ISSUE_NO = 530 NO_OF_ITEMS = 9 ITEM_NO = 3 DESCRIPTION : INTRODUCING THE NEW MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT - The Admiralty tests the new boat on Southampton Water. CARD_FILE = 37140 CARD_TITLE : New Torpedo Boat SHOT_LIST : Crowd and aerial views of the new motor-torpedo on trial. present are Earl Howe, George Eyston, and the Designer Claude Graham-White who talks afterwards. KEYWORDS : Ships and Boats; Personalities - Records; Personalities - Inventors; Personalities - Sport; Navy - Active; Great Britain MATERIAL : Neg 4860 TWTD tape 9 LENGTH_SHOT = 68 DATE_SUBD = 07/29/1939

Full title reads: "Hanworth Park. Back to the Old Love! Mr Claude Grahame-White, one of aviation's earliest pioneers, makes first flight for 12 years in the new 6 h.p. motor gliders with Amy and Jim Mollison." <br/> <br/>Hanworth Park, Nr London. <br/> <br/>Famous aviator Mr Grahame-White sits in the cockpit of a small plane he takes off his hat and puts on his cap. <br/> <br/>Grahame-White gets Amy Mollison (formerly Amy Johnson) and Jim Mollison to stand by the plane and talk him through how it works. They laugh and joke. He has problems starting the engine. <br/> <br/>Shots of the small plane - called Eileen - taking off. <br/> <br/>Three of the planes fly low over the airfield. <br/> <br/>N.B. Spelling for search purposes - Claude Graham White / Claude Grahame White

Footage of English aviator Claude Grahame-White at the Daily Mail sponsored 1910 London to Manchester air race.

Montage avaition pioneers Claude Grahame-White (Britain), Adolphe Pegoud (France), and an unidentified man from Germany.

AP-APTN-1830 North America Prime News -Final Saturday, 30 January 2010 North America Prime News Switz WEF Demo 2 02:26 AP Clients Only WRAP Demos at the WEF, water cannons used to try and disperse protesters Switz WEF US Taiwan 01:29 AP Clients Only REPLAY US senator reacts to US Taiwan arms sale Switz WEF Economy 01:59 AP Clients Only REPLAY Participants discuss bank regulations and state of the world economy Switz WEF Germany Afghan 01:14 AP Clients Only REPLAY German Defence Minister comments on Afghanistan Pakistan Blast 01:11 AP Clients Only REPLAY Suicide blast kills sixteen; hospital pictures Afghanistan NATO 01:41 AP Clients Only REPLAY Airstrike kills 4 after NATO and Afghan forces mistake each other for the enemy US Bush Senior 01:43 AP Clients Only NEW Former Pres George HW Bush and son Jeb visit Obama at White House Iran President 01:20 No BBC Perisa Service/No VOA Persia Service REPLAY Ahmadinejad says West in decline, Iran most important nation on earth Iran Trial 00:56 No Iran/ No BBC Persian Service/No VOA Persian TV REPLAY 16 held over anti-govt protests put on trial, state media reports Germany Weather 2 03:29 See Script REPLAY Public transport shut down due to heavy snowfall, wintry conditions B-u-l-l-e-t-i-n begins at 1830 GMT. APEX 01-30-10 1357EST -----------End of rundown----------- AP-APTN-1830: Switz WEF Demo 2 Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Switz WEF Demo 2- WRAP Demos at the WEF, water cannons used to try and disperse protesters LENGTH: 02:26 FIRST RUN: 1730 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/German/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 635271 DATELINE: Davos - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 02:26 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST (FIRST RUN 1730 NEWS UPDATE - 30 JANUARY 2010) 1. Wide of demonstrators, water jets being deployed in the distance 2. Protesters running away from water jets, some throwing snowballs 3. Close-up of police spraying water towards protesters 4. Protesters throwing snowballs over fence at police 5. Close-of police with shields and water hose 6. Police spraying man in rabbit costume, man running away (FIRST RUN EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 30 JANUARY 2010) 7. Mid of demonstrators shaking fence outside venue 8. Mid of demonstrators throwing snowballs at police, close to entrance to the venue 9. SOUNDBITE (English) Name not given, demonstrator: "This demonstration is because the WEF is on the output, you see much good things, what is on the media, and on the inside, on the little lobbies and everywhere else there is much going on. We don't see and we don't know what happens there, and little businesses and that's really the dirty business, gangster's paradise in the house." (shows snowboard with writing reading "Gangster's Paradise") 10. Mid of demonstrators marching with red flags 11. SOUNDBITE (German) Rolf Marouk, regional parliament Green Party member: "We don't believe the people at the WEF are changing the world, that they really want to change the state of the world. This is why we took to the streets, to present our own ideas and because we are convinced that the people from the WEF really can't improve the state of the world." 12. Mid of demonstrators writing graffiti on Davos banner 13. Wide of riot police at road block STORYLINE About 100 protesters demonstrated on Saturday against the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos in the Swiss Alps. Protesters tried to bring down a fence surrounding the venue hosting the meeting and threw snowballs at riot police. The protest, organised by anti-capitalist groups, the local Green Party and socialist movement, made its way to a hotel where some high-level guests were staying. Police used water cannons to try and disperse the demonstrators. "We are convinced that the people from the WEF really can't improve the state of the world," local Green Party member Rolf Marouk said. Top politicians and business leaders have been converging on the Alpine resort for five-days of talks including boosting the recovery of the global market and tackling the thorny issue of government plans to tighten banking regulations. On Saturday, government regulators from the United States and Europe laid out their financial reform plans before a sceptical banking industry, asking financiers for input but adamant that change was coming with or without their support. The meeting came after days of tension over US government plans for stricter controls on the financial industry to limit speculation and avoid a repeat of the 2008 meltdown that plunged the world into recession. Bankers have protested the new proposals, saying the US and other countries risk choking off a gradual economic recovery with regulation they see as heavy-handed. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1350EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Switz WEF US Taiwan Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Switz WEF US Taiwan- REPLAY US senator reacts to US Taiwan arms sale LENGTH: 01:28 FIRST RUN: 1730 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 635272 DATELINE: Davos - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 01:28 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: 1. Wide shot of World Economic Forum lobby 2. Medium shot of US Senator Lindsey O. Graham (South Carolina) talking to officials 3. Various of Graham 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) US Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican, South Carolina: "I do believe in reunification between the Taiwanese people and the people in Taiwan and mainland China, but not at the force of a gun or the threat of invasion. I want to compliment the Obama administration for agreeing to these arms sales. I think people of Taiwan are seeking to reconcile with mainland China but not through the threat of invasion at the force of a gun, and my commitment to the Taiwanese people is not going to change because of mainland China's action here." 5. Close of World Economic Forum sign 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) US Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican, South Carolina: "As we do business together, as we try to form partnerships and relationships the one thing that China needs to understand is that you can't be a good partner unless you're honest with each other. So my call is for the Chinese government to stop monitoring the internet, human right abuses abound in China, and stop trying to reconcile through the force of arms with the threat of invasion with Taiwan." 7. Wide of Graham with officials STORYLINE: China suspended military exchanges with the United States, threatened unprecedented sanctions against American defence companies and warned on Saturday that cooperation would suffer after Washington announced 6.4 (b) billion dollars in planned arms sales to Taiwan. The response to Friday's US announcement, while not entirely unexpected, was swift and indicated that China plans to put up a greater challenge than usual as it deals with the most sensitive topic in US-China relations. US Republican Senator Lindsey O. Graham, who has worked on US-Chinese trade agreements, was in Davos for the World Economic Forum on Saturday. He reacted to the Chinese response saying: "I want to compliment the Obama administration for agreeing to these arms sales. I think people of Taiwan are seeking to reconcile with mainland China but not through the threat of invasion at the force of a gun, and my commitment to the Taiwanese people is not going to change because of mainland China's action here." China's Defence Ministry said the arms sales to self-governing Taiwan, which the mainland claims as its own, cause "severe harm" to overall U.S.-China cooperation, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported. Tensions were already high after recent US comments on internet freedom and a dispute between Google and China, as well as President Barack Obama's plan to meet with Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama this year. Graham said: "As we do business together, as we try to form partnerships and relationships the one thing that China needs to understand is that you can't be a good partner unless you're honest with each other. So my call is for the Chinese government to stop monitoring the internet, human right abuses abound in China, and stop trying to reconcile through the force of arms with the threat of invasion with Taiwan." The United States is Taiwan's most important ally and largest arms supplier, and it's bound by law to ensure the island is able to respond to Chinese threats. China responds angrily to any proposed arms sales, however, and it also cut off military ties with the US in 2008 after the former Bush administration announced a multi-billion dollar arms sale to Taiwan. A similar cut-off of military ties was expected this time, but it comes as Washington and Beijing wanted to improve normally frosty relations between their armed forces. The US has tried to use military visits to build trust with Beijing and learn more about the aims of its massive military build-up. Though Taiwan's ties with China have warmed considerably since Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou took office 20 months ago, Beijing has threatened to invade if the island ever formalises its de facto independence. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1423EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Switz WEF Economy Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Switz WEF Economy- REPLAY Participants discuss bank regulations and state of the world economy LENGTH: 01:59 FIRST RUN: 1430 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: French/German/English/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 635261 DATELINE: Davos - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 01:59 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: 1. Wide shot of media waiting 2. SOUNDBITE: (French) Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF (International Monetary Fund) Managing Director: "As far as the reform of the financial sector is concerned, we must accelerate and go further, not just for the banks, but also the rest of the financial sector. We have proposed a method of taxing the financial system, so to make it contribute to the risks being taken collectivity." 3. Wide shot of French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde arriving towards the cameras 4. SOUNDBITE: (French) Christine Lagarde, French Finance Minister, answering question about economic outlook: "Growth everywhere, certainly much stronger in the emerging countries. China's path has been obvious in this domain, and growth in Europe of course much more fragile, with France emerging a little stronger than others." 5. Various shots of European Central Bank Head Jean Claude Trichet talking to officials 6. Various shots of Governor of the Canadian National Bank talking to officials 7. SOUNDBITE: (German) Josef Ackermann, CEO Deutsche Bank AG: "No, it (regulation) is not going too far yet. We are still trying to find the structures and we will make decisions on its extent later. In the meantime, we are still studying the potential effects." 8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission Deputy Chairman "Well, I think that is an issue. I don't mean so much over-regulation, I'm really concerned - is it really a level playing field? And we are concerned that in the guise regulation there shouldn't be financial protection. Definitely there will be some deal averaging, as long as it's not a built-in bias against developing countries - we don't have problem." 9. Woman posing with Zakumi, the official 2010 World Cup mascot STORYLINE: International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn on Saturday said that financial sector reforms should be bold but handled in close cooperation so that no countries suffer as a result. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos he said: "as far as the reform of the financial sector is concerned, we must accelerate and go further, not just for the banks, but also the rest of the financial sector. We have proposed a method of taxing the financial system, so to make it contribute to the risks being taken collectivity." It's hoped tighter regulation of the financial sector could in turn stimulate overall economic confidence. But Indian Planning commission chief Montek S Ahluwaliha was concerned to ensure a level playing field was created and that regulation should not mean financial protection and it did not squeeze developing countries. The IMF chief and the Indian official spoke following a Davos debate on the global economic outlook from which French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde emerged in confident mood to speak about "growth everywhere, certainly much stronger in the emerging countries." China's path, she said,"has been obvious in this domain, growth in Europe of course (is)much more fragile, France (is) doing a bit better then others." Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1334EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Switz WEF Germany Afghan Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Switz WEF Germany Afghan- REPLAY German Defence Minister comments on Afghanistan LENGTH: 01:14 FIRST RUN: 1630 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: German/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 635269 DATELINE: Davos - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 01:14 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of World Economic Forum (WEF) lobby 2. German Defence Minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, entering World Economic Forum venue 3. Guttenberg being interviewed 4. SOUNDBITE: (German) Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, German Defence Minister: "The troop numbers were developed by the military leadership, and that is a clear statement. The fact that there are wild numbers being bandied about ahead of the conference is understandable, but it is also understandable that in the end, the number is the one suggested by the military leadership and the ministry." 5. Guttenberg talking in WEF lobby 6. SOUNDBITE: (German) Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, German Defence Minister: "No, that is not a sign of a lack of trust, but of its existence, because these troops will be placed under German command. It is important we continue to act together in Afghanistan. It is a mission for the international community. We're all ready to take on a certain change of strategy and therefore we're thankful for additional capacity which we are getting in the North. We need to be successful in Afghanistan together and not point fingers at each other." 7. Wide pan of WEF main congress hall STORYLINE: German Defence Minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg on Saturday insisted the plan to increase the number of German troops in Afghanistan corresponds with the numbers demanded by the country's top military. Speaking ahead of his appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, zu Guttenberg said: "The fact that there are wild numbers being bandied about ahead of the conference is understandable, but it is also understandable that in the end, the number is the one suggested by the military leadership and the ministry." Earlier this week, Germany pledged to increase its troop contingent in Afghanistan by up to 850 and focus more strongly on training local security forces. Germany has nearly 4,300 soldiers in Afghanistan. They serve under a parliamentary mandate that currently sets the maximum number at 4,500. German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not specify what the new upper limit might be. Zu Guttenberg also commented on the apparent planned deployment of US soldiers in northern Afghanistan, where German troops are operating. "That is not a sign of a lack of trust, but of its existence, because these troops will be placed under German command." "It is important we continue to act together in Afghanistan. It is a mission for the international community. We're all ready to take on a certain change of strategy and therefore we're thankful for additional capacity which we are getting in the North. We need to be successful in Afghanistan together and not point fingers at each other," he said. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1346EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Pakistan Blast Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Pakistan Blast- REPLAY Suicide blast kills sixteen; hospital pictures LENGTH: 01:11 FIRST RUN: 1430 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Pashto/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 635262 DATELINE: Peshawar - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 01:11 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST ++NIGHT SHOTS++ 1. Wide of security outside Lady Reading Hospital 2. Ambulance arriving at the hospital 3. Man carrying injured child out of ambulance 4. Medics wheeling in injured into hospital on stretcher 5. Mid of hospital ward, people gathered round bed of injured man 6. Mid of medics attending to injured man 7. Mid of medics attending to injured child 8. SOUNDBITE: (Pashto) Khan Badsha, father of child hurt in blast: "It was about two o'clock (0900 GMT) when this incident happened. 16 people died on the spot. When we got there we saw eight people injured, and the authorities were not allowing us to enter the hospital (in Bajur)." 9. Badsha's injured son lying on bed 10. SOUNDBITE: (Pashto) Khan Badsha, father of child hurt in blast: "He (Khan's son) went to buy oil, and we didn't know where he was. Around four o'clock (1100 GMT) we knew that my son was injured." 11. Wide of hospital ward STORYLINE A suicide bomber killed 16 people on Saturday at a police checkpoint in a northwest Pakistani tribal area where the military declared victory over the Taliban and al-Qaida last year, highlighting the difficulty Islamabad has in holding regions once the battle phase of its army offensives end. Fourteen civilians and two police officers died in the suicide attack in the Bajur tribal region, while 20 people were wounded, local government official Bakhat Pacha said. The attacker, on foot, struck a market area in the region's main town, Khar, he said. Some of the wounded were in a critical condition at hospitals, the official added. Three of the injured; one man and two children were rushed to Lady Reading Hospital in Peshawar. One man, standing by his child's bedside, said his son had gone to the market to buy oil when he was hurt in the explosion. The attack came a day after officials said security forces had killed 44 militants in three days of battles on the outskirts of Khar. Pakistan waged a major military offensive against Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents in Bajur in 2008, declaring victory over the militants by February 2009. But in recent weeks, clashes and now this latest suicide attack have signalled a deteriorating security situation in the area. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1336EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Afghanistan NATO Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Afghanistan NATO- REPLAY Airstrike kills 4 after NATO and Afghan forces mistake each other for the enemy LENGTH: 01:41 FIRST RUN: 1130 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Dari/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 635237 DATELINE: Wardak Province - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 01:41 ++CLIENTS PLEASE NOTE, STORYLINE UPDATED FOR THE 1330 BULLETIN++ AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of Afghan police at the site of the airstrike on an Afghan National Army outpost 2. Mid of Afghan police at the scene 3. Close of rifle, military vehicles in background 4. Various of snow-covered outpost, snow blackened by the airstrike 5. Wide of helicopter flying overhead 6. Wide of outpost 7. Wide of Wardak to Kandahar highway 8. Mid of locals stepping off bus 9. Wide of traffic clogged up along road, people standing at side of road 10. SOUNDBITE: (Dari) Dil Agha, local resident, vox pop: "The Afghan National Army check post was bombed by Americans. Four Afghan National Army soldiers were martyred and eight were wounded. Americans did it." 11. SOUNDBITE: (Dari) Haji Khan Mohammad, local resident, vox pop: "I am from this area. I witnessed the entire incident myself. Planes arrived and bombed the Afghan National Army check post, they hit some of the houses around the area with mortars. All the people standing here can see that the check post was bombed." 12. Mid of Afghan National Army soldier, vehicles in background 13. Wide of American military vehicle at the site STORYLINE: Four Afghan soldiers died in an apparent friendly fire incident between NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) and Afghan troops on Saturday at a snow-covered highway outpost, United States and Afghan officials said. The incident began about 3 a.m. local time on Saturday (2230 GMT Friday) in the eastern Wardak province, when a joint NATO-Afghan force traded fire with another Afghan unit manning the outpost, Afghanistan's Defence Ministry said. NATO troops then called in an airstrike, killing the four Afghans, NATO and the Afghan ministry said. Neither group confirmed the nationality of the NATO soldiers. Footage of the aftermath showed American armoured vehicles in the area, about half a mile (one kilometre) from the hilltop outpost. The snow outside the fortified compound was blackened by the airstrike. Afghanistan's Defence Ministry condemned the incident and demanded punishment for those responsible. NATO called it a "regrettable incident" and announced an investigation. NATO said they were shot at first, prompting the joint force to return fire before calling in the airstrike. Afghan provincial officials said the fighting was due to a misunderstanding as the joint NATO-Afghan force returned from an operation in the Sayed Abad district. Provincial spokesman Shahidullah Shahid said seven Afghan soldiers had been wounded. A local man said eight had been wounded. The conflicting casualty tolls could not immediately be reconciled. The deaths are likely to strain relations between NATO and Afghan forces at a time when both are calling for a closer partnership in the fight against the Taliban. In a separate incident in Wardak province, a NATO official said an Afghan interpreter killed two US service members before he was killed himself at a combat outpost. The new details emerged on Saturday, a day after the deaths were announced in a brief statement. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorised to release the information. First reports indicated three Americans were killed but the official said one of the dead was an Afghan. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1338EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: US Bush Senior Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:US Bush Senior- NEW Former Pres George HW Bush and son Jeb visit Obama at White House LENGTH: 01:43 FIRST RUN: 1630 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Natsound SOURCE: POOL STORY NUMBER: 635267 DATELINE: Washington - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 01:43 WHITEHOUSE POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY ++AUDIO QUALITY AS INCOMING++ SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of limousine carrying former US President George H.W. Bush pulling up at White House West Wing 2. Bush getting out of limousine to be greeted by First Lady Michelle Obama before going inside 3. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his father walking out and getting into their car UPSOUND (English) George H.W. Bush, former US President: "Good meeting, good meeting." 5. Car driving off STORYLINE Former US President George H.W. Bush paid a social call on current President Barack Obama at the White House on Saturday. The former president, 85, walked gingerly into the White House, using a cane, as heavy snow fell. He departed 35 minutes later, telling the cameras it was a "good meeting, good meeting." Bush was accompanied by his oldest son, former Florida governor, Jeb Bush. White House aides said the visit was simply a social call because the former president was in Washington for a dinner. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1339EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Iran President Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Iran President- REPLAY Ahmadinejad says West in decline, Iran most important nation on earth LENGTH: 01:20 FIRST RUN: 1030 RESTRICTIONS: No BBC Perisa Service/No VOA Persia Service TYPE: Farsi/Natsound SOURCE: IRINN STORY NUMBER: 635225 DATELINE: Tehran - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 01:20 IRINN - No Access Iran / No Access BBC Persian/ No Access VOA Persian ++AP Television is adhering to Iranian law that stipulates all media are banned from providing BBC Persian or VOA Persian any coverage from Iran, and under this law if any media violate this ban the Iranian authorities can immediately shut down that organisation in Tehran.++ SHOTLIST: 1. Wide shot of audience at conference of Islamic Association of Students listening to Iranian President's speech 2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President speaking at podium 3. SOUNDBITE: (Farsi) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President: "It is very clear that the materialistic system and dominant system has reached the end of the road, both theoretically and practically." 4. Pan of audience 5. SOUNDBITE: (Farsi) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President: "We need a new system and Iran can pioneer the establishment of such a system." 6. Mid shot of clerics 7. SOUNDBITE: (Farsi) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President: (Soundbite starts on midshot of clerics) "There is no doubt that today, the Iranian nation is the strongest, most powerful and most important nation of the world." 8. Wide shot of audience 9. SOUNDBITE: (Farsi) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian President: "Anybody who has the final say here (in the Middle East region), would also have the last say in the world. Now the question is who has the final word in the Middle East? It is clear, everybody admits that (Iran has the final say)." 10. Various of conference STORYLINE: The Iranian president Saturday lambasted the West and claimed Iran was the strongest nation in the world, as the Iranian leadership intensifies its campaign to eliminate the challenge from the pro-reform opposition movement, despite international condemnation. Speaking at a conference in Tehran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the West's "materialistic system and dominant system has reached the end of the road, both theoretically and practically." "Without any doubt, today the Iranian nation is the strongest, most powerful and most important nation of the world," he added. The president also said that Iran would have the "final word" in the Middle East, expanding the comment further by saying, "anybody who has the final say here, would also have the last say in the world." The sharp rhetoric came days after two men caught up in the government's post-election crackdown were executed. Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani, 37, and Arash Rahmanipour, 20 were arrested before the June 12 election on charges of belonging to an armed group aiming to topple the government. But they were put on the same mass trial as around 100 opposition activists, protesters and politicians who were arrested in the post-election crackdown. Hard-liners have called for the trial and execution of Iran's opposition leaders including Mir Hossein Mousavi and former reformist president Mohammad Khatami and former parliamentary speaker Mahdi Karroubi. Hundreds have been arrested in the heavy crackdown by security forces against opposition protests, but activists have continued to hold sporadic, large street rallies. The opposition says President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in the June election was fraudulent and call for his removal - though some in the movement have expanded to criticise Iran's clerical leadership. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1341EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Iran Trial Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Iran Trial- REPLAY 16 held over anti-govt protests put on trial, state media reports LENGTH: 00:56 FIRST RUN: 1230 RESTRICTIONS: No Iran/ No BBC Persian Service/No VOA Persian TV TYPE: Commentary SOURCE: IRIB STORY NUMBER: 635241 DATELINE: Tehran - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 00:56 IRIB - No Access Iran / No Access BBC Persian/ No Access VOA Persian ++AP Television is adhering to Iranian law that stipulates all media are banned from providing BBC Persian or VOA Persian any coverage from Iran, and under this law if any media violate this ban the Iranian authorities can immediately shut down that organisation in Tehran.++ SHOTLIST 1. Wide pan of courtroom 2. Pan of courtroom 3. Lawyers 4. Wide pan of courtroom 5. Pull out from judge to wide of trial 6. Back of defendant and prosecutor at podium and reverse shot of one defendant 7. Wide pan of courtroom STORYLINE Iran put 16 people allegedly detained during anti-government protests last month on trial on Saturday on charges of rioting and conspiring against the ruling system, Iran's state media reported. The official IRNA news agency and state Press TV said the defendants, who appeared in a Tehran courtroom, face charges ranging from plotting against the establishment to violating security regulations. Five of those on trial, including two women, were accused of "moharebeh," or defying God, a charge that could carry the death penalty, the semi-official ISNA news agency reported. IRNA said all of the defendants were detained during anti-government demonstrations on December 27, when at least eight people were killed and hundreds more were arrested after clashes between opposition activists and security forces. The violence was the worst since authorities launched a harsh crackdown immediately after Iran's disputed presidential election in June. IRNA quoted a prosecutor identified only by the last name of Farahani as saying in court that the defendants have confessed to spying, planning bomb attacks and damaging public and private properties. He also said the defendants sent videos on the clashes between protesters and Iranian police to the "foreign hostile networks," IRNA reported. During past mass trials in Iran, many Western human rights group have cautioned that detainees in Iran have made confessions under coercion from the authorities. The new trial comes amid a sweeping crackdown by Iran's clerical leaders against opposition activists in a bid to crush the challenge that has emerged to their rule in the wake of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election in June. The hardline government has tried more than 100 political activists since August, sentencing more than 80 people to prison terms and handing down 11 death sentences. The trial also comes days after the authorities hanged two men who had been convicted of belonging to "counter-revolutionary and monarchist groups," plotting to overthrow "the Islamic establishment" and planning assassinations and bombings. The men were arrested months before the election. But they were put on the same mass trial as around 100 opposition activists, protesters and politicians who were arrested in the post-election crackdown - an attempt by the leadership to show that the political opposition is in league with violent armed groups in a foreign-backed plot to overthrow the Islamic system. Despite the crackdown, opposition activists have continued to hold sporadic, large street rallies. The opposition says President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in the June election was fraudulent and call for his removal - though some in the movement have expanded to criticise Iran's clerical leadership. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1342EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-1830: Germany Weather 2 Saturday, 30 January 2010 STORY:Germany Weather 2- REPLAY Public transport shut down due to heavy snowfall, wintry conditions LENGTH: 03:29 FIRST RUN: 1630 RESTRICTIONS: See Script TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: DNF/RTL STORY NUMBER: 635270 DATELINE: Various - 30 Jan 2010 LENGTH: 03:29 DNF - NO ACCESS GERMANY RTL - NO ACCESS GERMANY, AUSTRIA (EXCEPT: INFOSCREEN, ATV+), GERMAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND (EXCEPT: TELEZUERI), LUXEMBURG AND ALTO ADIGE SHOTLIST (FIRST RUN 1230 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 30 JANUARY, 2010) DNF - NO ACCESS GERMANY Rostock ++AUDIO AS INCOMING++ 1. Wide shot of snow-covered road 2. Car leaving garage in deep snow, gets stuck, zoom in 3. Car stuck in snow 4. Man digging up snow under car, pan to snow 5. Bus stop sign, zoom out to bus stop covered in snow 6. Bike covered in snow, tilt-up to sign 7. Person skiing in road 8. Car being pushed back into garage 9. Car stopped in snow 10. Snow blizzard and parked cars 11. Man throwing sand on road 12. Woman walking in snow in front of car 13. Man with snow clearing machine (FIRST RUN 1630 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 30 JANUARY, 2010) RTL - NO ACCESS GERMANY, AUSTRIA (EXCEPT: INFOSCREEN, ATV+), GERMAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND (EXCEPT: TELEZUERI), LUXEMBURG AND ALTO ADIGE Hamburg 14. Zoom out from skyline to people skating on frozen lake 15. Dogs pulling sled 16. People skating on ice 17. Wide of people walking through snow 18. Children making 'snow angels' 19. Various of children sliding on ice (FIRST RUN 1630 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 30 JANUARY, 2010) RTL - NO ACCESS GERMANY, AUSTRIA (EXCEPT: INFOSCREEN, ATV+), GERMAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND (EXCEPT: TELEZUERI), LUXEMBURG AND ALTO ADIGE Neuburg, Bavaria 20. Various of swimmers competing in event on Donau river 21. Swimmer dancing as he comes out of water (FIRST RUN 1630 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 30 JANUARY, 2010) RTL - NO ACCESS GERMANY, AUSTRIA (EXCEPT: INFOSCREEN, ATV+), GERMAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND (EXCEPT: TELEZUERI), LUXEMBURG AND ALTO ADIGE Near Rostock 22. Various of ships and swell in Baltic Sea (FIRST RUN 1630 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 30 JANUARY, 2010) RTL - NO ACCESS GERMANY, AUSTRIA (EXCEPT: INFOSCREEN, ATV+), GERMAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND (EXCEPT: TELEZUERI), LUXEMBURG AND ALTO ADIGE Thurmansbang, Bavaria 23. Various of campers and tents at biker weekend in mountains near Munich 24. Close of biker dressed in Viking helmet STORYLINE Heavy snow and high winds have caused traffic chaos in Germany, leaving three people dead and dozens more injured. Police said one person was killed and more than 40 injured in over 300 accidents on Friday night and Saturday in the northwestern state of North Rhine-Wesphalia alone. Two other people were killed in separate accidents on slick roads in the southern state of Bavaria. In the northern state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania public transit was shut down in the city of Rostock as the area was hit with 12 inches (30 centimetres) of snow overnight and high winds. The conditions caused long traffic jams on many highways, the closure of others, and flight delays and cancellations. However the weather couldn't stop some intrepid Germans who refused to give up on their weekend activities. In Hamburg hundreds of families came out to skate and sled on the now frozen Alster Lake, a once in a decade phenomenon according to forecasters. In Bavaria nearly 1700 swimmers turned out at the Donau river as they braved the ice cold waters to take part in the 'Neuburger Donauschwimmen' event. While in nearby Thurmansbang, campers tented out in thick snow as the German Motorcyclist Federation welcomed bikers from all over Europe to the traditional 'Elefantentreffen' in the middle, of a now frozen, Bavarian forest. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 01-30-10 1344EST ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------

Full title reads: "Rottingdean. 'Yachts of the Air' Thousands throng famous Sussex Downs to see largest International Gliding Competition yet held." <br/> <br/>Rottingdean, Sussex. <br/> <br/>Group of upper class men look over map resting on wing of glider plane. <br/> <br/>Young man climbs into small glider. He puts on safety belt and the cockpit cover is put on around him. <br/> <br/>Shots of the glider being launched from the hillside. Shots of the glider in flight. <br/> <br/>Shots of glider being towed to top of hill by car. <br/> <br/>Shots of pioneer aviator Claude Graham White giving instructions to man sitting in glider cockpit. <br/> <br/>BV of another glider taking off. <br/> <br/>A glider comes in to land.

1050 WH USMCA REMARKS POOL CUTS FS23 73 PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCES A TRADE DEAL WITH THE US, MEXICO AND CANADA / USMCA THAT WILL REPLACE NAFTA, THE NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT. POOL CUTS AR: 16x9 NYRS: WASH-3, WASH-4 TRUMP: Thank you. Thank you very much. Please, sit down. It's really great to see everybody on this beautiful, beautiful day in Washington, D.C. Some people say "the swamp," but I will not say that today. (LAUGHTER) I refuse. This is too -- too important, what we're doing, one of the most important deals, and the most important trade deal we've ever made, by far. TRUMP: I want to thank Senator Joni Ernst for being here. Joni, thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) 11:19:30 Of Iowa. And I'll be there very soon. We'll be doing something very important in Iowa. But this is maybe more important than all of it put together, right, Joni? So I want to thank you for being here. Congressman Holding, Congressman Roe, Congressman Newhouse and Congressman Meadows, thank you all for being here. We very much appreciate it. You've been very instrumental. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) I am thrilled to speak to the American people to share truly historic news for our nation, and indeed for the world. I want to thank Vice President Pence for joining us this morning. It's my great honor to announce that we have successfully completed negotiations on a brand new deal to terminate and replace NAFTA 11:20:23 and the NAFTA trade agreement with an incredible new U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement called USMCA. It sort of just works, MCA. (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: USMCA. And that'll be the name I guess that 99 percent of the time we'll be hearing, USMCA. Has a good ring to it. I have long contended that NAFTA was perhaps the worst trade deal ever made. Since NAFTA's adoption, the United States racked up trade deficits totaling more than $2 trillion, and it's a much higher number than that. With Canada and Mexico it lost vast amounts of money 11:21:09 and lost 4.1 million manufacturing jobs and one in four auto jobs -- lost about 25 percent of our auto jobs -- even more than that. Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA and today we have kept that promise. But for 25 years as a civilian, as a businessman, I used to say, "How could anybody have signed a deal like NAFTA?" And I watched New England and so many other places where I was -- just the factories were leaving, the jobs were leaving, people were being fired. And we can't have that. So we have negotiated this new agreement based on the principle of fairness and reciprocity. To me, it's the most important word in trade, because we've been treated so unfairly by so many nations all over the world that we're changing that. Just signed a much better deal with South Korea. We had a horrible, horrible deal and we just signed that at the United Nations. And that's worked out well, and they're happy, we're happy. It's good for jobs, good for a lot of things. When that deal was signed, they said 250,000 jobs will be given by signing this transaction and they were right. I've said it before, they were right: 11:22:27 250,000 jobs to South Korea, not to the United States. So that's changed and very much for the better and this one is a brand new deal. The agreement will govern nearly $1.2 trillion in trade, which makes it the biggest trade deal in the United States' history. I want to congratulate U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer, who has worked -- nobody understands how hard he's worked. (APPLAUSE) No matter when you called him, he was in the office or he was in somebody else's office doing the same thing. Bob Lighthizer's great. I've heard it for years. I said, "If I ever do this, I want to get Lighthizer to represent us," because he felt the way I did. TRUMP: And the entire team at the USTR standing behind me and some right here in the audience, I want to thank you all. (APPLAUSE) Fantastic job. Peter Navarro, everybody. Thank you all. Thank you. 11:23:35 Fantastic group of people. They love our country. I also want to thank Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, Secretary Nielsen, Secretary Perdue, Jared Kushner, Peter Navarro and the United States ambassador to Canada, Kelly Craft. Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) I also want to thank President Pena Nieto of Mexico, who -- we had a few disagreements, but I really like him a lot. I think he may like me. I'm not sure. (LAUGHTER) But I think he's a terrific person. And he'll be leaving soon, but he's really done a good job, and wonderful, wonderful person. And the Mexican president-elect, Lopez Obrador, who has given his support to this agreement, and we're developing a really good relationship, which I think is very important for our country, frankly, and for Mexico. And so they worked together on this. This was done by both. I said, "Look, I don't want to sign an agreement, and then a new president comes in, they don't like it, and we have difficulty." They worked very much together on it, and I appreciate it from both. I have to certainly give my highest regards to Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau. A lot of stories came out about Justin and I having difficulty together, and we did, over the trade deal. But I'll tell you, it's turned out to be a very, very good deal for both, and a very, very good deal for all three. It puts us in a position that we've never been in before. 11:25:14 It's very good when you look at the world and what the world is doing, and what -- when you look at the unfair trade practices that countries are using against the United States. This is a terrific deal for all of us. Once approved by Congress, this new deal will be the most modern, up-to-date and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country, with the most advanced protections for workers ever developed. If you look at the reviews, people that would normally not, under any circumstances, say good things, because automatically, they have to say bad -- even some Democrats say, "That's amazing." We had some -- they're -- they haven't been given the soundbites yet, I guess, Mike. But actually, you had some Democrats say, "This is really amazing, if he really got all of that." But by tomorrow, I would suspect they'll change their tune, but that's OK, because people know how good it is. It's an amazing deal for a lot of people. 11:26:11 Likewise, it will be the most advanced trade deal in the world, with ambitious provisions on the digital economy, patents -- very important -- financial services and other areas where the United States has a strong competitive advantage. Mexico and Canada have agreed to strong new labor protections, environmental protections and new protections for intellectual property. So important. This new deal is an especially great victory for our farmers. Our farmers have gone through a lot over the last 15 years. They've been taken advantage of by everybody. Prices have gone way down. And we're working on some other deals that are going to make them very happy, also. But this a very, very big deal for our farmers. Mexico and Canada will be opened up a lot more than they are now, and I think there'll be a better spirit between the three countries, which is important for our farmers. 11:27:14 TRUMP: The agreement will give our farmers and ranchers far greater access to sell American-grown produce in Mexico and in Canada. The deal includes a substantial increase in our farmers' opportunities to export American wheat, poultry, eggs and dairy, including milk, butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream, to name a few. I want to be very specific. (APPLAUSE) I want to be very specific. Right? And many other products, but those products were not really being treated fairly, as far as those that work so hard to produce them, and now they're going to be treated fairly. These measures will support many hundreds of thousands of American jobs. This is also a historic win for American manufacturers and American autoworkers, who have been treated so badly. We've lost so many jobs over the years under NAFTA. 11:28:15 Under the current new deal -- and if you look at the current NAFTA deal -- the new deal is taking care of all of these problems, because NAFTA, foreign companies have been allowed to manufacture many of their parts overseas, ship them to Mexico and Canada for assembling, and send their foreign-made cars into the United States with no tax. So, we let all our people go, we fire everybody, they make cars, they make products, they make everything in another country, they send them into the United States, no tax. And the cost is very little difference, sometimes it's more. for those people that like to talk about cost. With this agreement, we are closing all of these terrible loopholes. They're closed. They're gone. They were a disaster. For example, we are requiring a large portion of every car to be made by high-wage workers, which will greatly reduce foreign outsourcing, which was a tremendous problem, 11:29:16 and means more auto parts and automobiles will be manufactured inside the United States. We will be manufacturing many more cars. And our companies won't be leaving the United States, firing their workers and building their cars elsewhere. There's no longer that incentive. Before, under the NAFTA deal, they had that incentive. They have the opposite incentive now. We're not going to be losing our companies. That was, to me, the most important thing. I don't want to see our companies leave and fire our workers, and our workers never get jobs to replace those jobs. Those days are over. This deal will also impose new standards requiring at least 75 percent of every automobile to be made in North America in order to qualify for the privilege of free access to our markets. And that's what it is, it's a privilege. We don't take it as a privilege. We don't take it as a privilege. It's a privilege for them to do business with us. And I am not talking about Mexico. I'm talking about everybody -- everybody. It's a privilege for China to do business with us. It's a privilege for the European Union, who has treated us very badly, but that's coming along, to do business with us. Japan, every country, it's a privilege for them to come in and attack the piggy bank. 11:30:44 In this, we will have a result of much more happening right here in the United States. It means, more than anything else, far more American jobs. And these are high-quality jobs. There are also strong provisions to enforce what's called the rules of origin requirements. This will incentivize billions of dollars in new purchases of U.S.-made automobiles. TRUMP: Once approved, this will be a new dawn for the American auto industry and for the American autoworker. They will see. They understand. 11:31:19 They voted for us in large numbers, even though their leadership always goes Democrat. Couple of them said to me, "I don't know how I can do it again." Many of them, the leaders would back Democrats and would tell me, "You're going to get most of the votes from union workers." And we got most of the votes from workers, period. But the American autoworker was very much behind what we were doing. As one primary aspect, it will transform North America back into a manufacturing powerhouse. If you remember the previous administration said we're not going to have manufacturing jobs anymore, essentially. We're not going to have -- we're not going to make things anymore? No, just the opposite. Going to be a manufacturing powerhouse and allow us to reclaim a supply chain that has been offshored to the world because of unfair trade issues. 11:32:18 We also provide brand-new intellectual property protections for biologic drugs, which will make North America a haven for medical innovation and development. We want our drugs to be made here. When you talk prescription drugs, we don't like getting them from foreign countries. We don't know what's happening with those drugs, how they're being made. Too important. This landmark agreement will send cash and jobs pouring into the United States and into North American. Good for Canada, good for Mexico. Instead of jobs leaving for overseas, they will be returning back home. And we've already had it. We have many, many car companies -- I was with Prime Minister Abe of Japan. He said, "We have sent many car companies to the United States over the last year and a half." It's true, had big expansions. And very importantly, he said, "Many more are coming," 11:33:14because they have an incentive now to be here. People want to be back in the United States again. As I say, the United States is respected again. But it's also respected as to trade and industry. This is a truly extraordinary agreement for the United States, Canada and Mexico. President Pena Nieto -- it's so important that the president and I have developed this sort of a bond. A bond on trade. Pena Nieto, a man that has done a very good job for Mexico in terms of trade, and Prime Minister Trudeau, who I just spoke to; just spoke to both of them a little while ago, they love their countries. They want to do right for the countries, and that's what they've done. And we've really formed -- if you look at this agreement, we formed a great partnership with Mexico and with Canada. And I plan to sign the agreement by the end of November. I then will submit it for approval to Congress, where, in theory, there should be no trouble, but anything you submit to Congress is trouble, no matter what. It's the single greatest agreement ever signed, they'll say, "Well, you know, Trump likes it, therefore we're not going to approve it because that would be good for the Republicans, so therefore we can't approve it." But it will be sent to Congress pursuant to the Trade Promotion Authority Act. This agreement follows on the heels of our successful completion of a new and balanced trade deal with South Korea. Tremendous difference in that deal from what it was -- it was a disaster, as I said - 11:34:54 to improve the old deal that had killed so many jobs. It also follows on our announcement last week of a new trade negotiation with Japan. Japan would never negotiate with the United States. They say, "We're not going to negotiate." They told the previous administration, "We're not going to negotiate." I said, "You don't have to negotiate, but we're going to put a very, very substantial tax on your car if you don't." TRUMP: By way, without tariffs we wouldn't be talking about a deal. Just for those babies out there that keep talking about tariffs. That includes Congress. "Oh please, don't charge tariffs." Without tariffs, you wouldn't be -- we wouldn't be standing here. I can tell you, Bob and all of these folks would not be standing here right now. And we're totally prepared to do that if they don't negotiate. But Japan is wanting to negotiate. Actually, they called about three weeks ago. 11:35:48 And he's a terrific man, a terrific -- just had a tremendous victory. And they said, "We'd like to start negotiations immediately." India, which is the tariff king, they called us and they say, "We want to start negotiations immediately." When Bob Lighthizer said, "What happened? He would never do this." They said, "No, we want to keep your president happy." Isn't that nice? Isn't that nice? It's true. They have to keep us happy, because they understand that we're wise to what's been happening. India charges tariffs of 100 percent, and then if we want to put a tariff of 25 percent on, people will call from Congress, "But that's not free trade." And I'd look back to people and say, "Where do these people come from? Where do they come from?" So because of the power of tariffs and the power that we have with tariffs, we, in many cases, won't even have to use them. That's how powerful they are, and how good they are. 11:36:48But in many cases, we're not going to have to use them. And many -- and in many cases, countries that are charging massive tariffs are eliminating those tariffs. As you know, we have $250 billion at 25 percent interest with China right now, and we could go $267 billion more, and China wants to talk very badly. And I said, "Frankly, it's too early to talk." Can't talk now, because they're not ready, because they've been ripping us for so many years. It doesn't happen that quickly. And if politically, people force it too quickly, you're not going to make the right deal for our workers and for our country. But China wants to talk, and we want to talk to them. And we want them to help us with North Korea. We want them to continue to help us with North Korea. That's very important. The European Union been very tough on the United States. Last year and for many years, they've lost in the vicinity of $150 billion a year. They have massive trade barriers. And they didn't want to come. They didn't want to talk. 11:37:57 Jean-Claude, great businessperson, head of the European Union, Jean-Claude, my friend, I'd say, "Jean-Claude, we want to make a deal." He goes, "No, no, no. We are very happy." I said, "You may be happy, but I'm not happy, because we have one of the worst deals of any group. We have one of the worst deals with the European Union." And they just didn't want to come because they were happy with the deal. I said, "But we're not happy with the deal." And finally, after, you know, going through a whole process, I said, "Look, we're just going to put a tax of 20 percent on all of the millions of Mercedes and BMWs -- all of the cars." And millions and millions of cars that they sell here that they won't take over there; farm product that they won't take over there, because their barriers, you can't sell. You're not allowed to. Our farmers aren't allowed to sell over there, many of the products -- much of their products -- most of them. And so I announced that we're going to put a 20 percent tariff, could be 25, on their cars coming in, and they immediately called and said, "We'd like to start negotiations." And we're having a successful negotiation. We'll see what happens. 11:39:02 Who knows? I always say, who knows? But we'll see. I have a feeling we'll be successful. TRUMP: A pillar of national security is economic security and trade. National security is not where we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Over the last five years, we've averaged $800 billion a year loss on trade. How dumb is that? $800 billion. This group doesn't know about those numbers. I don't even want them to hear those numbers. But the United States in its trade deals has lots on average almost $800 billion a year. That's dealing with China, dealing with European Union, dealing with everybody, Japan, Mexico, Canada, everybody. And we're not going to allow that to happen. But we have to have a strong manufacturing base and manufacturing sector. We need a thriving economy. Those are all really essential ingredients to national security. We can't allow what's been happening over the last 25 years to happen. We're building our military like never before, it will be the strongest it ever was. And all of those jets that are made and rockets and missiles and ships, they're all being made in the United States. Jobs. Our economy is booming like never before, jobless claims are at a 50-year low, the stock market is at an all-time high. Think of that. Over 50 percent since my election, 50 percent. People, the 401(k)s and they have 401(k)s and they were dying with them for years, 11:40:53 now they're so happy. I was telling the story I often tell of a policeman in New York came up, his wife was always very upset with him as an investor because he wasn't doing well with the 401(k)s. Now she thinks he's a genius because the numbers are so crazy. But we're up over 50 percent since the election. And you've heard me say this many time, but African-American unemployment, Asian unemployment, Hispanic unemployment is at record lows in history; not, you know, for the last two years, the history of our country, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, young people without high school diplomas, all at historic -- that's a very important sector -- all at historic lows, the lowest in history, it's really something that's great. This is helping so much with people that get out of prison. We have a tremendous problem. People come out of prison, they can't get a job, employers don't want to hire them. The economy is so good they're hiring them and they're turning out to be incredible workers. They're given a chance -- they're really given a second -- given a third chance in some cases. But I've had numerous employers come up say, "I'll tell you what, I've taken people that were in prison and we've hired them" -- he wouldn't have done this in a normal economy or a bad economy, only in this kind of an economy. 11:42:25 And now he's like the biggest fan. One man in particular has taken numerous people. He said most of them have been unbelievable. All you can ask is most. But most of them have been unbelievable. That's a great thing. That's a really great thing. It gives them a chance. So before we take questions, I want to extend our warmest condolences to the country of Indonesia. Friend of mine, we're going to be calling up the leader, who is a great leader indeed. They got hit by a giant tsunami like people have not seen -- this part of the world hasn't seen it so much fortunately. They say that's the worst of all, you look at the tornadoes, the hurricanes, you look at all of the different natural disasters -- friend of mine who studies natural disasters, I don't know why he does that, but he does -- he says that tsunami is the worst of all. TRUMP: And they got hit very hard and probably thousands of people killed. We have already sent a lot of first responders and military and others to help, but it's a really bad, bad situation. 11:43:39 And finally, before closing, I want to send our thoughts and prayers to the victims of the Las Vegas shooting. That was a horrible, horrible time in the life of our country. Took place exactly one year ago today. All of America is grieving for the lives lost, and for the families they left behind. So to all of those families, and to the people of Las Vegas, we love you, we are with you, we're working with you very hard. That was a terrible, terrible event. So thank you very much for that. I want to ask Bob Lighthizer, who is just a terrific individual, as well as a man that knows a lot about this subject, to come up and say a word about the USMCA, the new agreement. And if you have any questions, we'll take some questions after that, please. Bob? (APPLAUSE) LIGHTHIZER: Thank you, Mr. President. 11:44:49 Before I start, I would just like to give a vignette, because I think it says something about working for the president. So, August 16th of last year, we started this process. And I'm at a hotel in Washington, and there's, like, you know, hundreds and hundreds of people waiting to have the introduction of myself and my two counterparts, one from Canada and one from the United States. And I'm getting -- we're lined up, and I -- and I get a call that says, "The president wants to talk to you." So I go in a little anteroom, and I get the -- the cell phone, and the president starts talking, and everybody's kind of waiting, and he's talking, and he's going through what he wants to get done in NAFTA, and his problems with it, and all of which he's quite familiar with. And then he finally says two things which I thought were telling. One, he said, "Bob, I will back you up like no other USTR's been backed up in history." And then, the second thing -- he did that, by the way. And then the second thing he said was, he said, "Now go out there and have fun." (LAUGHTER) I thought, "Well, it's probably not going to be as much fun for my side as it will be from your side." But I'm proud to be on your team, and I really am proud to -- to -- to follow you through this and the other -- and the other trade changes. As you have said, Mr. President, this agreement is historic in many ways. The USMCA will cover $1.2 trillion, easily making it the biggest agreement in history. We have done this in 14 months, 11:46:13 and believe me, in trade-negotiating terms, that's like warp speed. When we began these negotiations last year, the president's instructions to me were precise and straightforward: Protect American workers, fight for our farmers and ranchers, preserve America's competitive innovation edge, secure greater access for our businesses and, above all, bring back jobs to America. I think we have succeeded with this agreement. The USMCA will accelerate the manufacturing renaissance our country has enjoyed under President Trump, it will bring our trading relationship with Mexico and Canada into the 21st century, and it will protect America's competitive age in digital and -- and innovation across the economy. The new agreement will also serve as a template for our trade agreements under the Trump -- the Trump administration in the future. LIGHTHIZER: This paradigm-shifting model rests on three pillars. The first pillar is fairness. We have negotiated stronger rules of origin for automobiles, which will bring billions of dollars of manufacturing back to America. 11:47:31 We have secured greater market access for our farmers and ranchers. We've agreed to unprecedented labor standards that will help level the playing field for our workers. We've also agreed to a first-of-its-kind review and termination provision, which will ensure that the USMCA, unlike NAFTA, will not become unbalanced and out of date. The second pillar will consist of a host of ambitious provisions on digital trade, intellectual property, services, including financial services, designed to protect our competitive edge. The third pillar consists of new provisions designed to eliminate unfair trade practices, including strong new disciplines on state-owned enterprises, on currency manipulation, relations with nonmarket economies and much, much more. We wouldn't be here today if it were not for several people who contributed so much to this endeavor. First, the president's key adviser and my good friend, Jared Kushner, who was my partner in leading the U.S. negotiating team. (APPLAUSE) 11:48:43 I've said before, and I'll say again, this agreement would not have happened if it wasn't for -- for Jared. So thank you very much. I'd like to thank my counterparts, Secretary Guajardo and Minister Freeland, as well as other Mexican and Canadian government officials, including Secretary Videgaray and Ambassador (inaudible), Gerry Butts and Katie Telford of Canada, and so many more. I'd also like to thank the wonderful staff at USTR, many of whom are on here. I'd like to think of us a little bit like we were the Marine Corps, and so I like the name particularly of this -- this agreement. USTR is about 250 people, and they're all devoted, and they're all exceptional, and they all work around the clock. Many of the people you're are looking at spent more than one night in the office over the course of the last few weeks. And they have enormous ability, and this president has unleashed them. Finally, I would like to thank President Trump. Your leadership, vision and grit made this agreement possible. No other person could have done it. Millions of Americans... (APPLAUSE) ... will benefit for years to come because of this vision and, probably even more important, this grit. Thank you, sir. TRUMP: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) 11:50:11 Thank you very much, Bob. Thank you very much. Some questions? Yes, Steve (ph), question? QUESTION: Thank you, sir. You -- you've had tensions with Prime Minister Trudeau. TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: How did that affect your ability to get this deal done? 11:50:30 TRUMP: I don't think it did. He's a professional. I'm a professional. We had very strong tensions. It was just an unfair deal, whether it was Mexico or Canada, and now it's a fair deal for everybody. It's a much different deal. It's a brand-new deal. It's not NAFTA redone; it's a brand-new deal. I just spoke with him. We have a great relationship, and we're going to work as a partner. Don't forget, the rest of the world is looking to take advantage of us, and -- as a region, you might say. And we're going to work very closely together with Canada and with Mexico, because we'll be able to compete with anybody. We have -- we have things that nobody else has. We have energy that nobody else has. We have timber that nobody else has. We have things that no other part of the world has to the extent that we have. So we're going to do very well together. TRUMP: I think we have -- there was a lot of tension, I will say, between he and I, I think more specifically. And it's all worked out. You know when it ended? About 12 o'clock last night. QUESTION: And you mentioned... TRUMP: But he's a good man. He's done a good job and he loves the people of Canada. QUESTION: You mentioned the $267 billion in possible more tariffs on China. What does China need to do to avoid that? 11:51:44 TRUMP: Well, we'll see what happens with China. We have lost $375 billion in trade deficits. They have a surplus of $375 billion -- with a B -- with United States, and it's been that way for years and years and years. I always say we rebuilt China. They took that money and they built fighter jets and they built bridges. They built more bridges that we built in the last hundred years, probably. Big ones like the George Washington Bridge, like big bridges. 11:52:15 And I'm not to take -- you know -- look, I don't blame China. I blame our leadership. They should have never let that happen. And I told that to President Xi. I said, you know -- I was making a speech in China and I was really hitting China hard. And I'm in China. I don't know if that's a good thing to do. But I looked at it and I said, "But, you know, I don't really blame you. I blame our leadership for allowing this to happen." He knew exactly what I meant. We had no deal with China. I asked one of the top people in China; a representative at the highest level came to the Oval Office. I said, "Let me ask you, 11:52:51 how did this ever happen?" He's a pro so he -- he doesn't have to be cute. He said, "Nobody ever did anything from the United States. When we put on a 25 percent tariff on every car that comes from the United States into China, we thought we would be rebuked, we thought it would be terrible. Nobody ever called. Nobody did anything." That was years ago. And we charge them nothing. Two and a half, but we don't collect it. We do now, by the way. But we don't collect the two and a half. 11:53:26 So they charge 25, we charge essentially nothing. But I said, "How did that happen?" He said, "Nobody ever called." We don't have a deal with China. There is no deal. They do whatever they want. So we have a tremendous problem with theft of intellectual property with China. We have a lot of other problems with China. We have primarily trade problems. And, as you know, they're having a much more difficult time now. I don't want them to have a difficult time. And we're doing better than we've ever done. Everybody talked about the tariffs. "Oh, the tariffs, tariffs." You know, tariffs ended in 1913. And they then went to a different system in 1918, totally unrelated. And then in 1928, you had the Great Depression. For a lot of different reasons, not necessarily our country's fault, but a little bit our country's fault. And then in the 1930s, they said, "We better start charging some tariffs. We need money to come into our country again." OK? So I'm not advocating tariffs. I will tell you this: Our steel industry, Wilbur (ph), is stronger than it's been in 25 years. This has taken six months because I charge for the dumpers. They were dumping steel and dumping aluminum into our country. 11:54:45 I charge 25 percent. That's a lot. Could be more, but that's a lot. And if you look at U.S. Steel and Nucor -- Nucor just announced a billion dollar plant. Brand-new. Already started construction. U.S. Steel's building eight or nine plants. They're expanding plants. I don't think there's any industry like what's happened to steel in the last nine months, 10 months, since I really started doing what I'm doing. It's been really pretty amazing. Aluminum also. (CORRECTED COPY: CORRECTS "THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT") TRUMP: So -- and we need steel. We need steel for defense. What are we going to do? Go and say, "Oh, we'll get our steel from a -- like, another country?" Can't do that -- excuse me -- we can't do that. So we need steel and we need it badly for defense. So, I'm very proud of what's happened with the steel industry. OK, question? Yes, go ahead. Sure. She's shocked that I picked her. Like in a state of shock. (CORRECTED COPY: CORRECTS "THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT") QUESTION: I'm not, thank you, Mr. President. TRUMP: That's OK, I know you're not thinking. You never do. QUESTION: I'm sorry? TRUMP: No, go ahead. Go ahead. 11:55:50 VEGA: In a tweet this weekend, Mr. President, you said that it's incorrect to say you're limiting the scope of the FBI investigation. TRUMP: What does that have to do trade? I don't mind answering the question. But, you know, I'd like to do the trade questions too. QUESTION: It has to do with the other headline in the news, which is the Kavanaugh nomination. TRUMP: No, but, I know, but how about talking about trade and then we'll get to that? We'll do that a little bit later. QUESTION: Do you think the trade... TRUMP: Anybody have a trade -- go ahead. QUESTION: Do you think you trade deal will pass through Congress, sir? 11:56:10 TRUMP: I think so. But, you know, if doesn't, we have lots of other alternatives. But I do think so. I think if they're fair, which is a big question -- but if it's fair on both sides -- the Republicans love it, industry loves it, our country loves it. If it's fair, it will pass. I think it'll pass. I think it'll pass easily, really easily, because it's a great deal. I mean, NAFTA passed, it's one of the worst deals I have ever seen. Inconceivable that it was made. Fair question. Any other questions on trade? QUESTION: Thank you. TRUMP: I'll get back to you on the other question. QUESTION: I'd like to go forward with my Kavanaugh question. TRUMP: Let's do that later. And we'll -- but I'll call you a second time. Go ahead, please. Thank you very much. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You have described India right now as a tariff king. Can you explain it a bit better? 11:56:51 TRUMP: Well, India charges us tremendous tariffs. When we send Harley Davidson motorcycles, other things to India, they charge very, very high tariffs. And I've spoken to Prime Minister Modi and he's going to reduce them very substantially. Nobody every spoke to these people. He said, "Nobody ever spoke to me." In other words, we've had leaders here -- I'm not, you know, trying to be overly dramatic. We've had presidents of the United States and trade representatives, they're not -- they never spoke to India. Brazil's another one. That's a beauty. They charge us whatever they want. If you ask some of the companies they say Brazil is among the toughest in the world -- maybe the toughest in the world. We don't call them and say, "Hey, you're treating our companies unfairly, you're treating our country unfairly." So, India is a very, very high -- they really charge tremendously high tariffs. On motorcycles it was 100 percent. So, you send a motorcycle into India, there's a 100 percent tariff. Now, that's so high that it's like a barrier, in other words, who's going to buy it? Cost you so much. Now they've already reduced that substantially, but it's still too high. 11:58:03 My relationship with India is great, with Prime Minister Modi is great. And they're going to start doing a lot. They've already -- they've called us to make a deal. We didn't even call them, they called us to make a deal, which is, like, shocking to people. Yes, sir, go ahead. Yes? QUESTION: Well, I don't -- there we go. I do have second question on the Kavanaugh thing, when you get back to it, if you'd take that. TRUMP: Let's go. QUESTION: You'll take that now? TRUMP: No, no. QUESTION: OK. Well... TRUMP: We're still on trade. QUESTION: On trade, the question I have on trade, does this mean the end of tariffs, if you could spell that out, to Canada? TRUMP: No. No. QUESTION: So, do you think it will pass? TRUMP: No, no. 11:58:42 The steel is staying where it is, and aluminum. But it means we probably, for the most part, won't be having to use tariffs unless we're unable to make a deal with a country. For instance, if we can't make a deal with the European Union, we will respectfully put tariffs on the cars. The United States will take in billions and billions of dollars into its coffers. Isn't that nice? Because you don't hear that. QUESTION: Only from Carl Sagan. TRUMP: OK. Yeah, Sagan. But it'll take in billion and billions of dollars. But really what's going to happen is, they'll make the cars in the United States, this way they don't have to pay the 25 or the 20 percent tax. QUESTION: And could you spell out... TRUMP: So, I don't think you're going to have to use the tariffs too often. But there will be cases where have countries that are just absolutely not willing to do what's fair and reciprocal. 11:59:28 And in that case, they'll pay tariffs. And you know what? The United States will do very well. Either way, we do very well. QUESTION: So, do you think it'll pass in Canada, Mexico and, more importantly... TRUMP: I don't know... QUESTION: ... here in the United States? TRUMP: I can't tell you. All I know is we made a deal. The highly respected presidents and in the case of Canada, the prime minister, are satisfied with the deal. It's good for Canada, good for Mexico. It's good for all three. This is a deal. I'm not -- this is good for all three. That's good. And just that fact makes it good for us, but this is good for all three. But this is a much different deal than NAFTA. And this is much more of a reciprocal deal for the United States, which is really good. Yes, go ahead, Peter. QUESTION: Are you (inaudible) Kavanaugh briefings as well? TRUMP: No, why don't you just -- we'll do the Kavanaugh questions. I mean, 12:00:16 you talk about being treated harshly. We'll do that in a couple. Let's finish up trade because you have a lot of people who want to run over to the Wall Street Journal and start writing. Go ahead, please. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Mexican journalist. TRUMP: I can't hear you. QUESTION: Will you take one from a Mexican journalist? TRUMP: A Mexican journalist? Go ahead, sure. QUESTION: Yes. It's -- so you're going to keep the tariffs on steel and aluminum on Mexico and Canada? TRUMP: Until such time as we can do something that would be different, like quotas perhaps, 12:00:45 so that our industry is protected. We're not going to allow our steel industry to disappear. It was almost gone. I'll tell you what, if our country kept going the way it was going, within two years you wouldn't have had a steel industry. We have to have a steel industry. We have to have an aluminum. You know, there are certain industries important. So we are working on that now. That wasn't part of this. But we will do something. And, in fact, Bob, if you want you may want to say a couple of words about that because we were literally talking about that one hour ago. LIGHTHIZER: Great. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess I would say, first of all, they're two separate things as far as we're concerned. We know that there are grave interests to both countries. We are engaging in talks now with an effort to try to preserve the effect of our program and still take care of their needs. 12:01:30 And hopefully we'll be able to work that out. But we are in communication with them. TRUMP: And really take care of the needs of our steel companies. I don't want plants closing. They're hiring thousands of workers all over the country. I'm not giving that up. QUESTION: But you get assurances to President-elect Lopez Obrador that... TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: ... he's going to keep his word on this (inaudible)? 12:01:50 TRUMP: Oh yes, we have a very good understanding, yes. Really good. Yes, sir. Go ahead, please. QUESTION: Hi, Mr. President. Just hoping you can just reiterate on the tariffs, what specifically would it take for Canada or Mexico to be exempt from these tariffs? And secondly, did you consider diary the deal-breaker... TRUMP: Yeah. QUESTION: ... when it came to Canada? 12:02:11 TRUMP: Dairy was a deal-breaker. And now for our farmers it's, as you know, substantially opened up much more. And I know they can't open it completely. They have farmers also. You know, they can't be overrun. And I fully -- and I tell them that. I say, "Look, I understand you have limits." But they could do much better. And we've opened it up to our farmers, so the folks up in Wisconsin -- I'll tell you what, I went to Wisconsin. I went to Iowa. Joni knows better than anybody, right? And Scott Walker, who I think is a fantastic governor, talks about it all the time that our farmers were not treated properly by Canada. Now they're going to be treated with respect. They're going to be treated fairly, 12:02:54 or as I say, in that reciprocal way. Very important. Yes, sir. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thanks, Mr. President. It seems there was some give-and-take on both sides for this deal. I wonder what, in your view, would be your biggest concession to Canada and why you decided to make that concession. QUESTION: Number two, if you could dive in a bit more to the -- your thoughts on Justin Trudeau. You talk about tensions. I wonder what -- throughout this process, what you've learned about him and what the state of the relationship is with him today and going forward. 12:03:27 TRUMP: Well, I think my biggest concession would be making the deal, because we are the one that people come and want to take from. I'm talking about every country. And that gives us a tremendous advantage in negotiating that we never used before with past administrations. We never used it. Every deal we have is a loser -- every deal. You could look at almost every country in the world, almost every country, we have trade deficits. We lose with everybody. 12:03:57 So I think my biggest concession was making the deal, because we could have done it a different way. But it would have been nasty, and it wouldn't have been nice, and I don't want to have that. We have a great relationship with Canada. I think now, it'll be better than ever. All -- the only problem with Justin is he loves his people, and he's, you know, 12:04:15 fighting hard for his people. I think we -- you know, we've always had, actually, a very good relationship. It get a little -- got a little bit testy in the last couple of months, but that was over this agreement, and I understand that. But no, I think -- I think Justin's a good person who's doing a good job. He -- he felt very committed to his people, and that's what he did. And again, this is -- this is good for everybody. This is good for Canada, good for Mexico, also. Yes? Yes, please? Please, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. As you mentioned, you're going to be signing this agreement, and your counterparts are going to be signing this agreement... TRUMP: Right. QUESTION: ... within the next 60 days. TRUMP: Right. QUESTION: Then it's up to Congress. TRUMP: Right. QUESTION: You're very confident. I get that. You're a confident guy. TRUMP: Not at all confident. I'm not. I don't know. Hey, Congress... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Well, explain to me why you think that if it's (inaudible)... TRUMP: You tell me. You guys going to sign it? Tell me. I think -- I think they will. QUESTION: If Congress is controlled by Democrats... TRUMP: Could happen. Could be. QUESTION: It could happen. TRUMP: So they're willing to throw... QUESTION: (inaudible) their prospects. 12:05:11 TRUMP: Yeah. They might be willing to throw one of the great deals for people and the workers. They may be willing to do that for political purpose -- you know, people or political purposes. Because, frankly, you know, they'll have 2020 in mind. So far, I dream about 2020 when I look at what's going -- they have 2020 in mind. They want to -- they want to do as well as they can, and so trying to reject even great deals -- like, this is a great deal for our country, great for other countries. But it's a great deal for our country, and great for our workers. I can't tell you whether or not they will obstruct, whether or not they will resist. I mean, their whole campaign is resist. I see their signs all -- "Resist." They don't even know what they're resisting. If you ask them, "What are you resisting?" "Well, let me think about that." They can't ask. They had somebody on this weekend. They said, "What are you resisting?" And they were unable to answer the question. So, you know, I -- I can't tell you about delay, obstruct, resist. Because you know, right after this election -- and I think we're going to do well, although history is not on our side. I guess in history, generally, whoever has the White House doesn't do well in mid-terms. 12:06:21 But -- but the one difference is, we have the greatest economy in the history of our country. I think that's a big difference. And that's one of our problems, too, because people that went out and voted for me -- and they would be voting for me, if I was on the ticket, but I'm not on the ticket. But Congress is on the ticket, and I try and tell my people, "That's the same thing as me, in a sense." That's the same thing. Think of it as the same thing as me. But I think we're going to do well. I actually think -- I mean, we have Senate races that weren't even in play six months ago. When I started looking at it closely, I won't mention names, but there were senators that were not in play. They were not even -- and you know exactly what I'm talking about -- numerous of them. They were not in play. In other words, let's not go here. Let's not go to this state. Four, five states. Now, it's -- they're -- they're like even races. In one case, they're up two points. TRUMP: Now, who knows what happens? And, you know, as you know, there are a lot of them that are repression polls or polls that aren't very accurate, because I see polls that I know are false having to do with certain of the races. 12:07:23 But we had areas and we had congressional seats, too, where I know it's going to be a positive outcome. But you look at what's going on, and it doesn't seem to be broadcast that way. But I certainly had that with my election. They were telling me I was, you know, in trouble in certain states, and I end up winning in a grand -- like in a landslide. And I knew I was going to win them in a landslide, but they wouldn't report it that way. You know why? Fake news. OK. Right behind you... QUESTION: One last thing, Mr. President. TRUMP: Yes, right behind you, please. QUESTION: Do you believe that the trade agreement will be a major issue in the midterm elections? 12:07:58 TRUMP: Well, it shouldn't be. Look, it's a good agreement. These people -- you know, when I first did it, they said, "Oh, why don't you just extend NAFTA?" They have no idea about business. "Just extend NAFTA." That would've been a disaster. We're losing $100 billion a year in deficits, at least -- at least, to Mexico, under NAFTA. But just look at the results -- and a substantial amount to count it all, although, a lot of people try and say it's pretty much even. It's not even. We're losing a substantial amount. So, you know, I think it's a very hard thing to defend, but that's all right. Look, I understand the world of politics, I think, as well as anybody. I haven't been doing it that long, but I actually have been because I've been doing it on the other side. 12:08:38 And I do understand. And, you know, they can take the greatest thing ever done and try to make it sound as bad as possible. But this one's tough. This one -- people are coming out for this one and saying, "That's incredible," what we've been able to do. Yes, behind you, please. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Now that you've answered several questions on trade, I'd like to turn to Judge Kavanaugh. TRUMP: Don't -- don't -- don't do that. Don't do... QUESTION: Mr. President... TRUMP: Do you have -- do you have -- excuse me. Do you have a question on trade? We'll do one or two more questions on trade. 12:09:05 QUESTION: You answered several questions on trade... TRUMP: OK, don't do that. That's not nice. And besides... QUESTION: Mr. President, you said... TRUMP: ... somebody is before you. Excuse me, don't do that. Do you have a question on trade? QUESTION: You answered several questions on trade. TRUMP: Do you have a question on trade? QUESTION: My question is on Judge Kavanaugh. TRUMP: OK, please -- yes, please. QUESTION: You said the FBI should interview whoever that they believe is appropriate. Does that include Julie Swetnick, the third accuser? And then can you promise to release the full findings... 12:09:26 TRUMP: Give me your question, please. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) from the FBI after they finish their report, Mr. President? TRUMP: Give me your question, please. QUESTION: Mr. President... TRUMP: Give her the mic, please. QUESTION: Thank you very much. Was border security or funding... TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: ... for the wall discussed in the negotiation, and who will pay for the wall? TRUMP: Yes, yes. 12:09:41 The wall -- we're getting $1.6 billion for the wall this year. We got $1.6 billion, $1.6 billion. We have about $3.2 billion in the wall. We're doing a lot of work, people don't realize. I don't really want to talk about it because I could build it quickly, at one time, which is what I want. QUESTION: But... TRUMP: But we've been building it over the last year and a half, with $3.2 billion -- $1.6 billion, $1.6 billion, that we now have another $1.6 billion. And I've got a big decision to make after the election, as to whether or not we go forward. Because you know what? Border security to the people of our country, very important. The wall is a big factor in border security. And I really believe that the people of our country, they want the wall and they want border security. They don't want open borders like the Democrats want to have. 12:10:21 They don't want crime pouring into our country. They don't want MS-13 pouring into our country. They don't want that. And I really think I have a very big decision to make sometime right after the election, very quickly, because you know what comes due after the election. Do I want to do it before the election? Personally, yes. But I don't want to do that for a different reason, because I have some very fine people that are running in close races, and it may affect them and it may not. It may be good for them. I happen to think it would be good for them. But border security for our country -- our want people want security. 12:10:53 The women of our country, they want security. They don't want to have thousands of people pouring across the border. And I'll tell you what: They want to have ICE, because ICE walks into MS-13 and these gangs, and they treat them like it's just another day in the office. They're rough and they're tough and they love our country. TRUMP: And I'm treating ICE good, and I'm treating our law enforcement good. And the Democrats don't want to take care of our law enforcement. And the Democrats don't want to take care of our military. 12:11:21 So we are going to have a decision to make sometime right after -- very close to after the election is over, and that will be on border security -- and the wall, but border security. The wall's a big factor. OK, you want to do some questions? (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Well, was that part of the -- but was that part of the conversation and the negotiation that just took place? TRUMP: Yes, it was. Yes, we talked about it. With Mexico, we talked about it. It was a big part, and certain things and certain understandings are had. At the same time, we don't want to mix it up too much. It's a very big deal and a very good deal for everybody. But border security and security generally is a very big factor. We also have drugs sometimes, and some people would say it's a very similar thing. 12:12:01 But we talked about drugs with Mexico. That's a very, very big factor. Very, very big. We have a lot of good understandings and we'll be discussing that with them. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. TRUMP: OK, but it was a factor, absolutely and -- in the deal. OK, let's go, come on. You want to, I guess, get off trade, I don't know, people are falling asleep with trade. I think it's -- to me it's the most exciting thing you can talk about, right? Joni, right? (APPLAUSE) All right, let's go. Come on. 12:12:27 VEGA: Thank you, Mr. President. In a tweet this weekend, you said it's incorrect to say that you're limiting the scope of the FBI investigation into Judge Kavanaugh, but your own statement on Friday made it very clear: You said this investigation must be limited in scope. So which is it? Is there... 12:12:41 TRUMP: Well no, I didn't say anything on Friday. What I said is let the Senate decide; whatever they want to do is OK with me. And also the FBI. I think the FBI should do what they have to do to get to the answer. At the same time, just so we all understand, this is our seventh investigation of a man who has really -- you know, you look at his life until this happened, what a -- what a change he's gone through, what his family's gone through. The trauma for a man that's never had any accusation, any -- he's never had a bad statement about him. He's led -- I mean, I think he was number one in his class at Yale, he was number one in his law school at Yale, 12:13:25 and then what he's gone through over the last three weeks is incredible. So I want the FBI -- this is now their seventh investigation, so it's not like they're, you know, just starting. I want them to do a very comprehensive investigation, whatever that means according to the senators and the Republicans and the Republican majority. I want them to do that. I want it to be comprehensive. I actually think it's a good thing for Judge Kavanaugh. I think it's actually a good thing. Not a bad thing, I think it's a good thing. Now with that being said, 12:14:02 I'd like it to go quickly. And the reason I'd like it to go quickly, very simple. It's so simple. Because it's unfair to him at this point. What his wife is going through, what his beautiful children are going through is not describable. It's not describable. It's not fair. I think it's fair to do it to me, because, you know, I've been going -- from day one, I've been at -- from long before I got to office you've been doing it. It's almost became -- I -- I think for me it's, like, a part of my job description to handle this crap. But as far as -- as far as -- this is a man that this not from his world. 12:14:43 And you know what? If they're not going to want him -- and I think that would be a shame, I'm with him all the way. I mean, a charge made -- was said to have occurred 36 years ago, and nothing happened since then. And look, I feel badly for all parties. I feel badly for everybody. I feel badly for our country. This is so bad for our country. But I will tell you, I watched those senators on the Democrat side, and I thought it was a disgrace. And partially because I know them. I know them too well. And you know what? They are not angels. 12:15:21 QUESTION: Are you saying your White House has put no limitations on who the FBI can speak to... (CROSSTALK) TRUMP: No, my White House is doing whatever the senators want. No, no, you don't understand. QUESTION: ... who they should interview... TRUMP: You don't understand what I'm saying. You do understand. You just don't want to report it that way. Just so you understand, my White House will do whatever the senators want. 12:15:36 I'm open to whatever they want. The one thing I want is speed. Now, they started, I believe, on Friday. It could have even been a little bit earlier than that, but they started. They have worked 'round the clock on Saturday, Sunday, they're working right now. I mean, they're covering a lot of territory. 12:15:56 This is the seventh investigation of Judge Kavanaugh -- number seven. This isn't number one. They started on Friday. They worked all weekend. They've gone late into the evenings. The FBI's really working hard, and they're putting in a lot of hours. So hopefully, they can come up with what everybody's looking for. But no, I'm guided by the Senate. 12:16:20 I want to make the Senate happy, because ultimately, they're making the judgment. I'm not making the judgment. I've already made my judgment. The Senate is making a judgment on Judge Kavanaugh. That's a very important thing to do. Yes, go ahead. Peter, go ahead. QUESTION: Just for clarity, so that -- just for clarity, so that it's clear, in fact, it's up to you to instruct the FBI what (OFF-MIKE). TRUMP: It is up to me. It is up to me. 12:16:46 But I'm instructing them as per what I feel the Senate wants. The Senate's making this decision, and I'm instructing them as per what the Senate is looking for. QUESTION: So just for clarity, will you instruct the White House counsel, Don McGahn, to give the FBI free rein to interview whomever they feel is necessary? 12:17:04 TRUMP: Well, I have so instructed him, and I did it again over the weekend. Because I see the press was -- I don't want to use the word in this case "misleading." It's a much more complex subject than anybody would understand, and that most people understand. But essentially, I have done that, but I did also say, "within the bounds of what the Senate wants." QUESTION: (inaudible) 12:17:24 TRUMP: We don't want to go on a -- to use a -- an expression often used by me, we don't want to go to witch hunt, do we? QUESTION: So just to be clear, should the FBI interview all three of Brett Kavanaugh's accusers? 12:17:37 TRUMP: It wouldn't bother me at all. Now, it depends: I don't know all three of the accusers. QUESTION: Did you order them to do all three? TRUMP: Certainly, I imagine they're going to interview two. The third one, I don't know much about, but it wouldn't bother me at all. I mean, I've been -- heard that the third one has -- I have no idea if this is true -- has very little credibility. If there is any credibility, interview the third one. But I want to interview -- I want it to be done quickly, because it's unfair to the family and to the judge. It's unfair. It's so unfair to his kids and his -- his wife. QUESTION: How about for the -- how about for the accusers? Has this process been fair to them? 12:18:17 TRUMP: Well, certainly, we gave the doctor a tremendous time, which is great. She spoke well. But, you know, there are some questions that haven't been answered, like what year was it? What day was it? Where was it? Do you know the location? Do you know the house? A lot of different things. People are saying, "Well, you know, what's going on?" With all of that, you cannot say that we've done anything but be respectful. And -- and I -- and I do, and I respect her position very much. I respect her position very much. 12:18:53 I believe -- and again, this is Republican senators, and this is the Senate. I believe they've been very respectful to the doctor, Dr. Ford. QUESTION: Isn't that why the FBI should interview all of them, to exonerate Brett Kavanaugh, in your opinion? TRUMP: Well, yeah, Peter, 12:19:07 I think the FBI should interview anybody that they want within reason. But you have to say "within reason." They should interview, but they should also be guided -- and I'm being guided -- by what the senators are looking for, because they have to make the choice. Go ahead. Now you can go. QUESTION: Should Brett Kavanaugh be interviewed by the FBI? TRUMP: I think so. I think it's fine if they do. I don't know. That's up to them. I think that he spoke very conclusively and very well. I think it's been a very rough period of time. I guarantee he's never had a period of time like this. When he was chosen, everybody said, "Oh, this is going to go so quickly." Look, 12:19:47 people thought, 10 years ago, that Brett Kavanaugh was going to be a Supreme Court justice, because of his intellect, because of his career, because of the fact that there are no games. You know, now they talk about alcohol. They talk about all of the things that you hear. And frankly, you take a look at -- they're bringing up subjects -- we would know about this over the last 20 years, 30 years of his career. You know, what happened? They're going back to high school, and they're saying he drank a lot one evening in high school. We - 12:20:19 you know, I'll tell you what. I happen to know some United States senators -- one who is, on the other side, who's pretty aggressive. I've seen that person in very bad situations, OK. I've seen that person in very, very bad situations; somewhat comprising. And, you know, I think it's very unfair to bring up things like this. However, whatever the senators want is OK with me. They're going to be making a decision. Whatever they want is OK with me. Go ahead. QUESTION: (Inaudible). TRUMP: That's enough, Peter. Go, please. QUESTION: What do you mean by "this crap" (ph)? (OFF-MIKE) for clarity, sir? TRUMP: Say it. QUESTION; You said, "this crap," when you referred -- "I've been dealing with this crap for years," what did you mean... TRUMP: Oh, I think the press has treated me unbelievably unfairly. 12:21:08 In fact, when I won -- I said the good thing is, "Now the press finally gets it. Now they'll finally treat me fairly." They got worse. They're worse now than ever. They're loco. But that's OK. I put up with it. Go ahead. 12:21:30 QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. TRUMP: I use that word because of the fact that we made a deal with Mexico, so. No, no, please, sit down. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President, for going back to me. I... TRUMP: You're going to be next. You're going to be next. QUESTION: Sorry, I didn't know. I thought you were talking (ph). TRUMP: Go ahead. QUESTION: I have two questions about Judge Kavanaugh. First, they are now concerns that he may have lied or mischaracterized his drinking while testifying. If they find that he did, do you think that bars him from being your Supreme Court nominee? 12:21:47 TRUMP: Well, I've -- I watched him. I was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer. And he's had a little bit of difficulty. I mean, he talked about things that happened when he drank. I mean, this is not a man that said that alcohol was -- that he was perfect with respect to alcohol. No, I thought he was actually -- going back so many years, I thought he was excellent. The interesting thing is, though, nobody asked him about what's happened in the last 25 years, 30 years, during his professional career. Because I - 12:22:22 there were no bad reports. I mean, there are bad reports on everybody in here. Most of the people sitting down, there are bad -- except for Mike Pence, by the way. (LAUGHTER) And if we find one on him, then I'm -- I think that's -- that's going to be -- that'll be the greatest shock of all time. No, there are bad reports on everybody. I'm looking at people. I'm, sort of -- look at some of these people asking the questions, OK. Look at Blumenthal, he lied about Vietnam. He didn't just say, "Hey, I went to Vietnam." No, no. For 15 years, he said he was a war hero. He fought in Da Nang Province. We call him "Da Nang Richard." "Da Nang," that's his nickname, "Da Nang." He never went to Vietnam. And he's up there saying, "We need honesty, and we need integrity." This guy lied when he was the attorney general of Connecticut. He lied. I don't mean a little bit. And then when he got out -- he actually dropped out the race and he won anyway, because Democrats always win in Connecticut. 12:23:22 He won very close, probably the closest ever. TRUMP: But here's a guy that lied, and now he's up there talking like he's holier than thou. You know what? Take a look at his record. And when he got out and when he apologized, he was crying, the tears were all over the place, 12:23:37 and now he acts like, "How dare you." Take a look at the judge, who has led an exemplary life. I mean, you're going back to high school because he had beer? I think the judge has been pretty amazing about describing his situation with alcohol and with beer. I mean, take a look at Cory Booker. He ran Newark, New Jersey, into the ground, he was a horrible mayor, and he made statements that when he was in high school or college, what he was doing -- he actually made the statements. And now he's talking about Judge Kavanaugh. And I could go through a whole list of them, OK? Look at Dianne Feinstein. QUESTION: So... 12:24:20 TRUMP: You're telling me about time. Dianne Feinstein knew about this two months earlier. If she wanted a -- a really thorough investigation, we had all the time in the world. She didn't have to wait until after the hearing was closed, essentially. She should have said, "Listen, I have a problem. I have this report. I'd like the FBI to look at it while we're doing the hearings." We had two months. No, she didn't do that. She waited until we were closed and then she probably leaked it, but, you know, who am I to say? But she probably leaked it based on her very bad body language the other day. 12:25:01 But more importantly, in a sense, for her to have waited that period of time and now for you Democrats -- and I guess I'm including you too, the media, right? I consider you a part of the Democrat Party. But for you -- for the Democrats to be talking about, "We want more time for the FBI," if you wanted more time for the FBI, why didn't Dianne Feinstein bring this up? Now, you know that she showed this to other Democrats. She's not the only one. She showed this to other Democrats. 12:25:31 There were more than just her that knew about this big confidential thing. It was confidential until the hearing was over. After the hearing was over, they went public. Why didn't they do it during the hearing, and we could have had all the time in the world? You know why? Because they're dishonest people. OK, yes, please. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) you didn't answer my question, Mr. President. QUESTION: Mr. President -- Mr. President. TRUMP: Go ahead. QUESTION: You didn't answer my question, Mr. President. 12:25:53 So if he did lie about his drinking, does that mean you'll pull his nomination? TRUMP: I don't think he did. QUESTION: OK. 12:25:57 TRUMP: I -- look, here's -- here's what -- I'm just saying, I'm not a drinker. I can honestly say I never had a beer in my life, OK? QUESTION: Right. TRUMP: It's one of my only good traits. I don't drink. (LAUGHTER) Whenever they're looking for something, I'm going to say, "I never had a glass of alcohol." I've never had alcohol. I've just -- you know, for whatever reason. Can you imagine if I had what a mess I'd be? Would I be the -- I'd be the world's worst. But I never drank. I never drank, OK? QUESTION: Well... TRUMP: But I can tell you, I watched that hearing and I watched a man saying that he did have difficulty as a young man with drink. The one question I didn't ask is how about the last 20 years? Have you had difficulty the last 20 years? Because nobody said anything bad about him in many, many years. They go back to high school. You know, I graduated from high school, and -- and I -- while I did not drink, I saw a lot of people drinking. They'd drink beer and they'd go crazy and, you know, they were high school. They were 16, 17 years old, and I saw a lot of it. Does that mean that they can't do something that they want to do with their life? So it's a very tough thing. I -- I really believe that he was very strong on the fact that he drank a lot and -- so I don't know where there'd be big discrepancy. Yes, go ahead, please. 12:27:09 QUESTION: OK, so -- so just to wrap up, can you promise to release the FBI's report... (CROSSTALK) TRUMP: You know what? You've really had enough. Hey, you've had enough. Go ahead, please. QUESTION: Thanks, Mr. President. 12:27:20 Judge Kavanaugh said he was being targeted by Democrats. Has he made the process overly political? And how can you assure the American people that he'll be able to deliver impartial decisions? TRUMP: Well, you'll have to ask him that question. But I can tell you, he's been treated horribly. QUESTION: But how does that affect his judicial judgment? TRUMP: He's a good man. 12:27:35 He's a good man with a great family. I think he's been treated horribly. Lindsey Graham was, I thought, terrific the other day. And he brought up one point that is now being discussed by a lot of people, and that's, who is going to want to run for office, be in office, take an appointment of, not just Supreme Court, 12:27:57 but, you know, many, many positions? I have right now 360 people that aren't being approved. They're very qualified. Nobody says they're not qualified, but Senator Schumer's not approving them because of resist and obstruct. It's much longer than ever in the history of our country; like, I think, double the time, almost. It's far more people than anybody in the history of our country. Most of those people are routine approvals. These are people that gave up jobs. They gave up their life to come and serve our country, and Schumer and his group won't approve them. They're slow-walking them. Everything is going at 30 hours, meaning they take them out 30 hours. Person that's going to be approved -- it's a disgrace. So when the judge brings up whether it's politics or not, I don't know. You'd have to ask him. But I can say this: He's been treated really, really horribly. QUESTION: But are you concerned it will color (inaudible)... TRUMP: Please, go ahead. I'm not concerned, no, no. 12:28:52 You know what I'm concerned? That we get great, great people on the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what I'm concerned. And I want to have great people, and I don't want to have to call people for any court, and have them say, "Sir, it's such a great honor, but no thank you. I just can't do it. I just can't do it." That'd be a sad day for our country. And we're going to come close to that, because I know people now that say, "I don't know how he does it. I don't know why he would have taken it." Nobody knew a thing like this could have happened. When -- when Justice -- now-Justice Gorsuch got approved, it was rough, but it was nothing like -- what they're doing to this man, and what they're coming up with. And in many cases, fabricated, because as you know, many stories were pulled back, and certain stories were pulled back that were horrible. What they're doing to this man and his family is very, very sad, and very bad for our nation. Yes? QUESTION: Mr. President, you just said some senators are not angels, and you've seen some of them in very... TRUMP: I would say some of them, yes. QUESTION: ... compromising situations. TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: Could you tell us who, and exactly what situation you've seen them in? (LAUGHTER) 12:29:55 TRUMP: No, no, I think I'll save it for a book, like everybody else, and I'll write it, OK? (LAUGHTER) I'm not giving it to you. Yeah, please, go ahead. QUESTION: Mr. President, if the FBI finds other witnesses who can corroborate the account of any of the accusers, would that be enough for you to... 12:30:10 TRUMP: I would -- I would certainly look at that. I'm open. I'm open. I think he's a fine man. I think he's a great scholar. I still believed him when he -- when he said what he did, he focused on being number one at Yale, on being number one in high school, at being number one at law. He focused. I can so understand that. I mean, it's -- it was such a -- at some point, the way he said that, it was -- it made an impact on me. He was so focused on being number one at Yale, and I believe he was number one at Yale. But I understood that very well. QUESTION: And I wanted to ask about something else you brought up today, the Las Vegas shooting. TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: There's some frustration that more hasn't been done in that past year, more hasn't been done about bump stocks. Are there some things you would like to see done? 12:30:55 TRUMP: Well, we -- no, no, you're wrong. You're wrong about that. QUESTION: Yeah, go ahead. TRUMP: So in order to eliminate, terminate bump stocks, we have to go through a procedure. We are now at the final stages of that procedure. In fact, the lawyers were just telling me, and over the next couple of weeks I'll be able to write it up. But you can't just write it up, because rules and regulations in this country are really tough, even for something like that. TRUMP: So we're knocking out bump stocks. I've told the NRA. I've told it, bump stocks are gone. But to do it, you have to go to public hearings, which we've had. You have to go through all sorts of regulatory control systems, and we are in the final couple of weeks, and I'll be -- is -- is our attorney around someplace, please? He said we're in the final -- we're in the final two or three weeks, and I'll be able to write out bump stocks. But it's a process that takes -- statutorily, it takes about a year to do it. QUESTION: And any other... TRUMP: To do it properly. QUESTION: ... any other actions you're planning to help prevent a situation like this? 12:31:52 TRUMP: Yeah, and we're working also with Congress on both sides. We are -- we are working on a lot of different things happening (ph). That was a horrible thing. But we're working on both sides of that question. And the bump stock is almost gone. But again, to do it so it -- it's meaningful -- the lawyer just said it -- yeah, we've gone through a whole procedure. If you look in fact you could -- you could call Derek (ph), who you know very well, and he's gone through the full procedure. We've done it absolutely by the book, and in a very short period of time bump stocks will be ruled out. OK? QUESTION: All right -- all right, thank you. TRUMP: Yes? You -- you've had one, yes -- yes, ma'am. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) TRUMP: Go ahead, please. Please, please, please, sit down. QUESTION: Mr. President, a final trade question. Since steel and aluminum tariffs won't be coming down from Canada and Mexico, can you talk about whether there was discussion of ending those retaliatory tariffs against U.S. farmers and ranchers? TRUMP: Well, they're not retaliatory. 12:32:47 They're really trying to get some really bad things from happening. They were dumping in our country, and it was China and various others were dumping massive amounts of dead steel. It's called dead steel. It's also imperfect steel. Inside that steel was a lot of bad things that make for a weaker steel. So when we're building bridges and you have mud steel (ph) or you have other quantities of other material in that steel, that's a very bad thing. It's very unsafe. So it's not just economic. It's -- you know, we have -- the miners have been very thankful for one of the -- you saw that the other night in West Virginia. And we have metallurgic coal and other materials, we have mines that are opening up now to get that incredible stuff. This is used not for heating and cooling. This is used -- and electric -- this is used to make steel. 12:33:46 And those mines are now opening up and we're making steel, and the price is end -- going to end up being less, because we don't have the shipping problems, when you ship it from places so far away. You'll see. We'll have hundreds of new plants opened up in our country and they'll be competing against each other and outsiders won't be able to compete. Just so you understand what was going to happen, they were going to knock out every steel plant we had and then they were going to double and triple the price and we couldn't have done anything about it. It's a very dangerous thing. And we've employed a lot of people and billions of dollars is now flowing into our treasury. OK, yeah, in the back, please. Please? QUESTION: Staying here on -- on trade, the stock market has liked the announcement today. When we walked in here, the Dow was up 250 points or so. There are some who are worried that, because of the threat of future tariffs, it could potentially stifle an economy that is hot, a stock market that is hot. But yet today you have once again said, "Hey, as it relates to China, more tariffs could be coming down the line." Are you worried that potentially you are somewhat suppressing this economy from running further? TRUMP: No, no, no. No, 12:34:51 I'm using them to negotiate. And hopefully we can make a great deal with China. A fair deal. And a reciprocal deal, but a great deal and a fair deal. We have a lot of catching-up to do with China. You know, when they drain us for $500 billion a year, which is probably the real number -- and that's not including the theft of intellectual property and other things. And a lot of people say -- it's hard to value, but a lot of people say that could be $300 billion a year. That's a tremendous -- you can't let -- you just can't let that happen. No, we're using tariffs very successfully to negotiate, and if we're unable to make a fair deal, then we'll use tariffs. But Mexico and -- if you look at Mexico and Canada, they're way beyond that. We have a deal that really works. And the nice part about the deal we make with them is it's not a specific product; it's a product all across the line, whether it's dairy, or -- you know, just a lot of -- a lot of product. You see the list of products. There are many, many products, 12:35:49 and they're all included, so it's across the board. QUESTION: Mr. President, with -- with China -- one more on trade, if you don't mind. TRUMP: Go ahead. Go ahead. QUESTION: Mr. President, if the FBI does find something, and Brett Kavanaugh falls, is there a Plan B? 12:36:06 TRUMP: I -- I don't want to talk about Plan B, because I think -- I hope that he gets approved. I hope that the report comes out like it should -- like I really think it should. I think it will. I hope. I hope. But look, I'm waiting just like you. Certainly, if they find something, I'm going to take that into consideration. Absolutely. I -- I have a very open mind. The person that takes that position is going to be there for a long time. I have a very open mind. I just think he's an outstanding person. I think he has been treated horribly. Even if you were going to bring up some of the subjects that were brought up, they didn't have to treat him so viciously and so violently as they've treated him. OK, thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. (APPLAUSE) END

WH USMCA REMARKS UNI STIX FS32 80 PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCES A TRADE DEAL WITH THE US, MEXICO AND CANADA / USMCA THAT WILL REPLACE NAFTA, THE NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT. STIX / HEADON D.C. Slugs: 1050 WH USMCA REMARKS UNI STIX FS32 80; AR: 16x9 NYRS: WASH-3, WASH-4 TRUMP: Thank you. Thank you very much. Please, sit down. It's really great to see everybody on this beautiful, beautiful day in Washington, D.C. Some people say "the swamp," but I will not say that today. (LAUGHTER) I refuse. This is too -- too important, what we're doing, one of the most important deals, and the most important trade deal we've ever made, by far. TRUMP: I want to thank Senator Joni Ernst for being here. Joni, thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) 11:19:30 Of Iowa. And I'll be there very soon. We'll be doing something very important in Iowa. But this is maybe more important than all of it put together, right, Joni? So I want to thank you for being here. Congressman Holding, Congressman Roe, Congressman Newhouse and Congressman Meadows, thank you all for being here. We very much appreciate it. You've been very instrumental. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) I am thrilled to speak to the American people to share truly historic news for our nation, and indeed for the world. I want to thank Vice President Pence for joining us this morning. It's my great honor to announce that we have successfully completed negotiations on a brand new deal to terminate and replace NAFTA 11:20:23 and the NAFTA trade agreement with an incredible new U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement called USMCA. It sort of just works, MCA. (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: USMCA. And that'll be the name I guess that 99 percent of the time we'll be hearing, USMCA. Has a good ring to it. I have long contended that NAFTA was perhaps the worst trade deal ever made. Since NAFTA's adoption, the United States racked up trade deficits totaling more than $2 trillion, and it's a much higher number than that. With Canada and Mexico it lost vast amounts of money 11:21:09 and lost 4.1 million manufacturing jobs and one in four auto jobs -- lost about 25 percent of our auto jobs -- even more than that. Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA and today we have kept that promise. But for 25 years as a civilian, as a businessman, I used to say, "How could anybody have signed a deal like NAFTA?" And I watched New England and so many other places where I was -- just the factories were leaving, the jobs were leaving, people were being fired. And we can't have that. So we have negotiated this new agreement based on the principle of fairness and reciprocity. To me, it's the most important word in trade, because we've been treated so unfairly by so many nations all over the world that we're changing that. Just signed a much better deal with South Korea. We had a horrible, horrible deal and we just signed that at the United Nations. And that's worked out well, and they're happy, we're happy. It's good for jobs, good for a lot of things. When that deal was signed, they said 250,000 jobs will be given by signing this transaction and they were right. I've said it before, they were right: 11:22:27 250,000 jobs to South Korea, not to the United States. So that's changed and very much for the better and this one is a brand new deal. The agreement will govern nearly $1.2 trillion in trade, which makes it the biggest trade deal in the United States' history. I want to congratulate U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer, who has worked -- nobody understands how hard he's worked. (APPLAUSE) No matter when you called him, he was in the office or he was in somebody else's office doing the same thing. Bob Lighthizer's great. I've heard it for years. I said, "If I ever do this, I want to get Lighthizer to represent us," because he felt the way I did. TRUMP: And the entire team at the USTR standing behind me and some right here in the audience, I want to thank you all. (APPLAUSE) Fantastic job. Peter Navarro, everybody. Thank you all. Thank you. 11:23:35 Fantastic group of people. They love our country. I also want to thank Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, Secretary Nielsen, Secretary Perdue, Jared Kushner, Peter Navarro and the United States ambassador to Canada, Kelly Craft. Thank you. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) I also want to thank President Pena Nieto of Mexico, who -- we had a few disagreements, but I really like him a lot. I think he may like me. I'm not sure. (LAUGHTER) But I think he's a terrific person. And he'll be leaving soon, but he's really done a good job, and wonderful, wonderful person. And the Mexican president-elect, Lopez Obrador, who has given his support to this agreement, and we're developing a really good relationship, which I think is very important for our country, frankly, and for Mexico. And so they worked together on this. This was done by both. I said, "Look, I don't want to sign an agreement, and then a new president comes in, they don't like it, and we have difficulty." They worked very much together on it, and I appreciate it from both. I have to certainly give my highest regards to Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau. A lot of stories came out about Justin and I having difficulty together, and we did, over the trade deal. But I'll tell you, it's turned out to be a very, very good deal for both, and a very, very good deal for all three. It puts us in a position that we've never been in before. 11:25:14 It's very good when you look at the world and what the world is doing, and what -- when you look at the unfair trade practices that countries are using against the United States. This is a terrific deal for all of us. Once approved by Congress, this new deal will be the most modern, up-to-date and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country, with the most advanced protections for workers ever developed. If you look at the reviews, people that would normally not, under any circumstances, say good things, because automatically, they have to say bad -- even some Democrats say, "That's amazing." We had some -- they're -- they haven't been given the soundbites yet, I guess, Mike. But actually, you had some Democrats say, "This is really amazing, if he really got all of that." But by tomorrow, I would suspect they'll change their tune, but that's OK, because people know how good it is. It's an amazing deal for a lot of people. 11:26:11 Likewise, it will be the most advanced trade deal in the world, with ambitious provisions on the digital economy, patents -- very important -- financial services and other areas where the United States has a strong competitive advantage. Mexico and Canada have agreed to strong new labor protections, environmental protections and new protections for intellectual property. So important. This new deal is an especially great victory for our farmers. Our farmers have gone through a lot over the last 15 years. They've been taken advantage of by everybody. Prices have gone way down. And we're working on some other deals that are going to make them very happy, also. But this a very, very big deal for our farmers. Mexico and Canada will be opened up a lot more than they are now, and I think there'll be a better spirit between the three countries, which is important for our farmers. 11:27:14 TRUMP: The agreement will give our farmers and ranchers far greater access to sell American-grown produce in Mexico and in Canada. The deal includes a substantial increase in our farmers' opportunities to export American wheat, poultry, eggs and dairy, including milk, butter, cheese, yogurt and ice cream, to name a few. I want to be very specific. (APPLAUSE) I want to be very specific. Right? And many other products, but those products were not really being treated fairly, as far as those that work so hard to produce them, and now they're going to be treated fairly. These measures will support many hundreds of thousands of American jobs. This is also a historic win for American manufacturers and American autoworkers, who have been treated so badly. We've lost so many jobs over the years under NAFTA. 11:28:15 Under the current new deal -- and if you look at the current NAFTA deal -- the new deal is taking care of all of these problems, because NAFTA, foreign companies have been allowed to manufacture many of their parts overseas, ship them to Mexico and Canada for assembling, and send their foreign-made cars into the United States with no tax. So, we let all our people go, we fire everybody, they make cars, they make products, they make everything in another country, they send them into the United States, no tax. And the cost is very little difference, sometimes it's more. for those people that like to talk about cost. With this agreement, we are closing all of these terrible loopholes. They're closed. They're gone. They were a disaster. For example, we are requiring a large portion of every car to be made by high-wage workers, which will greatly reduce foreign outsourcing, which was a tremendous problem, 11:29:16 and means more auto parts and automobiles will be manufactured inside the United States. We will be manufacturing many more cars. And our companies won't be leaving the United States, firing their workers and building their cars elsewhere. There's no longer that incentive. Before, under the NAFTA deal, they had that incentive. They have the opposite incentive now. We're not going to be losing our companies. That was, to me, the most important thing. I don't want to see our companies leave and fire our workers, and our workers never get jobs to replace those jobs. Those days are over. This deal will also impose new standards requiring at least 75 percent of every automobile to be made in North America in order to qualify for the privilege of free access to our markets. And that's what it is, it's a privilege. We don't take it as a privilege. We don't take it as a privilege. It's a privilege for them to do business with us. And I am not talking about Mexico. I'm talking about everybody -- everybody. It's a privilege for China to do business with us. It's a privilege for the European Union, who has treated us very badly, but that's coming along, to do business with us. Japan, every country, it's a privilege for them to come in and attack the piggy bank. 11:30:44 In this, we will have a result of much more happening right here in the United States. It means, more than anything else, far more American jobs. And these are high-quality jobs. There are also strong provisions to enforce what's called the rules of origin requirements. This will incentivize billions of dollars in new purchases of U.S.-made automobiles. TRUMP: Once approved, this will be a new dawn for the American auto industry and for the American autoworker. They will see. They understand. 11:31:19 They voted for us in large numbers, even though their leadership always goes Democrat. Couple of them said to me, "I don't know how I can do it again." Many of them, the leaders would back Democrats and would tell me, "You're going to get most of the votes from union workers." And we got most of the votes from workers, period. But the American autoworker was very much behind what we were doing. As one primary aspect, it will transform North America back into a manufacturing powerhouse. If you remember the previous administration said we're not going to have manufacturing jobs anymore, essentially. We're not going to have -- we're not going to make things anymore? No, just the opposite. Going to be a manufacturing powerhouse and allow us to reclaim a supply chain that has been offshored to the world because of unfair trade issues. 11:32:18 We also provide brand-new intellectual property protections for biologic drugs, which will make North America a haven for medical innovation and development. We want our drugs to be made here. When you talk prescription drugs, we don't like getting them from foreign countries. We don't know what's happening with those drugs, how they're being made. Too important. This landmark agreement will send cash and jobs pouring into the United States and into North American. Good for Canada, good for Mexico. Instead of jobs leaving for overseas, they will be returning back home. And we've already had it. We have many, many car companies -- I was with Prime Minister Abe of Japan. He said, "We have sent many car companies to the United States over the last year and a half." It's true, had big expansions. And very importantly, he said, "Many more are coming," 11:33:14because they have an incentive now to be here. People want to be back in the United States again. As I say, the United States is respected again. But it's also respected as to trade and industry. This is a truly extraordinary agreement for the United States, Canada and Mexico. President Pena Nieto -- it's so important that the president and I have developed this sort of a bond. A bond on trade. Pena Nieto, a man that has done a very good job for Mexico in terms of trade, and Prime Minister Trudeau, who I just spoke to; just spoke to both of them a little while ago, they love their countries. They want to do right for the countries, and that's what they've done. And we've really formed -- if you look at this agreement, we formed a great partnership with Mexico and with Canada. And I plan to sign the agreement by the end of November. I then will submit it for approval to Congress, where, in theory, there should be no trouble, but anything you submit to Congress is trouble, no matter what. It's the single greatest agreement ever signed, they'll say, "Well, you know, Trump likes it, therefore we're not going to approve it because that would be good for the Republicans, so therefore we can't approve it." But it will be sent to Congress pursuant to the Trade Promotion Authority Act. This agreement follows on the heels of our successful completion of a new and balanced trade deal with South Korea. Tremendous difference in that deal from what it was -- it was a disaster, as I said - 11:34:54 to improve the old deal that had killed so many jobs. It also follows on our announcement last week of a new trade negotiation with Japan. Japan would never negotiate with the United States. They say, "We're not going to negotiate." They told the previous administration, "We're not going to negotiate." I said, "You don't have to negotiate, but we're going to put a very, very substantial tax on your car if you don't." TRUMP: By way, without tariffs we wouldn't be talking about a deal. Just for those babies out there that keep talking about tariffs. That includes Congress. "Oh please, don't charge tariffs." Without tariffs, you wouldn't be -- we wouldn't be standing here. I can tell you, Bob and all of these folks would not be standing here right now. And we're totally prepared to do that if they don't negotiate. But Japan is wanting to negotiate. Actually, they called about three weeks ago. 11:35:48 And he's a terrific man, a terrific -- just had a tremendous victory. And they said, "We'd like to start negotiations immediately." India, which is the tariff king, they called us and they say, "We want to start negotiations immediately." When Bob Lighthizer said, "What happened? He would never do this." They said, "No, we want to keep your president happy." Isn't that nice? Isn't that nice? It's true. They have to keep us happy, because they understand that we're wise to what's been happening. India charges tariffs of 100 percent, and then if we want to put a tariff of 25 percent on, people will call from Congress, "But that's not free trade." And I'd look back to people and say, "Where do these people come from? Where do they come from?" So because of the power of tariffs and the power that we have with tariffs, we, in many cases, won't even have to use them. That's how powerful they are, and how good they are. 11:36:48But in many cases, we're not going to have to use them. And many -- and in many cases, countries that are charging massive tariffs are eliminating those tariffs. As you know, we have $250 billion at 25 percent interest with China right now, and we could go $267 billion more, and China wants to talk very badly. And I said, "Frankly, it's too early to talk." Can't talk now, because they're not ready, because they've been ripping us for so many years. It doesn't happen that quickly. And if politically, people force it too quickly, you're not going to make the right deal for our workers and for our country. But China wants to talk, and we want to talk to them. And we want them to help us with North Korea. We want them to continue to help us with North Korea. That's very important. The European Union been very tough on the United States. Last year and for many years, they've lost in the vicinity of $150 billion a year. They have massive trade barriers. And they didn't want to come. They didn't want to talk. 11:37:57 Jean-Claude, great businessperson, head of the European Union, Jean-Claude, my friend, I'd say, "Jean-Claude, we want to make a deal." He goes, "No, no, no. We are very happy." I said, "You may be happy, but I'm not happy, because we have one of the worst deals of any group. We have one of the worst deals with the European Union." And they just didn't want to come because they were happy with the deal. I said, "But we're not happy with the deal." And finally, after, you know, going through a whole process, I said, "Look, we're just going to put a tax of 20 percent on all of the millions of Mercedes and BMWs -- all of the cars." And millions and millions of cars that they sell here that they won't take over there; farm product that they won't take over there, because their barriers, you can't sell. You're not allowed to. Our farmers aren't allowed to sell over there, many of the products -- much of their products -- most of them. And so I announced that we're going to put a 20 percent tariff, could be 25, on their cars coming in, and they immediately called and said, "We'd like to start negotiations." And we're having a successful negotiation. We'll see what happens. 11:39:02 Who knows? I always say, who knows? But we'll see. I have a feeling we'll be successful. TRUMP: A pillar of national security is economic security and trade. National security is not where we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Over the last five years, we've averaged $800 billion a year loss on trade. How dumb is that? $800 billion. This group doesn't know about those numbers. I don't even want them to hear those numbers. But the United States in its trade deals has lots on average almost $800 billion a year. That's dealing with China, dealing with European Union, dealing with everybody, Japan, Mexico, Canada, everybody. And we're not going to allow that to happen. But we have to have a strong manufacturing base and manufacturing sector. We need a thriving economy. Those are all really essential ingredients to national security. We can't allow what's been happening over the last 25 years to happen. We're building our military like never before, it will be the strongest it ever was. And all of those jets that are made and rockets and missiles and ships, they're all being made in the United States. Jobs. Our economy is booming like never before, jobless claims are at a 50-year low, the stock market is at an all-time high. Think of that. Over 50 percent since my election, 50 percent. People, the 401(k)s and they have 401(k)s and they were dying with them for years, 11:40:53 now they're so happy. I was telling the story I often tell of a policeman in New York came up, his wife was always very upset with him as an investor because he wasn't doing well with the 401(k)s. Now she thinks he's a genius because the numbers are so crazy. But we're up over 50 percent since the election. And you've heard me say this many time, but African-American unemployment, Asian unemployment, Hispanic unemployment is at record lows in history; not, you know, for the last two years, the history of our country, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, young people without high school diplomas, all at historic -- that's a very important sector -- all at historic lows, the lowest in history, it's really something that's great. This is helping so much with people that get out of prison. We have a tremendous problem. People come out of prison, they can't get a job, employers don't want to hire them. The economy is so good they're hiring them and they're turning out to be incredible workers. They're given a chance -- they're really given a second -- given a third chance in some cases. But I've had numerous employers come up say, "I'll tell you what, I've taken people that were in prison and we've hired them" -- he wouldn't have done this in a normal economy or a bad economy, only in this kind of an economy. 11:42:25 And now he's like the biggest fan. One man in particular has taken numerous people. He said most of them have been unbelievable. All you can ask is most. But most of them have been unbelievable. That's a great thing. That's a really great thing. It gives them a chance. So before we take questions, I want to extend our warmest condolences to the country of Indonesia. Friend of mine, we're going to be calling up the leader, who is a great leader indeed. They got hit by a giant tsunami like people have not seen -- this part of the world hasn't seen it so much fortunately. They say that's the worst of all, you look at the tornadoes, the hurricanes, you look at all of the different natural disasters -- friend of mine who studies natural disasters, I don't know why he does that, but he does -- he says that tsunami is the worst of all. TRUMP: And they got hit very hard and probably thousands of people killed. We have already sent a lot of first responders and military and others to help, but it's a really bad, bad situation. 11:43:39 And finally, before closing, I want to send our thoughts and prayers to the victims of the Las Vegas shooting. That was a horrible, horrible time in the life of our country. Took place exactly one year ago today. All of America is grieving for the lives lost, and for the families they left behind. So to all of those families, and to the people of Las Vegas, we love you, we are with you, we're working with you very hard. That was a terrible, terrible event. So thank you very much for that. I want to ask Bob Lighthizer, who is just a terrific individual, as well as a man that knows a lot about this subject, to come up and say a word about the USMCA, the new agreement. And if you have any questions, we'll take some questions after that, please. Bob? (APPLAUSE) LIGHTHIZER: Thank you, Mr. President. 11:44:49 Before I start, I would just like to give a vignette, because I think it says something about working for the president. So, August 16th of last year, we started this process. And I'm at a hotel in Washington, and there's, like, you know, hundreds and hundreds of people waiting to have the introduction of myself and my two counterparts, one from Canada and one from the United States. And I'm getting -- we're lined up, and I -- and I get a call that says, "The president wants to talk to you." So I go in a little anteroom, and I get the -- the cell phone, and the president starts talking, and everybody's kind of waiting, and he's talking, and he's going through what he wants to get done in NAFTA, and his problems with it, and all of which he's quite familiar with. And then he finally says two things which I thought were telling. One, he said, "Bob, I will back you up like no other USTR's been backed up in history." And then, the second thing -- he did that, by the way. And then the second thing he said was, he said, "Now go out there and have fun." (LAUGHTER) I thought, "Well, it's probably not going to be as much fun for my side as it will be from your side." But I'm proud to be on your team, and I really am proud to -- to -- to follow you through this and the other -- and the other trade changes. As you have said, Mr. President, this agreement is historic in many ways. The USMCA will cover $1.2 trillion, easily making it the biggest agreement in history. We have done this in 14 months, 11:46:13 and believe me, in trade-negotiating terms, that's like warp speed. When we began these negotiations last year, the president's instructions to me were precise and straightforward: Protect American workers, fight for our farmers and ranchers, preserve America's competitive innovation edge, secure greater access for our businesses and, above all, bring back jobs to America. I think we have succeeded with this agreement. The USMCA will accelerate the manufacturing renaissance our country has enjoyed under President Trump, it will bring our trading relationship with Mexico and Canada into the 21st century, and it will protect America's competitive age in digital and -- and innovation across the economy. The new agreement will also serve as a template for our trade agreements under the Trump -- the Trump administration in the future. LIGHTHIZER: This paradigm-shifting model rests on three pillars. The first pillar is fairness. We have negotiated stronger rules of origin for automobiles, which will bring billions of dollars of manufacturing back to America. 11:47:31 We have secured greater market access for our farmers and ranchers. We've agreed to unprecedented labor standards that will help level the playing field for our workers. We've also agreed to a first-of-its-kind review and termination provision, which will ensure that the USMCA, unlike NAFTA, will not become unbalanced and out of date. The second pillar will consist of a host of ambitious provisions on digital trade, intellectual property, services, including financial services, designed to protect our competitive edge. The third pillar consists of new provisions designed to eliminate unfair trade practices, including strong new disciplines on state-owned enterprises, on currency manipulation, relations with nonmarket economies and much, much more. We wouldn't be here today if it were not for several people who contributed so much to this endeavor. First, the president's key adviser and my good friend, Jared Kushner, who was my partner in leading the U.S. negotiating team. (APPLAUSE) 11:48:43 I've said before, and I'll say again, this agreement would not have happened if it wasn't for -- for Jared. So thank you very much. I'd like to thank my counterparts, Secretary Guajardo and Minister Freeland, as well as other Mexican and Canadian government officials, including Secretary Videgaray and Ambassador (inaudible), Gerry Butts and Katie Telford of Canada, and so many more. I'd also like to thank the wonderful staff at USTR, many of whom are on here. I'd like to think of us a little bit like we were the Marine Corps, and so I like the name particularly of this -- this agreement. USTR is about 250 people, and they're all devoted, and they're all exceptional, and they all work around the clock. Many of the people you're are looking at spent more than one night in the office over the course of the last few weeks. And they have enormous ability, and this president has unleashed them. Finally, I would like to thank President Trump. Your leadership, vision and grit made this agreement possible. No other person could have done it. Millions of Americans... (APPLAUSE) ... will benefit for years to come because of this vision and, probably even more important, this grit. Thank you, sir. TRUMP: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) 11:50:11 Thank you very much, Bob. Thank you very much. Some questions? Yes, Steve (ph), question? QUESTION: Thank you, sir. You -- you've had tensions with Prime Minister Trudeau. TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: How did that affect your ability to get this deal done? 11:50:30 TRUMP: I don't think it did. He's a professional. I'm a professional. We had very strong tensions. It was just an unfair deal, whether it was Mexico or Canada, and now it's a fair deal for everybody. It's a much different deal. It's a brand-new deal. It's not NAFTA redone; it's a brand-new deal. I just spoke with him. We have a great relationship, and we're going to work as a partner. Don't forget, the rest of the world is looking to take advantage of us, and -- as a region, you might say. And we're going to work very closely together with Canada and with Mexico, because we'll be able to compete with anybody. We have -- we have things that nobody else has. We have energy that nobody else has. We have timber that nobody else has. We have things that no other part of the world has to the extent that we have. So we're going to do very well together. TRUMP: I think we have -- there was a lot of tension, I will say, between he and I, I think more specifically. And it's all worked out. You know when it ended? About 12 o'clock last night. QUESTION: And you mentioned... TRUMP: But he's a good man. He's done a good job and he loves the people of Canada. QUESTION: You mentioned the $267 billion in possible more tariffs on China. What does China need to do to avoid that? 11:51:44 TRUMP: Well, we'll see what happens with China. We have lost $375 billion in trade deficits. They have a surplus of $375 billion -- with a B -- with United States, and it's been that way for years and years and years. I always say we rebuilt China. They took that money and they built fighter jets and they built bridges. They built more bridges that we built in the last hundred years, probably. Big ones like the George Washington Bridge, like big bridges. 11:52:15 And I'm not to take -- you know -- look, I don't blame China. I blame our leadership. They should have never let that happen. And I told that to President Xi. I said, you know -- I was making a speech in China and I was really hitting China hard. And I'm in China. I don't know if that's a good thing to do. But I looked at it and I said, "But, you know, I don't really blame you. I blame our leadership for allowing this to happen." He knew exactly what I meant. We had no deal with China. I asked one of the top people in China; a representative at the highest level came to the Oval Office. I said, "Let me ask you, 11:52:51 how did this ever happen?" He's a pro so he -- he doesn't have to be cute. He said, "Nobody ever did anything from the United States. When we put on a 25 percent tariff on every car that comes from the United States into China, we thought we would be rebuked, we thought it would be terrible. Nobody ever called. Nobody did anything." That was years ago. And we charge them nothing. Two and a half, but we don't collect it. We do now, by the way. But we don't collect the two and a half. 11:53:26 So they charge 25, we charge essentially nothing. But I said, "How did that happen?" He said, "Nobody ever called." We don't have a deal with China. There is no deal. They do whatever they want. So we have a tremendous problem with theft of intellectual property with China. We have a lot of other problems with China. We have primarily trade problems. And, as you know, they're having a much more difficult time now. I don't want them to have a difficult time. And we're doing better than we've ever done. Everybody talked about the tariffs. "Oh, the tariffs, tariffs." You know, tariffs ended in 1913. And they then went to a different system in 1918, totally unrelated. And then in 1928, you had the Great Depression. For a lot of different reasons, not necessarily our country's fault, but a little bit our country's fault. And then in the 1930s, they said, "We better start charging some tariffs. We need money to come into our country again." OK? So I'm not advocating tariffs. I will tell you this: Our steel industry, Wilbur (ph), is stronger than it's been in 25 years. This has taken six months because I charge for the dumpers. They were dumping steel and dumping aluminum into our country. 11:54:45 I charge 25 percent. That's a lot. Could be more, but that's a lot. And if you look at U.S. Steel and Nucor -- Nucor just announced a billion dollar plant. Brand-new. Already started construction. U.S. Steel's building eight or nine plants. They're expanding plants. I don't think there's any industry like what's happened to steel in the last nine months, 10 months, since I really started doing what I'm doing. It's been really pretty amazing. Aluminum also. (CORRECTED COPY: CORRECTS "THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT") TRUMP: So -- and we need steel. We need steel for defense. What are we going to do? Go and say, "Oh, we'll get our steel from a -- like, another country?" Can't do that -- excuse me -- we can't do that. So we need steel and we need it badly for defense. So, I'm very proud of what's happened with the steel industry. OK, question? Yes, go ahead. Sure. She's shocked that I picked her. Like in a state of shock. (CORRECTED COPY: CORRECTS "THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT") QUESTION: I'm not, thank you, Mr. President. TRUMP: That's OK, I know you're not thinking. You never do. QUESTION: I'm sorry? TRUMP: No, go ahead. Go ahead. 11:55:50 VEGA: In a tweet this weekend, Mr. President, you said that it's incorrect to say you're limiting the scope of the FBI investigation. TRUMP: What does that have to do trade? I don't mind answering the question. But, you know, I'd like to do the trade questions too. QUESTION: It has to do with the other headline in the news, which is the Kavanaugh nomination. TRUMP: No, but, I know, but how about talking about trade and then we'll get to that? We'll do that a little bit later. QUESTION: Do you think the trade... TRUMP: Anybody have a trade -- go ahead. QUESTION: Do you think you trade deal will pass through Congress, sir? 11:56:10 TRUMP: I think so. But, you know, if doesn't, we have lots of other alternatives. But I do think so. I think if they're fair, which is a big question -- but if it's fair on both sides -- the Republicans love it, industry loves it, our country loves it. If it's fair, it will pass. I think it'll pass. I think it'll pass easily, really easily, because it's a great deal. I mean, NAFTA passed, it's one of the worst deals I have ever seen. Inconceivable that it was made. Fair question. Any other questions on trade? QUESTION: Thank you. TRUMP: I'll get back to you on the other question. QUESTION: I'd like to go forward with my Kavanaugh question. TRUMP: Let's do that later. And we'll -- but I'll call you a second time. Go ahead, please. Thank you very much. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You have described India right now as a tariff king. Can you explain it a bit better? 11:56:51 TRUMP: Well, India charges us tremendous tariffs. When we send Harley Davidson motorcycles, other things to India, they charge very, very high tariffs. And I've spoken to Prime Minister Modi and he's going to reduce them very substantially. Nobody every spoke to these people. He said, "Nobody ever spoke to me." In other words, we've had leaders here -- I'm not, you know, trying to be overly dramatic. We've had presidents of the United States and trade representatives, they're not -- they never spoke to India. Brazil's another one. That's a beauty. They charge us whatever they want. If you ask some of the companies they say Brazil is among the toughest in the world -- maybe the toughest in the world. We don't call them and say, "Hey, you're treating our companies unfairly, you're treating our country unfairly." So, India is a very, very high -- they really charge tremendously high tariffs. On motorcycles it was 100 percent. So, you send a motorcycle into India, there's a 100 percent tariff. Now, that's so high that it's like a barrier, in other words, who's going to buy it? Cost you so much. Now they've already reduced that substantially, but it's still too high. 11:58:03 My relationship with India is great, with Prime Minister Modi is great. And they're going to start doing a lot. They've already -- they've called us to make a deal. We didn't even call them, they called us to make a deal, which is, like, shocking to people. Yes, sir, go ahead. Yes? QUESTION: Well, I don't -- there we go. I do have second question on the Kavanaugh thing, when you get back to it, if you'd take that. TRUMP: Let's go. QUESTION: You'll take that now? TRUMP: No, no. QUESTION: OK. Well... TRUMP: We're still on trade. QUESTION: On trade, the question I have on trade, does this mean the end of tariffs, if you could spell that out, to Canada? TRUMP: No. No. QUESTION: So, do you think it will pass? TRUMP: No, no. 11:58:42 The steel is staying where it is, and aluminum. But it means we probably, for the most part, won't be having to use tariffs unless we're unable to make a deal with a country. For instance, if we can't make a deal with the European Union, we will respectfully put tariffs on the cars. The United States will take in billions and billions of dollars into its coffers. Isn't that nice? Because you don't hear that. QUESTION: Only from Carl Sagan. TRUMP: OK. Yeah, Sagan. But it'll take in billion and billions of dollars. But really what's going to happen is, they'll make the cars in the United States, this way they don't have to pay the 25 or the 20 percent tax. QUESTION: And could you spell out... TRUMP: So, I don't think you're going to have to use the tariffs too often. But there will be cases where have countries that are just absolutely not willing to do what's fair and reciprocal. 11:59:28 And in that case, they'll pay tariffs. And you know what? The United States will do very well. Either way, we do very well. QUESTION: So, do you think it'll pass in Canada, Mexico and, more importantly... TRUMP: I don't know... QUESTION: ... here in the United States? TRUMP: I can't tell you. All I know is we made a deal. The highly respected presidents and in the case of Canada, the prime minister, are satisfied with the deal. It's good for Canada, good for Mexico. It's good for all three. This is a deal. I'm not -- this is good for all three. That's good. And just that fact makes it good for us, but this is good for all three. But this is a much different deal than NAFTA. And this is much more of a reciprocal deal for the United States, which is really good. Yes, go ahead, Peter. QUESTION: Are you (inaudible) Kavanaugh briefings as well? TRUMP: No, why don't you just -- we'll do the Kavanaugh questions. I mean, 12:00:16 you talk about being treated harshly. We'll do that in a couple. Let's finish up trade because you have a lot of people who want to run over to the Wall Street Journal and start writing. Go ahead, please. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Mexican journalist. TRUMP: I can't hear you. QUESTION: Will you take one from a Mexican journalist? TRUMP: A Mexican journalist? Go ahead, sure. QUESTION: Yes. It's -- so you're going to keep the tariffs on steel and aluminum on Mexico and Canada? TRUMP: Until such time as we can do something that would be different, like quotas perhaps, 12:00:45 so that our industry is protected. We're not going to allow our steel industry to disappear. It was almost gone. I'll tell you what, if our country kept going the way it was going, within two years you wouldn't have had a steel industry. We have to have a steel industry. We have to have an aluminum. You know, there are certain industries important. So we are working on that now. That wasn't part of this. But we will do something. And, in fact, Bob, if you want you may want to say a couple of words about that because we were literally talking about that one hour ago. LIGHTHIZER: Great. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess I would say, first of all, they're two separate things as far as we're concerned. We know that there are grave interests to both countries. We are engaging in talks now with an effort to try to preserve the effect of our program and still take care of their needs. 12:01:30 And hopefully we'll be able to work that out. But we are in communication with them. TRUMP: And really take care of the needs of our steel companies. I don't want plants closing. They're hiring thousands of workers all over the country. I'm not giving that up. QUESTION: But you get assurances to President-elect Lopez Obrador that... TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: ... he's going to keep his word on this (inaudible)? 12:01:50 TRUMP: Oh yes, we have a very good understanding, yes. Really good. Yes, sir. Go ahead, please. QUESTION: Hi, Mr. President. Just hoping you can just reiterate on the tariffs, what specifically would it take for Canada or Mexico to be exempt from these tariffs? And secondly, did you consider diary the deal-breaker... TRUMP: Yeah. QUESTION: ... when it came to Canada? 12:02:11 TRUMP: Dairy was a deal-breaker. And now for our farmers it's, as you know, substantially opened up much more. And I know they can't open it completely. They have farmers also. You know, they can't be overrun. And I fully -- and I tell them that. I say, "Look, I understand you have limits." But they could do much better. And we've opened it up to our farmers, so the folks up in Wisconsin -- I'll tell you what, I went to Wisconsin. I went to Iowa. Joni knows better than anybody, right? And Scott Walker, who I think is a fantastic governor, talks about it all the time that our farmers were not treated properly by Canada. Now they're going to be treated with respect. They're going to be treated fairly, 12:02:54 or as I say, in that reciprocal way. Very important. Yes, sir. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thanks, Mr. President. It seems there was some give-and-take on both sides for this deal. I wonder what, in your view, would be your biggest concession to Canada and why you decided to make that concession. QUESTION: Number two, if you could dive in a bit more to the -- your thoughts on Justin Trudeau. You talk about tensions. I wonder what -- throughout this process, what you've learned about him and what the state of the relationship is with him today and going forward. 12:03:27 TRUMP: Well, I think my biggest concession would be making the deal, because we are the one that people come and want to take from. I'm talking about every country. And that gives us a tremendous advantage in negotiating that we never used before with past administrations. We never used it. Every deal we have is a loser -- every deal. You could look at almost every country in the world, almost every country, we have trade deficits. We lose with everybody. 12:03:57 So I think my biggest concession was making the deal, because we could have done it a different way. But it would have been nasty, and it wouldn't have been nice, and I don't want to have that. We have a great relationship with Canada. I think now, it'll be better than ever. All -- the only problem with Justin is he loves his people, and he's, you know, 12:04:15 fighting hard for his people. I think we -- you know, we've always had, actually, a very good relationship. It get a little -- got a little bit testy in the last couple of months, but that was over this agreement, and I understand that. But no, I think -- I think Justin's a good person who's doing a good job. He -- he felt very committed to his people, and that's what he did. And again, this is -- this is good for everybody. This is good for Canada, good for Mexico, also. Yes? Yes, please? Please, go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. As you mentioned, you're going to be signing this agreement, and your counterparts are going to be signing this agreement... TRUMP: Right. QUESTION: ... within the next 60 days. TRUMP: Right. QUESTION: Then it's up to Congress. TRUMP: Right. QUESTION: You're very confident. I get that. You're a confident guy. TRUMP: Not at all confident. I'm not. I don't know. Hey, Congress... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Well, explain to me why you think that if it's (inaudible)... TRUMP: You tell me. You guys going to sign it? Tell me. I think -- I think they will. QUESTION: If Congress is controlled by Democrats... TRUMP: Could happen. Could be. QUESTION: It could happen. TRUMP: So they're willing to throw... QUESTION: (inaudible) their prospects. 12:05:11 TRUMP: Yeah. They might be willing to throw one of the great deals for people and the workers. They may be willing to do that for political purpose -- you know, people or political purposes. Because, frankly, you know, they'll have 2020 in mind. So far, I dream about 2020 when I look at what's going -- they have 2020 in mind. They want to -- they want to do as well as they can, and so trying to reject even great deals -- like, this is a great deal for our country, great for other countries. But it's a great deal for our country, and great for our workers. I can't tell you whether or not they will obstruct, whether or not they will resist. I mean, their whole campaign is resist. I see their signs all -- "Resist." They don't even know what they're resisting. If you ask them, "What are you resisting?" "Well, let me think about that." They can't ask. They had somebody on this weekend. They said, "What are you resisting?" And they were unable to answer the question. So, you know, I -- I can't tell you about delay, obstruct, resist. Because you know, right after this election -- and I think we're going to do well, although history is not on our side. I guess in history, generally, whoever has the White House doesn't do well in mid-terms. 12:06:21 But -- but the one difference is, we have the greatest economy in the history of our country. I think that's a big difference. And that's one of our problems, too, because people that went out and voted for me -- and they would be voting for me, if I was on the ticket, but I'm not on the ticket. But Congress is on the ticket, and I try and tell my people, "That's the same thing as me, in a sense." That's the same thing. Think of it as the same thing as me. But I think we're going to do well. I actually think -- I mean, we have Senate races that weren't even in play six months ago. When I started looking at it closely, I won't mention names, but there were senators that were not in play. They were not even -- and you know exactly what I'm talking about -- numerous of them. They were not in play. In other words, let's not go here. Let's not go to this state. Four, five states. Now, it's -- they're -- they're like even races. In one case, they're up two points. TRUMP: Now, who knows what happens? And, you know, as you know, there are a lot of them that are repression polls or polls that aren't very accurate, because I see polls that I know are false having to do with certain of the races. 12:07:23 But we had areas and we had congressional seats, too, where I know it's going to be a positive outcome. But you look at what's going on, and it doesn't seem to be broadcast that way. But I certainly had that with my election. They were telling me I was, you know, in trouble in certain states, and I end up winning in a grand -- like in a landslide. And I knew I was going to win them in a landslide, but they wouldn't report it that way. You know why? Fake news. OK. Right behind you... QUESTION: One last thing, Mr. President. TRUMP: Yes, right behind you, please. QUESTION: Do you believe that the trade agreement will be a major issue in the midterm elections? 12:07:58 TRUMP: Well, it shouldn't be. Look, it's a good agreement. These people -- you know, when I first did it, they said, "Oh, why don't you just extend NAFTA?" They have no idea about business. "Just extend NAFTA." That would've been a disaster. We're losing $100 billion a year in deficits, at least -- at least, to Mexico, under NAFTA. But just look at the results -- and a substantial amount to count it all, although, a lot of people try and say it's pretty much even. It's not even. We're losing a substantial amount. So, you know, I think it's a very hard thing to defend, but that's all right. Look, I understand the world of politics, I think, as well as anybody. I haven't been doing it that long, but I actually have been because I've been doing it on the other side. 12:08:38 And I do understand. And, you know, they can take the greatest thing ever done and try to make it sound as bad as possible. But this one's tough. This one -- people are coming out for this one and saying, "That's incredible," what we've been able to do. Yes, behind you, please. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Now that you've answered several questions on trade, I'd like to turn to Judge Kavanaugh. TRUMP: Don't -- don't -- don't do that. Don't do... QUESTION: Mr. President... TRUMP: Do you have -- do you have -- excuse me. Do you have a question on trade? We'll do one or two more questions on trade. 12:09:05 QUESTION: You answered several questions on trade... TRUMP: OK, don't do that. That's not nice. And besides... QUESTION: Mr. President, you said... TRUMP: ... somebody is before you. Excuse me, don't do that. Do you have a question on trade? QUESTION: You answered several questions on trade. TRUMP: Do you have a question on trade? QUESTION: My question is on Judge Kavanaugh. TRUMP: OK, please -- yes, please. QUESTION: You said the FBI should interview whoever that they believe is appropriate. Does that include Julie Swetnick, the third accuser? And then can you promise to release the full findings... 12:09:26 TRUMP: Give me your question, please. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) from the FBI after they finish their report, Mr. President? TRUMP: Give me your question, please. QUESTION: Mr. President... TRUMP: Give her the mic, please. QUESTION: Thank you very much. Was border security or funding... TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: ... for the wall discussed in the negotiation, and who will pay for the wall? TRUMP: Yes, yes. 12:09:41 The wall -- we're getting $1.6 billion for the wall this year. We got $1.6 billion, $1.6 billion. We have about $3.2 billion in the wall. We're doing a lot of work, people don't realize. I don't really want to talk about it because I could build it quickly, at one time, which is what I want. QUESTION: But... TRUMP: But we've been building it over the last year and a half, with $3.2 billion -- $1.6 billion, $1.6 billion, that we now have another $1.6 billion. And I've got a big decision to make after the election, as to whether or not we go forward. Because you know what? Border security to the people of our country, very important. The wall is a big factor in border security. And I really believe that the people of our country, they want the wall and they want border security. They don't want open borders like the Democrats want to have. 12:10:21 They don't want crime pouring into our country. They don't want MS-13 pouring into our country. They don't want that. And I really think I have a very big decision to make sometime right after the election, very quickly, because you know what comes due after the election. Do I want to do it before the election? Personally, yes. But I don't want to do that for a different reason, because I have some very fine people that are running in close races, and it may affect them and it may not. It may be good for them. I happen to think it would be good for them. But border security for our country -- our want people want security. 12:10:53 The women of our country, they want security. They don't want to have thousands of people pouring across the border. And I'll tell you what: They want to have ICE, because ICE walks into MS-13 and these gangs, and they treat them like it's just another day in the office. They're rough and they're tough and they love our country. TRUMP: And I'm treating ICE good, and I'm treating our law enforcement good. And the Democrats don't want to take care of our law enforcement. And the Democrats don't want to take care of our military. 12:11:21 So we are going to have a decision to make sometime right after -- very close to after the election is over, and that will be on border security -- and the wall, but border security. The wall's a big factor. OK, you want to do some questions? (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Well, was that part of the -- but was that part of the conversation and the negotiation that just took place? TRUMP: Yes, it was. Yes, we talked about it. With Mexico, we talked about it. It was a big part, and certain things and certain understandings are had. At the same time, we don't want to mix it up too much. It's a very big deal and a very good deal for everybody. But border security and security generally is a very big factor. We also have drugs sometimes, and some people would say it's a very similar thing. 12:12:01 But we talked about drugs with Mexico. That's a very, very big factor. Very, very big. We have a lot of good understandings and we'll be discussing that with them. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. TRUMP: OK, but it was a factor, absolutely and -- in the deal. OK, let's go, come on. You want to, I guess, get off trade, I don't know, people are falling asleep with trade. I think it's -- to me it's the most exciting thing you can talk about, right? Joni, right? (APPLAUSE) All right, let's go. Come on. 12:12:27 VEGA: Thank you, Mr. President. In a tweet this weekend, you said it's incorrect to say that you're limiting the scope of the FBI investigation into Judge Kavanaugh, but your own statement on Friday made it very clear: You said this investigation must be limited in scope. So which is it? Is there... 12:12:41 TRUMP: Well no, I didn't say anything on Friday. What I said is let the Senate decide; whatever they want to do is OK with me. And also the FBI. I think the FBI should do what they have to do to get to the answer. At the same time, just so we all understand, this is our seventh investigation of a man who has really -- you know, you look at his life until this happened, what a -- what a change he's gone through, what his family's gone through. The trauma for a man that's never had any accusation, any -- he's never had a bad statement about him. He's led -- I mean, I think he was number one in his class at Yale, he was number one in his law school at Yale, 12:13:25 and then what he's gone through over the last three weeks is incredible. So I want the FBI -- this is now their seventh investigation, so it's not like they're, you know, just starting. I want them to do a very comprehensive investigation, whatever that means according to the senators and the Republicans and the Republican majority. I want them to do that. I want it to be comprehensive. I actually think it's a good thing for Judge Kavanaugh. I think it's actually a good thing. Not a bad thing, I think it's a good thing. Now with that being said, 12:14:02 I'd like it to go quickly. And the reason I'd like it to go quickly, very simple. It's so simple. Because it's unfair to him at this point. What his wife is going through, what his beautiful children are going through is not describable. It's not describable. It's not fair. I think it's fair to do it to me, because, you know, I've been going -- from day one, I've been at -- from long before I got to office you've been doing it. It's almost became -- I -- I think for me it's, like, a part of my job description to handle this crap. But as far as -- as far as -- this is a man that this not from his world. 12:14:43 And you know what? If they're not going to want him -- and I think that would be a shame, I'm with him all the way. I mean, a charge made -- was said to have occurred 36 years ago, and nothing happened since then. And look, I feel badly for all parties. I feel badly for everybody. I feel badly for our country. This is so bad for our country. But I will tell you, I watched those senators on the Democrat side, and I thought it was a disgrace. And partially because I know them. I know them too well. And you know what? They are not angels. 12:15:21 QUESTION: Are you saying your White House has put no limitations on who the FBI can speak to... (CROSSTALK) TRUMP: No, my White House is doing whatever the senators want. No, no, you don't understand. QUESTION: ... who they should interview... TRUMP: You don't understand what I'm saying. You do understand. You just don't want to report it that way. Just so you understand, my White House will do whatever the senators want. 12:15:36 I'm open to whatever they want. The one thing I want is speed. Now, they started, I believe, on Friday. It could have even been a little bit earlier than that, but they started. They have worked 'round the clock on Saturday, Sunday, they're working right now. I mean, they're covering a lot of territory. 12:15:56 This is the seventh investigation of Judge Kavanaugh -- number seven. This isn't number one. They started on Friday. They worked all weekend. They've gone late into the evenings. The FBI's really working hard, and they're putting in a lot of hours. So hopefully, they can come up with what everybody's looking for. But no, I'm guided by the Senate. 12:16:20 I want to make the Senate happy, because ultimately, they're making the judgment. I'm not making the judgment. I've already made my judgment. The Senate is making a judgment on Judge Kavanaugh. That's a very important thing to do. Yes, go ahead. Peter, go ahead. QUESTION: Just for clarity, so that -- just for clarity, so that it's clear, in fact, it's up to you to instruct the FBI what (OFF-MIKE). TRUMP: It is up to me. It is up to me. 12:16:46 But I'm instructing them as per what I feel the Senate wants. The Senate's making this decision, and I'm instructing them as per what the Senate is looking for. QUESTION: So just for clarity, will you instruct the White House counsel, Don McGahn, to give the FBI free rein to interview whomever they feel is necessary? 12:17:04 TRUMP: Well, I have so instructed him, and I did it again over the weekend. Because I see the press was -- I don't want to use the word in this case "misleading." It's a much more complex subject than anybody would understand, and that most people understand. But essentially, I have done that, but I did also say, "within the bounds of what the Senate wants." QUESTION: (inaudible) 12:17:24 TRUMP: We don't want to go on a -- to use a -- an expression often used by me, we don't want to go to witch hunt, do we? QUESTION: So just to be clear, should the FBI interview all three of Brett Kavanaugh's accusers? 12:17:37 TRUMP: It wouldn't bother me at all. Now, it depends: I don't know all three of the accusers. QUESTION: Did you order them to do all three? TRUMP: Certainly, I imagine they're going to interview two. The third one, I don't know much about, but it wouldn't bother me at all. I mean, I've been -- heard that the third one has -- I have no idea if this is true -- has very little credibility. If there is any credibility, interview the third one. But I want to interview -- I want it to be done quickly, because it's unfair to the family and to the judge. It's unfair. It's so unfair to his kids and his -- his wife. QUESTION: How about for the -- how about for the accusers? Has this process been fair to them? 12:18:17 TRUMP: Well, certainly, we gave the doctor a tremendous time, which is great. She spoke well. But, you know, there are some questions that haven't been answered, like what year was it? What day was it? Where was it? Do you know the location? Do you know the house? A lot of different things. People are saying, "Well, you know, what's going on?" With all of that, you cannot say that we've done anything but be respectful. And -- and I -- and I do, and I respect her position very much. I respect her position very much. 12:18:53 I believe -- and again, this is Republican senators, and this is the Senate. I believe they've been very respectful to the doctor, Dr. Ford. QUESTION: Isn't that why the FBI should interview all of them, to exonerate Brett Kavanaugh, in your opinion? TRUMP: Well, yeah, Peter, 12:19:07 I think the FBI should interview anybody that they want within reason. But you have to say "within reason." They should interview, but they should also be guided -- and I'm being guided -- by what the senators are looking for, because they have to make the choice. Go ahead. Now you can go. QUESTION: Should Brett Kavanaugh be interviewed by the FBI? TRUMP: I think so. I think it's fine if they do. I don't know. That's up to them. I think that he spoke very conclusively and very well. I think it's been a very rough period of time. I guarantee he's never had a period of time like this. When he was chosen, everybody said, "Oh, this is going to go so quickly." Look, 12:19:47 people thought, 10 years ago, that Brett Kavanaugh was going to be a Supreme Court justice, because of his intellect, because of his career, because of the fact that there are no games. You know, now they talk about alcohol. They talk about all of the things that you hear. And frankly, you take a look at -- they're bringing up subjects -- we would know about this over the last 20 years, 30 years of his career. You know, what happened? They're going back to high school, and they're saying he drank a lot one evening in high school. We - 12:20:19 you know, I'll tell you what. I happen to know some United States senators -- one who is, on the other side, who's pretty aggressive. I've seen that person in very bad situations, OK. I've seen that person in very, very bad situations; somewhat comprising. And, you know, I think it's very unfair to bring up things like this. However, whatever the senators want is OK with me. They're going to be making a decision. Whatever they want is OK with me. Go ahead. QUESTION: (Inaudible). TRUMP: That's enough, Peter. Go, please. QUESTION: What do you mean by "this crap" (ph)? (OFF-MIKE) for clarity, sir? TRUMP: Say it. QUESTION; You said, "this crap," when you referred -- "I've been dealing with this crap for years," what did you mean... TRUMP: Oh, I think the press has treated me unbelievably unfairly. 12:21:08 In fact, when I won -- I said the good thing is, "Now the press finally gets it. Now they'll finally treat me fairly." They got worse. They're worse now than ever. They're loco. But that's OK. I put up with it. Go ahead. 12:21:30 QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. TRUMP: I use that word because of the fact that we made a deal with Mexico, so. No, no, please, sit down. Go ahead. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President, for going back to me. I... TRUMP: You're going to be next. You're going to be next. QUESTION: Sorry, I didn't know. I thought you were talking (ph). TRUMP: Go ahead. QUESTION: I have two questions about Judge Kavanaugh. First, they are now concerns that he may have lied or mischaracterized his drinking while testifying. If they find that he did, do you think that bars him from being your Supreme Court nominee? 12:21:47 TRUMP: Well, I've -- I watched him. I was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer. And he's had a little bit of difficulty. I mean, he talked about things that happened when he drank. I mean, this is not a man that said that alcohol was -- that he was perfect with respect to alcohol. No, I thought he was actually -- going back so many years, I thought he was excellent. The interesting thing is, though, nobody asked him about what's happened in the last 25 years, 30 years, during his professional career. Because I - 12:22:22 there were no bad reports. I mean, there are bad reports on everybody in here. Most of the people sitting down, there are bad -- except for Mike Pence, by the way. (LAUGHTER) And if we find one on him, then I'm -- I think that's -- that's going to be -- that'll be the greatest shock of all time. No, there are bad reports on everybody. I'm looking at people. I'm, sort of -- look at some of these people asking the questions, OK. Look at Blumenthal, he lied about Vietnam. He didn't just say, "Hey, I went to Vietnam." No, no. For 15 years, he said he was a war hero. He fought in Da Nang Province. We call him "Da Nang Richard." "Da Nang," that's his nickname, "Da Nang." He never went to Vietnam. And he's up there saying, "We need honesty, and we need integrity." This guy lied when he was the attorney general of Connecticut. He lied. I don't mean a little bit. And then when he got out -- he actually dropped out the race and he won anyway, because Democrats always win in Connecticut. 12:23:22 He won very close, probably the closest ever. TRUMP: But here's a guy that lied, and now he's up there talking like he's holier than thou. You know what? Take a look at his record. And when he got out and when he apologized, he was crying, the tears were all over the place, 12:23:37 and now he acts like, "How dare you." Take a look at the judge, who has led an exemplary life. I mean, you're going back to high school because he had beer? I think the judge has been pretty amazing about describing his situation with alcohol and with beer. I mean, take a look at Cory Booker. He ran Newark, New Jersey, into the ground, he was a horrible mayor, and he made statements that when he was in high school or college, what he was doing -- he actually made the statements. And now he's talking about Judge Kavanaugh. And I could go through a whole list of them, OK? Look at Dianne Feinstein. QUESTION: So... 12:24:20 TRUMP: You're telling me about time. Dianne Feinstein knew about this two months earlier. If she wanted a -- a really thorough investigation, we had all the time in the world. She didn't have to wait until after the hearing was closed, essentially. She should have said, "Listen, I have a problem. I have this report. I'd like the FBI to look at it while we're doing the hearings." We had two months. No, she didn't do that. She waited until we were closed and then she probably leaked it, but, you know, who am I to say? But she probably leaked it based on her very bad body language the other day. 12:25:01 But more importantly, in a sense, for her to have waited that period of time and now for you Democrats -- and I guess I'm including you too, the media, right? I consider you a part of the Democrat Party. But for you -- for the Democrats to be talking about, "We want more time for the FBI," if you wanted more time for the FBI, why didn't Dianne Feinstein bring this up? Now, you know that she showed this to other Democrats. She's not the only one. She showed this to other Democrats. 12:25:31 There were more than just her that knew about this big confidential thing. It was confidential until the hearing was over. After the hearing was over, they went public. Why didn't they do it during the hearing, and we could have had all the time in the world? You know why? Because they're dishonest people. OK, yes, please. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) you didn't answer my question, Mr. President. QUESTION: Mr. President -- Mr. President. TRUMP: Go ahead. QUESTION: You didn't answer my question, Mr. President. 12:25:53 So if he did lie about his drinking, does that mean you'll pull his nomination? TRUMP: I don't think he did. QUESTION: OK. 12:25:57 TRUMP: I -- look, here's -- here's what -- I'm just saying, I'm not a drinker. I can honestly say I never had a beer in my life, OK? QUESTION: Right. TRUMP: It's one of my only good traits. I don't drink. (LAUGHTER) Whenever they're looking for something, I'm going to say, "I never had a glass of alcohol." I've never had alcohol. I've just -- you know, for whatever reason. Can you imagine if I had what a mess I'd be? Would I be the -- I'd be the world's worst. But I never drank. I never drank, OK? QUESTION: Well... TRUMP: But I can tell you, I watched that hearing and I watched a man saying that he did have difficulty as a young man with drink. The one question I didn't ask is how about the last 20 years? Have you had difficulty the last 20 years? Because nobody said anything bad about him in many, many years. They go back to high school. You know, I graduated from high school, and -- and I -- while I did not drink, I saw a lot of people drinking. They'd drink beer and they'd go crazy and, you know, they were high school. They were 16, 17 years old, and I saw a lot of it. Does that mean that they can't do something that they want to do with their life? So it's a very tough thing. I -- I really believe that he was very strong on the fact that he drank a lot and -- so I don't know where there'd be big discrepancy. Yes, go ahead, please. 12:27:09 QUESTION: OK, so -- so just to wrap up, can you promise to release the FBI's report... (CROSSTALK) TRUMP: You know what? You've really had enough. Hey, you've had enough. Go ahead, please. QUESTION: Thanks, Mr. President. 12:27:20 Judge Kavanaugh said he was being targeted by Democrats. Has he made the process overly political? And how can you assure the American people that he'll be able to deliver impartial decisions? TRUMP: Well, you'll have to ask him that question. But I can tell you, he's been treated horribly. QUESTION: But how does that affect his judicial judgment? TRUMP: He's a good man. 12:27:35 He's a good man with a great family. I think he's been treated horribly. Lindsey Graham was, I thought, terrific the other day. And he brought up one point that is now being discussed by a lot of people, and that's, who is going to want to run for office, be in office, take an appointment of, not just Supreme Court, 12:27:57 but, you know, many, many positions? I have right now 360 people that aren't being approved. They're very qualified. Nobody says they're not qualified, but Senator Schumer's not approving them because of resist and obstruct. It's much longer than ever in the history of our country; like, I think, double the time, almost. It's far more people than anybody in the history of our country. Most of those people are routine approvals. These are people that gave up jobs. They gave up their life to come and serve our country, and Schumer and his group won't approve them. They're slow-walking them. Everything is going at 30 hours, meaning they take them out 30 hours. Person that's going to be approved -- it's a disgrace. So when the judge brings up whether it's politics or not, I don't know. You'd have to ask him. But I can say this: He's been treated really, really horribly. QUESTION: But are you concerned it will color (inaudible)... TRUMP: Please, go ahead. I'm not concerned, no, no. 12:28:52 You know what I'm concerned? That we get great, great people on the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what I'm concerned. And I want to have great people, and I don't want to have to call people for any court, and have them say, "Sir, it's such a great honor, but no thank you. I just can't do it. I just can't do it." That'd be a sad day for our country. And we're going to come close to that, because I know people now that say, "I don't know how he does it. I don't know why he would have taken it." Nobody knew a thing like this could have happened. When -- when Justice -- now-Justice Gorsuch got approved, it was rough, but it was nothing like -- what they're doing to this man, and what they're coming up with. And in many cases, fabricated, because as you know, many stories were pulled back, and certain stories were pulled back that were horrible. What they're doing to this man and his family is very, very sad, and very bad for our nation. Yes? QUESTION: Mr. President, you just said some senators are not angels, and you've seen some of them in very... TRUMP: I would say some of them, yes. QUESTION: ... compromising situations. TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: Could you tell us who, and exactly what situation you've seen them in? (LAUGHTER) 12:29:55 TRUMP: No, no, I think I'll save it for a book, like everybody else, and I'll write it, OK? (LAUGHTER) I'm not giving it to you. Yeah, please, go ahead. QUESTION: Mr. President, if the FBI finds other witnesses who can corroborate the account of any of the accusers, would that be enough for you to... 12:30:10 TRUMP: I would -- I would certainly look at that. I'm open. I'm open. I think he's a fine man. I think he's a great scholar. I still believed him when he -- when he said what he did, he focused on being number one at Yale, on being number one in high school, at being number one at law. He focused. I can so understand that. I mean, it's -- it was such a -- at some point, the way he said that, it was -- it made an impact on me. He was so focused on being number one at Yale, and I believe he was number one at Yale. But I understood that very well. QUESTION: And I wanted to ask about something else you brought up today, the Las Vegas shooting. TRUMP: Yes. QUESTION: There's some frustration that more hasn't been done in that past year, more hasn't been done about bump stocks. Are there some things you would like to see done? 12:30:55 TRUMP: Well, we -- no, no, you're wrong. You're wrong about that. QUESTION: Yeah, go ahead. TRUMP: So in order to eliminate, terminate bump stocks, we have to go through a procedure. We are now at the final stages of that procedure. In fact, the lawyers were just telling me, and over the next couple of weeks I'll be able to write it up. But you can't just write it up, because rules and regulations in this country are really tough, even for something like that. TRUMP: So we're knocking out bump stocks. I've told the NRA. I've told it, bump stocks are gone. But to do it, you have to go to public hearings, which we've had. You have to go through all sorts of regulatory control systems, and we are in the final couple of weeks, and I'll be -- is -- is our attorney around someplace, please? He said we're in the final -- we're in the final two or three weeks, and I'll be able to write out bump stocks. But it's a process that takes -- statutorily, it takes about a year to do it. QUESTION: And any other... TRUMP: To do it properly. QUESTION: ... any other actions you're planning to help prevent a situation like this? 12:31:52 TRUMP: Yeah, and we're working also with Congress on both sides. We are -- we are working on a lot of different things happening (ph). That was a horrible thing. But we're working on both sides of that question. And the bump stock is almost gone. But again, to do it so it -- it's meaningful -- the lawyer just said it -- yeah, we've gone through a whole procedure. If you look in fact you could -- you could call Derek (ph), who you know very well, and he's gone through the full procedure. We've done it absolutely by the book, and in a very short period of time bump stocks will be ruled out. OK? QUESTION: All right -- all right, thank you. TRUMP: Yes? You -- you've had one, yes -- yes, ma'am. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) TRUMP: Go ahead, please. Please, please, please, sit down. QUESTION: Mr. President, a final trade question. Since steel and aluminum tariffs won't be coming down from Canada and Mexico, can you talk about whether there was discussion of ending those retaliatory tariffs against U.S. farmers and ranchers? TRUMP: Well, they're not retaliatory. 12:32:47 They're really trying to get some really bad things from happening. They were dumping in our country, and it was China and various others were dumping massive amounts of dead steel. It's called dead steel. It's also imperfect steel. Inside that steel was a lot of bad things that make for a weaker steel. So when we're building bridges and you have mud steel (ph) or you have other quantities of other material in that steel, that's a very bad thing. It's very unsafe. So it's not just economic. It's -- you know, we have -- the miners have been very thankful for one of the -- you saw that the other night in West Virginia. And we have metallurgic coal and other materials, we have mines that are opening up now to get that incredible stuff. This is used not for heating and cooling. This is used -- and electric -- this is used to make steel. 12:33:46 And those mines are now opening up and we're making steel, and the price is end -- going to end up being less, because we don't have the shipping problems, when you ship it from places so far away. You'll see. We'll have hundreds of new plants opened up in our country and they'll be competing against each other and outsiders won't be able to compete. Just so you understand what was going to happen, they were going to knock out every steel plant we had and then they were going to double and triple the price and we couldn't have done anything about it. It's a very dangerous thing. And we've employed a lot of people and billions of dollars is now flowing into our treasury. OK, yeah, in the back, please. Please? QUESTION: Staying here on -- on trade, the stock market has liked the announcement today. When we walked in here, the Dow was up 250 points or so. There are some who are worried that, because of the threat of future tariffs, it could potentially stifle an economy that is hot, a stock market that is hot. But yet today you have once again said, "Hey, as it relates to China, more tariffs could be coming down the line." Are you worried that potentially you are somewhat suppressing this economy from running further? TRUMP: No, no, no. No, 12:34:51 I'm using them to negotiate. And hopefully we can make a great deal with China. A fair deal. And a reciprocal deal, but a great deal and a fair deal. We have a lot of catching-up to do with China. You know, when they drain us for $500 billion a year, which is probably the real number -- and that's not including the theft of intellectual property and other things. And a lot of people say -- it's hard to value, but a lot of people say that could be $300 billion a year. That's a tremendous -- you can't let -- you just can't let that happen. No, we're using tariffs very successfully to negotiate, and if we're unable to make a fair deal, then we'll use tariffs. But Mexico and -- if you look at Mexico and Canada, they're way beyond that. We have a deal that really works. And the nice part about the deal we make with them is it's not a specific product; it's a product all across the line, whether it's dairy, or -- you know, just a lot of -- a lot of product. You see the list of products. There are many, many products, 12:35:49 and they're all included, so it's across the board. QUESTION: Mr. President, with -- with China -- one more on trade, if you don't mind. TRUMP: Go ahead. Go ahead. QUESTION: Mr. President, if the FBI does find something, and Brett Kavanaugh falls, is there a Plan B? 12:36:06 TRUMP: I -- I don't want to talk about Plan B, because I think -- I hope that he gets approved. I hope that the report comes out like it should -- like I really think it should. I think it will. I hope. I hope. But look, I'm waiting just like you. Certainly, if they find something, I'm going to take that into consideration. Absolutely. I -- I have a very open mind. The person that takes that position is going to be there for a long time. I have a very open mind. I just think he's an outstanding person. I think he has been treated horribly. Even if you were going to bring up some of the subjects that were brought up, they didn't have to treat him so viciously and so violently as they've treated him. OK, thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. (APPLAUSE) END

FS1_SCOTUS CHAIRMAN ISO_CHUB 1_1320 CSPAN POOL SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT TO THE SUPREME COURT DIAS ISO FULL COMMITTEE Nomination of the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Day 2 WITNESS JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT And the topics they are discussing today have little bearing to the rights that are really at issue and in jeopardy of the supreme court. And so let's take a few minutes to go through them. First of all, we have had some discussion of roe vs. Wade. You have declined to give an opinion on a matter that might be pending before the court, that is of course the same answer that every sitting justice has given when he or she was sitting in the same chair you are. It is mandated by the judicial candidates of ethics, whether one is a nominee of a democratic president or Republican not president, that has been the answer given to this committee for decades. But I do think it is interesting that our democratic colleagues number one, don't discuss what 13:19:20 would actually happen if there came a day where roe vs. Wade was overruled, which is namely that it would not suddenly become a case that abortion was illegal, but rather it would revert to the status of the law as it has been for nearly 200 years of our nation's history, which is that the question of the permissibility of abortion is a question for elected legislators at the state levels and the federal level. And it is difficult to dispute that there are great many of those issues including jurisdictions like California and New York who even if roe vs. Wade were no longer the law of the land, their elected legislatures would almost certainly continue unrestricted access to abortion with virtually no limitations. What I find interesting though is that our democratic colleagues do not discuss what 13:20:22 is really the radical position of the most liberal justices on the supreme court, which is that no restrictions whatsoever are permissible when it comes to abortion. Yesterday one of the democratic senators made reference to the case Gonzales versus Carhart. I am quite familiar with that case, and I represented Texas and a number of other states in that case. It concerned the constitutionality of the federal ban on partial birth abortion. It was legislation in the past congress was signed into law that made the really gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion accessible. An overwhelming of majority is believed that partial-birth abortion should be prohibited, even those that identify as pro-choice. A significant amount of Americans don't want to see that gruesome practice allowed. Supreme court by a vote of 5-4 13:21:25 in Carhart versus Gonzales upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. That means they were four ready to strike it down. Ready to conclude that you can to ban abortion. That you can't ban late-term abortion. And by with the way, other restrictions that are in question include parental consent to laws, parental notification laws, none of our democratic colleagues want to talk about the justices they want to see on the court would strike down every single reasonable restriction on unlimited abortion, and the vast majority of Americans. How about free speech? Well, we have heard quite a bit about free speech. To the senator from Rhode Island just gave a long presentation, complete with lots of charts. I will say a couple of things on free-speech. First of all, our democratic 13:22:25 colleagues when they address the issue of so-called dark money and campaign finance contributions are often deeply, deeply hypocritical. And don't address the actual facts that exist, here are some facts, of the top 20 organization spending money for political speech in the year of 2016, 14 of them gave virtually all of their money to Democrats. In another three split their money evenly, so only the top three gave their money to Republicans, what does that mean in practice? That meant the top 20 super pac donors contributed $422 million to Democrats and 189 million to Republicans. Those who give these impassioned speeches against dark money don't mention that their side is funded by dark money with a massive differential. 13:23:26 The senator from Rhode Island talked abc cout big corporate powers without acknowledging that the contributions from the fortune 500 in this presidential election overwhelmingly favored Joe Biden and the Democrats. Without acknowledging that the contributions from Wall Street in this election overwhelmingly favored Joe Biden and the Democrats. It's an awful lot of rhetoric about power, but it gets even more interesting when you look at supreme court nominations. We just heard an attack on "The federalist" society, a group that I've been a member of for over 25 years. I joined as a law student. A group that brings conservatives, libertarians, constant dilution constitutionalist together to discuss the law. What is interesting is nowhere in the senator of Rhode Island's remarks was any reference to a company called Arabella advisors. Which is a for-profit entity 13:24:29 that manages nonprofits including the 1630 fund in the new venture fund. What on Earth all of those? They sound dark and confusing names, well, according to "The Wall Street journal" this Sunday in the year 2017 and 2018, those entities reported $987.5 million in revenue. That's nearly a billion dollars. We heard a lot of thundering indignation at what was described as $250 million of expenditures, and in this case you have a billion dollars, the senator of Rhode Island said with that much money, much of which is dark money that we don't know who contributed, he asked, what are they getting for it? And by the way, one of the things they are getting for it is the group called demand to justice. A project of those entities, spent $5 million opposing justice Brett Kavanaugh who has 13:25:33 just launched a seven-figure add by opposing your confirmation. So all of the great umbrage about the corporate interest that are spending dark money is wildly in conflict with the actual facts of the corporate interests that are spending dark money are funding the Democrats. By a factor of 3-1 or greater. Effect that doesn't ever seem to be acknowledged. But not only that, what with citizens united about? It is interesting, most people at home have heard about citizens united. And they know that it makes Democrats very, very upset. But they don't know what the case is about. Citizens united concerned whether or not it was legal to make a movie criticizing a politician. 13:26:33 Specifically citizens united is a small nonprofit organization based here in D.C. That made a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton. In the Obama justice department took the position that it could fine, it could punish citizens united for daring to make a movie critical of a politician. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court with the oral argument that there was a moment that was truly chilling, justice Sam Alito asked the Obama justice department is it your position on your theory of the case that the federal government can ban books? In the Obama justice department responded yes. Yes, it is our position that if the book criticizes a political candidate, a politician, the federal government can ban books. As far as I'm concerned, that is 13:27:34 a terrifying view of the first amendment. Citizens united was decided 5-4 by a narrow 5-4 majority, and said that the federal government cannot punish you for making a movie critical of a politician. And likewise, that the federal government could not ban books. Four justices dissented, four justices were willing to say that the federal government can ban books and movies and presumably could ban books as well. When Hillary Clinton was running for president, she explicitly promised every justice she nominated in the court would pledge to overturn citizens united. By the way, Hillary Clinton said that she would demand of her nominee is something you have rightly said that this administration has not demanded of you, which is a commitment on any case as to how you would vote, Democrats have shown no 13:28:36 compunction in expecting their nominee is to make a promise, here is I'm going to vote on a pending case, judicial ethics be damned. Or how about the second amendment. We have heard some reference to the heller decision. Senator from Connecticut yesterday talked about reasonable gun control and gun safety provisions. That of course was not what was at stake in the heller decision. Number one trend majority decision justice to's opinion, acknowledges reasonable provisions, things like prohibitions on felons and possessions are permissible. Your opinion in the decision likewise acknowledge that restrictions from -- 13:29:36 are entirely permissible under the second amendment. But the issue of heller was much more fundamental. It was whether it protects an individual's right to bear arms at all. The vote in heller was 5-4. By a vote of 5-4, the majority struck down the district of Columbia's total prohibitions on owning an operative firearm in the district of Columbia. The argument of the four dissenters was not what are colleagues talk about here. Itas not some reasonable gun control provisions are okay. That was not the argument of dissenters. That question we can actually have a reasonable debate. Reasonable minds can differ on what the appropriate line should be. But that was not what was at issue with heller. The position of the four dissenters was the second amendment protects no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever, but merely a "Collecve right of the militia." 13:30:37 Which is fancy lawyer talk for a nonexistent right. Four justices would have ruled that way. One vote away. The consequences of the court concluding that there is no individual rights on the first amendment would mean you and I and every American watching this would lose your second amendment rights. It would mean that the federal government, the state government, the city could ban guns entirely. Could make it a criminal offense for anyone of us to own a firearm. And no individual American would have any cognizable right to challenge that. That is a radical reading of the constitution. That is effectively erasing the second amendment from the bill of rights. In Hillary Clinton likewise promised in 2016 that every justice she nominated would commit to voting to overturn 13:31:38 heller. They were big on litmus tests. And Joe Biden, even though he refuses to answer just about anything about whether or not he is going to pack the court, he did tell the American people that the voters don't deserve to know whether he is going to pack the court. Truly a statement of disrespect and contempt for the voters, unusual in our political process. One vote away from the second amendment being erased from the bill of rights. Not of our democratic colleagues admit, but that is their agenda. And those are the justices that democratic president to limit presidential nominees are saying they will appoint. Justices who will take away your right to criticize politics, justices who will allow censorship, justices who allow 13:32:38 books and movies to be banned, justices who erase the second amendment from the bill of rights, and how about religious liberty? Religious liberty is an issue near and dear to a great many of us. The right of every American to live according to your faith and conscience, whatever that faith may be, religious liberty is fundamentally about diversity. It is about respecting diversity that whatever your faith tradition might be, the government is not going to trample on it. Religious liberty cases over and over, the case that I litigated dealt with the ten commandments monument that stands on the state capitol grounds. It has been there since 1961 in Texas. An individual plane, an atheist, a homeless man filed a lawsuit trying to take down the ten commandments and it went all the way to the supreme court. It was decided 5-4. 13:33:41 Four justices were willing to stay in effect, send in the bulldozers and tear down that monument, because he cannot gaze on the image of the ten commandments on public land. Another case in the mojave desert veterans memorial, this is a memorial erected to the men and women who gave their lives in World War I. A white Latin cross, simple and bear in the middle of the desert. I have been there on sunrise rock where it stands. The aclu filed a lawsuit saying you cannot gaze on the image on public land, and the aclu won in the district court. The federal courts ordered that veterans memorial to be covered up with a burlap sack with a chain on the bottom, and apply a wood box. When the case went to the supreme court, I represented 3 million terans pro Bono for 13:34:42 free defending that veterans memorial. >> We won 5-4, and there were four justices prepared to say tear down the veterans memorial, and under the reasoning that they put forth, they were not far away from saying bring out the chisels and remove the crosses and the stars of David on the tombstones of the men and women that gave their lives in Arlington cemetery defending this nation. That is a radical view, and we are one vote away. That is utterly contrary to the text of the first amendment, to the understanding of the first amendment. When we argue the ten commandments case in the supreme court, there was more than a little bit of irony. You know how many times the 13:35:43 image of the ten commandments appears in the courtroom of the supreme court? The answer to that is 43. There are two images of the ten commandments carved on the wooden doors as he walked out of the courtroom, he would soon be sitting looking at them. Therefore the images of the ten commandments on the bronze Gates on both sides of the courtroom. And then judge Barrett, when you are sitting at the bench above your left shoulder will be a phrase you know well, a free is carved into the great lawgivers, one of whom is Moses, he is standing there holding the ten commandments. The text of which is legible in hebrew as he looks down on the justices. And four justices are willing to stay in effect, bring out the sandblaster's, because we must remove god from public square. That is a profound threat to our 13:36:43 religious liberty, and I would note that it is not just extend to public knowledge is. It also extends to religious liberty. The little sisters of the poor, our catholic convent of nuns who take oath of poverty who devote their lives to caring for the sick, caring for the needy, caring for the elderly. The Obama administration litigated against the little sisters of the poor seeking to find them in order to force them to pay for abortion inducing drugs among others. It's truly a stunning situation when you have the federal government to litigating against nuns. The supreme court decided the hobby lobby case, another case routinely denounced by senate Democrats, the hobby lobby case concluded that the federal government could not permissibly 13:37:44 force a Christian business to violate their faith. It reflects the religious liberty traditions that you can live according to your faith without the government trampling on it. You know what this body did, I'm sorry to say? Senate Democrats introduced leslation to cut the religious freedom act. That past with over overwhelming bipartisan majority. Senate Democrats including chuck Schumer and Joe Biden, all voting for the religious restoration act. President Bill Clinton signed the religious freedom restoration act. And in the wake of the hobby lobby decision, they voted to got to the protections for religious liberty, and I am sorry to say that every senate Democrat voted to do so. Not a single one, zero would defend religious liberty. Joe Biden has already pledged if 13:38:44 he is elected, he plans to initiate again the attack on the little sisters of the poor. Now it is interesting, folks in the press like to talk about pope Francis. And on some issues pope Francis has been vocal when it comes to the environment, when it comes to issues concerning immigration, the pope has been vocal on issues that are democratic colleagues like and agree with. The press is happy to amplify those views pretty somehow missing from the amplification's acknowledgment that when the pope came to the United States in Washington he went and visited the little sisters of the poor. Here in D.C. He went to their home here in D.C. And the Vatican explained that he did so because he wanted to highlight their cause. That the federal governmt should not be persecuting nuns for living according to their faith. That's what is at stake in these nominations. 13:39:44 And you won't hear any of that from the senate Democrats on this committee, that's why their base is so angry at your nomination, judge Barrett, because they do not believe that you are going to join the radical efforts to erase those fundamental rights from the bill of rights. I believe that issue preserving the constitution, preserving the bill of rights, the fundamental liberties, I believe is the most important issue facing the country in the November elections. And I think for those of us who value those rights, we should take solace in the fact that not a single Democrat is willing even to acknowledge the radical sweep of their agenda, much less defend it. They know it is wildly unpopular, and look, right at 13:40:46 the heart of this is a decision many Democrats have made to abandon democracy. You see, most policies, policies like Obamacare, policies like health care, most policies under the constitutional system were meant to be decided by democratically elected legislators. Why? So they can be accountable to people. So the voters disagree, they can throw the bums out. But too many Democrats have decided today that democracy is too complicated. It is too hard to actually convince your fellow Americans of the merits of your position. It is much easier just to give it to the courts, finding five lawyers in the black robes and let them decree the policy outcome that you want, which makes your radical base happy, presumably makes the millions, if not billions in dark money being spent for Democrats happy 13:41:49 without having to justify it to the American people. Judge Barrett, I'm not going to ask you to respond to any of that. But I do want to shift to a different topic. Which is a bit more about you personally, your background. Judge Barrett, do you speak any foreign-language is? >> Once upon a time I could speak French, B I have fallen woefully out of practice, so please don't ask me to do that right now. >> You can be assured of that, because I had two years of high school French, and I suspect yours remains much better than mine. How about music? Do you play any instruments? >> The piano. >> How long have you play the piano? >> I played the piano growing up or ten years. And now most of my piano playing consists of playing my children songs for them and supervising their own piano practice. I look forward one day when I have more time to be able to choose some of my own music. 13:42:51 >> Do the kids do piano lessons as well? Speak of the kids do piano lessons, some of the older ones who are in high school have gotten so busy with sports and those things that they have stopped, but the younger children do. >> Our girls are nine and 12 and they both do piano lessons and I will say in our household it is less than voluntary. >> [Laughs] >> One of the things Heidi and I have found particularly the last six months during covid Emma which has been an extraordinary crisis, is just with two kids at home that doing distance learning when schools were shut down was really hard for us with two children, for you and your husband, you have seven kids, how did you all managed through the lockdowns and distance learning? What was that like in the household? >> It was a challenging time as it was for every American, our oldest daughter Emma who is in college moved home at that point, because she is at notre dame. 13:43:51 It is closed. So Emma could manage her own e-learning and our high school children could as well, but Jesse and I try to divide and conquer the approach for the younger four, and it was quite challenging, I assure you. >> One part of your story that I find particularly remarkable, and that I admire is the decision you made to adopt two children. You and your husband had five biological children, and you adopted two more. Both of your adopted children are from Haiti. Haiti is a country that has some of the most crushing poverty in the world. My brother-in-law is a missionary in Haiti, and actually Heidi and the girls just got back from Haiti a couple of weeks ago. I was curious if you would share with this committee and with the American people what led you and your husband to make the 13:44:52 decision to adopt? It is one of the most loving and compassionate decisions any family can make. >> When Jessie and I were engaged, we met another couple who had adopted, in the sense it was a couple who adopted a child with special needs, and we also met another couple who adopted a few children internationally, and we decided at that point while we were engaged that at some point in the future, we wanted to do that ourselves. And I guess that we had imagined initially that we would have what ever biological kids that we had decided to have, and adopt at the end, but after we had our first daughter Emma, we thought, why wait? So I was expecting tests when we went and got Vivian. So she and tests, we call them are fraternal twins, they are the same grade. And it has enriched our family immeasurably. And once we had adopted a Vivian 13:45:52 at that point, then we made that decision that we definitely wanted to adopt again. Several years later John Peter entered our family. >> So your children have been wonderfully well behaved. I think that you are an amazing role model for little girls, what advice would you give little girls? >> Well, what I am saying is not designed -- my brother now has left, I was thinking of what my father said before the spelling bee, anything boys can do, girls can do better. So since my sons are also behind me, I will say that boys are great too. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, welcome again, judge . Since I have the draw to always follow senator Cruz, I did want to make one thing clear after listening to that for a half-hour, that Joe Biden is catholic and he is a man of faith. And then I want to turn to something else, and that is that 13:46:53] we need a recess in my mind for the people at home. A bit of a reality check that this is not normal right now. We have to understand that what people are dealing with 7.7 million people have gotten this virus. And 214,000 Americans have died, and for people watching at home and wondering what we are all doing in this room right now, and may be at home because you lost your job or maybe you got your kids crawling all over your couch right now, maybe you are trying to teach your first grader how to do a mute button to go to school or maybe you have a small business that you had to close down or that is struggling, we should be doing something else right now. We should not be doing this. We should be passing coronavirus relief like the house just did, which was a significant bill that would've been a big help. And I think that people have to know that right now. Whether you're a Democrat, 13:47:55 independent, or Republican, and that's why it started out yesterday by telling people that they need to vote. Number two, some of my colleagues throughout this hearing on the other side have been kind of portraying the job that the judge is before us on as being some kind of ivory tower exercise. I think that one of my friends called it, related that you would be dealing with the dormant congress because. I'm sure that might be true, but we also know that this is the highest court in the land. That the decisions of this court have a real impact on people. And I appreciate judge, that you said you did not want to be a queen. I would not mind being the queen around here, truth be known. I would not mind doing it. A benevolent queen of making decisions so that we can get things done. But you said that you would not let your views influence you and the like, B the truth is the supreme court rulings rule 13:48:56 people's lives. They decide if people can get married. They decide what schools they can go to. They decide if they can even have access to contraception. All of these things matter. So I want to make that clear. And to the third reset her that I think we need to have is that this hearing is not normal. It is a sham. It is a rush to put in a justice. The last time that we had a vacancy so close to an election was when Abraham Lincoln was president. And he made the wise decision to wait until after the election. The last time we lost a justice so close to an election. That's what he did. Today we are 21 days from the election. People are voting. Millions of people have already cast their ballots. And I go to the words of 13:49:56 senator Mcconnell, the last time we had a situation, he said the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice, therefore this bank and see you should not be filled until we have a new president. That set the precedent that so many of you have embraced. Or at least you did a few years ago, which is that in an election year, the people choose the president, and then the president nominates the justice. So why is this happening? Well, that is a good question. This guy, our president. He is the one who decided to pop a supreme court nomination in the middle of an election, when people's health care is on the line with the case before the court on November 10th. So let's see what he said about the supreme court. Well, one of president trump's campaign promises in 2015 was that appointment 13:51:00 will do the right thing on Obamacare. You can see it right here. And in fact, judge, just one day after you are nominated, this is a few weeks ago, he said also on Twitter that it would be big win if the supreme court strikes down the healthful. So judge, my first question, do you think that we should take the president at his word when he says his nominee will do the right thing and overturn the affordable care act? >> Senator klobuchar, I can't really speak to what the president had said on Twitter. He has not said any of that to me. What I can tell you, as I have told your colleagues earlier today, is that no one has elicited any commitment in the case or brought up that commitment in the case. I am 100% committed to judicial Independence from political pressure. 13:52:01 So whatever people's party platforms may be or a campaign promises may be, the reason why judges have life tenure is to insulate them from those pressures. So I take my oath seriously to follow the law. And I am not pretty committed on what I precommit to decide a case any particular way. >> I think that the life tenure, the idea that you have just for everyone out there a job for life makes this even more important for us to consider where you might to be. And I know that you have not said how you would rule on this case that is coming up right after the election, where the president had said it would be a big win if the supreme court strikes down the law, but you have directly criticized justice Roberts in an article in my own state, and one of the Minnesota law school journals. It was in 2017. It was the same year you became a judge. And when Roberts writes the opinion to uphold the affordable care act, you said he "Push the 13:53:03 affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute." Is that correct? >> Senator klobuchar, I want to clarify, is this the constitutional commentary publication that you and I discussed? >> Yes, it is, but it is still -- >> Okay. I just wanted to be sure. >> Again, did you ask that question? Did you say that? That he pushed the affordable care act beyond the plausible meaning to save the statute? >> One thing I want to clarify is you say that I criticized chief justice Roberts, and I don't attack people. It just ideas. So it was designed to make a comment about his reasoning in that case, which as I have said before is consistent with the majority opinion characterizes it as a left plausible reading of the statute. >> So you did not agree with his reasoning in the case that upheld the affordable care act? >> What I said and -- 13:54:04 >> That was sib versus civilians. I will get to king in a moment. >> What I said with sib versus civilians. Which was that the interpretation that the majority of assets construing the mandates to be attacked it rather than a penalty was not the most natural reading of the statute. >> Is still the reading that justice Roberts got to. You also criticized as he pointed out by bringing up king V Burwell, this was in a 2015 national public radio interview, and you acknowledge that people being able to keep their subsidy under the affordable care act was -- and it would help millions of Americans. Yet you praise to the dissent by justice Scalia saying the dissent had "The better of the legal argument," is that correct? >> I did say that, yes. >> Would you have ruled the same way and voted with 13:55:06 justice Scalia? >> Well, senator klobuchar, one of the plus sides or the upsides of being academic is that you can spea for yourself. The professor professes and can opine, but it is very different than the judicial decision process. So it is very difficult for me to say how I would have decided that case if I had to go through the whole process of the judicial decision-making that I was describing this morning now having been a judge for three years, I can say that I appreciate greatly the distinctions between academic writing or academic speaking a judicial decision-making, such that a judge might look at an academic and say you are not on a multimember court. You are not a strained to decide this coming you do not have real parties in front of you consulting with lid against. It is just a different process. >> I view that one so interests leading lean, because you are commenting on the public policy 13:56:08 result which you and my colleagues, the Republican side have said should not be a public policy and you said, okay, that is okay, but then you were really clear on your legal outcome in terms of your view of whose side you were on. You were on scoliosis died, and --Scalia's side, which would have kicked millions of people off of their health care, and that would have taken them off of their subsidies. The dichotomy that they are trying to make between policy and legal is that legal decisions affect policy. I am looking at people in my state that will deal with this as the affordable care act if it is struck down paired allies are from St. Paul who was born with cerebral palsy, because of the affordable care act, he is now 16 and is a proud boy seeped O out. Out -- boy scout. And without the ACA, that would 13:57:11 be that orb are not from the suburb of St. Paul whose daughter has multiple sclerosis depends on benefits under the ACA. Lily I know who has a 21-year-old son with autism and needs her children to stay on her insurance until she is 26. Melanie, a senior from Duluth, being treated for ovarian cancer and needs access to the affordable care act. These are real world situations. And I get that you are not saying how you would rule on these cases, so what does that leave us with to try to figure out with what kind of judge you would be? And I was thinking last night when I was growing up, we would go to norther Minnesota, and we did not have a cabin, but we had friends that did, and we would go on these walks in the woods with my mom, and she loved to show all of the tracks on that path, whether they were deer tracks and she would have us 13:58:11 figure out what they were, elk or a bear, and we would follow these tracks down that path. And he would always think that there would be a deer around the corner that we would see? And very rarely was there one, but we would follow these tracks. And when I look at your record, I just keep following the tracks. That's what I have got to do. So when I follow the tracks, this is what I see. You considered justice Scalia one of the most conservative judges in the history of the supreme court as your mentor. You criticize the you criticize the decision by Justin Roberts holding the affordable care act. You criticized the reasoning. You said in another case about the affordable care act that you liked the legal reasoning that he had the better legal 13:59:13 argument, justice Scalia had the better legal argument. You have signed your name to a public statement featured in an ad, a paid ad, the call for an end what are called the barbaric legacy of roe V. Wade. Which ran on the anniversary of the 1973 supreme court decision. You disagreed with long-standing precedent on gun safety which said felons shouldn't be able to get guns, something that was pretty important to me when I had my old job in law enforcement. It's something senator Durbin asked you about. You suggested you agreed with the dissent in the marriage equality case that it wasn't the role of the court to decide that same-sex couples have the right to be I think this was in a lecture you gave were you said the dissent view was that it wasn't for the court to decide. People could lobby and state legislatures. All this takes me to one point if I follow those tracks on that path. It takes me to the point where I believe that I think the American people have to understand that you would be the polar opposite of justice Ginsburg. She and justice Scalia were friends, yes, but she never embraced his legal philosophy. So that's what concerns me. I want to turn to an area where I think justice Ginsburg, the seat we are considering you for, is truly a hero. That's the area of votin rights. That's the area of elections. I think, went to the president say? He said September 23, 2020. 14:01:05 "I think this," he means the election, "We'll end up in the supreme court and I think it's very important that we have nine justices." I don't think how much clearer we can be. As I said yesterday, I do not for a minute concede that this election is going to end up in the supreme court because people are voting in droves as we speak. That's what's on the mind of the man who nominated you for this job. Then he said on September 29, 2020 "I think I'm counting on them," he met the court "To look at the ballots." So I know you said earlier and questions from senator Leahy that you're not going to commit to whether or not you are going to recuse yourself for any kind of an election case. I do want to point out that as the president has said and as he 14:02:05 has nominated you that people are voting right now. They are voting, as I said, in droves. You know how many states or people are voting right now, judge? I think one of my colleagues said it. >> I don't know. >> More than 40 states people are voting right now as we speak. I think something like 9 million votes have been cast. Do you think it's faithful to our democratic princips to fill a supreme court vacancy this close to an election when people are still voting? >> Senator klobuchar, I think that's a question for the political branches. >> Okay. That's your right answer in that way. Beyond this immediate election, I want to turn to the supreme court's critical role when it comes to the right to vote. This area where justice Ginsburg 14:03:06 was such a champion. Senator Durbin went over your dissent at length in Kanter V bar, where you drew a distinction between individual rights and civic rights. You wrote that historically felons should be disqualified from exercising certain rights like the right to vote and to serve on juries. My question is, this next line where you said these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens. What does that mean? >> Senator, I would need to look at the article to clarify that as I'm sitting here I don't think I said felons should lose voting rights. I think what I was talking about is the 14th amendment. >> It wasn't an article, just to be clear, right? This is your dissent. >> Sorry, my dissent. 14:04:06 >> Your dissent in Kanter V. Barr. Felons could be disqualified from certain rights like the right to vote. Apart from that clause, you said these rights belong only to virtuous citizens. That's what I'm trying to understand what that means. >> The argument in the case, those were challenging haller and those arguing on the side of the government in the Kanter case is that the second amendment is a civic right. That's how the supreme court itself frames the debate, as a distinction between civic rights and individual rights with voting being a civic right. In historical literature that was what was at play in that case. >> How do you define the word virtuous? It doesn't appear in the constitution. I want to know that means. We are living in a time or a lot of people are having their voting rights taken away from them. What's virtuous? 14:05:07 >> Senator, I want to be clear that that is not in the opinion designed to denigrate the right to vote which is fundamental. The distinction between civic and individual rights is one that is present in the courtsdecisions and it has to do with the jurisprudential view. The virtuous citizenry idea is historical and jurisprudential. It doesn't mean I think anybody gets a measure of virtue and whether they are good or not and whether they allowed to vote. That's not what I said. >> Let me ask this in a different way. Let's go to the real world. In justice Ginsburg dissent in Shelby or a 5-4 court struck down a key provision of the voting rights act, she described the right to vote as a fundamental right in our democratic system. I assume you agree with this because you just said you agree with the concept that it's a fundamental right. >> As I just said, yes, repeatedly said. >> Okay. She also wrote in her dissent that the constitution uses the 14:06:09 words right to vote in five separate places. 14, 15, 19, 24th amendments. Each of these amendments contains the same broad empowerment of congress to enact appropriate legislation to enforce the protected right. The implication is unmistakable. Under our constitutional structure, congress holds the lead reign I making the right to vote equally real for all U.S. Citizens. Do you agree with justice Ginsburg's conclusion that the constitution empowers congress to protect the right to vote? >> Senator, that would be listening in opinion with me on whether they dissent or the majority was right in Shelby county. I can't express a view on that, as I've said. It would be inconsistent with the judicial rules. >> Here's my problem, so you go out of your way in the case that dick Durbin was discussing to make this distction between voting rights and gun rights. But now you won't say whether or 14:07:09 not you agree with Ginsberg. My view is based following the tracks on this case, that you are most likely with the majority. But I know you're not going to answer this. What I do want to know is this. This is where it's -- it gets interesting because of what justice Ginsburg predicted and that dissent. According to the Brennan center, over 20 states since that case came out that took away part of the protections in the voting rights act, over 20 states have now made more restrictive voting lot than they did before that case. Doesn't that suggest to you that justice Ginsburg had the better of the argument when she wrote that throwing out preclearance when it's worked and continue to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. Do you think that that's true? It seems to me that the proof is 14:08:13 in the pudding. Basically this rainstorm that she said would come has come with all of the states including a number of them that my colleagues over there represent have enacted stricter laws as it happened. >> Senator klobuchar, I want to clarify that I was answering senator Durbin's question about the second amendment but refusing to answer yours. I wanted to clarify that I have written Kanter versus Barr so that's why I was talking about it. I didn't write Shelby. I can't really talk about it. Anything that I have written about or talked about I would be happy to answer your question. >> All right. But again, it seems to me you went out of your way on that case. This is a case that's so real for so many people right now. While you can say it's a fundamental right, the issue is that this case in the voting rights act are so key. Let me say why. We are talking about the entire foundation of our democracy 14:09:15 here. For centuries, Americans have fought and died to protect the right to vote. What matters is not just what you say about it being fundamental. It's what you do. States like North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee have policies that make it harder for people to vote. It's a real world thing before the supreme court. In fact back in may when voters in Wisconsin were standing in line in the middle of a pandemic in homemade masks, in garbage bags in the middle of a rainstorm just to exercise their right to vote, 70 of them got covid because we didn't know enough about it back then. Because the president hadn't told us what we knew and we didn't know enough to protect those voters. It ends up at the supreme court. What did justice Ginsburg do? When the Republican appointed majority on the court ruled that voters in Wisconsin could not have more time to get their ballots in during the pandemic, she called them out in her dissent. 14:10:17 In her blueprint for the future. She said the majority opinion boggled the mind. So what boggles my mind, two weeks ago the U.S. Supreme court reinstated the South Carolina report requirement that mail-in ballots must have witness signatures in the middle of a pandemic. You've got to go and get a witness in Texas, Republicans have argued that the pandemic wasn't a good enough reason to let people under age 65 vote by mail despite the fact that over 42,000 Americans under 65 have died from covid. The governor Noem is right now forcing that state to have only one ballot box for county. Including in Harris county. For those of you who thought a judge took care of it, he did but then yesterday 3 Trump appointed judges came in and reversed it we are back to one ballot box for people who drop their 14:11:18 ballots in the county of 4.7 million people. In Tennessee, Republicans have tried to prevent ballot drop boxes I know. We had this state at a witness. They had argued in court that covid-19 is not a valid excuse to vote by mail. In North Carolina and the supreme court struck down core component of the voting rights act. What happened? States like North Carolina passed laws that were so egregious to make it harder to vote that the fourth circuit struck down their law and noted that it targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision. So that's what the stakes are and that's why not having justice Ginsburg on the court right now is so frightening to so many Americans out there. That's why we are asking you these questions about voting. So let me turn to another election question, gerrymandering. In 2015 justice Ginsburg wrote 14:12:19 the majority opinion in Arizona state legislature V Arizona independent redistricting commission holding that it was constitutional for the people of Arizona to amend the state constitution to establish an independent redistricting commission. Because of this case and justice Ginsburg's opinions, many argue now that Arizona has fairer electoral maps. The decision was 5-4. Here's your example. Now justice Ginsburg and justice Kennedy are no longer on the court. My question is this. Most state legislators abide by their own state's constitution when exercising their authority over the election clause? >> Senator klobuchar, that would be eliciting an opinion about me about whether I agreed or disagreed with the result in that case. >> Is a constitutional for voters to amend the state constitution to establish specific processes for elections like the voters in Arizona did 14:13:21 to stop gerrymandering? >> Again, you're asking me for review on that particular case. Justice Ginsburg herself gave the most famous articulation of the principle that constrains me from doing so which is no hints, forecasts or previews. I can't express a view on how I would decide any questions that would provoke by that application of that precedent to a later case. >> Last week a contractor from outside of my statements on a started recording poll watchers with special forces excretes. To protect polling locations in my state. Clear voter intimidation. Similar efforts are going on around the country solicited by president trump, false claims of massive voter fraud. Something many Republican leaders including the former head of the Republican party, including governor Kasich, including sitting 14:14:21 senator Romney. They made a very clear it's not true. As a result of his claims, people are trying to get poll watchers, special forces people to go to the polls. Judge Barrett, under federal law is it illegal to intimidate voters at the polls? >> Senator klobuchar, I can't characterize the fact in a hypothetical situation and I can't apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts. I can only decide cases as they come to me litigated by parties on the full record after fully engaging precedent, talking to colleagues, writing opinions. I can't answer questions like that. >> I'll make it easier. Outlawing out any who intimidates, threatens, courses or attempts to intimidate threaten or course any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote. This is a law spent on the books for decad what you think a reasonable 14:15:22 person would feel intimidated by the presence of armed civilian groups at the polls? >> Senator klobuchar, you know that is eliciting, I'm not sure it's eliciting a legal opinion for me because a reasonable person standard as you know is more common in the law. Or just an opinion as a citizen. It's not something really that's appropriate for me to comment on. >> Okay. Here's one that I think it is. Selection of electoral college electors. You know that each state has laws that dictate how electoral college electors are selected. Judge Barrett, 1932 the supreme court in a case involving my state ruled that the Minnesota state legislature could not change election rules unilaterally. Do you agree that the unanimous opinion in smiley V Holmes which is never been questioned by any other supreme court case is settled law? >> I will say two things. First of all, I was not aware of 14:16:22 that case. Secondly I can't comment on the precedent. >> Why don't we end there with precedent questioning that's a good way to end. You rode in your 2013 Texas law review article that you tend to agree with the view that when a justice's best understanding of the constitution conflicts with supreme court precedent or case law, it's "More legitimate for her to follow her preferred view rather than apply the precedent. Quick what I want to run through a few examples. Brown V board of education. The 14th amend that private it states from segregating schools under the basis of race. Is that precedent? >> Well, that is precedent. As I think I said in that same article, it is super precedent. People consider it to be on that 14:17:22 very smallest of things that are so widely established and Agre upon by everyone. Cost for its overruling simile don't exist. >> Okay. You also separately acknowledged that in planned parenthood case, supreme court controlling opinion talked about the interest on roe V. Wade which you treated in that case as super precedent. Is roe a super precedent question Marc Siegel how would you define super precedent? >> I'm asking you. >> People use super precedent differently. The way that I was using it in the article that you're reading was to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors and no pulley both seriously push for their overruling. I'm answering a lot of questions about roe vs. Wade which I think indicates roe vs. Wade doesn't 14:18:23 fall in that category. Descriptively means it's a case, not a case that everyone has accepted. >> Here's what's interesting. You said that brown is, and I know my time is running out, is a super precedent. That something the supreme court has not even sad but you have said that. So if you say that, why won't you say that about roe V. Wade, a case that the court's controlling opinion and that planned parenthood case has described as a super precedent. Th's what I am trying to figure out. >> Senator, I can give you the same answer that I just did and I'm using the term in that article that is from scholarly literature. It was one developed by scholars that are certainly not conservative scholars. They take a more Progressive approach to the constitution. Again, you know, as it W said roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling haven't seized but it doesn't 14:19:25 mean roe should be overruled. It means it doesn't fall under the small handful of cases that no one questions anymore. >> United States V Virginia military, is that precedent? >> Senator Claude bashar, if you continue to ask questions about super precedent that aren't on the list as a super precedent that I discussed in the articles that are well acknowledged in the constitutional law literature, every time you ask a question I will have to say that I can't grade it. >> Then I am left with looking at the tracks of your record and where it leads the American people. I think it leads us to a place it's going to have severe repercussions for them. Thank you. >> Senator sasse. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, welcome back. I mean this is good news but it might not feel like it after your half done. I am 11th of 22. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my questioning I would like to ask unanimous consent to admit to the record a letter from the 14:20:25 historian at princeton who's written a letter to the committee in response to some of senator Harris' claims about the history of supreme court vacancies going back to the civil war. >> Without objection. >> Thank you. Judge, you have said that the meaning of law doesn't change with time. You've said that's very important. Can you unpack for us why it's so important that the meaning of a law doesn't change with time? >> Sure. Because the law stays the same until it's lawfully changed. If we are talking about a law that has been enacted by the people's representatives or gone through the process of constitutional amendment or constitutional ratification, it must go through the lawfully prescribed process before it's changed. Article five in the context of the constitution. Bicameralism and represent in the statutes. It's not up to judges to short circuit the process by updating the law. That's your job. >> But laws clearly are written 14:21:25 in a context and then the circumstances to which those laws are applied would change. Does the fourth amendment have nothing to say about cell phones, unreasonable search and seizure was obvious he not written in a time when they imagined mobile technological devices that edited our kids. As the fourth of them that have nothing to say about cell phones? >> The constitution, one reason why is the longest lasting written constitution in the world is because it's written at a level of generality that is specific enough to protect rights but general enough to be lasting. So that when you're talking about the constable banging at your door in 1791, and search and seizure. Now we can apply it. Carpenter versus United States. Cell phones. The fourth amendment is a principle. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures when he doesn't catalogue the instances in which an unreasonable search or seizure could take place. 14:22:28 You take that principle and then you apply it to modern technology, like cell phones or when technological advances enable someone with x-ray vision to see in your house so there's no need to knock on the door. I think I could still be analyzed under the fourth amendment. >> I think this is a useful place to explain to the American people what originalism is and why it's a mistake to view it as a Republican position. I think originalism is part of the jurisprudential debate. It's not part of a policy continuum between Republicans and Democrats. It's something that's useful for everybody who believes that three branches of government have two that are political and one that is not. Maybe it's useful to back up and say when you define yourself as an originalist, what does it mean and how is it going to relate to that stiction between principles that are timeless but the applications that are clearly going to change by 14:23:28 circumstance. >> Right. Originalism means you treat the constitution as law because it commits these texts to writing. In interpreting that law you interpreted with the meaning people would have understood it to have at the time it was ratified. The reason you do that is because otherwise as I said, the law stays the same until it's lawfully changed. Otherwise judges would be in the constitutional convention business of updating the law rather than allowing the people to take control. In a case of the constitution, as I've said with the fourth amendment, many of its principles are more general. Unreasonable searches and seizures. Free speech, those are things that have to be identified or fleshed out or applied over time so the fact that there wasn't the internet or computers or blogs in 1791 doesn't mean that the first amendment free speech 14:24:30 clause couldn't apply to those things now. It enshrines a principal and we understand the principle as it was of the time. But it's capable of being applied to new circumstances. >> When you define yourself as an originalist, what are the other schools of thought that are adjacent to it? How do you think about the debates among those with other people that are now with you on the seventh circuit for instance? >> Sure. Senator sasse, I think one thing worth pointing out is in the academy, in the event where I spent a large portion of my career, originalism is not necessarily a conservative idea. There is a whole school of thought. Originalist are diverse class and there's a school of originalism that's more of a Progressive originalism. It's committed to keeping the 14:25:31 constitution's meaning, interpreting text the way all originalist due to say that it was, has the meaning it had time it was ratified. But they tend to read at a higher level of generality. All originalist don't necessarily agree. In fact, there is an atavistic elite group called the constitution accountability center which has routinely filed briefs that calls itself, it writes briefs in support of originalism. I don't -- probably people think it's only conservatives who are originalist. Actually it's more widely accepted than that. I think if you think about different strains of approaching constitutional text, originalism is one. All judges and justices take account of history in the original meaning. It's just that some weight it differently whereas originalists would give it dispositive weight when it's discernible. Other approaches to 14:26:31 constitutional interpretation may take a more pragmatic view and say it some instances that may have been the historical meaning but that's an uncomfortable fit for current circumstances, so we will tweak it a little bit too adjusted to fit the circumstances. Sometimes it's called living constitutionalism. The constitution can evolve and change over time. Something that's called a more pragmatic constitutionalism. >> I want to make sure we establish this fact clearly together. One of the things that I think is really unhelpful for the American people when they see hearings like this, some of the last -- over the last 20 years, there's an assumption that those of us who've advocated for you of the course of the last three years must be doing it because we know something about your policy views and we've seen the beautiful mind conspiracy theory charges that this is about specific outcomes people want. What I want to have the judge who doesn't want to take away 14:27:31 the job of a a legislature accountable to the people. I want to be sure that the political branches that are accountable to the people because they can hire and fire us are the places where policy decisions are made. What you are seeing is in the legal academy there are people who agree with you on originalism is a broad philosophical school and yet will come out in very different places on the outcomes of particular policy positions. >> That is what I'm saying. >> On the notre dame law faculty when you were up for the vacancy on the seventh circuit three years ago, the notre dame law faculty as I understand the letter that we got from them here had people unanimously recommend you across the faculty and I would assume there's a pretty way view of policy on the notre dame law faculty. >> There is. >> People can affirm that you know what the job of the judges. You have the judicial temperament and modesty and humility about the calling and they are comfortable with you even though they don't think they might agree with every 14:28:33 policy view you have. >> I hope that's what people think because that's what I have always driven to do. In my time as a judge, my job, my boss is the rule of law, not imposing my policy preferences. >> Can you tell us what the black robe is about? Why do judges in our system or ropes? >> Judges in our system more black robes and they started wearing black robes actually because chief justice John Marshall started the practice in the beginning. Justices used to wear colorful robes that identified them with the schools they graduated from. John Marshall decided to wear a simple black robe. Pretty soon the other justices followed suit and now all judges do it. I think the black robe shows that justice is blind. We all dress the same. It shows once we put it on, we are standing united symbolically, speaking in the name of the law, not speaking 14:29:34 for ourselves as individuals. >> Thank you. You're questioning from chairman graham this morning talked about the judicial decision making any started with four steps and added a fifth and then eighth sixth grade being a reactive branch is really reactive. Can you explain what it means that the branches reactive? >> Article three of the constitution said courts can hear cases or controversies. A judge can't walk in and say I feel like visiting the question of health care and telling people what I think. We can't even think about the law or how it would apply until litigants bring a real-life case with real-life parties in a real-life dispute before us. The material that we have two decide that dispute is what comes from you. It's the statutes that you have. We don't get to come up with the policies and see our wishes become part of the United States code. We react to the litigants who 14:30:34 bring cases before us and we apply the laws that you make. >> What are the steps inside those article three courts beforee get to a situation where the supreme court hears a case? What's unique about the supreme court? >> The supreme court obviously sits atop the federal hierarchy of the judiciary. The supreme court. My court, the seventh circuit, every time someone loses in the district courts which are the trial court, they can appeal. We take every single appeal that comes. The supreme court works differently. The supreme court takes cases when it needs to most frequently the reason it takes them is to resolve a division among the courts of appeal or the state supreme court. Supreme court gets about 8,000 petitions a year. They hear about 80 cases a year. It's discretionary. >> So it's a reactive branch in its after a process where there's a statute that's been