eastern on american history tv on c-span two. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] caller: [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, >> c-span, democracy unfiltered, funded by these companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other providers, giving you a front proceed democracy. -- front row seat to democracy. >> we have had nudtrump's nominees in their own words we turn to tranortation secretary nominee sean duffy, former u.s. representative who prior to congress, served as district

attorney of ashland coty, wisconsin. mr. duffy was competitive in logrolling and speed lin and beard on ality television is a cast member oft's the real rld. and road rules all-stars, where he met hisute wife. we will show you what 2015 conversation on the federal budget with non-congressman duffy. this was on washington journal. >> joining us this morning, welcome back congressman sean duffy of wisconsin here to talk about the 2016 budget debate. the house would like to kick it off and get a conference deal come of the house and senate on the road this week but there seems to be a hold up. politico's headline, gop budget dodges fights over entitlement and defense. forget about paul ryan's medicare privatization plan, the same with other entitlement reforms and never mind

offsetting defense spending increases. sources describe a deal in which political practicality beats ideology as republican leaders tacked towards the parties center know that they are in control. >> it is impressive that we will get a deal this early if a deal comes. it has been decades since we have had this kind of bicameral negotiations this early in the process, which i think is fantastic. listen. we understand the process, we look at the ideology and politics and see how much we can get done. this will resolve challenges we face as a country. american understands we have an $18 trillion debt. they want us to fix the problem we face today and in the long run. 240 billion dollars per year in interest on the death is about half the amount we spend on military spending. we have to get the budget right.

we also have to understand we can't get everything we want. politics come into play. you see the struggle between those two happening now. it can be messy. it is sausage making bet at the end i think we will get a deal that will work for the american people. >> the budget paren serves as a vision of the party. republicans controlled the house and senate. it is not a binding document. does it concern you that the vision of the republican party looks like not dealing with the drivers of the debt that you were talking about, entitlements? >> in the house we have dealt with the drivers of debt, which is entitlements. we look back to the ads running against paul ryan with him dumping a lady off a cliff. we are not afraid to put up ideas. what happens in the negotiations, with the senate, we have to find out what comes

from this negotiation but i think it is important we continue to address the drivers. we have both chambers. again, we have certain problems in the senate, we don't have 60 votes, and we will need democrat by in. you don't always get everything you want because in the senate you don't control everything without the 60 vote majority. x republicans were able to increase money for the pentagon, the defense hawks won out, putting money in the so-called emergency fund for national security concerns. but not offsetting those costs. that is ok with you? >> well, listen, there's a concern that all of us have about the strength of our military, and if you look around the world, there are rising at's, whether we are looking at what's happening with iran, with isis. china, russia, serious problems that we face in the world, and america has to have a strong military to address those problems. i would prefer that we do have offsets, but as you know, it becomes very

challenging to find a pathway forward. whose program are we going to cut? and i think in this negotiation you're seeing people opt for just going for military spending and putting on the american credit card that arguably, which you'll come back to your credit and say, hey, that's that's part of the problem that we've seen, you know, for decades that puts us at that $18 trillion debt. but we come back to a fundamental problem. whether it's with our military or with even building out our infrastructure on roads and bridges, those are, i think, one of the one of the primary roles of our government. but when you include all these entitlements, all of these programs that sends money to people across the country, all of a sudden budgets get tight and instead of putting money into the spaces that we actually should as a government like military and infrastructure, we start to have these debates about where the money is going to come from because more money is going out in the entitlement system and we have to have a conversation as a country if we're going to be responsible in our spending. you know, where are the cuts going to come from? where is the reform going to come from? is it

smart to get all the reform from our military when we live in a more dangerous world? i don't think that's the answer. i think, i think we want to make sure we have a strong military, especially with all these threats. and so i think we have to look at the entitlement system where you're able to help people out who are in need. making sure they get a hand up to bridge the gap of the hardship that they find themselves in their life, but we want to make sure we get away from a system that can encourage a lifetime on these programs and encourage people, you know, to use them but then get off the program, which will hopefully save the federal government a lot of money. that's a larger conversation that we have to figure out. >> jenny is up first in lakewood washington, an independent , caller. hi jenny, you're on the air with congressman sean duffy. go ahead. good morning. i, i would just like to say that i accessed omb's historical financial data excel file, and i was looking at the revenue columns. are you

there? >> i can hear you. >> ok. i was looking at the revenue columns. it goes from the mid 1970s. and our revenues, corporations used to represent 65% to 67% of our revenues annually. 5% of that of our annual revenues would come from excise taxes and different smaller taxes, and the remaining about 30%, let's say, would come from small businesses and individuals. and that's directly from omb's historical data. then as we came forward from the mid- it did a flip flop. now the 1970's, revenues from corporations are about 12 to 15%, 5% again from excise taxes, etc. and the rest from individuals and small businesses. my comment is, is that if you look at the actual numbers for revenues, you say

that entitlements were entitlement driven. well, we've done a flip flop on our income. small businesses and individuals are more than paying their share. we can afford social security for ourselves. we can afford unemployment for ourselves. we can afford medicare. we can afford it all because we are now paying the bulk of the revenues are coming. the bulk of the revenues are coming from individuals and small business. >> ok, i think we've got your point. congressman? >> i haven't seen the data that you are talking with jenny, but i think we have a situation where you're saying, hey, listen, why aren't we raising taxes on businesses? and i think we have to recognize that we don't just live in america and just compete with america. we're in a global competitive environment. and we've all heard about these inversions where american companies look for a suitor overseas to have a better tax rate and move their headquarters to a different country. that's not what we want to have. that's not what we want to have, greta. we want to have a competitive tax code that encourages businesses to stay in

america, to innovate in america, and grow in america. and we have to be competitive on the tax side, but i think jenny does bring up a good point when we say, hey, listen, we should actually know what corporations are paying. and when you have a massive tax code that's incredibly difficult to navigate over generations, the powerful interests around the country have come to washington and carved portions of their profits out of the tax code. so we really don't know whatso we re't corporations are paying. i think we need to streamline the code, make it far simpler, and so we know what we know what everyone's paying in every income bracket, and we know what corporations are paying as well instead of a complex code that no one can figure out. host: house and senate republicans, democrats have said they've been left out of this negotiating process over a 2016 budget blueprint. but a deal on the table and the house wants to vote on it does it include anything to deal thursday. with what you're talking about , tax reform across the board or at least corporate tax reform? guest: now i'm speculating here.

i believe that if we're going to tax reform, it's going to be done in a different major tax reform, it is going to be done in its own separate package as opposed to being put in the budget process. i believe congressman paul ryan also go to wisconsinite is working on that as we speak. host: and the ways and means chairman. we'll go to fitchburg, massachusetts. bryan, independent caller. go ahead. caller: i've got a couple questions. one of them, i watched a show the other day on tv. it says that china builds military equipment 90% cheaper than us. that's one question. another question i got is, last year we let 10 million people in the country on visas and 40 million in the last 5 years. why are we letting so many people in this country? i wonder why nobody's working and and the wages aren't going up. thank you. host: all right. guest: yes, i mean on the immigration question, there's a, -- there is a tension. some will argue that if you allow those to come in without documentation or documentation, in some of them are low skilled

workers, you are competing at the at the bottom end of the wage bracket, and that's one of the reasons why wages aren't coming up, because there's such a great supply of low income workers that is happening from a lot of the immigration that's taking place. and that concerns a lot of us, but i'll tell you what, i live in wisconsin and we have a lot of dairy farms and there's a lot of jobs on the farms. but we can't find enough folks to come in and work the farm, and oftentimes you find people who have immigrated to the country that are willing to do some of the toughest and dirtiest jobs out there that some americans won't do, and you know you won't have milk unless you have some of these immigrants performing some of these tasks. to another point, we have, i use the trucking industry. we have a lot of haulers that have trucks and have loads, and they don't have enough drivers, and you can get a cdl, a commercial driver's license in 30 days and get behind the wheel and make anywhere from, you know, $40,000 to $60,000 a year, and they can't find the drivers, greta. and so we have to look at what's happening in our culture where there's people who want to need jobs, but they're not getting

connected with the people who have the jobs and better paying jobs. and i think what the answer to that is, i'm not quite sure yet, but it's definitely a problem. host: hope mills, north carolina. gerald, democratic caller, go ahead, gerald. you're on the air with the congressman. caller: representative duffy, c-span america. good morning. how are you all on this beautiful day? i've got two questions here, so please allow me to ask them. first of all, i believe our budgetary problems is a republican phenomenon called starve the beast. back when bush took over, bush 43, he became president. we went into two wars. y'all just cut taxes and we've been in a dive ever since. the second thing is about those, if you will allow me, those riots that were in baltimore. could y'all explain the difference between the way that the police handled them and that the way they handled the bundy ranch situation where the white guys actually drew guns on the police and nobody got arrested for him stealing millions of

dollars. and one less thing. america, y'all look out for our military and godspeed on all their endeavors. you will have a great day. guest: i agree with you on the military. the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. listen, going back to, you know, the wars he referenced in the early 2000s, i mean, yeah, it was very costly. and i think we're still trying to address those issues today, greta. i mean some of the problems that were left to barack obama and some of the problems we face today in iran and with isis and in iraq and afghanistan. they came from the early 2000's. but in regard to income, we bring in more money today than we ever have in our history. so when people say, well, there's all these tax cuts that are dropping the revenue in the federal government, that's actually not the case. we're hitting historic highs of revenue coming into the federal coffers and so we don't really have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. if the reverse would be true if

you were to say, listen, the revenues aren't there. we're not, we're not taxing enough, which means we're not bringing enough money. not the case. we are bringing in more money than ever in our history. but we still run historic deficits and debts, and that means what's happening on the spending front and we always talk about the drivers of the debt which we talked about earlier. you know, listen, on the medicare side, we have, we have our baby boomers who retiring. -- you are retiring. modern medicine means people live longer. it's a beautiful thing. and healthcare costs keep going up. all of that together is putting a ton of pressure on medicare unless we get our hands on how we keep the promises to our seniors, but also look to the next generation and what reforms need to happen to make sure the programs are solvent, this thing is going to implode. host: what are your thoughts on the situation in baltimore about what needs to, or what role congress needs to play dealing with tensions economic, racial in inner cities across this country. caller: -- guest: first of all, look at what happened to freddie gray and the community has every right to be outraged.

i was a former prosecutor. making sure that people are treated fairly and justly is important for every law enforcement and every prosecutor in our country. and when they're not, we have to have internal reviews to look at what happened and why it's happening. but besides that, you look at the response and instead of peaceful protests to change the direction of the baltimore police force and change the culture of the community, you have these violent protests where thugs are coming out and burning and looting and rating. i don't think that's the answer. oftentimes you will see in congress, people want to throw money at problems. it makes them feel good to spend more money and say, here's more dollars. we now want to be done with this problem. we have done our part. well, throw more money at problems is not always resolving the problem. and i look at at baltimore and i think just from my perspective, i'm a wisconsin guy, so i'm an outside observer. i think our our education has failed these young kids. and i think our families are failing. and if you're going to have a strong society, a strong community, you have to have good education and good families and

i think we have to take a deeper look and say throwing more money at a broken school system isn't the answer. let's look at reforming the school system. let's look at changing the system to actually make sure it works, but throwing money at a broken system is never the answer. it's an easy solution that congress can take, but it won't fix the problem in baltimore. and then i think a larger and deeper conversation is what's happening in a community where there's a fundamental breakdown in families where you don't, you don't have moms and dads raising kids. we saw continually on news loops the woman who was out there getting her young son, i think he was 16 years old, and she was swatting him saying, get your, get your butt home. that was one mom and it was her only son, but she had 6 kids and she was raising the 6 kids by herself. man, that happens a lot in the country. that is tough. i have 7 kids and i raised them with my wife, and that's tough enough. there's great tension there. there's great anger. and we have to look at the deeper roots of these problems. and it's not going to be an easy

solution. we can't mandate strong families in congress. we can't do that. we can set up a system that can help support them, and we have to look at the fundamentals of education, and we've seen people who dig their heels and don't want change to the education system, even when it doesn't work. and i think democrats and republicans are likely to say, look, listen, we have to address the union problem within the school system. we have to reform it and actually make it work for these kids. this is not about unions. it's about young kids who need a good education. host: we will go back to calls. thomas in fresno, california, republican. hi, thomas. good morning. you're on the air. guest: hey, mr. sean, duffy. -- mr. sean duffy. i'm doing good. hey, i've got a question about the budget control act 2011. you know, where we try to um he was actually inspired by the president. now he doesn't want to follow that no more. but we have to understand something here.

when we the people address these recourses that we try to follow and we are successful, and then we have nothing but the same actions with murray and ryan digging their hands into this money. then you're trying to outspend a problem that will never go away. host: and i will just add, we talked about this earlier, republicans want to lift the budget caps, the so-called sequestration, when it comes to defense and have done so in this budget deal that has gone to the floor this week in the house. guest: i used to do lumberjack sports. one of the best contests we used to have was in fresno, california, so i'm fond of fresno. listen, we have a great concern on the military front.

again, you see isis beheading folks. we see iran on a pathway to getting a nuclear weapon, no matter what the president says, that is the track that they're on, a growing military in china, and you have russia that is in crimea. they are advancing their old cold war footing. real concerns and to have a weaker america with less resources in the military, i think, is begging for more global conflict. and so there are republicans who have that concern. and yes, those those caps on the military side have been broken to put more dollars in to address that rising threat. a lot of us think in the long run, by spending a little more money today and having a stronger american military, we will offset future costs, which would be far greater if we have less peace in the world. host: ok. mobile, alabama. darrow, independent. you are next. caller: good morning. guest: hi, darrell. caller: good morning, representative duffy.

i really respect your ability to be very evenhanded and very -- i like that. anyway, i will disagree with you upon the drivers of the debt. i do not believe it is entitlement's. our seniors have put in a lifetime of work to fund these programs and they have basically been said, well, sorry, -- i understand they will get more than they put in. however, it is an insurance program, and come on, we knew this from the 30's when it was put into place, and medicare in the 60's. host: let's have the congressman respond to what you said. guest: well, i guess the president would even disagree with you. the president has said the drivers of the debt are the entitlements, and republicans have said the same thing.

and so we'll talk about, you know, addressing all these small slivers of the budget pie. you can't fix this problem unless you get to the entitlement spending. and we're not talking about those seniors who are in the retirement or seniors who are near the retirement. we're talking about the next generation of retirees making some modifications to make the program stable. again, it is a hard conversation. i think you have people in congress that want to tell americans what they want to hear instead of telling the truth, and telling people the truth is always a hard political conversation, but if we have -- if we don't have that conversation in the president's 10 year budget window we see interest on the debt alone approaching $1 trillion. you can build a lot of schools. there's there's there's a lot of roads and bridges that you can build with $1 trillion of interest alone that will be paid on this massive debt. and so getting our hands around it and getting our hands around the entitlement is imperative. if we don't come of the debt is going to eat us up. host: we will go to baltimore. tom is on our democrat line. hi, tom. caller: how are you all doing

today? i have a question about culture of spending versus a culture of saving. i worked for the correctional department here in baltimore city as a contractor, and it seemed like every year we got to the end of the budget year and found that we had extra money, and we decided to spend it on some pretty silly things and i don't know if this is rampant throughout the government, the contractors, but it just seemed like if we change that culture may be reward the contractors or the departments who actually save money every year, maybe we could get a handle on this. guest: tom, you bring up a good point making sure we are incentivizing our agencies to spend less, and what they say, give it back to the government as opposed to right now they're incentivized to spend up to the last sent we give them. and oftentimes at the end of the year you see folks in these agencies buying new computers and their ipads and the money

goes out the door instead of going back to the federal coffers. that is a small part of the problem, but the larger part comes from the entitlement system that is growing with the baby boomers and the increased cost of health care. host: dan, iron ridge, wisconsin, independent caller. caller: yes, good morning. i'm calling because i'm wondering when they're going to finally pass the law to drug test people on food stamps and welfare. because a good majority of them are on drugs or they're selling them for drugs, selling their food stamps for drugs. host: where have you read a good majority of them are doing that? caller: it was just an expression, but i know there are a lot of people that do it. i was just wondering when they are going to pass a law to at least drug test people on welfare and food stamps. host: all right. guest: well, and i believe this is an issue that governor walker has brought up in the state, and i do think these are state issues that each state on a state by state basis can look at.

i would tell you that, listen, if you are at home and you're doing drugs, you're not going to be able to get a job and you're not going to be able to get off the social programs. i mean i know i know people in wisconsin that they are working two jobs. they'll work a full time 40 hour a week job, and then you know on friday night and saturday they go work a second job just to make ends meet and they pay taxes and they're ok helping people out. they want to help people out, but they want to help people who are also helping themselves. and it's important then that if folks are on the system and they're not and they're not working to get off, because they are doing drugs, i think we have to analyze what do we do as american taxpayers to say we're willing to help, but we're not willing to subsidize a standard that's never going to get you out of the whole of entitlements. my one concern though is what do we do about kids. if you have kids in the home, all of a sudden a drug abusing parent and lack of food on the table hurts the kids in the home and how you split that, i'm not

quite sure. host: tell that color and our viewers what percentage of the budget is welfare and these types of payments? caller: it is -- guest: it is a smaller percentage. host: less than 1%? guest: the exact percentage, i cannot tell you off the top of my head. but even on the reform front, it becomes challenging with entitlements. we had a conversation in the farm bill a year ago, a year and a half ago, where we had said, listen, let's just if you're an able bodied man or woman and you don't have dependent children and you're not working in a sound mind and sound body, we think that you should have to either do one of three things, get a job, go to school to learn a skill, or get a volunteer. but you just can't be a 33-year-old single man that's buff and tough and sit on the couch and get food stamps. you've got to do something. you would have thought that we were taking food out of the mouths of babies. folks will go to the lowest common denominator, and i think most americans agree that, hey, listen, you can't just sit at home if you are and get these

entitlements. you've got to get back into the workforce, but that becomes a harder political conversation because all of a sudden, you know, the other side will throw in, you know, babies and kids and that's not who we were talking about. so making sure we have an honest conversation on these topics is really important in congress. host: crystal lake, illinois. vic is a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? i have a question. i see something curios going on here. every time you guys want to push the keystone pipeline, you guys neglect to say that the koch brothers own, the koch brothers own 1,500,000 acres of tar sands in canada. i mean, it's just off the table, you guys. i don't know how you're going to answer that question. not only that, the koch brothers are going to give you $900 million for the republican party

and $1 billion for your nominee when there is one nominee. i don't know how you're going to answer it, but i'll stand on the line and i'll listen. guest: i don't know what parties have what interests in the energy sector, for what democrats have interest in using trains to haul energy as opposed to pipelines. i just come at it from this way. i think we want american energy independence, north american energy independence, and i'd rather have that oil come from canada than from saudi arabia. and if you are an environmentalist who say, listen, listen, i know that canada has invested billions of if we don't build the pipeline, dollars. they're still taking this energy out of the ground. it's going to happen regardless of what we do. so the question becomes how are you going to transport it. you can do it by train and truck, which uses more carbon and is more dangerous, or you can build a pipeline that uses less carbon and is safer. i say let's go the safe route by sending this energy into our american system that makes sure

that we don't buy oil and energy from people that don't like us very much. and i think if you see the american energy revolution, what it's done in the world when we've dropped oil prices because of greater supply, all of a sudden it puts some countries that are bad actors in the world, one being russia and iran as another. it puts them in a tough spot. because they don't have all of these resources to support their failing economies and their failing governments. so i look at american energy not just as an energy play but a global play that affects the ability of bad actors to do bad things in the world. host: all right, clyde in sicklerville, new jersey. democrat. hi, clyde. caller: hi, good morning. there's a question i've got to ask the congressman. i think this budget thing is going to be between a big fight between the democrats and republicans. and another question i got to ask is, i think that ride in

baltimore is a total disgrace. thank you for letting me share that. host: all right. guest: listen, there's been on a great deal of agreement on how we set up the american budget. because we're coming from two different premises, the republicans have said we want to try to balance the budget within a 10 year window. that is our end goal. and the democrats have said we don't have an interest in ever balancing the budget. we don't want a budget and a spending plan that will ever bring us to a point where the american budget balances. and when you have two different ideas like that and you try to get a budget that can actually match up between the two parties, it becomes very challenging. but i think most americans would say at some point, at one point in our future, we should try to balance this thing, and that's what we're trying to do is put out reasonable proposals that will actually get us on that pathway to balance and listen. you hear people say just tax more, more revenue. again, historic highs in revenue, and i think more taxes mean less productivity, less

jobs. and i think a tougher time for america in a global, a global competitive environment. let's look at a strong smart tax code, but also spending reforms that allow us to get the balance. host: the house in the senate have passed their own individual budget blueprints for 2016. negotiators were named from both sides. they've been meeting to come up with a deal between house and senate lawmakers are they have however, senator corker has been one. holding it up because he does not like what he calls gimmicks used by his republican colleagues in this deal, which lawmakers are hoping to get to the house floor by this democrats for their part, object thursday. to the gop's defense spending hikes. saying they should be matched dollar for dollar with more domestic spending. democrats also complained that as written, the republican budget would cut health, education, and welfare programs. so that debate to take place on the house floor later this week, possibly a vote on thursday. we're talking with

representative sean duffy, a republican of wisconsin, about that debate and other issues. we'll hear from mike next in newkirk, oklahoma, independent. caller: good morning. guest: hi, mike. caller: yeah, i would like to think that i'm kind of fair minded when it comes to this, and yeah, you probably do need to make some cuts in entitlements. we've got a deficit that's overblown. but the way i see it now, you guys, you're republicans, you won both majorities in both houses, so you deserve to control the budget process. with that power comes responsibility. and it doesn't seem like, and i've been watching the c-span. i've been watching the hearings. you're not allowing the democrats to buy in on that budget process much, and you said at the beginning of the show that yes, you did want to, you did need some democrat buy in. so if you are expecting that, it just seems like you don't cut no loopholes. you don't cut nothing from the rich. you're cutting all these

programs that help the poor and the middle class, it just seems like if you wanted a process where you had a buy-in, where you guys could get something done, get a grand bargain or whatever you do, that you would kind of allow the democrats to. -- to be a part of the process. host: let's get a response. guest: first off, we do have a budget that's come out earlier than we've seen in decades, which is positive, which means we're going to be able to start the appropriation of the spending process earlier than ever and hopefully get it done before the august recess. which i think is really positive. we do want democrat buy in, but again, as i've mentioned, we have two fundamental differences in one side, our side wants to actually have a point of balance, and democrats never want to bring the budget to balance. and if they did, we've asked for their proposal. how do you actually bring a budget out that balances in if not 10 years in 15 years or 20 years, and they'll never bring out that proposal.

so it's really hard to get the bipartisan buy-in that we want it. it's hard to get it because the fundamental views are different. host: it's also about economic growth and this from one of our viewers on twitter saying military spending is waste. spending on infrastructure and education is an investment with a great return. guest: so listen, i think building a strong infrastructure and having a smart buildup that's just not going from year to year, but actually a long term spending proposal is really smart from the american congress. but listen, it affects growth in the world and in america when you have bad actors that feel emboldened to do more bad acts, and there's one force in the world that tamps them down, one force in the world that i that i think helps breed peace, and it's the american people and the american military and at a time when such threats, so many threats in the world, to think that we are going to cut back our military to have less capabilities doesn't make sense. i think we want a safe, strong american economy, but we also want a peaceful world in which

all actors can play in. and if it's not going to be us, who's going to fill the void that's left by a dilapidated american military? is it going to be china or russia? i think the answer to both of those questions is yes. so i would work -- i would prefer to see america with that strong presence, breeding peace, filling the vacuum as opposed to the bad actors, and that's really the conversation we're going to have. and you might go, hey, listen, it doesn't, it doesn't, it's not an economic driver, but i do think peace is an economic driver and instability crushes economies, and that's what we're working for here with a stronger american military. host: the budget deal does not deal with entitlement reform. peg on twitter says raise the cap on social security for a start. guest: so what we've talked about with social security is that's one, that is one solution. by the way, medicare has a crisis earlier than social security. what we've talked about is the next generation of wealthy young individuals, say mark zuckerberg of facebook, a billionaire, that he pays into social security and will draw that money out when he

probably doesn't really need it. we want to look at the up and -- at the top end and if they've made more money, let them draw a little bit less. all the while those who are paid in the middle class get to draw their traditional amounts. if you make those shifts in the way social security works, you get the same net outcome and you can actually save social security, so just a little different way to do it. but the rich will get a little bit less in the draw. host: let's go back to calls. louis in fredericksburg, virginia, a republican. caller: hi, hello. we keep hearing infrastructure and it's always roads and schools, but in fact, we need a deeper infrastructure. we need reform of business, government, and this is local and state governments also. we need reform of the school system. we do need to educate the people without all the bringing the children into it because we're the guardians of the children, but the children don't have a

say in education and they shouldn't have a say. we are adults. so the thing i'm trying to say is you keep talking about infrastructure. we have a moral infrastructure deficit. we neglect the small country towns in this country. we see people boarded up houses, boarded up stores, and young people standing on the streets waiting for the drug dealers. because this is happening all throughout the country. all you have to do is take a little trip down 95 to myrtle beach, and you'll see all these closed places in these small areas. host: ok, louis, we'll have the congressman respond. guest: yeah, listen, you talk about small towns. i'm from one myself. i'm from hayward, wisconsin, very, very small community in northern wisconsin and my district is rural. and what you see is it's harder for small businesses to actually start up, to expand, grow, and create more jobs, not because

the competitive environment is that much more difficult, but it's more challenging for small businesses to deal with all the rules and regulations that come from government. and when our government grows, when the rules and regulations grow to be in business, the small guys can't navigate that. if you're a big business, you have the economies of scale to deal with big government, but if you're the small guy, the rules and regulations have a dramatic impact on you. and if you look at our communities, multinational corporations aren't really moving into central and northern wisconsin and offering hundreds of jobs. it's the small business guys who are growing and expanding and fighting every day to stay in business that employ our families, and they're the ones that are under attack by this new massive government growth. and so if we want to support small rural communities, let's make sure we have a limited streamlined government that's set up in a way that the small businesses, whether you're in rural or urban america, can actually go about the business of their small business instead of the business of dealing with government. host: ok, we'll hear from

barbara next in gladwn, pennsylvania, democrat caller. hi, barbara. caller: hi. what hasn't been spoken of yet is the real root of the problem, and that is that citizens united, unlimited campaign contribution allowances. the koch brothers spending $900 million. that's bribery. that is not contribution. it is not helping the country. it's hurting everywhere you go. you can't run for office practically until you're a millionaire, unless you're a millionaire. you have to raise god awful amounts of money. of course there's going to be bribery in there. you are not going to control that budget until you get that under control and we get a congress full of good people the whole senate practically is millionaires. how can the average person have confidence that they're going to deal with their problems? they don't. it's ridiculous that very wealthy people are allowed to buy elections, and that is what is happening. host: ok, we will take your point. guest: good question, barbara. i am not one of those on the

millionaire side, but money in politics is a is a real stress point, and i think it's barbara brings up a good how do you work point. on getting money out of politics? what i find in this debate though is you have one side that says, there is a funding source for republicans. let's go after that funding source of money, but don't touch my funding source. i mean, republicans might go, let's go after the democrat funding source, but don't touch ours. if you're going to get rid of money in politics, you've got to do it across the board. i've had in the past very competitive races in wisconsin, and i see all the outside money flow in. i get all the negative ads. i would love to see less money in politics. how we do it, i think is important, but to think that there's only money on one side. if you look at the amount of money that was raised by barack obama, he raised far more money than his republican challengers, and that doesn't seem to be a problem for those who talk about citizens united. it's just that sit -- it's just that if republicans might raise money because of citizens united, that's now a problem. you have to be evenhanded and say if we want to get rid of money in politics, you've got to look at both parties, both

sides, and where the money comes from. but if you want to attack one side, i don't think you have credibility. step back and say, ok, let the parties have at it. host: i do want to ask you about your role on the financial services because you're the chair of the investigations and oversight and investigations subcommittee. dodd frank legislation celebrating 5 years, marking 5 years coming up. what effort are you going to be making as chair of the subcommittee? what's next when it comes to financial reforms? guest: so, so, we look at reforms for our small community banks and our credit unions trying to get out of some of the regulatory regime that has come from dodd frank. if you don't have small community banks and credit unions that work in america, small towns don't work. they're the ones that put capital into small businesses and families. and if they're not there, the big wall street banks don't come and fill that small town bank role. so making sure they can function in this environment is important. but on the oversight side, one of the things that have concerned me is

a program called operation choke point. it's where the fbi see and potentially other regulators have had a program to say we're going to, there's certain lines of businesses that are legal in america. they've done nothing wrong, but we as the bureaucrats at the fdic, we don't like them, and we're going to actually go after them, so they don't like payday lending, which is short term, higher interest lending. and they've encouraged oftentimes banks to stop banking, payday lending. they've gone after gun dealers and ammunition manufacturers, coin dealers, all of them legal. all of them have done nothing wrong, haven't violated the law, but because the high ranking bureaucrats at the fdic, including, i would argue, chairman grunberg, who has sat by complicitly as this has gone on, they have put pressure on banks to stop doing business with these lines of industries. and in america, greta, if you can't bank, you can't be in business. and so it's a very crafty way to put pressure through the banking system on industries that you don't like, but that's not how the system in america works. we, we have laws we the the legislature, decide what's legal and what the parameters are of

legally functioning businesses. that's not the role of the fdic. they should make sure banks are safe and sound, but they shouldn't try to implement policy by pressure on banks. you're investigating this. will -- host: you're investigating this. will you get a piece of legislation on the floor to deal with this? guest: well, it's hard to deal with bad actors when we have when we have lois lerner 2.0 and the fdic. it's hard to say, listen, i'm going to legislate good behavior. i think you have to root out the bad actors, and we want to make sure that we have people who believe in the mission of safety and soundness. and of the insurance policies that come from the fdic and if they don't believe in that, they've got to go. host: can i ask you as well about the flash crash of 2010 news reports recently that one person was arrested for the flash crash in 2010 where investors lost a lot of money. this one person who was arrested in london recently made a lot of money on that one day. are you going to investigate how one person could have that much influence over the market? . guest: i think it's interesting.

and possibly, but so, so, so we have operation troke point. we have the fdic, we have the fomc, the monetary policy leak that took place as well a few years ago. there's the regulatory issues that we have to take up. i'll just point out that on financial services we have, we have capital markets or wall street, we have all the banking from big banks to small banks, insurance, housing. the federal reserve monetary policy, it's a big space and we have a very small team and we have to figure out what spaces we can get into and fully investigate. and there's so many issues out there, greta, but instead of having, you know, 500 people, i have 5 people on our team that does all this work, so we've got to pick and choose what works, but we will take a look at that. host: all right, let me get in rick in jacksonville, florida, independent caller. caller: i got an answer for one guy called in about testing welfare recipients. we tried that in the great state of florida, and i think it was like less than 2% of the people was, didn't pass the drug test,

but i want to say you were talking about educating the young youth and in the last presidential election, all the republican candidates was for cutting the department of education. what do you say about that? guest: the point is making sure that you have bureaucrats in washington that are driving policy that affects wisconsin or alabama or louisiana or california or texas doesn't make sense. we want to re-empower our states and our municipalities to educate the kids the way they see fit. and frankly you have a democrat party who is unwilling to tackle the union problem within the school system. if you have a school system that's failing, this is not about the union, this is about the kids. and we have to stand up for kids that aren't getting proper educations. i think we should give people a choice. listen, if i'm in the inner-city

and i'm not giving -- not getting a good education, give them a choice. let them go to another school that works for them. and you have democrats that say, listen, i've got poor kids in the inner city. some of them might be they might be of immigrant families, maybe legal or illegal. and you know if you don't have a good education, you don't have a pathway up in the middle class and you have folks in the democrat party that say, listen, i'm not going to stand with those kids and give them a ticket to prosperity, which is a ticket to a better, a better educating school. instead i'm going to buy out to the unions of those schools and make sure those kids based on their zip code are stuck in failing schools. that's failing the kids. let's make sure we have competition. let's let someone else come in and say, listen to the moms and dads of these children, i've got a better way to do it. we'll educate your kids more effectively. they'll come out and they'll get that ticket up into the middle class. but right now you see democrats pushing back on that. i think it's more of a union issue and a money issue as opposed to andi up for kids in america. host: we will have to leave it

there. >> tt was sean duffy on c-span's washington journal in 2015. a year later, he would speak at the republican national convention in cleveland. >> please welcome united states representative sean duffy of wisconsin and his wife rachel. [applause] rep. duffy: hey, hello america. i met rachel 19 years ago on america's first reality tv show. 6 weeks ago we had our 8 little -- eighth little baby. who said nothing good comes out of reality tv. so with a family of 10, it gets

-- rachel: so with a family of 10, it gets a little crazy. so we have some pretty simple rules in our house. clean your room. rep. duffy: no teenage boys in your bedroom. rachel: no waking mom and dad up on saturday mornings. rep. duffy: no private servers in the basement. rachel: and no lying. rep. duffy: especially to the fbi. [laughter] [applause] for us, for us, it's all about family. i come from a long line of lumberjacks. my irish family were tough farmers and sawyers who came to wisconsin to work. they knew anyone could succeed in america with grit, faith, and family.

rachel: my grandparents came here from mexico. they settled in arizona, where my father was a shoeshine boy. by the age of 12, he started his own business making pinatas. my mother taught herself english, and both of my parents attended night school and earned their degrees while raising a family. rep. duffy: hard work. [applause] hard work, discipline, self-reliance, and opportunity. that's the american dream we believe in. rachel: and it's a dream that's bigger and more satisfying than any bureaucrat or government check could ever hope to deliver.

[applause] rep. duffy: our grandparents chose to be americans, and we chose to be republicans. because the republican party offers upward mobility rooted in individual liberty and economic freedom. rachel: we cannot let america become like the corrupt socialist regimes that our families left behind. [applause] rep. duffy: sadly, barack obama and hillary clinton have left us $19 trillion in debt, and thousands of new rules and regulations are crushing the american workers. do you want 4 more years of that?

radical jihadists are killing americans. while all the time hillary clinton and barack obama are fretting over whether to call it workplace violence or a hate crime, do you want 4 more years of that? we need to unify behind a new president who can strengthen, protect, and restore our nation for the next generation. [applause] rachel: every morning i look into the eyes of what's at stake in this election, our children. yours and mine. the challenges facing america has never been greater. we must meet those challenges.

[applause] rep. duffy: we can make america great again. and we will, but it's going to take all of us. in wisconsin, and hello wisconsin. we turned our blue stain red. we have won every election except the big one. we can't stay at home now if we're going to save our country, america, let's rally behind donald trump and together, let's make america great again. [applause] may god bless you all. let's have a great convention. [crowd cheering] >> morau from the c-span archives as part of our look at president-elect road's nominees in their own words. up next, transportation nominee

sean duffy speaking at a luncheon, a free market policy organization. this ourd during the same week in the 2016 republican national convention. [applause] rep. duffy: i first want to thank governor christie for the warm-up act that was very nice of him. it is good to be with you all, did you see his speech last night? it was awesome. i went down to the -- not the house floor, the floor last night, and i had our little baby, our 6 week old baby, and i was, you know, the baby's sleeping, and he started doing this thing, guilty or not guilty, and the crowd, you know, we're all there guilty, and i couldn't stop. i'm yelling, guilty! and the baby instead of starting to cry, my little baby starts to smile as we're all yelling guilty about hillary clinton.

it was a fun, fun night. and i just am so impressed and so thankful that governor christie is part of our party. my wife does work for the libre initiative. they are here today under the leadership of daniel garza. i am so grateful for all that libre does. they are fantastic. on the front line going into communities, matching the liberals, talking about free enterprise. liberals have, i mean, so many different organizations and so many different communities, and we conservatives, where do we match them? one of the main groups that matches the liberals talking about the ideas that we believe in is the libre initiative, and without them i don't know what we have in regard to the communities that matter, the votes that matter, and the states that matter. so daniel, thank you and thank you all of you at libre and all the hard work that you do. quickly, i want to just talk about the election. i only have a couple of minutes with you, but a lot of people look at hillary clinton and

they're like, oh, you know, hillary clinton, i look at the 1990s and bill clinton, and he was a moderate and he worked well with republicans and the economy grew. it was a great time in america, or some thought. the problem is hillary clinton is not bill clinton, and this is not 1990. if you look what's happened with george bush in 2004, george bush said, you know what, i'm not going to do the traditional thing where ve fromy conservative base and into the middle to win votes. what bush did in '04 is he said, no, i have to go win conservative votes. i'm going to motivate my base and i'm going to turn them out and i'm going to win. and he was successful. barack obama has done the same thing. instead of coming to the center, this guy has gone far left. and he's won. so if anybody thinks that hillary clinton is going to be moderated by bill clinton and come to the center and be a

moderate, you're absolutely wrong. she is going to go over and help govern with bernie sanders's socialist, elizabeth warren. this will be the team that we'll have in place running our current -- our country. and if you look at the socialist policies that bernie advocates for, that elizabeth advocates for, and now hillary advocates for, these don't offer upward mobility. they don't offer prosperity. they bring you despair, whether it's cuba or venezuela or argentina or southern european countries, they never grow economies. they destroy economies. and they want to come to us with a message and say, i've got more free stuff for you. i'm going to offer you more. conservatives will never offer more free stuff than liberals. we will never do that. but what we will do is offer more opportunity. we will offer more upward mobility. that's what we will offer. [applause]

and i think that that message resonates. i think most of us in this country want the same american dream and the same opportunity that our parents had, and i have the opportunity to sit on the house financial services committee. we deal with banking, housing, insurance, the federal reserve. i would call this the plumbing of free enterprise. if this doesn't work, our economy doesn't work, and i again, i have a gavel on oversight and we asked for documents from the administration because the congress oversees the executive. do you know what i get? i get nothing. and we'll push them harder and when they do respond, they'll send me their press releases and their news clippings. we have to start to subpoena documents. we have to bring people in for depositions to get them to comply. if your government can't oversee these bureaucrats that have so much power, the power is

unchecked, and this power has been unchecked. we need to change the balance between our three branches of government. we've lost that balance over the course of generations. we have to bring it back and i look at home in my state of wisconsin. so many people have issues with bureaucrats who impose significant rules and regulations that have a big impact on their lives and on their businesses and on their communities, and they'll come to me or they'll go to senator ron johnson in wisconsin or they'll go to sometimes, god forbid tammy baldwin. and they go, could you help me? there is a new epa rule that is destroying my business. can you help me roll that rule back? guess what i do? i go, i will write a letter for you. we write letters. these bureaucrats impose rules and regulations that have the force of legislation. the congress is supposed to

legislate, and which means the people can petition us for good or bad, but the people have a voice because the congress is the ones who makes the law. but if you take the power away from the congress and you put it with the executive, the people don't have any power anymore. it's gone. our founders envisioned a different model where people were empowered in their government and had a say in their government. but the rise of the executive and the diminishing of the congress has offset this balance. i think that is the main issue we have to get right in the house of representatives, and it's not going to take us a month or a year. it's going to take us a while to get to the point where we have a balance. but if your congress doesn't have a voice, you don't have a voice, and it's going to take conservatives. republicans, when they have a republican president to keep that republican president in check because i can tell you what, liberals right now have no desire to keep barack obama in

check. they agree with his policy, so they give him more power, and they applaud the diminishing of the congress's authority and power to oversee the executive. so that's what the house is working on. i think that is one of the biggest issues that we're addressing, and we get that right, with our policies that have limited government, less regulation, offers more opportunity, more freedom, and in the end, more upward mobility. so i want to thank you all for letting me come and just chat for a couple minutes. i send my regards from my wife, her regards to you, and she'll be back on the floor tonight. she had a little trip she had to make today. she left at 6:40 this morning on an airplane. went and did a little meeting and she's flying back all with the baby, working her tail off to make sure that we make this country a better place. i'm grateful for what she does. i'm grateful for what the latino coalition does and for what all

you do. god bless and you guys have a great lunch and a great convention. [applause] annocer: we ve been looking at transportation secretary minee sean duffy as part of our seri of president-elect trump's nominees in their own words. up next, we will show you representative duffy i 2019, speaking on the house floor against a resolution condemning then-president donald trump for tweets directed at four democratic congresswomen. >> i guilt free minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> the gentleman from disc -- from wisconsin is recognized. rep. duffy: appreciate the gentleman for yielding and thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to note at the start of this resolution for the first three pages, i agree with everything. we have great quotes in here of our founders and american presidents who talk about the strength of this country that

has come from immigrants and immigration. i wholeheartedly concur. as we get to page four, though i have significant disagreement. i would note that on four on the whereas, it is noted that trump's racist comments have legitimized fear and hatred of new americans. i just want to make a point to my friends across the aisle because in paragraph two you note that it's it's committed to keeping america open to those who lawfully seek refuge and asylum from violence and oppression, lawfully seek refuge and asylum. but i would note that just recently, president trump has said who have sought asylum had a hearing and have a deportation order. you are all offended by that. you didn't include it in your resolution, those who had deportation orders issued. your opposition to them being removed. so you actually agree with and president trump that those who have lawful orders of deportation should be sent out of the country just to cite your resolution.

but i want to note, mr. speaker, that i've looked closely at the chain of three tweets sent out by president trump. and in those tweets, i see nothing that references anybody's race. not a thing. i don't see anyone's name being referenced in the tweets. but the president's referring to people, congresswomen, who are anti-american. and lo and behold, everybody in this chamber knows who he's talking about, who are the anti-american members of congress? he didn't say their names, he did not say their race. but commented on what they view, how they view america. and we all know who he is talking about. i want immigrants to come to this country. but if you come to this country, shouldn't you left this countryz we'll come here and see imperfection. and we work every week trying to make our country better. but to say, i wholeheartedly i dislike the country, the fact that i'm going to call the president --

good lord, what does the institution become? and then it come to this floor and chastise the president for a couple of tweets when that's the language you use against him. that is rich, mr. speaker, that that is the language that the left would use and then try to call up the president who didn't cite a race or he didn't cite a name. i look at this and i think we are all called to do better and be better. we should make this country better. but when i look at some who say i believe that socialism is a . form of government and a better economic economy over capitalism that has given us the freest, most generous, most prosperous country ever existed on the face of the earth that we want to we want to trade this in for system that has always failed. i think you're going to see republicans push against that. and i think many democrats push back against that. and i think that's what this argument really comes down to. and i want to note that i look at some of my conservative colleagues, whether it's candace owens, diamond and silk. justice

thomas -- i yield back. announcer: more from the-sn archives now with one last look at transrtation secretary nominee sean duffy. here deas in september of01 delivering his final speech as a lawmaker from the house floor. rep. duffy: i want to thank my good friend from wisconsin for yielding tonight. i got to tell you, it is a pretty unique and cool willing to stand in this well and hold on to this podium for the last time. what an honor it is to serve in this house and stand in this chamber. i want to take a moment as i give my last address to the to the house to thank my constituents who i have put so much faith in me that they would give me the opportunity, a guy from small-town wisconsin, from

hayward, wisconsin, who had a family and grew up doing lumberjack sports, who would give me the opportunity to come here and represent them. and they have done that five times. five times over. and i would just note that they have been so kind to me, whether they agreed with me, not whether -- whether i was at a town hall or a lincoln day dinner, or a dairy breakfast, or a parade or a fair, the kindness that has come from my constituents, as i have done my best to serve their interests, i could -- it could not fill my heart with greater pride and joy to represent the people of wisconsin. seventh congressional district. witches the central, northern and western part of our great state. but as many of us will tell you that i don't think our founders ever envisioned that to come to this chamber, it should a

lifetime sentence. we are supposed to come and be a citizen legislator and serve our time, and then step aside and let someone else step forward and do the good work. in news reports, as i have announced that i was going to step aside, people will say that sean duffy seat. well, i think we should correct that. it is not my seat. it was not my predecessor's seat. it is the people's seat. they get to choose every two years, well, now this is going to be eight months in, a new congressman to represent them. it is the people seat. it is not mine. it is theirs. so thank you. to the seventh district. i want to say thanks to my fellow colleagues and members of congress on both sides of the aisle. we get a bad rap in this chamber where people tell us, you guys are so dysfunctional, you guys can't get along. you guys can't get anything done and there's some truth to that.

there is a lot of bickering. there is a lot of fighting. yes, sometimes we don't get a lot done. but i'll just tell you this, that people along a lot better across the aisle than meet the eye on some of the major news networks. and though it might not be tax reform or immigration reform, there's a lot of legislation that we work on together that we try to find bipartisan compromise that cannot just pass our committees, but can the -- but can pass the house and can get our dysfunctional friends in the senate to actually pick up and pass so we can get it to the president's desk. it happens a lot. the chamber, i think, though, is going through some difficult times. we are actually working. and i'm proud of that. and i'm proud to serve with my ranking member, patrick mchenry, who has been so kind and generous to me. i've actually enjoyed serving with maxine waters. some of the committee --

subcommittee chairs and ranking members like al green and lacy clay and emanuel cleaver have become good friends of mine, and i honor their friendship, and i'm grateful for it. but sometimes, oftentimes, we work better than we are given credit for. i want to take a second because i think this is such an important part of the debate that we are having today and talk about american capitalism. american capitalism is the american model. it's been our american way that has brought us more opportunity, more prosperity, upward mobility, more innovation, more creativity, more generosity than any other country that has existed on the face of the earth. and part of that american capitalist system is an idea that not that we don't have no government but that we have

limited government. and not that w have no taxes, but we have limited taxes. and what you saw over two years of a republican majority in the house and the senate with republican president is we did those things. and the net end result was what we thought it would be. we put people back to work. when i ran the first time you put people back to work. when i ran the first time, nine years ago, we had people who could not find jobs. families were suffering. families would say i wish we had a better economy because i want my kids to stay in our hometown and get a job in our hometown and raise their family so we can have an extended family. but they have to leave, they have to go to milwaukee, minneapolis, chicago, somewhere to get a job. but they can't stay here. today after we've implemented these reforms, it is profound what is happening. people are going back to

work. in wisconsin, wages are up and unemployment is down. we have more jobs in wisconsin than we do people to fill those jobs. that is the success story of american capitalism. i'm proud of that. and though everybody may not agree it has been those policies that have created it. some of those were on the left. when they dig deep in their heart, they cannot deny what we have done has made their lives better. so often in my district, it has been the forgotten men and women. men and women who feel like people come to this town and engage in debates that are irrelevant, that don't make their lives better. debates that don't improve their economy. it might improve the coast or global corporations, but the debate does not help their rural small town community.

they have seen over the last few years that their voices have been heard, their pain has been heard and addressed. and for that, they are incredibly grateful. when you shop at walmart and have a hard time figuring out where you will get the dollars to pay your mortgage , or how you will send your kids to school, and if you lose your job, it all collapses. in today's market, they go this is great. it has improved so much, we could not be more grateful for the economy and system that is offered this prosperity we now feel. i'm troubled even though we've had the success of a free enterprise system, american capitalist system, we have a chamber where people want to go to a different model. we have a debate saying we want to go to socialism. socialism should be the model of america's future,

in that the promise of socialism, or we can all be equal and get free stuff. tax the rich a little bit more and give a little bit more to you, it will be a beautiful economy. those promises have been made throughout human history. in those promises always fail. whether you want to go to the old soviet union, venezuela, cuba, it never works. this country actually thought socialism in europe, we fought socialism in our universities, now we are fighting socialism in the halls of congress? we can't lose this fight. if we lose this fight, we lose our future. you lose the future, you don't leave anything off to your kids. so i hope this chamber will recalibrate and think through the best economic model to continue with that prosperity, that opportunity.

for our kids and for our next generation. but as we talk about equality and opportunity, i think there is a really important point as the socialist talks about the equality of the outcome. i think our model has been the equality of opportunity. and when i look at communities in america and wisconsin, you can look at a zip code of that community end will be able to recognize the opportunity and the poverty of the kids being raised in those communities by their zip code, because of the school system they have in place in those communities and those zip codes. that is a travesty, it is not equal opportunity. it is giving a group of kids the short end of the stick. as i have been in this chamber, i have fought for school choice. if you are a parent or child

and they are failing school, you should have an opportunity to get out of a failing school and go to a school that will give you the school -- skill sets and tools to take advantage of the u.s. economy. you should have that option. that is school choice. i would love if we can make the schools better in these communities and we should fight to do that. but these kids cannot wait. i hope the fight for school choice continues. i fought in this chamber for free trade. i also fought with our president for fair trade. we have people who take advantage of this economy, of my constituents, and say it is free trade. free-trade is not free trade if it is not fair trade. i could not support the president more in his fight against china to make sure we have a fair system with their growing economy. it is not easy, i look at the chamber.

often times there's not a lot of political courage. but you have a president with the greatest things going for him is the economy. he's willing to jeopardize this great economy to risk this great economy and engage in a trade conflict with china not to help him in the next election, but help american kids in the next 10, 15, 20 years. that is what real leaders do. that is what courage is in a leader. that is what our president has done on this trade fight. risking the economy for our kids and future to make sure we are still the number one economy and the number one military. one of the great issues i'm proud to have fought on is the issue of life. i don't think there is anyone who is more vulnerable, more voiceless,

than the unborn. to have been in this chamber and to have been able to lend my voice to those who don't have one has been an amazing honor. and i think that this will be a scorched at this time in american history, and we've had these time periods in our past, that we haven't stood up and fought, which science tells us as you look at a four d ultrasound, what that baby is in the womb. and i'm on the right side of history to have fought for the millions of babies who lost their lives. over the course of the last 40 plus years. i hope this chamber one day can see life does begin at

conception, that we should not be having a debate about late-term partial-birth abortion, we should not have a debate about how we allow children to die more comfortably after they are born. that is outrageous. it is frankly disgusting. and that we should not get that right. as i close my final remarks, i want to thank my team. any member of congress, anyone who served in this institution, i can't do it without great people with them, great people surrounding them. fighting not with them personally, but fighting on the issues with them. and over the course of the last 8.5 years, i've had the most remarkable team.

to serve with me and work with me. though they have worked for me, they are some of my best friends who have stood with me and i could not be more grateful they have come into my life and my district and our community and not just fought so hard with me, but fought so hard for the people i represent to make sure there issues are covered. to make sure their voices were heard. and they help me amplify my constituents voice. i want to thank pete and my district team specifically pete and the d.c. team, for their endless effort. my constituents were well served by them. thank you. i want to thank my family.

when i started, i did not have as many kids. i have patrick, margarita, paloma, who did not know their father at any point other than a congressman. some of my older kids were well aware of what we did before. my oldest daughter, we did our first parade together. i was terrified to do a parade. this little nine-year-old girl came out with me with the most courage. all of them have stood with me and worked with me and campaigned with me. it has been a family endeavor. anyone who runs, they know the sacrifice their families go through. my family has been great, going to parades and

wisconsin. going to dairy breakfast. they have been supporting me and working with me. i could not be more grateful for them. and as their dad, coming to congress four days a week. i'm not there as much. they have supported me through this whole effort, this whole adventure. a guy can't do that unless he has kids to support him. all of them, patrick, john paul, margarita, mod, how are you doing -- jack. i want to thank you all for the support and love you have given me. and i want to thank my wife, who i would not be here without her. when i ran, everyone said i could never make it to this chamber.

i could never win. she was the one who said i think you can, and i think you can represent your people well. and we did it together. and when i'm here as every spouse who has someone who comes here, she held up our house, she was a single mom, with eight kids. you have to be incredibly dedicated, devoted, and passionate about what we do in this chamber if you're going to be a single mom with eight kids and let your husband go off and fight the great fight of the day. i want to tell her how much i love her, and how grateful i am that she has supported my dream to come here and fight the good fight. when i won on my first night come on election night, i said the battle for america's future is a fight against socialism.

it is a battle where we turn our nation to the principles that made america different, made america better, made america great. that could not be more true today. with me, rachel, my team, i could not be more grateful they have stood with me to help engage in that fight. so for the final time, as i step out of this well with a grateful and it may not be obvious, happy heart, i want to thank my colleagues for their friendship, the great state of wisconsin for their trust. i want to thank my whole family for their support. i want to think god for his blessings in this opportunity, and for the wisdom to know when my time

is up. i yield back. >> president jimmy carter, the 39th president of the united states, and the negatives -- nations longest lived leader, passed away last month at the age of 100. going c-span for live coverage of the state funeral hurried on thursday, the national funeral service will take place in washington cathedral, followed by his final resting ceremony at the carter family home in plains, georgia. watch c-span's live coverage of the funeral services for former president carter on the c-span networks. a c-span now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> tuesday, president-elect trumenseepartment nominee will a at a confirmation hearing. the former fox news host previously served tours in iraq and afghanistan as part of the minnesota nl guard and work for veterans advocacy gro he also earned a masters disc -- degree in public

licy of the jfk school. from the senate armed services committee, watch live tuesday at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span three, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> attention middle and high school students across america. it is time to make your voice heard. c-span student cam documentary contest 2025 is here. your chance to create a documentary that can inspire change, raise awareness, and make an impact. your documentary should answer this year's question, your message to the president. what issue is most important to you or your community? whether you are passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories. a student cam is your platform to share your message with the world. with 100,000 dollars in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000. it is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but beewarded for your

creativity and hard work. enter your submissions today. scan the coded visit student cam.org for all of the tails on how to enter. the deadline is january 20, 2025. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these television companies and more. >> the world has changed. today, a fast reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. while is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice. it all starts with great internet. >> supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-span has been bringing you several of president trumps nominees in their own words.