jurisdiction already. you ought to let committees do their work and have hearings before you bring legislation to the floor. rep. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman and i think he is formally recognizing that the states want to flexibility. the state can get the flexibility. if the state chooses not to take the flexibility come they will not be flexibility. rep. sessions: if you have a rep. mcgovern: if you have a governor or state legislature that basically wants to take away the right of a woman to make this very difficult choice with regard to abortion, that they will do. what theot with supreme court has said. you somehow think that is locateok. was a health-care provider provides abortion services, which is legal, you say the state legislature should have the right to take away all medicare, medicaid reimbursement

for that health care service for or othercreenings preventative care. i mean, come on. the good news is that this is going nowhere. the bad news is that it this drumbeat of beating up on poor women and i think it is wrong. i've said enough and i yield back the time. rep. sessions: my point is that we do believe in regular order and believe that we will have a detailed analysis and report that will be available from the committee system. thank you very much. that settlement from louisville, texas -- dr. burgess. in texas, governor perry did decouple the funding system forcaid planned parenthood and that we're only going to pay for the services not associated with an institution that provides abortion services. think thequence, i

figures speak volumes about that that they are increased always going for women's health that are not associated with those that provide abortion services. fact isc cation not generally kind to conservative thought. they took a statement from the texas alliance for life saying that funding is at historically high levels and just increased another $50 million for the next two years in the last legislative session. they go on to note that texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before, including an additional $50 million. t looking at the statement that texas is at high levels

ended up writing this as true. this is not one that is kind to people on the conservative side. i thought that was significant. we did have a hearing along a similar issue in the energy and commerce committee last week or the week before and i do want to the texas the record women's health program provider survey patient capacity support. this is from january 2015. that was two years after governor perry decoupled planned parenthood and medicaid funding. so there was concern that perhaps the level of care was going to drop off. the conclusion of the texas women's health program provider survey was that overall texas women's health program patient capacity -- the results are positive. in most areas, the survey found that the state has the capacity to serve even more women into

thousand 13. -- in 2013. a reference as the article that that it legislation increased $50 million. this is all to say that it can be done. we do not have to ask the american taxpayer to fund a procedure they find abhorrent. the funding for women's health care has not been affected in the state of texas, even though governor perry decoupled. rep. mcgovern: there is no federal funding that can be used to perform abortion. aw.t is the locke rep. burgess: you know the money is fungible can be used for anything in the organization. i think for the people of texas that governor perry set us on a good path and this provides the possibility for other governors to do the same. mr. chairman, i'm grateful for our witnesses and grateful for the presentation today. i thank you for having the hearing. i will yield back my time.

rep. mcgovern: thank you very they can very much. the gentleman from florida is recognized. "frozen" which i've had the fortune of seeing several times with my grandchildren, both granddaughters, the character elsa sings a song -- i wish i knew all the words to this. rep. sessions: is your microphone on? they are saying they cannot hear you. rep. hastings: in the movie "frozen," the character sings a song that says "let it go." and let go is what the republicans need to do not just with this particular measure, but there seems to be this obsession that i witnessed now with2 years of involvement

what a woman's right to choose is. like mr. mcgovern, i associate myself with his remarks. the dramatic thrust seems always to go toward poor women. by police my reasoning, that allows that rich women that have abortions do not have this problem. if we were to just listen to people, i guess we would figure that rich women do not have abortions. i think i've told the story of one and willchild got-- when a wealthy woman pregnant, they would go to europe on vacation for periods of time. my question to representative

blackburn -- and i've great respect for her legislative skills and passion on this issue -- and rivals might on the opposite side. i appreciate that. in some counties, miss blackburn, planned parenthood is the only place for safety net recipients to receive family-planning care. where do you recommend that they seek treatment at the provider has been expelled from the state's medicaid program? i heard you earlier say that they would go into the system, but there are some counties that do not have community health facilities. rep. blackburn: 100 things that we have found, mr. hastings, is that you have over 13,000 community health and federally qualified health centers in the country. with planned parenthood, you have a much smaller number of

facilities. the community health outreach outnumbers the planned parenthood availability to mend the sleep it one of the things that we have seen also is that planned parenthood has curtailed and outsourced many of their resources. your face-to-face clinics, your sq hc, the committee health centers are the ones that have been taking up the slack on this. rep. hastings: you answered what you wanted to answer. you did not answer my question. when no facility exists other than planned parenthood, where which you have women go? rep. blackburn: i'm not aware of there being any county in this country. rep. hastings: are you aware of counties that have no committee health centers? rep. blackburn: i know that there are committee health apartments and federally qualified health centers and

that services are available for those and are more readily available than they are through the planned parenthood centers. we have 55 planned parenthood affiliates around the country. some of them have as many as 20 different clinics. rep. hastings: i agree with you ift community facilities -- you look at the overall number -- outnumber the number. rep. blackburn: any access is greater. rep. hastings: you're still not getting to the root of the problem. rep. schakowsky: this is not specifically mentioning planned parenthood. there are counties and community health centers that do with their own money or private insurance money or whatever provide abortion services. this is legislation that could also take those providers out of the system. -- forals with anyone example, cook county, if the

legislature decided that could county health systems, and that is clinics and also the hospitals, could not be at medicaid recipient because with it doesal money, provide a whole range of services including abortion services. , posing asegislature doctors, would decide this health service should not be available. and that would be that. it would seem theings: legislation itself is incredibly far-reaching and would essentially allow the state to exclude a provider or entity that has provided an abortion or entity of provider that has had any sort of association or involvement with abortion. listen to the language and i ask innocently -- unanimously to

include a letter over the president ofthe the american conference of obstetricians and gynecologists. , "on the american conference of obstetricians and gynecologists, representing 50,000 physicians and departments in women's health, irq to vote no on the women's public health and safety act. this intentionally vague bill should not be enacted into law. in falling for short of any standards for sound federal health legislation and policy, it would serve only to scare providers away from providing comprehensive, compassionate care to women and leave women without the care they need. america needs more ob/gyn's

participating in medicaid programs. this bill would do the opposite. when it comes to the house floor, i urge you to vote no. do not be fooled by the title of this bill. this legislation is nothing more than the latest in a string of "ttacks against women's health. i find that were current law federal funding for abortion and that congress currently imposes unfair limitation on insurance coverage of abortion. federal dollars are withheld from covering a woman's abortion except in limited circumstances and we all know those. and federal insurance coverage of abortion is restricted. i do not know why we are here other than what miss lotter said

and i like to associate myself with her remarks. giving someoing is currency to those who do not want to vote for a clean cr. i might add, mr. chairman, i'm waving disagreement with the six committee rule for energy and commerce to form some committee to not to go on yet another unnecessary probe into not only an organization, but vent to the feelings of some. i do not want a special committee to preserve our providers. i do not need a special committee to preserve what is the law of the land. ultimately, what you all seek to

do, and it is that you have continued down this path, is to set thie stage ultimately for the overturning of roe versus wade. that is not basically this little bitty provision here. this is one of many over 22 years leading in that direction. becausely urge you that some people have of you that -- a view that is different than make my view the prevailing view, but the prevailing sentiment in this country is that women should have the right to control their bodies and make a determination as to who it is they wish to associate with as a physician. for a law that limits that association, and flies in the face of all the anti-talk about

obamacare where people were talking about you will not have your right to choose your own physician. and then you come here and say to poor women, hell no, you do not have that right to go to the providers that are in that area. we should be ashamed of ourselves, putting ourselves in that position. and i certainly will stand in complete opposition to not only the legislation, but ultimate aim that you have and that is overturning roe versus wade. i yield back my time. rep. sessions: thank you much. do any republicans seek time? i am seeing none. colorado --an from the gentleman is recommended. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to see if i'm understanding how this billboards. -- bill works. week, there

was a specific bill around butned parenthood funding, this bill does not mention planned parenthood, but it could defund community health claims. lastly, if i recall, many republicans center dot wary about planned parenthood. all theunity will serve women and now they are doing a bill that seems to defund these very committee health centers. in my understanding that these two together with cut off access to poor women to health care? rep. schakowsky: it could. if those clinics, which we have in cook county and some other places in the state of illinois, are toere to do thei participate -- that is the word and i'm not sure what that means -- an abortion services, they could be cut off just as easily as it planned parenthood clinic could be cut off and defunded.

understand that there are many, many poor women for whom these clinics are the lifeline. that is what we are talking about. when we talk about medicaid, you have to meet fairly strict income and asset requirements in order to get on the program. rely on these medicaid providers. any one of them could be gone. rep. polis: what might that word participate mean? says that mean if a doctor let your pregnancy could be dangerous to your health and you might need to look at alternatives if it is a nonviable fetus, when all those things potentially be consider participating? rep. schakowsky: i've certainly confused on what that would mean. rep. polis: miss blackburn, if a doctor found that a pregnancy could be life-threatening for the mother, if they were to inform her of that, without the

participating and therefore render the clinic a potential loss of funding? rep. blackburn: i would direct you to page two line three of the bill or you will see that flex ability is given there. again, as i have said before previously, this is about flexibility for the state. we have states that have sought to end their medicaid contracts. the have been blocked from doing that by cms. they are seeking help from us. this is a way to make that happen. we have four states that currently are in litigation. rep. polis: which part of the bill were you directing? your amendment or the bill? rep. blackburn: on the amendment. rep. polis: which lines? rep. mcgovern: page two, line three. yes for what you will see is that this allows the state to choose to establish

criteria regarding the participation and its medicaid program. it is institutions, agencies, entities, this is something they have said to us, yes, we would like to have this flexibility. and maximum state flexibility so that they can come in and set these programs, work with these providers. in texas, dr. burgess just give us a great example of when they did the decoupling's in texas -- we know it works. access to care increases when you allow the states that the stats that come from texas are certainly proof of that. you can look at some the faith-based and community clinics that have provided necessary outreach and the way their numbers have increased. nothing to there is stop any of these clinics from doing outreach now. this refers to potential loss of that have aclinics

series of health services that you disagree with. the exception that you pointed to is only for a life endangering physical condition, not for a health endangering physical condition. it would require a very high burden on the imminent danger of death unless an abortion is performed. often when a doctor is working with a patient, one of the reasons that this is not a good area for government to get involved with, there's a lot nuance than that. the doctor might alert a woman that there is high risk with a particular pregnancy or that the pregnancy could have severe health implications. it may or may not reach the standard of immediately life endangering physical condition. there is a lot broader set of circumstances, which are in fact, it is

the responsibility of the doctor with hippocratic oath to make sure that the mother is aware of the impact on health. i really see these bills from last week and this week as a double way me. one is targeting planned parenthood specifically in the second one is threatening to undercut the very system of committee health clinics, which just last week were touted as potential alternatives to planned parenthood for women, insufficient as they are with not enough locations to serve nearly the number of women that are currently served by planned parenthood. i think that these two bills are clearly the wrong direction. i think we will be talking about another select committee or special committee shortly. my view on that is that the only committee or jurisdiction on these matters is a woman, her doctor, and god any other legislative body simply does not have jurisdiction and i yield back. verysessions: thank you

much. i see no time being requested by any member. byant to thank both of you taking time to be with us. anwe spoke up front, this is important and sensitive issue and i appreciate both of our witnesses appropriately for presenting their views with respect to each other and this committee. i want to thank oath of the or your time. to themake sure you say stenographer anything you came here with writing and i thank you very much. this now closes the hearing portion of hr 3495, the women's health and safety act. the chair will be in pursuit of motion from the mrs. fox. foxx: the women's public health and safety act is a close rule. it provides one hour debate and equally provides control with the chair and the energy,'s with

reportespective needs to consideration of the bill. the amendment printed in the rules committee report should be considered as adopted and the could bemended t considered as read. it could be considered as amended. it to recommites with or without instructions. section two of the rule clause six a of rule 13 is requiring a two thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day as it is reported from the rules committee. it is against any resolution reported from the rules committee through the legislative day of october 1, 2015. rep. sessions: you now heard the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina is what i believe is a straightforward expiration of the rules. is there a minute or discussion to that? mr. chairman, i have amendment to the rule. 3495 is yet another bill that has failed to go through regular order. ms. slaughter: there have been

no hearings or markups on this bill, meaning we have not heard from expert witnesses and no one has had an opportunity to even offer amendments to improve this bill. ruleworse, today's close self executes a hand-picked republican amendment, denying members to all vote on it with the other 434 members. i would like to put on the record a statement about what happened and other places where they try to shut down the planned parenthood providers. hivndiana, it led to an epidemic. i know we all know about that. in texas, it led to tens of thousands of women not getting cared. left a 1400% it drop in services. is it too much to ask that we follow regular order and allow the house to work its will on a measure of such importance. mr. chairman, i moved the

committee to grant hr 3495 in open rule so that all members on both sides of the house have an opportunity to offer amendments to this bill on the floor as we were elected to do. rep. sessions: yet heard the amendment and the discussion by any member of the committee. vote on the slaughter member. those voting aye and those voting no/ . let's get role. >> no. >> no. >> no >. >> no. >> no. >> yes. .> yesterday > >> yes. >> yes. >> no. rep. sessions: the total?

yeses, nine nos. rep. sessions: i was special visitor today, my sister did i want to welcome her to the rules committee. [applause] rep. sessions: we have had your son. this is awesome and we are delighted to have her. from?is she >> boulder, colorado. rep. sessions: thank you very much. no further amendments or discussions for the own will now be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. ye and thoughy a opposed say no.

aye. aye. >>aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> aye. rep. sessions: the total? four nays.s, fox willions: miss hold this for republicans and judge hastings for democrats. i would like to be as clear as i when thet knowing senate will perform their duties aswing that rather quickly, soon as we receive it, we would want members to know put this on notice. scheduled meeting

is for wednesday at three clock, knowing that the vicinity has fair worked on. we would come in as quickly as possible and i will deal with hopefully this work week. ms. slaughter: it is the only committee that would deal with the cr. rep. sessions: it is probably because of the timing. i wouldn't to state that. i know that miles will be in contact and i will be doing my very best to get with you. ms. slaughter: i cannot wait to see that. rep. sessions: i know you will and me, too. thank you very much. this finishes the committee work for the day. thank you very much. >> the house rules committee sent the bill dealing with land haircut and other groups providing abortion services to the full house. the bill is scheduled for debate on the floor today. >> on the next "washington journal," congressman tom

mcclintock from california on the house leadership. he recently announced that he was resigning from the freedom caucus, saying the group's tactics have undermine conservative goals. then, democratic representative mark pocan on a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. and a congressional report from bloomberg talk about wednesday's deadline to fund the federal government. "washington journal" is light at 7:00 am eastern on c-span and we welcome your comments on facebook and twitter. the president of planned parenthood will testify before a house committee today. republican members of congress have offered numerous bills to defund the group of what they tissue sale for medical research. the congressional budget office estimates that planned

parenthood receives about hundred $50 million a year from the federal government. -- 450 million dollars a year >> are all they cover the book fairs and festivals across the country. we have top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule. we have the southern festival of books in nashville. we are live from austin for the texas book festival. we will be covering to back -- book festivals on the same weekend. at the start of november, we will be an end, oregon. that will be followed by the national book awards from new york city. miami book for the

fair international. that is a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2. c-span takes you on the road to the white house. we are taking your comments on twitter and facebook. every campaign event we cover is available on our website at www.c-span.org. >> donald trump unveiled his tax plan yesterday. highest individual and tax rate would be a 5%. here is his press conference. to be discussing something so important for our country and

economy and to get us working well again. it is a tax reform i think that will break america great and strong again. americans are working and too many jobs are being shifted overseas and too many middle income families cannot make income meet. this plan directly meets this challenges and the challenges also of business. it will provide major tax relief for middle income and for most other americans. there will be a major tax reduction. it will simplify the tax code. it will grow the american economy at a level it hasn't seen for decades. and all of this does not add to our debt or our deficit.

but i will also be discussing some of that at the end because we have to make much better deals, we have to negotiate much harder and we have got to make our economy strong. changes for individual will be at levels that you haven't seen in a long time. we are going to cut the individual rates from 7 brackets to 4. simple. 25%, 20%, 10%, and 0%. if you are single and earned less than $25,000 per year or married and jointly earning less than $50,000 -- so, very important, if you are single and earn less than $25,000 or married and jointly earn less

than $50,000 san diegos you will not pay any income tax. nothing. this eliminates very strongly and quickly the marriage penalty. very unfair penalty. it eliminates the amt which is the alternative minimum tax. it ends the death tax. it is a double taxation. a lot of families go through hell over the death tax. it reduces or eliminated most of the deductions and loopholes available to special interest and to the very rich. in other words it is going to cost me a fortune, which is actually true, while preserving charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions. very importantly. it ends the current tax treatment of carried interest. those are the hedge fund folks

that i have been talking about for quite a while. make a lot of money. carried interest. so it ends the current tax treatment of carried interest through partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital. changes are business: so burped because it is all about business. it is all about jobs. we have 93 million people in this country that are in serious trouble. that want to work but want characteristic. so for business, no business of any size from a fortune 500 company to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living from gig to gig will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. big reduction. a one-time deemed repatriation

of corporate cash held overseas at significantly discount which coming back at a significantly discount of 10% tax rate so it comes back discounted at a 10% tax rate and ends the deferl of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. it is called corporate inversion. it is a huge subject. i have been watching politicians for years. all talk no action. i have been watching them talk about bringing the money back. the number is probably $2.5 trilli trillion. everybody agrees it should come back. they can't make a deal. the reason companies aren't bringing it back is because the tax is onerous.

many companies are leaving the united states. they are leaving our shores to go and collect their money. they are going and moving out of the united states for two reasons: the taxes are too high and because they have tremendous amount of money they cannot bring back into the country. as an example, i have millions of dollar overseas. i cannot brick bring it back in. so the money stays in other coaptries and that is what happens. not good for us. the level of leadership that we need to get things like this done is so important. but this is something -- and i've been watching it for a long time -- everybody agrees to. we also reduce or eliminate some business loopholes -- many of

them actually -- and deductions made unnecessary redundant by the new lower tax rate on business income. the tax rate is so low that a lot of these deductions which are complicated and don't make sense and are unfair are gone. and we phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of the business interest expense. so we are going to give you -- we have a very complex set of papers that actually if you know business is not so complex. and we have going to hand them out now to the press. and i think you will see we have an amazing code. it will be simple. it will be easy. it will be fair. its graduated. as you get up in income, you pay a little more. some of the very unfair deductions that certain people who have been given who make a a lot of money will not be

available any longer. but i believe they will do better because i believe the economy will grow and have something special. with all of that being said, and before we take questions, we have to cut the cost of what is going on in this country. if you look at what we have doing and the money we are spending. i read where a washer, you know what a washer is? nuts, bolt and washer. to send from one state to another. it was a 19 cent washer and cost $900 some odd dollars to get there. and there are many examples. hammers that cost $800 that you can buy in a store for a tiny amount. there is so much money to be

saved. we are reducing president but at the same time if i win, we will be able to cut so much money. we won't be loosing anything other than balancing budgets and getting them where they should be. so this is plan that is simple, that is a maimer reduction. i think people are going to be very happy. we have already have some very good reviews. i did the plan with some of the leading scholars and economist and tax experts that there are in this country. they love it. they say why hasn't this been done before. this is why wheelhouse. this is what i do well. the economy is what i do well. whenever they do polls i always come out way above everybody else on the economy and on leadership, by the way, but i won't say that. so if anybody has -- [applause]

>> thank you. that is amazing. that is some of the press that was clapping. i don't think i have seen that before. why don't we take questions from the press? go ahead. >> [inaudible conversation]. >> no i am not going to do that yet. we are looking at 3% but we think it be be 5% or 6%. we are going to have growth and that would be tremendous. we have more than 3% these numbers are amazing. one thing they don't take into account is the cutting. there is no much waste in government that i believe when i get in there i will be able to cut without loosing anything to cut tremendous amounts off the budget and we are not showing things for that. so they are conservative

numbers. >> [inaudible question] >> my taxes will -- first of all, i will have a much simpler tax statement. it will bemuch simplelar. when i do my return, it will be much -- we want to simplify them through a tremendous level. the bracket of 25%, the big difference is many of the loopholes and many of the deductions which are old and they have been there for years. they were put there because a lot of the people that get the deductions are contributing to hillary, to bush, they are contributing to other candidate but trump because i am not taking any money. these people want the reductions. there are people we are reducing

taxes. but there are people in the upper echelons that will not be thrilled. we are taking away deductions and that is why we are able to lower it. [inaudible. >> this is actually a tax reduction. a big tax reduction including for the upper income. i believe the economy will do so well that even though they will not be getting certain deductions which are not fair for them to be doing that they will end up doing better. [inaudible question] >> i think this is a call in sense approach. you know you could say supply side. you could say there is 15 different names given out for different kinds of deductions or increases. i don't think this is supply side or anything else. i think nis is a common sense,

well not out tax were posal that's going to trigger the economy, and going to make everybody go back and really want to work. it is going to create tremendous numbers of jobs. one other thing i am coupling this with is if i am president i will renegotiate the trade deals because they are not sustainable. we cannot continue to let our jobs go to other countries. there is not a country we don't negotiate with that doesn't get a better deal. i am going to renegotiate some of our military cost. we protect south korea, we protect germany, we protect some of the wealthiest countries in the world. saudi arabia. we protect everybody. and we don't get reimbursement. we lose on everything. we lose on everything. so we are going to negotiate and renegotiate trade deals, military deals, and many other deals that is going to get the cost down for running our

country very significantly. i am not showing a big number in that. but i believe that if i become president those numbererize going to be massive. as an example: saudi arabia. they make $1 billion a day. we protect them. so we help. we are loosing a trumend hazardous amount of money on a yearly bases and we owe $19 trillion. i used to say $18 and now it is $19 and only going up. yes, tom? [inaudible question] >> well no, look. senator rubio is a lightweight. he would not be able to this. he would not know a trade deal from any other deal. certain people are trying to, we went up in the last poll, two points and continue to go up. in the nbc poll we went from 26% to 29%. they don't know what to do about

it. i've built a great company. you will see that in 60 minutes last night. it is a great company with very littleal debt and tremendous cash flow. i am funding my own campaign. guys like marco rubio desperately need money. ask the car dealer in florida. ask the people that support him. a guy like rubio and others. i don't want to single him out but they are controlled by donors and special interest and the lobbyist by more than anyone else. i have turned down millions from lobbyist and special interest because it is not the right thing and that seems to be resonating very well. [applause]. thank you. >> i negotiate.

i get bills from people. is that a bad thing? the country should do that. yeah, i would bring the same attitude to the white house. she said i have a habit. when you get a bill you call up and negotiate. to me that is a compliment. i bet we could say 20% of the budget. that has to be the attitude our country has. you cannot spend millions and millions on doing something you can do for $2,000. when you look at cost. we just spent a million dollars building a soccer field. okay? a soccer field. for our prisoners who happen to be in guantanamo bay. i don't like that. what do you need a million for? level out the surface and let them play. why do you need to spend a million dollars? it was a story today.

a million dollars on a soccer field. how do you spend a million doing a soccer field? you have a level piece of land. throw them a ball and let them play. why are they playing soccer is my question? okay. yes, sir, go ahead. [inaudible question] >> no, it is too long. you don't have time. why don't you go ahead? [inaudible question] >> right. >> no, not at all. we are lowering taxes which the republicans love. and i think one of the reasons i am doing so well in the polls and one of the reasons i am doing so well when it comes to the economy in all polls is this is the thinking. we are lowering taxes, simplifying and getting rid of

deductions that are obsolete that certain people want to keep for certain reasons. so no, that is not true. yes, sir, go ahead. [inaudible question] >> putin was interviewed and i was interviewed last night. i thought charlie rose did a great job but i thought his was softer. scott pely interviewed me and i thought scott was terrific. it was a tough interview but i thought he was fair and the piece was very good. yeah, go ahead. >> why is he hotter? i would say because putin is nicer. [inaudible question] >> right.

right. the worst in 36 years. you know you are talking about 10-11 years. it is called corporate inversion and they are moving out and getting out and getting jobs and now we are a big problem. we have companies that are large and precision and obviously you know you have major companies and they moved from new york and new jersey from texas or whatever. in england and other places to stay where they get treated

differently and better. they are doing that for a number of reasons and one of the big reasons is taxes and the other is to get all of this cash they built up and they can't get back into our country. when this money comes back into our country that everybody wants it is going to be put to work in our country largely. it can go other places but largely. and i think it will be an amazing boom. here is the other thing. they think it is $2.5 trillion. i think it is much more than that. i think it is going to be more money than that. and boy, if it is, we have hit pay day. >> go ahead real fast. [inaudible question] >> well, you know when you end the repatration and get the money coming back in tremendous things happen. sarah, go ahead.

i will be announcing that in the not too distant future. i am the only one honest about this. i watched the politicians saying we pay taxes. i fight like hell always to pay the least because it is an expense. i fight. i have the best lawyers, and accountants and i fight and i pay. but it is an expense and i would feel differently if the company spent the money wisely. our country sends the money so stupidly. i fight like hell to make the taxes i pay as low as possible but i would feel differently if

i respected our leadership's decision. all you to do is look at the things your government is spending money on right now and you don't feel so good about our country. yes? well, i tell you what in terms of income inequality. we will create a lot of jobs. we have a false 5.4, 5.3, every month is different. it is such a phony number because when people look and look and give up looking for a job they are taking it off the role. so the number is not reflective. i have seen numbers of 24%. i saw a number of 42% unemployment. it could be because when you are looking for a job and you go around and you look and look and you fight and you want to work and you want to take care of your family and you cannot get the job, and you know what i am talking about because you are

shaking your head, and you cannot get the job, essentially for statistically purposes you are considered employed. so every time it comes out i hear 5.3% unemployment. that is the biggest joke there is in this country. that number is so false. people ask how come trump is doing so well and carson and others. you know whey they are doing well? people are tired of political spoke and one of the worst examples is the phony unemployment rate. the unemployment rate is probably 20%. i will tell you you have great economist telling you 30-32% and the highest i heard is 42%. there is anger at the job picture out there. one other thing, with that being said, china, japan, mexico,

braz brazil, these countries are all taking our jobs like we are a bunch of babies. that will stop. people will treat us fairly if i become president. we are loosing our jobs, we are loosing our base, we are loosing our manufacturing and all of that will stop. yeah, go ahead. well, number one this is simpleification and what i am doing really is the big picture because corporations will have an incentive to create jobs and also to stay in this country. if a corporation gives out a bigger dividend he will have more to spend in the economy so that is good.

yes, ma'am? should chris christie what? [inaudible question] >> i know nothing about that. [inaudible] >> go ahead. [inaudible question] >> no, i am not a populus. i am a man of great common sense. i am man who built a tremendous company with the best locations in real estate and the best. you are at one of them. i have many of them. i have employed tens of thousands of people. i employ thousands and thousands of people. i would not say populus but i would say a man of common sense. cutting taxes, creating jobs and getting rid of waste and the waste i get rid of is going to have a huge impact and i am not

even putting that in my numbers so i think it will be terrific. how about one more question. go ahead. yes, the motor industry. that is a beautiful way of describing it. where were you from? england. i love it. what a beautiful accent. no, i want to get the industry -- we call it the automobile industry, but i want them to build factories here. ford is building a $2.5 billion plant in mexico. and mexico took a plant from tennessee as well. i want the automobile companies to build their plants in the united states. i don't want nabisco leaving for mexico or any place else. i want these companies not to leave chicago, not to leave michigan, not to leave new

hampshire and iowa and south carolina and all of these places where they are leaving and they are going to other countries, i want them to stay here and they will stay here and they will be so happy. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. it has been a great honor. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> expand takes one the road to the white house. we will take your comments on twitter, facebook, by phone. the campaign event is available for website at www.c-span.org. the president of plan you have

heard will testify before a house committee today. there are bills to defund the group. the congressional budget office estimates that planned parenthood received $450 million a year from the federal government. our live coverage is at 10:00 on c-span3. >> up next, "washington journal" is live. later, tom mcclintock of california on the future of the --.blican leadership area he resigned from the freedom caucus. the tactics of undermined conservative goals.

then the efforts to pass a short-term spending to avoid a government shutdown. steve: -- host: good morning. last night the senate to the first step to avert the government shut down by passing a stopgap spending bill. president obama spent his monday with other world leaders in new york. included address to the general assembly and a high-profile meeting with president putin. v're asking our