won't that be fun? i said, let's be specific. governor christie, your governor, balanced the budget six times without raising taxes. not easy to do. enacted a $2.3 billion job creating tax cut. that is a lot of stuff. 2.3 billion dollars, not easy in new jersey, i can tell you. he shrank the state government by 2500 jobs. , there is nostie such thing as bipartisan anymore. economic opportunity act will , 22,000 in00 jobs the construction industry. a lot of my friends are here tonight. we are all in the construction industry. governor christie contributed more to the pension system than any other governor in new jersey state history.

governor christie brought the insolvent -- and this was newrtant -- the insolvent jersey unemployment trust fund back to solvency. i can tell you it was done at least two years ahead of schedule. that is a pretty good track record, and that is just a few of the things. that is just a few. we have had an interesting time. you know, it all started, and outs was out there, i was there, and one of the more interesting parts was i was watching the debate. i had one debate i was interested. i was watching. i like marco very much. chris was over here. there, i watched it happen. thatoked like perry mason evening. it was a rough evening for marco. marco will admit it. [laughter]

[shouting] mr. trump: there is nothing like new jersey. [applause] mr. trump: there is nothing like new jersey. so many wiseguys. if you can make it in new jersey, you can do just about anything you want in life. great people. on june 7, will you do me a favor? go out and vote, please. go out and vote. boy, are we going to go out in november. june 7. on june 16 -- we will build that wall. the wall is going to be built. we want the wall. hillary -- you talk about bernie sanders. crooked hillary. i love this crowd. [applause] mr. trump: my people. this is my people.

but bernie sanders said that essentially,y is, not fit, not qualified to be president. you know why? he said because she suffers from bad judgment. so today, she made this statement. she will not use the term "radical islamic terrorism." you know why she won't? because her president won't use it, that is why. by the way, issue being nice to him? him, her not stand husband could not stand him. bill could not stand him, and she could not stand him. i wonder why she is being so nice. can you figure it out? did not like him one little bit, now anything he said, my president said, my president said.

if you think about it, look at it, he said "unqualified," and she suffers from bad judgment. and she does. today, we had a terrible tragedy, and she came up and said that donald trump talked about radical islamic terrorism. she used a different term because she does not want to use that term. she refuses to use that term. it is a terrible thing. he essentially should not be running for office. he does not have the right to run for office. i said to myself, what just happened 12 hours ago? a plane got blown out of the sky. if you do not think it was blown sky, you are 100% wrong. i was watching one of the networks. they had this great guy from the fbi on, talking about what happened with the plane.

never saw him before on television. give is going back and forth about how bad it is getting, how we we -- how we are losing control. he says, let me tell you something. the person that knows what is going on, the person that understands what is happening is a guy named donald trump. [applause] a great honor. [chanting [we want trump"] mr. trump: if you are sitting home and watching television, you have a man who as -- is an expert on terrorism. that, to me, is a great complement. 16, i came down that beautiful escalator at trump tower.

this is nice, but it does not remind me of this one. it was a big day. i just said, we have to do it. there are some things we can do to make america great again. we are never going to do it. gets in, i donton not know if our country can ever recover. yesterday, i named a large number of judges, and i will be adding to that, that are highly respected judges. they come out of heritage, different groups that have recommended very strongly. they really recommended strongly. these are great judges. we will be adding additional ones, chris. it is outstanding. one of the most important things, always security first, right? one of the most important things we will be doing, whoever the next president is, is naming judges. probably naming the justices of

the united states supreme court. they will take us in a certain direction, either down the tubes, or through the roof. i will tell you, through the roof. someudges, the justices, of them are currently judges, all of them are currently judges, the justices of the united states supreme court, it could be three, could be five, probably going to be three, most likely three, four, could even be five, that is a massive number of justices. , hillary has gotten totally embroiled in this. how bad a judgment is the e-mail scandal? for what reason did she do that? i know the reason. i know the reason. it is always the same with her. it is always the same with them. but -- i have used that one already.

i cannot use it. i might use it again. we will go crooked hillary, ok? crooked may be more accurate, maybe. outis probably going to get because, i mean, you know -- what she has done is so much worse than what anybody else running ever, ever, has done. if you look at all these people, general petraeus, they have done a tiny fraction of what she has done. their lives have been destroyed. their lives have been ruined. what she has done, what she has done, for her to be able to continue to run is an absolute opinion to this country. absolute disgrace. on top of that, you know, it is an amazing thing. every time i watch the race, bernie sanders wins. he keeps winning.

then they have the roundtable. well, hillary clinton will win. it is a rigged deal. i started using the word "rigged." nobody used the word, and now everybody is calling it rigged. i want to have that phrase coined. i used the word four or five months ago. the republican deal was rigged, 100%. what did i do? you have to win by massive numbers. boy, did we get massive numbers. we did well. you know, i had, by far, the most elegant. i came into new york -- delegates. i came into new york, and the people of new york, they love me. you know me as well as they know me. i am paying so many people. i have so many employees in new jersey.

i hate to think about it, i have to be honest. i am taking care of more education and more salaries and more health care than anybody probably in new jersey. honestly, i am happy to do it. we have great people. new jersey, let me tell you, new jersey is a great state. it is a state where we have truly, truly great people. i came into new york. and we did not win by a little bit. we won in a massive landslide. we won everything. the nice part is, they know me the best. if you go into a community and you do not do well, that is not a good sign. they have known me for so many years, they are probably sick of me. i got 62%. knocked them, and it was great.

i go to pennsylvania, connecticut. we will do great in pennsylvania. we have our chairman from pennsylvania. we go to pennsylvania, connecticut, delaware, maryland and rhode island. we win every single subsection of every single state. we win every county of every state, and we won everything by massive numbers. i have 66%, 67%. i have three people running. when these guys on television, the most dishonest human beings -- they are the worst. [booing] trump, we gotald seven or eight people, nine people running. donald trump did not get 50%. how do you get 50%? we started off with 17 people. actually, after two or three weeks, because i won new

hampshire. we will take care of those people. they have a drug problem you would not believe, heroin pouring over the border. we will seal the wall and have real protection, believe me. the people of new hampshire are, i mean, it is incredible. and what isd is, happening in new jersey, the drugs are pouring across. illegal immigration, illegal immigrants are coming through. we are going to stop it. we are going to build that wall. it is going to be a real wall. we are going to have people come into our country, but they will come in to our country legally. [applause] mr. trump: so i went through the next week. i win new york in a landslide. then i win five states. then i am watching and i am hearing that i got something, a little less, saying i should have done better.

then i go to indiana. that was going to be the firewall. wonent there, and we indiana so big, everybody just gave up. we had a little help. it was a man named bobby knight. we love bobby. we had a lot of people. we had a great coach from purdue. we had a lot of people that really supported. who won 900night, games, three championships, last undefeated team in college championships, almost two, he was a great coach. is a great coach. he looks better than ever. he came out, and i want to tell you that state went crazy. that was good. if ever there was an endorsement that was good, we won indiana in

a's landslide -- in a landslide. we are going to have an amazing convention. we are going to make rate trade deals. we are going to stop with this nonsense. we are going to make great trade deals, you know, with china. we had a trade deficit with year.of $505 million a how stupid can we be? obama does nothing about it, hillary knows nothing about it, has absolutely no idea. she is taken care of by the people putting up her money. even if she did, she would say, i cannot do that. i cannot hurt these people. they gave me millions of dollars. we are going to make the great trade deals out of absolute the absolute worst ever negotiated by any country in the world. that is how bad they are. they are taking our jobs, taking

our money, our everything. to me, the most interesting, i love new york. this statey toured like i never did before. i went to albany, syracuse, rome, new york, the real rome. i went to suffolk. we did so great. i looked at factories and i looked at buildings that were absolutely terrible to look at. they were crumbling. you could see 20 years ago, 25 years ago, you could see vibrance. today, you can buy them for two dollars. i went to pennsylvania and i looked at places -- by the way, in pennsylvania, a week before, we have hillary saying she is going to put the miners and coal mines out of business, ok? [booing] new york, when i won

it was interesting, i said, we will put the miners back to work. if you weeks later, i went to west virginia. i had really good numbers in west virginia. i did not say it for that reason, but we are going to put people back to work. we are going to use our power of taxation. when a company moves to mexico and they think they are going to drop out like carrier, like they think they are going to fire our people, moved to mexico, make their air conditioners and sell them across the border, no tax, no nothing, guess what, folks? not going to work that way anymore. [applause] mr. trump: now, i am a free trader. i am only a free trader if we make good deals. these very conservative ideologues say, donald trump is not a free trader. how about jeb bush?

donald trump is not a conservative. i am a conservative, but who cares? somebody asked me yesterday, are you a free trader? here is what i am. it was john -- sean hannity last night. nice guy. do we love sean? [applause] mr. trump: here is my trade deal. i said, here is what we are going to do. my trade deal is very simple. here is what it is. i am going to make great deals for our country. very simple. we are going to make great deals for our country. call it free trade, whatever you want to call it, we are going to make great deals for our country. i can tell you this -- when carrier and ford and nabisco are leaving chicago -- they are leaving their plant and moving the mexico. i am not eating oreos.

neither is chris. us.reos for either of i will tell you what, folks. there has to be consequences. when they move, there has got to be consequences. i watched for six years as the united government, on a federal basis, worked very hard. money toed to loan companies, give them low interest loans. some companies took the money and moved anyway. they want to come up with ideas. here is my idea. so simple. they worked on it for six years. meantime, look at new york, new jersey, by the way, look at different parts of the country, what nafta has done to us, signed by bill clinton by the way, signed by bill clinton, the first trade deal, in my opinion, in the history of the country, one of the worst ever.

and it is going to be repealed, believe me. it is going to be changed or totally renegotiated, probably repealed. probably repealed, probably. here is what we are doing. carrier moves. carrier, how, hi, are you doing? chris, as president of the united states, am i allowed to call the president of an air-conditioning company? he said, only one time. only takes one call. my wife would say, do not do that. you are the president. but i am so much -- it is so much fun for me. i would call these companies and say, you have let go of thousands of people and left indiana, chicago, all the different places, michigan. i will win michigan. we will win illinois. we will win these things. i have been talking about it for years.

these other guys talk about it, and it will not work out so well. we are going to win michigan big, watch what happens. i say, you want to move your plant? enjoy mexico. beautiful place, beautiful weather, 120 degrees, wonderful. but every unit you make and sell to the united states, you are going to pay a 35% tax, ok? [applause] mr. trump: very simple. here is what is going to happen. some conservatives will say, that is not free market. we are losing our shirts, folks. we do not have a choice. if i saw a carrier before they move, i want to get in quickly, before they move, i would say, you move, enjoy yourself. you will pay a 35% tax. they are not moving. very simple. they are not moving. if it is too late, i am charging these companies a tax. you know what?

we are getting killed. we are losing all of our jobs, our everything. at least the united states will make a hell of a lot of money. say it is a trade war. we are losing $500 billion in trade with china. who the hell cares? $500 billion, and they are telling me about a trade war. two things are going to happen. china devalues their currency. they are behaving very badly. on top of that, they are building fortresses in the south china sea. they are doing things. china will behave. china will be our friend. we will do better with china under me and we will also do better economically under me. they will respect our country once again. i was told yesterday by an important person that china is

concerned about donald trump being elected. because you know why? they are going to have to pay up. they are going to have to do something. [applause] , a lot of you do not know the world of economics and you should not even bother. leave it to me. just go and enjoy your life. but china is killing us, and so are other countries, with the devaluation of their currency. they are making it impossible for our companies to compete. they are doing it more than ever, worse than ever. nine months ago, they did a devaluation they were not supposed to do, the biggest devaluation in 20 years, two decades. not going to happen anymore, folks. they make it impossible for us. it is not going to happen anymore. move, different situation, and they want to move to a different place, in particular mexico, which is

ofoming a mini version china, we will be friendly with the mexican people. i employ thousands of hispanics. we are doing great in the polls. the hispanics that are here legally do not want their houses taken away, their jobs taken away. that is why i am doing well with the hispanics. we are doing great with the african-americans. they know i am going to create jobs. i'm going to bring back jobs. we are not going to be the stupid country anymore. believe me. we are viewed as the stupid country. we are like a big, big, sloppy bully that gets punched in the face and goes down. you ever see a bully get knocked out? it is a terrible thing, unless you do the punching. we are going to change things. we are going to make great trade deals. we are going to have tremendous

borders. we want people to come in legally. we need the wall for drugs. ago, 16,500 border patrol agents endorsed me. them and said to them, frankly, because these are great people, they were told to stand back. they want to do the job. they are fantastic people. they can do a great job. when they endorsed me, i said, do we need the wall? you know what their answer was? mr. trump, we absolutely need the wall. i just wanted to be sure. [chanting "build the wall"] mr. trump: because i said to them, i want to build a wall. who knows better than the border patrol? that is what they do. they said, mr. trump, absolutely.

and thereher tool, are other things, but you absolutely need the wall. it needs to be a real wall, not the little toy while. peanuts, folks. if they ever get up, they are going to say, oh, man, how do i get down? we are going to make it big. we are going to make it powerful. and we are going to rebuild our military because our military is being decimated. did anybody see the television to last week where our fighter pilots are going to junkyards -- this is the united states. our fighter pilots and fighter planes are going to junkyards, where they have junkyards for the old, broken down planes. they are stripping the planes apart and putting them on our 20 year old fighter planes. we are like a third world country. we are ordering planes.

other countries are ordering modern planes, beautiful. we are putting junk back on our planes and putting our pilots on there and stripping other planes on the runway because they cannot get the planes to work. they are using, essentially, 60% of funding. is this the united states? is this our country? obama does not care. he cannot care. iswhat we are going to do our military is being depleted at a time when we need our military probably more than ever before, right? we are going to have a military that is going to be so big, so strong, so powerful, that nobody is going to mess with us. , and to me, very important, we are going to take care of our vets. our vets are being treated badly. [applause] mr. trump: we are going to

repeal and replace obamacare. obamacare is a disaster. we are going to terminate common core and we are going to have local education for your children. we are going to preserve the second amendment, which is under siege. americare going to make -- there is an expression. we do not make america first. first of all, these negotiators are political hacks. they should not have the job. we have the greast business people in the world. we are going to use the greatest when we negotiate with china and all these countries that rip us off. we are going to use the greatest business people in the world. you will see a difference like you have nothing before. when we defend these countries and nato, i am all for nato, but a lot of these countries are not paying us. they are supposed to be paying

us. in the old days, when i used to collect rent in brooklyn, the word is delinquent. they owe us money. we are defending them and they are paying a fraction of what they are supposed to be paying. do you know the kind of money we are talking about? we defend japan. we defend germany. we defend saudi arabia. oil --rabia, before the do not worry about it. they are making a lot. they were making $1 billion a day. would you like that for new jersey, chris? we get practically nothing, folks. they would not be there. i have some friends that are saudis that by my apartments. they are all great. longer,t be fooled any taking advantage of any longer.

we will make our country rich and strong again. we will be able to afford social security and medicare once again. i am the only one that says that. we will not be led down the tubes by an incompetent person like hillary clinton. you look at what she has done, her deal with libya. just take a look at libya. it is a catastrophe. you have benghazi. think of libya. they have some of the finest oil in the world. you know who has the oil? isis has the oil. this was her deal. so many other mistakes, so many other mistakes. i have a whole list, but i am not going to do that, because we are having too much fun. i have gone all over the country, seen millions of people. millions, the biggest crowds by far, far bigger than bernie. he is second. i think what happens, i believe his people, a large percentage

of his people, vote for trump. you watch what is going to happen. the one thing he is right on his trade. he has that right, but he cannot do anything about it. the difference is, i am going to make a great deals as opposed to saying, we are just getting ripped off. here is what we are going to do, folks. we are going to make our country absolutely great again. we are going to start winning. we do not win anymore. we are going to win on military, core,health care, common we are terminating. education, every single level. we are going to win with trade, with the border. we are going to win so much, you guys are all friends, right? you are going to call me, have chris christie call me, maybe even mary pat. i think she would be better. you are going to say, donald, the people of new jersey cannot

stand you winning so much for our country. they cannot stand it. could you stop winning so much? it is driving him crazy. i'm going to say, mary pat, we will not do that. we are going to win, win, win. we are going to make america great again. we are going to be respected as a country again. i want to thank everybody. i love you all. i love new jersey. june 7, june 7. thank you, everybody. thank you. ♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

live coverage of donald trump, wrapping up a campaign event in new jersey, where he was joined by chris christie. abc news reports that well donald trump is rumored to have chris christie on the shortlist of vice presidential picks, new favor himers do not as a running mate by a 4-1 margin. 72% oppose the idea of a vice president pick. among republicans, 64% disapprove, compared to 27% in favor of a trump-christie ticket. secretary, we probably

give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪ ♪ at nytimes.com, this is the headline. bernie sanders willing to harm hillary clinton in the home stretch. the co-author is joining us here in washington. thanks for being with us. thanks for having me. >> you described senator sanders

as defiant and determined. how so? >> he is defiant in that, while he is not condoning the violence in nevada, he is not saying his supporters are wrong in saying they are not treating mr. sanders fairly. he is taking on the democratic party. at one of his most recent theies, he talked about democratic party had a choice to change its ways, acquiesced to what it supporters are asking -- be a party of low energy. host: what changed between his loss to hillary clinton in new york to his most recent win in oregon? point, he was talking about the fact that, after new

york, his path to the nomination was more narrow. they were talking about the idea they would have to reassess. they were cutting staff members, laying people off. then something happened around when he started winning places. like yesterday, the idea that he is winning oregon and the states, he really started talking about the fact that he is going to take on the party, take this all the way to the nomination. he has been hitting back at hillary clinton. to theoment, he shifted idea that we will be talking about the platform of the convention. we need them to be a different party. he was not going after hillary clinton. he went backins, to hillary clinton and hitting the party. host: talk to something else percolating for the last couple of months we heard from jeff weaver, the bernie sanders campaign manager. he was very critical of the chair, debbie wasserman schultz.

he said so yesterday on cnn. how has this transpired? >> it is somewhat remarkable to watch jeff weaver saying that debbie wasserman schultz is "throwing shade" on the sanders campaign from the very beginning. obviously, with debbie wasserman schultz, the party has said it is a standard campaign. they are using nevada and saying, if you think you are going to be doing what you did in nevada in the summer or in philly, we are not going to have a contentious convention. we do not want mass protests or arrests. host: bottom line, what does senator sanders want? as you look at the numbers and states, hillary clinton has won more states, more votes. what is his argument as he goes to philadelphia this july?

>> some of that we touched on in our story. we talked about the idea that he wants to amass as many delegates as possible. he has tapped into this new fundraising model with millions of people on an e-mail list. he wants to use that to advance his agenda at the convention. apart from that, he had the idea he can capture the nomination. and mys told me colleagues that he was holding out hope that if she had a last-minute stumble or if there was an fbi investigation into her e-mails, that he can become the nominee. he has gotten a taste of what it would be like to win the nomination, with all the states he has won. he has won at least 10 million votes. the idea that he got a taste of what it would be like as a standardbearer, he does not want to give that up >> you are on

the campaign trail with senator sanders. what is the overall demeanor moving into the final primary, the washington, d.c. democratic primary? >> to strategy is to hold huge rallies all over the country. especially focusing on california. he is heading to new mexico and california this weekend. he is going to try to have as much energy at these places, try to talk up supporters. condone does not violence, he has been saying, i appreciate you coming out. for senatordemeanor sanders is defiant, a little combative. combative in the way he is taking on the party and saying, do not tell me to drop out. do not tell me how he votes hillary clinton won. i want to focus on what i accomplished. host: can the party unite in philadelphia this summer? >> i think the party can unite.

as somebody who has been on somebody different rallies and they really want to ask people whether they will support hillary clinton if they are bernie sanders fans, the first thing they will say is, i would never support hillary clinton. the minute you say, if it were hillary clinton versus donald trump? 90% of the time, people say, i would support hillary clinton. the party facing donald trump, people are going to unite. they are going to see him as a huge enemy. people will say, we have to do whatever we can to not get him in the white house. host: we saw that in 2008 with hillary clinton supporters. of course, they came together. >> ultimately, what we are talking about is they are all democrats, all progresses. even people who are independent. they likely voted for the democratic party in the past.

a lot of these people, when i interview people about what they want for the country, that country looks more like what hillary clinton is pitching than what donald trump is pitching. people see donald trump as the ultimate villain when it comes to the democratic party. alcindor, covering the bernie sanders campaign for the new york times. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. next, the new overtime rule issued on wednesday. then john wunderlich will be on to talk about the deal between campaignnd the trunk -- trunk campaign to fund raise for the general election. of the military

times will be with us to break down the national defense authorization act that will pass on the house wednesday night. watch washington journal beginning at 7:00 eastern friday morning. join the discussion. >> the u.s. house got rowdy. the floor got chaotic in amendment votes to the military construction of the v.a. spending bill. covering it for "the hill," reporter cristina marcos. tell us about the provisions in the defense authorization bill that passed wednesday. what is the fight all about? guest: two years ago, president obama issued an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against members of the lgbt community. house republicans inserted an amendment into this year's defense bill that states religious organizations and other contractors for the federal government cannot be discriminated against on the

basis of religion. and the lgbt community and democrats interpreted that as a potential opportunity that would open up discrimination against the lgbt community. host: that came up in the motion to recommit late wednesday in the defense authorization bill that was shot down, the authorization bill passed and then again it came up as an amendment this time once again it was sean patrick maloney, the democratic congressman, bringing forth an amendment. what was he trying to do? guest: last night was the defense authorization, democrats used a procedural maneuver that would have amended the defense authorization to eliminate that republican provision that was intended, framed as promoting religious freedom. maloney, who is openly gay, was warning that this was personal for him and that, you know this could open up discrimination against people like him.

in last night's and this morning with the military construction veterans affairs funding bill, he was trying to prohibit any funds from being used to go against the executive order president obama issued. host: and the new york congressman's amendment came up far vote. you saw it on c-span, your headline captures some of the affair at thehill.com. chaos in the house after g.o.p. votes down lgbt measure, linking to our video. what happened in that vote? why was that vote unusual? guest: house republicans, upon taking the majority in 2011, brought back this procedure for considering spending bills that allows lawmakers to offer unlimited numbers of amendments. while republicans will tout this as a return to the open process, it also opens the opportunity for democrats, the minority party, to hijack the process and force votes on things leadership would otherwise deny them having.

while maloney was denied a vote on the defense authorization, which leadership controlled the amendment process there, he was able to force it on this spending bill that came up today. host: right. it seemed to rub democrats fairly raw in terms of that vote procedure. your tweet about the followup on that, you said whip hoyer is calling out specific republicans who changed their votes on the lgbt measure, jeff denham, greg walden, mimi walters, david young switching their vote. did you get a chance to talk to members who switched votes or hear why they switched votes? obviously a strong whip operation on the republican side. guest: originally the measure was passing. however, because the house had already passed the provision stating otherwise the night before, republican leadership felt that they had to beat back this amendment that maloney offered today.

so even though it was originally passing, republican leadership, including majority leader kevin mccarthy, could be seen on the floor, pressuring members to change their vote. some of the members included lawmakers you mentioned, like walden and jeff denham and so -- and democrats were complaining that these members were changing their votes without specifically coming to the well of the house so that everyone could see who exactly was changing their votes. instead they were somehow able to change their votes electronically without having everyone see them do it. host: all of this happening on the last day, legislatively, for the week. what does this say about relations going forward but in particular next week? the house has a lot to get done before the memorial day recess. do you think an incident like this or what's happened over the last day or more, does it have an impact on relations between the two parties? guest: it's clear democrats will use the open amendment process to their advantage, especially while we're in the middle of an

election year. last night, house minority leader nancy pelosi was clearly linking or trying to link the -- both the lgbt measure as well as a separate provision related to the confederate flag as what she described as, you know, discrimination that donald trump has been promoting in his campaign, turning into legislative proposals in the house from house republicans. host: our guest is cristina marcos. follow her reporting at thehill.com and on twitter,@cimarcos. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. host: we thought we would give you a flavor of how this got started, on the debate floor in the house last wednesday. here is a look. >> let me speak plainly now.

strips americans of basic workplace protections by reversing the president's antidiscrimination orders, saying it is once again legal for lgbt neighbors and family members to be fired because of who they are. this is wrong. [applause] >> this is not about supporting our troops. it is not about fighting isis. it is not about religious protections. we can do all that, and we should. this is about bigotry, plain and simple. but we can fix it by embracing the bipartisan effort, denied by the rules committee, to deny this hateful in which and keep everything else. mr. speaker, this is not a procedural vote to be waved away. this is about whether or not we will reaffirm equal rights or rationalize discrimination. [applause]

>> when my husband and i got married after waiting 22 years, so many of you expressed your support. eye you now look me in the and say it would be ok for me to lose my job over it? just today, a member of this house refusing to strike this anti-gay language said to me, but you know where i am on your issues. i said, no. this is where you are on my issues. your vote is where you are on my issues. this is where your children and your history are standing. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> you have a duty, here and now, to strike a blow for equality. mr. speaker -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> we are told. we have to make america great. . a look at what happened on

the house floor today as members cast their vote on the antidiscrimination amendment to the senate appropriations bill. , thenked ready to pass failed due to sustain disapproval from democrats. we will start with a look at the amendment as it was introduced. provision as part of the defense bill that rolls back anti-discrimination provisions contained in executive orders issued by the president in recent years. this is one of the ugliest episodes that i experienced in my three-plus years as member of this house. the inclusion of such hate-based language in a defense bill designed to support our military sends exactly the wrong message at a time when we should all be unified in supporting the efforts of our service members around the world. my father was a veteran. he was nearly killed in the service of his country. i've never voted begins the defense bill before. i never thought i would. almost a quarter of the

constituents i represent in the hudson valley of new york come from families where a member is serving in the military or has served in the military. i represent the united states military academy at west point. we helped 800 veterans one at a time out of my district office in my three years in congress, and we passed legislation directly aimed at making their lives better. so it is not with an easy heart that i come to the house floor and oppose the defense bill, but this legislation snuck in the bill and kept in the bill despite a bipartisan effort to remove it sends exactly the wrong signal and it says that we are so concerned about discriminating against a group of lgbt americans that we are willing to destroy the bipartisan cooperation we should have on a defense bill. so my amendment today gives us another chance. it gives us a chance to correct some of the damage done last night by the misguided efforts of some members of this body.

and what it would say is quite simple is that we shall not do anything in this bill that controw convenients the executive orders of the president. it's pretty simple. we should not be spending taxpayer dollars to promote hate and we should not be justifying that by some religious exemption when in fact the language in the defense bill simply rolls back the anti-discrimination provisions that the president put in executive order to those contained in the original civil rights act and the a.d.a. it is specifically designed to exclude lgbt americans, and in doing that, it aligns itself with the parallel efforts we see happening in states like north carolina. it's wrong and it doesn't have anything to do with our military. it doesn't have anything to do with fighting isis. it doesn't have anything to do with religious protections. it's about bigotry, plain and simple, and today we have another chance to do the right thing and to send the right message and to stick up for our military. thank you, mr. speaker.

and i yield back. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. maloney: yes, i will. mr. dent: i just want to state i support the amendment and oppose discrimination in any shape or form in this case as it relates to federal contracting. i yield back. mr. maloney: reclaiming my time. i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania and i want to acknowledge that it was the gentleman from pennsylvania, together with mr. hannah from new york, who craig -- mr. hanna from new york, who courageously supported it. i'm honored by the support and i'm honored by the position you've taken in this house over the past couple days. i yield back. the chair: any member claiming time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer in an open rule in a different bill his objections

to what occurred last night. last night, the house of representatives passed the bill and today the gentleman's offering a limiting amendment that would turn back that amendment that we made. mr. chairman, several days ago the house armed services committee handled this issue. it was not sneaking something in. it was a straight up vote. it was a vote that was held in the armed services committee, and then the -- and it passed nd then the final vote was 60-2. mr. chairman, that is a bipartisan vote. that is a vote from people who viewed who are on the committee that they were not going to let one issue or another get in the way of supporting the men and women of our united states military. they very clearly, all of them on the committee understood

during this long markup exactly the implications and they lived with the decision. i am here today to say that the gentleman is fully entitled to do as he's doing. but the vote was held last night. the overwhelming viewpoint was, let's support the united states -- mr. maloney? mr. sessions: i will in just a second. let's support the united states military and let's get this done, not the next day come on the floor with spilled milk on your face and say i want to go back and i want to relit gait a decision we -- re litigate a decision we made here on the floor. i will yield to the gentleman. i admire the gentleman. mr. maloney: i appreciate the admiration. is it necessary to discriminate gays and lesbians to support our military? mr. sessions: let me say this,

the issue was handled -- and the gentleman knows this -- in committee. mr. maloney: it was resolved last night in -- it was resolved last night in the affirmative. in other words, this house said that it will include in a defense bill a provision that will roll back basic employment protection for gays and lesbians. my question to my colleague, mr. speaker, if that's necessary for the promotion of national defense? is it necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians and transgendered americans? mr. sessions: i will reclaim my time, mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman. i am not without an understanding that there are ople who do have ideas which override other bigger ideas. i am simply saying to you, mr. chairman, i stand in opposition to what the gentleman is attempting to do here the next day in a separate bill to limit what we did last night when this body did understand that

many people have a strong viewpoint that supports the gentleman and many people have a viewpoint that's against that. that's not my point. my point is we need to transcend that as a body and we did last night and we spoke very clearly, we need to support the men and women of the united states military, and we do not believe this is a stumbling block because we don't view what the gentleman's saying is the critical and key issue. that is why -- mr. maloney: if the gentleman will yield? mr. sessions: i appreciate him and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. mr. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time? the chair: is there objection? mr. sessions: objection. the chair: objection is noted. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- mr. bishop: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman moves to strike the last word. cheese 5. mr. bishop: i'd like to yield my time to the gentleman. mr. maloney: i thank the gentleman. i'd like to again express my

thanks for my colleague's admiration. it's nice to have admiration. it's better to have rights and it's better to be treated equaly and without conned sention and i would just -- and without condescension and i would just say, is it necessary to discriminate against gays and lesbians in federal contracting to support our troops? is it necessary to remove employment protections in employers covering 28 million americans so that we can fight the war on isis? is it necessary to protect ourselves in our houses of worship by discriminating in federal contracting in businesss that are in the business of commerce and in private contracting? it is a tired and old and false choice to suggest that we need to discriminate to keep ourselves self, to -- safe, to keep ourselves free, and people in earlier times made that argument, sir. the notion they did it last

night, this house got a lot of things wrong for a lot of people for a lot of years and then finally slowly almost to spite ourselves we figured out that we can be safe and free and equal and in fact becoming more equal in some ways makes us safer because it is the promotion of our values, through our actions and our ideas and our words, not just our weapons that promote our values around t >> that debate led to a 15-minute vo te >> members continued to cast their votes as it appeared the vote was about to pass. change as yays became nays as members switched their votes to raised voices on the floor. here's what it looks like.

>> boo!

the speaker pro tempore: on this volt, the yeas are 212, the nays are 213, the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. erk: page 7 this act may be cited as the

military construction, veterans' affairs, and related gency appropriation act, 2017. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and with a recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that this bill as amended do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 497 directs me to report the same back to the house with sundry amendments and recommendation that the amendments agreed to nti-bill be amended do pass.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the cheat of the the clerk of the house: has had under consideration the bill h.r. 4974 and pursuant to house resolution 736 reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adew pointed in the whole committee ---in the committee of the whole. the previous question is -- under the rule, the previous question is ordered. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. the house will be in order. > mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the

ouse will be in order. for what purpose does the minority whip seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i want to raise a parliamentary inquiry initially with reference to the fact that mr. ryan, our speaker, has told us if people were in the well that the vote would be held open. i was standing in the well, no one came or no one had the courage to come into the well to change their vote, but notwithstanding that, the vote kept changing. mr. speaker, from a parliamentary perspective, how s that possible? the speaker pro tempore: the

chair will entertain requests for changes. mr. hoyer: i saw no one come to the desk to change their vote, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a parliamentary inquiry. mr. hoyer: the inquiry is how can the vote change when no one comes to the well to change heir vote? the speaker pro tempore: the chair had not yet announced request for changes. mr. hoyer: i didn't hear the chair request change, but i do know that from my personal observation not one of those members who apparently changed their vote because it kept changing on the board came to this well and had the courage to change from green to red or red to green. how is that possible, mr. speaker?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, let me raise another parliamentary inquirery. mr. speaker, let me raise a parliamentary inquirery. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will put them engross. the question on - - mr. hoyer: i ask for a recorded vote on the committee rising. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: those in favor will vote aye, those opposed, no. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have it. hoyer: -- mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i did not hear and therefore was not able to ask for a recorded vote on the motion to rise. the speaker did not articulate that, so the house could hear it. and i suggest the -- i request a vote on the motion to rise. now, the speaker may tell me we are past that point, but the fact of the matter is, nobody on this house floor heard the speaker articulate the issue of

whether the committee ought to ise. the speaker pro tempore: the house is definitely -- past that point. is the gentleman seeking a recorded volt on the -- mr. hoyer: on the motion to rise. the speaker pro tempore: on the adoption of the amendment? mr. hoyer: recorded vote on the adoption of the amendment. which amendment is the speaker talking about? -- 's talking about the the speaker pro tempore: the chair is putting the vote on the separate amendments. mr. hoyer: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: ecorded vote is requested.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. i withdraw, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for recorded vote. magically without anybody coming to the well to change their vote. but giving to the majority the right to have you do it without coming to the well and telling america that you were voting changes your vofmente i withdraw. -- changes your vote. i withdraw. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have t third reading.

-- have it. third reading. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those in favor of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperatio >> the final vote tally on the amendment was 212-213, as you saw. after that there was a rare procedural vote followed by final passage of the military construction v.a. bill, the vote on that was 25-129. when legislative business was done for the day, house minority

whip steny hoyer continued his quest to understand how the vote could have changed as it did as he had a colloquy with house rules committee chair pete sessions. come, let me observe as someone who has served in this house for some extended period of time, some 36 years. i was here in the era not too long ago but long ago when if we had done to the republicans what was done to us, what was that switch votes so discrimination could prevail, there would be outrage expressed long into the night from our republican colleagues who would accuse us of undermining democracy, undermining this house and making the house less than it

should be. 217 people stood up and said we ought not to discriminate, and then very frankly, madam speaker, the leadership on the republican side started its activity. i've been the majority leader, i've been the whip, i understand that process. and they reached out to people and said, no, let us be able to discriminate. let contractors be able to discriminate. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. hoyer: not right now, thank you. and mr. speaker, seven people who had voted not to allow discrimination decided perhaps that principle was not as important as they thought just a minute or so before.

i have a list of those names here. a lamentable list of people who did the right thing, who stood up for nondiscrimination and then were opportuned to change their vote and the record reflects, mr. speaker, sadly, that they changed their vote. i won't characterize those votes because that would not be in order on this floor, and they will have themselves to ook at tonight in the mirror and explain to themselves whether their first vote was a principled vote or whether they had a damascus road experience

in the few minutes that transpired between their voting not to allow discrimination until they later, just a few minutes later, at the opportunity of some of their leaders voted to allow discrimination. . a sad day, mr. speaker, in the history of the house. i still see no leader unless mr. department, who i have great respect for, wants to tell us what the dead is -- schedule is for next week. i'd be glad to yield to him for that purpose. i want to say, mr. speaker, that the majority leader is not here. the majority leader has a very happy day today. and congratulate him. his son is graduating from georgiatown -- georgetown. and he obviously needs to be there. i was hoping someone else could tell us the schedule. at this point in time i'd be glad to yield to my friend, mr. sessions. the chairman of the rules

committee. mr. sessions: appreciate it. i would like to politely offer viewpoint that i believe that we do not view that the issue was discrimination. that we view -- have the viewpoint that earlier in the week, we brought forth a bill in the sed 40-2 committee of armed services. and that bill was brought forth to the rules committee and we held hours and hours and hours and hours of hearing that republicans and democrats were not only welcome to attend but did attend. and that the debate on the issue that we had was very full and brought forth not only at the rules committee but also on this floor, and that a decision therein was made, and that the

opportunity for our members to vote is exactly what they did. and i'm sure the gentleman would want every single member to vote and have time to think about that vote until the time that the vote closed. and that is exactly what happened. so the characterization that discrimination would not be fair or correct. i appreciate the gentleman allowing me a chance to amplify that every member of this body is entitled to their vote. and every member of this body, without questioning, in my opinion, that vote, should be afforded that opportunity. and so i stand on behalf of republicans to say that we followed processes, we're following procedures, and we're following the opportunity for a

member of congress to vote as they choose and try not to impugn or detest that with a word -- of applying a word of discrimination which i feel like is not accurate under our intent. and so i thank the gentleman for allowing me time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. and the gentleman will observe i have neither mentioned the names nor do i -- carefully did not impugn their integrity. or their motivation. what i said was, and what i will repeat, is initially they voted for an amendment that said there shall not be discrimination by contractors who get government money. that's what the amendment said. and they voted against discrimination and for that amendment. but in a short period of time, they changed that vote,

resulting in not, not becoming law yet, but this house saying to the administration, you cannot require contractors not to discriminate. that was the effect of it. and characterizing the effect of a vote is what our debate is about. what our country's values are about. what our country's future is about. and the respect we have for every citizen in this country. endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. and we ought not preclude those through discrimination. that i can characterize without impugning motives. but the effect of the vote -- we had 217 people for nondiscrimination. right up until the last moment. and by the way, the last moment was far beyond what speaker ryan has said ought to be the

end of votes. as a matter of fact, i talked to -- if i can just finish my sentence, i will certainly do that. i talked to the parliamentarians. interestingly, the presiding officer did not ask, does any member want to change his vote, because once that, as i understand it, is into ened, then the ability to change -- intoned, then the ability to change's one vote, except to come forward and be seen in changing your vote, was not stated. which i suggest to the gentleman, the chairman of the rules committee, who knows the rules very well, is unusual. perhaps not against the rules. but unusual. and the vote was an extended vote. speaker ryan has talked to us from the ross trum saying that we want to keep votes to a limited period of time. particularly, i would suggest, we all want to keep votes to a limited period of time when it

is a so-called getaway day. but in this instance, that did not occur. n this instance, to change rom 217 to a lesser number that was a losing number, 215 to -- 215-214, i believe, was the final vote. excuse me, 212-215. so five votes were switched net. however one person voted late. again, seven people changed their vote. you're correct. they had a right to do that. but the consequences of that vote are subject to debate. and i raise for you, for this house, and for the american people that the changing of hose seven votes resulted in this house saying to the president of the united states, you cannot tell contractors that they cannot discriminate.

that i think was unfortunate. i will yield to my friend. mr. sessions: thank you very much. first of all, let me state this, i am a republican, we do not discriminate. we attempt to follow the law and the gentleman knows that. we make laws and those laws can be subject to interpretations of what is and what is not. but we follow the law. and the gentleman knows that. and we follow the law and my party follows the law. secondly, the decision had previously been made the night before. we were not trying to do that today. it was once again allowed under the rules because the gentleman accurately -- whether it's appropriate or not, that's up to him -- brought forth under an open rule a limited amendment. but we had decided in the night

before. and when people -- decided in the night before. and when people -- decided this the night before. and when people recognized this, that this was a vote that happened the night before, out of the armed services committee, that was 40-2, there were people who then recognized what they were doing. it is not unusual to have people who vote and do change their vote. i have done that also. but the rules were followed, -- different than procedural ways than the person in the chair. i will tell you -- i respect the gentleman, and you know me well. mr. hoyer: i do. mr. sessions: i would not stand up here if i were for fear of one second of not being able to understand you and you understand me. i understand you. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. let me make an observation on which the gentleman would stay in the well because he might want to respond.

i did not accuse the republican party of discriminating. i will not at this point in time hazard an opinion on that fact. however, i want to recall to the gentleman that in the armed services committee, after due consideration, the armed services committee voted not to discriminate. not to discriminate against women. not to say to women, yes, you can serve, but you don't have to sign up for the draft. many of us felt that if you're going to ask young men to sign up for the draft, young men, women ought to be treated equally. we felt not to do so was discrimination. that amendment passed in the committee. and came to the rules committee , and my understanding, mr. chairman, is, without a vote, without discussion, the rule

that was issued from the rules committee said that upon option of that rule, the adopted amendment in the armed services committee, without a singular vote on this floor of he house, would be defeated. that, i say to the gentleman, was neither regular orders, nor was it giving this ability to make a decision on that issue. and i believe -- i personally believe that it results in continuing discrimination against young men and young women. one of which has to sign up, the other whom does not. but they both have to serve or can serve voluntarily in the armed forces of the united states. so, we may have a difference of opinion on whether or not that was in fact discrimination. but i will tell the gentleman that i was not happy and i'm still not happy that we did not

have a vote on the floor about what we perceive to be discrimination. and regret that the rules committee chose to hide in its rule the repeal of what the armed services committee adopted. if the gentleman wants to respond, i will yield to him. mr. sessions: i will concur hat i in fact did offer in the bill a self-executed portion. i would not try to take advantage of the gentleman, it had nothing to do with the draft. i will agree that i did take a this body, ve because a number of people who did vote for it in committee, , did ecame a voice vote wish to change their opinion.

but it had nothing to do with the draft, sir. mr. hoyer: it seems what the gentleman's saying, reclaiming my time, that people vote not to discriminate and then sometime a little later on they have a new epiphany that perhaps discrimination is ok. perhaps that's what the gentleman was saying. mr. sessions: i would ask an indulgence. it had nothing to do with discrimination. it had to do with a new policy. and it is true that i did rule and put a self-executing rule in that did answer the question desire of the committee to handle this issue, and i did it accordingly. i thank the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, it appears that no one is going to be able to tell me what the schedule is for the week to come. i will tell you that's unfortunate. i hope there is a schedule for the week to come. because there's a lot to be done. we haven't done -- we haven't

finalized zika. we passed a bill here which we think was inadequate. we haven't dealt with flint. we need to pass puerto rico restructuring. i think they've made some progress on that. i congratulate the speaker. and the leader for facilitating that progress. we don't have a voting rights bill scheduled. we need to do that. there are a number of other serious pieces of legislation this house needs to consider. we're going to go out next week and we will have no colloquy next week, mr. speaker. there will be no opportunity to discuss the schedule for obviously the break, we will have no schedule, but for june or the weeks thereafter, to do some of the serious business that cronlts us and to help some of the people -- crobblets -- cronlts us and to help some of the people in this -- confronts us and to help some of the people in this country that needs help. it's

.> the house returns see the house live on c-span. chaotic.use got rowdy, cover and it for the hill, tell us about the provisions. the provision in the defense authorization bill which passed. >> house republicans inserted in amendment that religious organizations and other contractors cannot he discriminated against on the basis of religion. and democrats

interpreted that as an opportunity for discrimination against the community. >> that came up in the motion to recommit wednesday. the defense authorization bill, shut down. then it came up as an amendment. democratic congressman. defensenight was the authorization. democrats used a procedural maneuver that would have eliminated the provision that was framed as promoting religious freedom. was worn to this was personal for him. this could open up discrimination against people like him. night anding to, last

this morning with the military construction, the funding bill, he was trying to prohibit funds from being used to go against the executive order. >> and the amendment came up for vote. your headline captures some of the flavor at the hill. chaos in the house. down a measure. why was it unusual? >> house republicans upon taking the majority, they brought back procedure for considering spending bills that allows lawmakers to offer unlimited numbers of amendments. well republicans will tell this as return to regular order, it also offers the opportunity for democrats to hijack the process and hijack votes on things.

vote,aloney was denied a controlled,adership he was able to spend it on this spending bill. host: right. it seemed to rub democrats fairly raw in terms of that vote procedure. your tweet about the followup on that, you said whip hoyer is calling out specific republicans who changed their votes, jeff denham, greg walden, mimi walters, david young switching their vote. did you get a chance to talk to members who switched votes or hear why they switched votes? obviously a strong whip operation on the republican side. guest: originally the measure was passing. however, because the house had already passed the provision stating otherwise the night before, republican leadership felt that they had to beat back this amendment that maloney offered today. so even though it was originally

passing, republican leadership, including majority leader kevin mccarthy, could be seen on the floor, pressing members to change their vote. some of the members included lawmakers you mentioned, like walden and jeff denham and so -- democrats were complaining that these members were changing their votes without specifically coming to the well of the house so that everyone could see who exactly was changing their votes. instead they were somehow able to change their votes electronically without having everyone see them do it. host: all of this happening on the last day, legislatively, for the week. what does this say about relations going forward but in particular next week? the house has a lot to get done before the memorial day recess. do you think an incident like this or what's happened over the last day or more, does it have an impact on relations between the two parties? guest: it's clear democrats will use the open amendment process to their chang, especially while -- advantage, especially while we're in the middle of an

election year. last night, house minority leader nancy pelosi was clearly linking or trying to link both the lgbt measure as well as a separate provision related to the confederate flag as what she described as, you know, discrimination that donald trump has been promoting in his campaign, turning into legislative proposals in the house from house republicans. host: our guest is cristina marcos, follow her reporting at thehill.com and on twitter. weekend, a conversation with texas congressman mac thornberry. he talked about the defense authorization bill. watch newsmakers, every sunday at 10:00 a.m.. here on c-span. vice president joe biden spoke about his political career.

that is next. of 60 minutes died today. we will show an interview we did with him. later, an event with donald trump. >> congratulations to the class of 2016. today is your day of celebration. >> your choices will make all alldifference to you and to of us. >> don't be afraid to take on cases or a new job or a new issue that really stretches your boundaries. your summer abroad on real ships spread than internships. and the specter of