional background investigation to be conducted by 19:03:14 the f.b.i. as it turned out, my colleague, senator flake, felt compelled to call for such an investigation on the morning of the vote, which delayed the confirmation process for another week. and while i am certainly grateful and glad that the 19:03:30 chairman and the majority leader and the president agreed to delay the vote in order to allow an f.b.i. investigation, i believe the investigation was far too limited to have any real use, especially since no further 19:03:46 hearings would ever be held. in my career, 40 years almost as a lawyer, i have examined many f.b.i. reports and i have examined many background checks, and in my review of what was 19:04:02 submitted as a result of senator flake's request, the f.b.i. was simply not allowed to do what it does best, which is follow the evidence and the leads. in this case, we put the proverbial cart before the horse. the investigation should have 19:04:18 taken place before the hearing so that the senators on the judiciary committee could have had the benefit of all the information they needed requesting witnesses and evaluating credibility, which is where this is coming down. 19:04:34 i believe that in cases like this, the witnesses should be compelled by subpoena, not just dr. ford, not just judge kavanaugh, but other witnesses. other witnesses who are named should have been compelled by 19:04:49 subpoena if necessary to give testimony whether in the public hearing or by deposition, procedures that have been invoked by this body on many occasions. and this, mr. president, leads me to another more procedural 19:05:04 point. many of those who want to press forward with this nomination have been invoking the presumption of innocence, and i understand that. the presumption of innocence, however, is afforded to those in this country in our criminal justice system. it is afforded to those who are 19:05:21 accused of criminal activity, and it requires the government to prove to rebut that presumption. in other words, that presumption stands between someone accused of a crime and they're going to 19:05:36 prison and having their liberty taken away from them. they have now said that that presumption of innocence should be applied to judicial nominations. but the presumption applies in a court before we can deprive someone of their liberty, 19:05:52 incarcerate them. it is not necessarily applicable when we are simply looking to provide one with a lifetime appointment to the judiciary. the presumption of innocence for a nominee would in effect turn into a presumption of 19:06:07 confirmability that i do not believe is called for in the constitution. i certainly would agree, however, that given the most recent circumstances, we as a body need to establish some type of standard, some guideline for our nominees so that this 19:06:24 doesn't happen again. and i would say that if we were to have anything close to the high standard of a presumption of innocence, there has to be a full and complete investigation before any hearing in order to 19:06:40 determine whether or not the presumption can be overcome. it's the only way to do it. remember, in this -- in this instance, there are no appeals, there is no review. we get no do-overs once we make 19:06:56 this vote. we have to take the time and put forth the necessary effort to get it right. putting forth the time even if it means the supreme court operates with eight members for a period of time, that's okay. 19:07:16 i went to the arguments the other day and they got along just fine listening to the arguments that are heard that day. the american people are understandably disgusted by the way this has been handled. they are disgusted with people on both sides of the aisle. they were disgusted even before 19:07:32 these allegations came to light. they have reason to doubt the integrity of our independent judiciary now more than ever. 19:07:41 with a supreme court that will be so divided and appears to be so partisan. there will forever be a cloud over this nomination and this nomination process, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's vote, and many also have reason 19:07:57 to doubt the integrity of this body for the way this has been handled. when facing difficult decisions, i often reflect on what i learned from one of my most influential mentors, late 19:08:12 senator howell heflin, late chief justice of the alabama supreme court. judge heflen often talked about the supreme court as the people's court. every day, he said, the supreme court of the united states deals with real people. 19:08:32 their basic human rights and liberties. it has a direct impact on the daily lives of every american and the people who serve on the court should be held to the highest of standards before being allowed the privilege of making those weighty decisions. 19:08:48 i don't believe this process has led us to the person best suited to hold this position. this isn't about politics. no, it far transcends that. i have always said i am inclined to vote for presidential 19:09:05 nominees, but they do not have to have that presumption of confirmability. we have serious doubts about this nominee which may never be resolved. it certainly was not resolved by the limited investigation that 19:09:21 the senators had to go view in bulk one copy, ten senators sitting around, passing around. we have serious doubts about this nominee. people across this country have serious doubts about this 19:09:38 nominee. to quote the late senator robert byrd, no individual has a particular right to a supreme court seat. if we're going to give the benefit of the doubt, let us give it to the court. let us give it to the country. 19:09:56 it is my hope that this body would end up being on the right side of history with this vote and not a political side chosen in the moment. my preference here would have been for the president to send us a new consensus nominee much 19:10:15 like president reagan did many years ago when he nominated justice kennedy. send us another nominee and give the senate a second chance to act as a uniter, not a divider. 19:10:33 now it appears, however, that we will need to find another way, that we as a body, what has been described in the past as the most deliberative body in the world, that many would question that description today. we must find another way to show 19:10:50 the american people that we can uphold the lofty goals that we have subscribed to. tomorrow this nomination process will have run its course, but our work for our constituents and all of those sitting in the 19:11:05 gallery tonight and all of those watching across this country and who will see and follow this vote tomorrow, our work for our constituents will go on. our work for this country will go on, regardless of this vote 19:11:21 tomorrow, it will go on, and we as a body have to get to a place where we look forward, not backward. i know, i am confident, i know in my heart, i know we can restore the senate as the place 19:11:38 it was when i worked here as a young lawyer, a place where compromise meant progress, not a lost battle. think about that. compromise meaning progress and not a lost battle. 19:11:56 we must, mr. president, set aside the divisiveness, shoulder our responsibilities, and work together. we must do so for the good of this body, for the sake of a country that we all love. thank you, mr. president. 19:12:11 and i yield the floor.