>> health democratic efforts to push for legislation. you can run the conversation on facebook and twitter. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] ♪ good morning everyone, house and senate lawmakers are wrapping up to legislative business for the week ahead of the republican convention. next week in cleveland, democrats will follow the week after in philadelphia. senate democrats will here today from the presumptive nominee when hillary clinton comes to capitol hill. look for all of our coverage on c-span.org. stationras are already in cleveland this week. we cover the platform hearings earlier. today kicks off a two day

meeting of the rules committee weather never trump movement is hoping to approve rules that would unbind the delegate and allow someone else to become the gop nominee. that is where we want to begin this morning on your thoughts with the last stand for the never trump movement. democrats at (202) 748-8000, republicans at (202) 748-8001 and independents at (202) 748-8002. join conversation on twitter as well, or post your comment on facebook.com/cspan. we will get to your thoughts than a minute. let me first show you this from donald trump on the vp steaks. he said he will make the announcement of the vice presidential pick on friday at 11:00 a.m. in manhattan. this comes as the present of nominee met yesterday in indiana was several of the contenders. withy one, donald trum met

mike pence newt gingrich and senator jeff sessions for last-minute gathering after uncertaintysing his on social media and the campaign trail. governor pence has until tomorrow at noon to file for another run at the governorship in indiana. he must decide friday whether to run for governor again. under indiana rules is not allowed to run for both vp and the governor. he will decide by noon on friday. statementmp says the is coming at 11:00 a.m. on friday. as we told you on c-span3 today, starting at 8:00 a.m. eastern time also c-span.org in the c-span radio app you need that if you want to know what is happening in cleveland and the convention. the rules committee will be

underway starting at 8:00 a.m. eastern time. that is where he never trump movement hopes to unbind the delegates. joining us on the phone is a senior political reporter with the huffington post to talk more about this. d tell ourup an viewers what is the rules committee? guest: the convention rules committee basically sets the guidelines for what the convention is going to do. every convention has one. typically it is a minor affair, they argue about the rules for the next convention. a groupe, there is of delegates that think this is been a horrible mistake. this is their last chance to undo it. thatwill try to get a rule allows the delegates to vote how they please, according to their conscience. as opposed to how they were told to vote by the voters in their home states. remember, the rnc has a rule

that binds delegates to vote to the way that there state rules outline. this would change that, undo the will of a lot of voters. it would have someone else is donald trump as the nominee. host: how many people sit on the rules committee? how many are part of this never trump movement? guest: that last question, we will find out. supporters of this, the organizers of what they're calling themselves free the alsoates, there is delegates unbound which is an outside group. they say there are hundreds of delegates who really wants to support them. cowed by the rnc and afraid of getting sued by donald trump. they are working quietly behind the scenes to persuade people to

join them. there is 112 members of the rules committee. they start meeting today. they should wrap up by tomorrow evening, possibly saturday. they would need 57 members of those 112 to actually recommend a rule to the full convention. if they fail, they could get a minority report. the only need 28 votes for that. either way, the whole convention on monday would vote one way or the other. it'lly change that rule, be an exciting time here. personally, i don't think that they will. it is a long shot. strange things have happened, i guess. host: who is trying to make sure that it doesn't happen? guest: obviously, the donald trump campaign is interested in leaving the rules just how they are. the rnc leadership also said this is done, it is over. donald trump won fair and

square. leave him alone. they have put the word out that this would be a very bad idea. they expect everyone to follow in line. in the rules committee, a separate group, the chairman said this is a bad thing. they shouldn't be doing it. trump people have their work cut out for them. he whole leadership of the republican party against them right now. host: the chairman of the standing rules committee was on our program yesterday, you can watch that. he lays out what has happened over the last 3.5 years. the rules they will suggest they take up today, you will see how there was like to change them when they get underway.

ruleslse could the committee change today beyond the unbinding of the delegates? are there other things to be watching for? guest: of course. most of the other things they would be doing would pertained to the next election four years down the road. typically, that would be the only thing -- what will be the early states? will it be the same? will they mix it up a bit? tradition states iowa, new hampshire, want nothing to do with that. they want to leave things the way that they are. it helps their prestige and bottom-line and tourism. so, that is something. given this other fight about who the nominee of the party on to be still going on in july, that

is taking center stage. e lighting up.s ar a senior political reporter of the huffington post, thank you for your time. guest: you're very welcome. host: let's get to dan in kingston, pennsylvania, an independent caller. what do you think of this effort to unbind the delegate and have someone else possibly be the gop nominee? it is being called the last stand. what do you think? caller: good morning, anyway. thank you for having me on. i believe that the entire primary process where donald trump went to 16 other opponents. the majorityg throughout the whole process. even when it got down to three, apparently he won the majority. he won the popular vote. i think they need to change that. this -- it is just nonsense.

who is going to get 50% when you have 16 other people? it is a last ditch effort. this is why we have three branches of government. if they're so ordered by donald trump using executive orders like obama has been using, a bit into do something before the general election to eliminate all of these presidential order s. host: ok, you would like them to focus on that rather than who is the nominee of the party? caller: to me, donald trump beat them all. whether they like it or not, way have to say we have a of controlling him. just like the democrats now have a way of controlling him. that is why they are trying to

win back the house and the senate. if she becomes president they're saying we have to win back the house and the senate of the world roll over the country. he three branches of the government are meant to do. caller: ok, let me go to mike in south carolina a democrat. what do you think about this? theer: i think, potentially never trump movement only makes trump and his supporters stronger. i think it gets to his point out ofny folks are those of the country one. they demonstrated regardless of who likes it that they like tr ump, what he says, and what he stands for. just solidifying what he has been saying all along. potentially, it makes him a stronger candidate in reality

among the people who have supported him. host: you believe this rallies his base of supporters? caller: it certainly rallies his base. it could potentially make him a stronger candidate among independents and those on the democratic side who were bernie sanders favorites. they now see the potentially, or are not enamored with clinton. has see at least trump solidified the fact that there is an establishment group who are against someone like him who has different ideas. caller: does that include you? caller: i would have a hard time voting for trump. i don't thinkhe is the kind of person i want to see. he wouldn't get me. depending, again, depending on

where this is headed, and what majorandidates -- the party candidates say as we get closer to the election -- he, trump could potentially pull off a lot of supporters from those who were uncertain. well, let's listen to donald trump on fox last night. he was asked about this never trump movement. [video clip] >> this'll all never trump movement is nonsense, you understand? >> you would about it? >> no. the guy is a loudmouth guy. he is always trying to do something. he even ran for governor against christie, and lost. he is a loser. i see him in all these shows. paul him last night where ryan was being interviewed.

he got up to ask a question. a nasty guy. he was always a nasty guy. he is a loser. i see him on all these shows. he has never gotten anywhere. check his record. there are some other guys running. when i look at somebody like ben sass, they're very angry at him. what is the alternative? the alternative is hillary clinton. our country becomes venezuela. the judges are so important. i put out a list of 11 judges that have gotten great reviews. if we are not talking but are sog else, the judges important. this, i nevere even heard of them. he has a real problem in nebraska. people don't like him much. >> you know they're more people than just a couple. there is a lot. >> there always are.

you can look back at ronald reagan. you can look back at anybody. there has never been a day, with ain one couple of loudmouth you will say forget about the last year. forget about the fact that trump got more votes than anyone in history of the party. let's put somebody else in there. let's put somebody didn't win a state. it can't happen. host: donald trump reacting to what is been called the last stand for the never trump movement. that is happening today when the rules committee gets underway in about 45 minutes. tune into c-span3 or get the radio app or go to c-span.org. politico reports of this -- the trump allies believe it has stalled it has the support of only 20 delegates. a colorado member of the rules

committee and a leader of the anti-trump effort insisted she of the support of 28 members. the precise number needed to force a minority report to the floor. on mondaye our guest at 8:30 this is the latest tweet from her. for those wanting to sport, go to the website below and click to donate. politico reports that delegates unbound, one of the groups working to block trump, reserve 30,000 in ads on fox news channel and cleveland's media market. the ads will run friday to sunday well after the rules committee adjourns. suggests the group is anticipating lobbying the broader pool of convention delegates ahead of a possible floor fight. anti-trump rules committee arrived late wednesday afternoon to the orientation. she was seen racing into the

building with a suitcase. on the way out she refused to talk to reporters. one wild car, politico reports -- card, politico reports, is handed them -- senator mike lee and his wife. they ahve spoken out against -- have spoken out against rep and on the rules committee. the anti-trump campaign would be let that unlikely to succeed without his support. you can get the radio app and listen to see who is supporting what movement. trump people stop do today? what do you think, tom? caller: i have a couple of questions about your programming lately. anti-trumphad three guests.

today you have an anti-trump spokesman. your headlines never mentioned hillary clinton's much worse problems. here?you guys picking sides the huffington post is banned from the trump campaign. why do you bring on these people that are anti-trump and never anybody that is anti-hillary? host: do you watch the program? you guys are full of anti-trump stuff like this morning. you haven't had a congressman on in the last two days that is a republican. if democrat and a guy that supports the romney campaign. romney hates trump. what is going on? host: let me jump in. yesterday we had bruce on who says he supports donald trump.

he said he was opposed to this stop trump movement that is happening in cleveland. we are having you react to what is happening. you have to take c-span as a whole, not just this program. to balance the perspectives and voices. we do not just here on the washington journal, but across all of our platforms. a democrat, good morning to you. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: we can, go ahead. caller: i will tell you that, as a longtime c-span viewer, and a , i remembery voter as a young child when bill clinton was first elected. it was very exciting. i have to tell you, i saw -- of palin.ple -- sarah

what are they going to call them, republicans against trump? to take himfor me seriously. it is not ideological thing, it less let me make it ideological. this is the first election. the liberal judges, that is an easy line to draw. gun issues, things of that sort, however, it is always the democrats that are the party of i don't wantay -- to say instability. host: i don't know where you're going with this. let's go on to johnson, south carolina, independent. what do you make of this effort by some in the republican party to unbind the delegates at the

convention and allow people to vote their conscience, as they say? caller: i think it is a great idea. i am not a trump supporter. if we had more than two major haveical parties, we would much better choices. i feel like if we had one person, one botvote, no electorl college, it would be more fair. areow our founding fathers probably turning over in their graves. america is vastly different now than it was then. i think we should support the constitution for the definitely, look at the countries in europe five partiesr or and not nearly the population that we have. we need to be able to reflect different ways of thinking, and

now have us so divided. host: all right, an independent from utah, share your thoughts with us. caller: how are you doing today? host: good. caller: thanks for having me on. i hope the anti-trump movement succeeds. i doubt it. trump has proven he can overcome obstacles. i am hoping that when the never trump fails that they jump ship and come over to gary johnson. i think the opportunity for a third-party candidate to make a splash would be this election. host: richard, if they fail give me -- let me give you some scenarios. arrangedthree is the marriage option. the likelihood depends on what happens with unbind proposals. delegatess fail, the can use the arranged marriage option is a decent consolation

prize. delegates are not bound to vote for a vice presidential pick open the possibility of forcing trump to take a running mate favored by never trump forces. son says this should be in play because they could elect a man going to the office at 70 years old and will be going in is the oldest president ever. there is also the fourth rollcall of the states. if the unbinding plan fails to win majority support, the group will request a rollcall of the 50 states. once thely, convention convenes supported for move quickly to get it over with by a voice vote. thee could be stay off convention floor. one is urging delegates to stay off the convention floor to rob trump of the delicate minimum needed. wants delegates to

return once the state reaches the round of voting the less than do whatever they want. there are more scenarios beyond the rules committee. we will see if they have legs. kentucky,exington, the republican, go ahead. caller: you already know my name. as a millennial, and are presenting my generation, i think if you don't vote for donald trump you are a racist. i lived in st. louis, missouri, for 10 years. i am from the midwest. st. louis and missouri is the number two most violent state in the nation. look what he will do to elevate for black people out of poverty. look at chicago, all the illegal immigrants have taken their jobs. how could somebody not want trump? by bringing in jobs and creating circulation, that is ridiculous. don't you want poor black people to elevate? if you don't vote for trump, you

are a racist. that is what i have to say. host: all right, now a democrat, let's hear what yes to say. caller: i think the same situation happened in britain. i think the same thing is over here. it has already started. it is sad to say. the way -- host: barbara in florida, an independent, it is your turn. you.r: thank host: what are your thoughts? caller: excuse me? host: go ahead, barbara. caller: ok, thank you c-span. host: all right, yes to listen to your phone. a democrat now, what do you think? this last stand for the never trump movement. caller: the thing is, some of this campaign is about

disability patients. i don't like what he says about making fun of people. says about things he racial things, in terms of turmoil, a dallas police officer got killed. i don't think -- some of these people make comments that causes serious problems. that is all i have to say. host: let's look at the polls this morning. where this race stands, hypothetically, as they get ready for the party convention. key swings strong in states. states that haven't been in play for decades now appear within his reach. however, solid red states could be slipping.

all told, a dozen states have produced polls showing the donald trump and hillary clinton within five percentage points of each other. there was this this morn from the wall street journal. clir recent poll shows them ose in key states. clinton holds a nine point lead in pennsylvania. clinton werep and tied. threea, clinton holds a point lead. both democratic presidential candidates and a republican rival remain unpopular in key states. state, 20% said they were undecided or volunteer that it would support neither mr. trump nor mrs. clinton. more voters- far

said they have an unfavorable impression of both, than a favorable one. was nearly ashe disliked in some areas than he s is. she was talking but uniting our country. she said donald trump is dividing a foster here is that speech that we covered on c-span. [video clip] >> donald trump is so dangerous. his campaign is as divisive as any we have seen in our lifetimes. mistrust,t on stoking americanng against american. ands in everything he says, promises to do as american. -- resident. -- president. how he wants to ban muslims, and

creating a database to track muslims. it is in the way he demeans women. it is the promotion of an anti-somatic image pushed by neo-nazis. that he spent trying to discredit the citizenship and legitimacy of our first black president. last night, he said that he understands systemic bias against black people because, and i quote, even against me the system is rigged. that he couldsay relate to it for a much. killing ofthe people, is somehow all about him. host: that would hillary clinton

yesterday in springfield, illinois. today she heads to capitol hill to meet with senate democrats to rally support from them for her general election. the present of nominee will be up there. look for our coverage on c-span.org. also, the film is super reporting clinton is torn between caution and risk in her vp pick. the presumptive nominee -- should they stick to the impulses or does she seek to shake up the campaign with a riskier choice such as elizabeth warren? why not backflip into the pool? mix it up a little bit, why not? most are not expecting a surprise. hillary clinton will be with senator tim kaine in virginia today around 3:00 in the afternoon. go to c-span.org for our

coverage of that. let's go back to all of your phone calls and get your thoughts on this last stand for the never trump movement. it is happening today in cleveland before the rules committee in about 30 minutes. and112 members will gather will be offering different amendments, changes to the rules that have been presented to them . from the standard committee, they have done their work. tore are some who would like unbind the delegates. they will offer amendments to do so. two into c-span3 and get our radio app or go to c-span.org if you're interested in what is happening there. dennis in south portland, maine, but do you think of all of this? caller: thank you so much for taking my call. the leaders ofke the democratic party made sure that hillary was going to win. trumpatch this never

movement it is like the elitists in the republican party trying the last gasp to make sure they get in who they think should be in. i just think it is wrong. the will of the people are being stopped on. host: what are you thinking about in november? how do you plan to vote? caller: i am voting for trump. host: what the last two elections? caller: the first time i voted for obama. i was disappointed in what he did. the second time i voted for romney. host: why donald trump this time around? caller: it is time to let a businessman, someone from the outside, try and see if he can straighten this company -- country out. with politicians

forever. it is time to try something different. what is the worst that could happen? we have four more bad years of politics. host: you got a phone call, i will let you go. but go to arkansas, a republican, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you this morning? at do young well, wh think about this effort? i think it is atrocious. this is the worst thing that could happen to the voter. we are given that our word is no good and our choices are no good. out, i could take trump ave been, i will never share good thing about the republican party again. years old and have been a republican for a long time. politics of a back to

franklin delano roosevelt when he declared war in world war ii. i was ten years old. a businessman. a lot of people don't know the difference between a politician and a businessman. a politician spends money, a businessman makes money. we need money made instead of spent. ast: ok, that is earl, longtime republican in arkansas. he says he will never trust the republicans again if this never trump movement succeeds. john, an independent, what do you think? caller: well, thanks for c-span, and thanks for the washington journal. i just think that the people thisare in the midst of never trump movement are not republicans.

they are not anything. they are complete idiots. they need to get behind the will of the people and push as hard as they can. they don't need to do anything like that. if they do, they will give the clinton.y to hillary everybody knows that hillary clinton will be four more years of obama. i don't know why they don't $19 trillion in debt is. how will we ever overcome that without a businessman? against trump, if people want coming to look at they need to read the clinton

chronicles. they find out who these people are. just because she is a woman, they will vote for her, or a democrat. haven't they done enough to our country? are hard-working people in this country. this -- we are supposed to be the will of the people in washington. it -- that is about it for me. i am disgusted with the republican party. i am disgusted with part of the republican party and all of the democrat party. host: alright, one of your calls coming up. first, this from the new york times front page this morning. race relations deems bleak by most. say raceericans

relations are bad. that is the highest since the rodney king riots. the poll conducted from friday, the day after the killings of five dallas police officers until tuesday found that six out of 10 americans say race relations were growing worse. that is up from 38% a year ago. a day when those in minnesota are preparing for the funeral of a man shot there, and underway in dallas yesterday and today the funerals of the cops that were shot there. yesterday, at the white house, the president urges civil rights activities and police to bridge their divide. 40 officials met with the president and talked about race relations and policing in this country. it was part of a speech that tim scott, a publican in south

carolina made on the floor yesterday. this is the second in a three part series of speeches that the senator is planning. he spoke earlier about the shootings in dallas. yesterday, he came to the flo or and talk about his own personal experience of being one of two black senators. what has happened to him as he served in the u.s. senate. [video clip] but ie, on capitol hill, had the great privilege of serving the people of south carolina as a united states congressman, and a senator for the last six years. for those that don't know, there are a qa to identify a member of congress, or senate. typically, when you been here if you use the law officers get to know your face and identify you by face. if that doesn't happen, and you

ore a badge to show them, this really cool pin. i often said that is larger because our egos are bigger. a u.s.asy to identify senator by our pin. i recall walking into an office afterng just last year being here for five years on the capital. the officer looked at me, all attitude, and said the pin i know -- you, i don't. show me your id i will tell you, i was thinking to myself, either he things i'm committing a crime of impersonating a member of congress, or --

i will tell you later that evening i received a phone call from his supervisor. they were apologizing for the behavior. host: you can watch the entire speech by senator tim scott on our website, c-span.org. it is part two of a three-part series of speeches that he plans to give. we are talking about this last stand as it is being called by the anti-trump folks. those are delegates who are already in cleveland ahead of the convention starting on sunday. they are trying to lobby their fellow delegates to vote today when the rules committee gathers in about 20 minutes to unbind the delegates. they're hoping to make other efforts and bring their fight to the convention floor. our cameras are in cleveland and on c-span3 when this was underweight can watch all day he don'tl day friday have a computer you can watch on c-span.org.

appcan get the c-span radio that is a great way to listen to what is going on and continue to use that throughout the convention next week. for the democrats, when they gather in philadelphia the week after. there is some news just announced. the list of speakers that will be at the publican convention. michael mccaul thinks the list, sheriff david clark, senator kim cotton, governor mike huckabee, rudy giuliani are on this list. andrnor asa hutchinson, jeff sessions wisdom tal -- who has been talked about as a potential vice president pick. cruz, newt gingrich, and many members of the trump family will be speaking.

also, the speaker of the house, paul ryan, and governor scott mcconnell,ator mitch and others are all slated to speak. for more details on that, also in cleveland the new york times reports the washington post about the a lot of protesters there expecting. cleveland has cleared out the jails and plans to have 12 judges working 10 hour shifts. the courts will be open until 1:00 a.m. to deal with the mass arrests that could possibly be happening for the amount of protesters that are planning to be in cleveland. the run the gamut of intentions. also, this from usa today, policing cleveland must reckon balance between public safety and constitutional rights. the first amendment, which guarantees the right to free press, bars the government from blocking the right of the people

peaceably to assemble. that can bring significant consequences after the 2008 delegation, the city of denver was fined $200,000 after improperly arresting people after a protest march. back to our calls, a democrat from mississippi, thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i want to say, i am so disappointed in the publicans t -- republicans that they let donald trump get his foot in. a man that talks about this, everybody. he is onto somebody for a great man. he has a lot of business there. he is a demon from hell, from somewhere.

they used to fight with the democrats. but they came together. host: let me ask you, do support hillary clinton? caller: yes i am. host: why does it matter to you who is the republican nominee? caller: it matters to me that if he gets in, we all have to go somewhere. he is an evil man. i am hoping they will succeed in overturning him. i really am. host: okay, some more from the wall street journal. areexit team from london reporting a new prime minister teresa may quickly assembled a bill for brexit cabinet. in a surprise pick put boris johnson, the former london mayor in charge of foreign policy. there was the picture of theresa may greeting queen elizabeth.

ain's secondrit e-mail prime minister yesterday. we had coverage of her remarks as well as the outgoing prime minister david cameron left 10 downing street and tendered his resignation. we have his remarks as well. to can go to c-span.org watch that. jim, republican from florida, go ahead. bush, andmemo to jeb mitt romney, do not even think about running for political office in the future. theblicans are tired of slugging through the mud of your candidacies and losing. we finally have a washed up female running of the democratic side whose party is trying to oust its chairman. a woman was no longer in control

of her own views. her views are those of barack the socialists in her party. she never had a thought of her own. look at her face. if it is in the face of a washed up political hack, i have never seen one. host: all right, in arizona, democrat, go ahead. that myi'm so grateful voice finally gets to be heard. the only news i watch today is 8:00 eastern time post of anybody out there who wants the truth, he never talks about anything unless he is fully vetted and fully fact checked. i am telling all those trump supporters get off of fox news. he fact check the the entire of donald's life is been a crook

and a master manipulator. he is a scam artist, a fraud, and impersonator. this man is running for president. up and wouldnd got donald'shat was in taxes. those taxes were disqualifying him from even running for president. that is how dirty this man is. please give me 10 more seconds, don't you watch anything but fox news? you have to watch chris hayes. 16 of his products are made in other countries and he talks trade? he is a fraud. trade, president obama launches trade complaint amid growing tension with china. rought challenges beijing's export restrictions on key commodities needed by u.s. manufacturers.

it was accompanied by sharp rhetoric from the white house. bill take a short break, only come back a senior fellow of -- in the ethics policy center and a previous advisor to mitt romney's campaign. jerseya democrat in new on the reform committee will discuss how -- efforts to push gun control legislation. we will be right back. ♪ >> before next week's national convention, this weekend c-span our store along with charter communications cable partners will explore the history and literary life of cleveland, ohio.

on book tv we talk with author john grabowski as he explores our transportation shape to fit his identity in his book. then we will visit the cleveland public library and explore its langston hughes collection. >> it was central that he developed his love of writing. he was introduced to the work of carl sandburg and walt whitman through his teacher. a poem whilesed there that is kind of famous. on american history tv be visit the cleveland history theer and take a tour of power in politics exhibit. it highlights the collection way to do test relating to presidential history. the aviationtour

museum with the curator of transportation and hear why cleveland was nicknamed motor city before detroit. >> the key location of cleveland. it was on great shipping routes. we does have the railroad in the area. there were a lot of those that could be taken. we had the steel industry here which is very important to the auto industry to have the steel that you need. it all came together. >>'s weekend, watch c-span city c-span2'sleveland on book tv antennae afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. the city store working with our cable affiliate in visiting cities across the country. >> washington journal continues. host: back at our table, a senior fellow ethics and public policy center any former senior

adviser to the 20 from the presidential campaign. let's begin with what is about to happen in 10 minutes. we will be covering the rules committee of the rnc. there are 112 members. we don't know how many, but there are maybe 20 or so were trying to rally support to stop trump from getting the nomination, to unbind the delegate. what you make of this effort? guest: i think it is evidence not tonald trump has cure the heart and soul of the republican party. it is impressive at this stage in the campaign that there are these people to want to unbind delegates. that is one thing. the other is that i think it w ill be an uphill effort. in a be able to get it to the floor, but then you need a majority to unbind them. because there is no real alternative that they have, it

is not clear who they would rally behind. efforts a real fierce by the trump people to make sure this doesn't happen. i hope it does. i am strong critic of donald trump. i am a lifelong republican, and conservative. i have deep differences with him. my concerns about him towards the country, conservatism, and the republican party. the odds it succeeds a very low. if someone came in, riding a white horse that the people can rally around the odds would be much higher. the most obvious candidates to do that not stepped forward. you can't beat something with nothing. they you say you hope succeed. if you listen to our viewers earlier, a longtime republican color in his 80 saying he would never trust the republican party

again if you undo what the voters did. i understand that. there would be a lot of resentment. the republican would not win probably because of that reason. defections be mass of trump voters. they said this was the will of the people. rulesldn't be against the to do it, but it would be unprecedented. the party would divide. i responsibly severalfold. i think trump is going to lose anyway. my suspicion is that he loses badly. i don't think that outcome will be change. i think the damage that donald trump is doing to the republican party not just in terms of this election but beyond that, potentially generationally, is in or miss. -- enormous. i think he is a malignant force

in politics. i don't think he is qualified to be the nominee. the leaderat he is of my party is problematic. anything that you could do to get rid of him within the rules i would favor. i am not blind to the fact that if he did this it would split the party and the be a huge amount of resentment. host: polls show the race is tight in key states, but you think he will lose? guest: i do, he is been behind in every major poll sense may accept one, which was questionable. hillary clinton had a dreadful week because of the fbi report by james comey. she is a very flawed candidate. i think she is a flawed figure. the worst of candidates i've never seen. she can't hold a candle to her husband.

if you look at the fundamentals whether it relates to donald trump. party isrt within the in the 70's right now. --must get to 90% to win his his unfavorables are extremely high. some of the states where he is doing well come other states that are traditionally strong for republicans he's doing much worse. my guess is that he will detonate at the end of the day. one other thing i would add, apart from the polls, in terms of campaign structure. the money they're raising, the operations and states to get out the vote effort which doesn't get much publicity. he is way behind. it is not a serious operation of the presidential campaign. having said all of that, he did stomachnomination for

didn't think he would. no one else i knew thought he would. there is a tremendous amount of resentment in the country but a deep antipathy towards politicians and the establishment. hillary clinton represents that. and maybe this is a very unique moment that he somehow taps into it. i don't think that will happen. it could. host: could he right his wrongs ick? his bp back? -- vp p guest: no, they are so deep and so long that his vp pick will mean nothing. people who have been predicting he would become more "presidential," that is not who he is. that won't make a difference to

me. i imagine more make much of a difference to voters either. the only one and made a difference in recent history was lyndon johnson. even that the vice president will mean less for him thanin most cases. there will be publicity about it. there will be some excitement about it. at the end of the day, people will choose on trump or hillary clinton. host: i want to share this piece, what newt gingrich really think that donald trump west of the one-time speaker of the house now reportedly on the shortlist to be his running mate said trump would lose in a landslide if he didn't evolve to be more like ronald reagan or barry goldwater. he added that no one knows what a trump president would be like,

not even trump. they listen to what he had to say. they said this is the former speaker -- how would we transition from language for fourth graders to real policy, i don't know. guest: that version of newt gingrich was accurate. this owuld c-- would come back vpbite him if he was the nominee. he is change them because he desperately wants to be the vice president. newt gingrich used to be one of the strongest advocates for free trade. now he is a fierce protectionist. snappingat in a head manner. he could come up for some amusing explanation. i think he was right. i think doesn't talk at a fourth

grade level, more like a forced grade level -- first grade level. but, i also think that to compare him to reagan and goldwater. compare trumlt to p to barry goldwater. i have problems, i was too young at the time. i disagreed with his stances. but he was not a reckless and irresponsible person. he was a man of some accomplishment politically. host: let's get to calls. an independent, you are up first. caller: good morning. trump, i am a democrat.

another if this is not publicity ploy for the mastermind of the republican party. they are increasing pressure over -- since obama came in. i member hi -0- --remember him saying something in the 60's of the racial progress. blackk to welcome the people and american liberals the fact that we have been immersed in racial bias for the last 40 years. right, i think you want to response from you. bias: look, i think racial in this country exists. race is the great original sin of american life.

we never seem to be able to get over it. i think over the past 40 years there has been tremendous progress on race relations. we elected america's first black president in 2008 hundred reelected in 2012. segregation laws have been overturned. in the experiences of most people's lives there has been progress. absolutely. exist there are problems and i understand if you are black in america you have obstacles that you do not face it you are white in america. -- president obama -- which testify for the

progress that has been made. host: front page of the new york times this morning, grievances of whites who feel lost. charts words allow the disaffected to vent feelings unusually -- usually unspoken. guest: i think that is right. that is the key to his candidacy. he is an acting nationalist. how did he begin his campaign in june of 2015? by making racial and ethnic appeals when he talked about the mexicans coming over, rapists and drug dealers and a few may be fine. this has been the theme that has gone through his campaign, the charge that there were thousands .f muslims celebrating 9/11' the charges against judge c uriel. remember, what is it that

catapulted donald trump to prominence in american political life in 2011? this earth or issue which was one of his many conspiracies. he has had a lot. issue, which was one of his many conspiracies. he hadn't known it was untrue but he kept pushing it. he keeps hitting these buttons. america is suffering because of it. he is tapping into grievances that exist. some imagined, some real. the manner he is doing it is deeply problematic and polarizing. host: we will go to nathan in tampa, florida. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. looking at the memorial in dallas a days back i saw two people who were truly presidential. resident bush and president

obama -- president bush and president obama gave moving speeches and i try to imagine if one year from now at a similar memorial president trump trying to give a similar speech and i imagine him turning it all into himself. it leads me to this point where the latest polls show clinton , meaning tied at 4040 we only have 80% of the country behind either of these candidates. it makes me feel like our two-party system is fundamentally broken because it produces candidates on both sides. you have clinton, who lies to the fbi and she is still our nominee on the democratic side. you have trump who is literally a fascist in a textbook definition of fascism, now on the republican side. americans can't vote for either of these two people. i feel like what would it be

like if we dismantled the republican democratic party and replaced it with libertarians versus greens? guest: i appreciate the call. a couple of things to deal with. i agree with him in terms of the dallas memorial and i thought that was in many ways a moving event. i thought president bush's speech which was free of politics -- it hit the right hitch. t-boned's remarks had moving element -- president obama's remarks had moving elements that he could not help but turn it into a political lecture. in that moment, made it less than it could have been. i think it was an awful speech. i agree with the caller. i think the idea that if donald trump and could give a speech that would match the moment in

the gravity of the moment. the sorrow of the moment and the need to unify the country. in a deeper sense, even to have that disposition some of that sentiment, that idea that we are one america and that we need to come together, i don't think that is true to donald trump. i do not think that is how he sees the world. i can't really imagine that he would have been able to give an appropriate speech. in terms of the two-party system, i'm not ready to talk -- to toss it out or overthrow it. it is a difficult moment in american political life because i'm somebody who is such a strong critic of mr. trump and i am a republican and i'm not going to vote for him under any circumstances and amount inclined to vote for hillary clinton because she is a liberal and she stood against everything i stood for in my political life i doubt i will vote for her. i understand the frustration.

at the end of the day the two-party system has served america well. we have only had two parties in america really dominant since the 1850's. sometimes you come up with very impressive once. the people who love the country have to reform them themselves and select the right people. it is not the party system that produced this. these are american citizens. an awful lot voted in the republican and democratic primaries. these are the people they chose. sometimes the will of the people -- i heard one of your callers say how do you stand up against the will of the people. sometimes the will of the people is wrong. madison and others were concerned. one of the themes that kept appearing again and again in their writings which was the kind of mob mentality and the passions people to get stirred

up and channeled in destructive ways and that is the reason they set up our system of government the way they did, separation of powers and the fact that they wanted to put a premium on length and reflection for precisely that reason. i'm willing to say that the political system itself is a little out of sorts. maybe a lot out of sorts. we are a democracy, representative democracy. people have complicity in the folks they nominate. ehner, cbs has this on their website. donald trump declines invitation to address the naacp. the naacp says the republican presidential candidate donald trump client an invitation to address a group of us upcoming convention, highlighting a new gop standardbearer struggle to

attract support from nonwhite voters. host: does nothing -- guest: does not surprise me. i wish he would show up. the naacp is a liberal organization. you're not going to get many votes there but i think it is important to show up if you are running for president, you're running to the president of all the people. with presidentme bush and president obama hit in dallas. this idea of listening to one another. that is important to do. it is not simply that we listen to people who have different views and treat them with respect. the basis of american democracy and stability. it goes deeper than that. the kind of humility and politics. the understanding that none of us has a full grasp of the truth . we have a partial understanding of the truth and you have to listen to other people to hear

what their world experiences and how they see the world differently than you do. sometimes that will help expand your own horizons so you will hear things that you had not heard before or thought before. even if that does not happen if you actually listened to people most of the time you see that priority a different and you may disagree with them that it explains why they may hold views differently from yours. that is partly why you have to spend some amount of time with people you don't agree with to try and take that in. and that ispersuade what presidents have to be able to do. i wish he had accepted the invitation to go. if he had come it probably would have been a disaster. ben is next, a republican. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i like to preface by clarifying i am a lifelong conservative, a diehard pro-life voter. trumpot a huge fan of mr. but i am utterly disgusted with the actions of the never trump version of the republican party. you all said he could never win in a primary. you all said he could not do a bunch of things and he has proven you wrong over and again. you continue to say that somehow your resistance to him is justified because you don't believe he can win. we live in the real world. you have two choices and anything other than a vote for donald trump is a vote for hillary clinton. withs holding barely even him in the polls and he does not have the sport of his own party. matter what you think of him -- i do not like the man but he might appoint conservative justices to the supreme court. he might actually do something about immigration. he might hold trade fair.

hillary clinton will take all of those things in the worst possible direction for republicans. you have a choice between somebody who could make things better for our party and our beliefs or somebody who will destroy them and if you think something like hillary clinton, who can escape getting an indictment from the fbi when there was so much evidence -- i know chi should be facing right now. if you think she should lose white house after getting into it for four years, you're fa fooling yourself. if you could shut up and support the man he could focus on fighting her. guest: ok. come down, it is early. still have the rest of the day to go through. the first thing is, he talks about living in the real world. i hear this all the time. memo to ben and others, i live in the real world, you do and so does he. trope. a tiresome

host: probably does not seem like it when you live in washington, d.c. guest: d.c. is the real world so is birmingham the seattle. and every life has a story. every community has good people and bad people. every community has struggles. in terms of his argument and my opposition to mis mr. trump. i do not oppose mr. trump at the think you got lose. i think he will but he may well win. my opposition to him is based on something completely different which is, i think he is temperamentally unfit to be president. i think he is erratic, unprincipled, unstable. i think he has a personality disorder. i think he's excessive -- he is of sensitive. having served in the white house , worked for three presidents,

one closely and with a lot of history, i think the main requirement to be president of the united states is not where you check boxes on policy though nothing policy is important and i spent most of my life in public policy. it is temperament, disposition, the idea of whether you have wisdom and prudence and judgment. not only do i think donald trump is worse than hillary clinton on that score and that is a low bar for me, i think he is worse than anyone i have ever seen in public life. that is number one. the man is a serial liar, a misogynist. he makes racial and ethnic appeals. he is just trouble. in addition to all of that, he is a man of staggering ignorance. you can go through this campaign, endless number of issues. he does not know the difference between the cuts force -- kurds. force and the

when he talks about health care, there was a moment in the debate with marco rubio where rubio said tell us about our health care plan. he was talking about eliminating lines across the states. the nuclear triad. he had no idea what the nuclear triad was. discussion about the debt, and making truly dollar debt -- a $19 trillion debt, he said he would get rid of it in eight years. impossible. without touching entitlement programs, which is the key to getting our debt under control and by pushing a tax program that would drain $10 trillion from the treasury over 10 years. go through this again and again, he does not know anything of a public policy. he can barely string three coherent sentences together on policy or in terms of the argument that a republican or conservative makes witches trump is better than hillary clinton

or the odds are he will be better on some of these issues and iudges, i grant that have said i'm not going to vote for hillary clinton at least that is not my inclination at this point is i think the indictment against her is right and i think the gentleman who called, i probably agree with him on hillary clinton. she is an ethical mess. the comey report was an indictment of her and i think her own record from first lady to secretary of state is very bad. i think that on the other side you have to put those of the things about trump that i went through and i think at the end of the day he is not qualified and one other thing i will say, these judges, that he will nominate better judges. he does not know what judges do. he thinks they sign laws. he said his sister, who was a person of the left and his pro-choice would be a phenomenal supreme court justice.

he did put out a list of 11 judges that have conservative credentials but i can almost guarantee that donald trump cannot name one of them. he would not put his shoulder to the wheel to fight for a conservative justice because he has no interest in that cause and he has not been a conservative his entire life. particularly if there is a democratic senate he's not going to fight for a conservative justice. he's going to come up with somebody chuck schumer likes. i think the odds are slightly better that there would be a better supreme court justice with trump than clinton only slightly and when you put those other issues, his temperament, the lies, the racial appeals, the misogyny and the rest, the ignorance, think he is disqualified. host: steve, cottonwood in arizona. caller: i'm glad that gentleman from virginia called because i'm telling you everything he said i agree with.

i was a ted cruz supporter but there is going to be a president. either trump or hillary clinton. i am definitely voting for trump. people like this person you have -- thet now is just reason why i'm an independent. a very staunch conservative but i have seen the republican party falling apart. i have two senators here in the state and we are going to get rid of them. blake and john mccain. think they are on this gentleman's side. we're going to change this world. politician, they spend money. a businessman like trump makes money. host: stephen is in arizona were senator john mccain is up for reelection. john mccain not going to the

convention. and what heuments has to say about politicians versus a businessman. guest: donald trump's business career is very problematic not just bankruptcies. trump university was a sham. does that matter to anybody? does it matter to conservatives that he believes in eminent domain? does it matter how he is treated people? this idea that he has been an unbelievably successful businessman, i think people have that doesis record not impute. in terms of saving money, the gentle said his key issue was to save money. a problem i found with trump supporters, they make these vague assertions or claims on his behalf and then you have to try to nail it down and say what is it exactly that he's going to

do. i gave an example of this gentleman called who's an independent but says he's a conservative. donald trump is the only republican who says he is going to actively oppose entitlement reform. in our day and age -- you cannot be for limited government if you're not going to reform entitlement programs. you can't make any progress on the debt unless you do that. trump is the one guy who not only won't do that, he is attacked people like paul ryan who want to reform entitlement programs. a tremendous amount of effort to get house republicans behind a far-reaching conservative free-market reform of medicare and trump would undo all of that. i would ask people who are trump supporters, does it bother them that he is conspiracy minded in so many different ways. i mentioned the birther issue with president obama.

this charge of vince foster killed himself. does it matter that on the day he won the indiana primary essentially accused ted cruz's father rafael of being implicated in the john f. assassination? does it matter that he says doctors have been involved in conspiracy to hide the evidence that vaccines cause autism which is not true? these go on and on. when you take all of the stuff paints a picture and a portrait. a lot of times i hear trump supporters have this image of the person. they described as individual and i say i would love to meet him. at the end the day you have to nail these things down and get specific. in my experience the people who characterize donald trump, critics of trump have an

advantage, they can quote him. if you quote trump and portray his record and reflect his record i think it is an indictment. host: talking about what is happening in cleveland earlier. we are covering it right now. you can listen in on your c-span radio app. the rules committee doing some housekeeping business. there is a stop trunk movement where some of the delegates would like to try to unbound the delegates from their state votes and vote their conscience, try to put in someone else. one of them is eric erickson from the resurgent website. free the delegates and support walker crews. -- walker cruz. eric erickson tweeting out last night a series of 20 tweets. former founder and writer for red state. i have not said anything

publicly about this but it will be a news story. i will not be in cleveland. his wife has been diagnosed with cancer. the second tweet he says my wife was recently diagnosed with lung cancer and had to have small bits of both bo lungs removed. family is more important. he does not plan to be in cleveland next week. guest: i saw those tweets. i don't know eric erickson but i was moved by what he said. he himself has had health problems. his wife has long cancer -- has lung cancer. i hope it gets better. ame of christian faith as i so what he is written on that has been touching. he's not going to be in cleveland for that reason but i'm not sure he would have been welcomed anyway because he is a never trump guy as well.

host: you're not going to cleveland either? guest: i will watch it like 99% .f the rest of the public i do not think i would be particularly welcomed either. host: hopefully you are watching on c-span. guest: i will watch some of it on c-span. host: thank you for being here. we appreciate the conversation. guest: i enjoyed being on. host: when we come back we will be joined by representative bonnie watson coleman, democrat of new jersey. we will talk to her about efforts to push gun control legislation.

>> much live coverage of the republican national convention beginning next monday in cleveland. saturday night at 8:00 eastern we will take a look at past republican conventions, inkling the contentious 1976 republican convention in kansas city starting with the rules debate where a proposed rule would require gerald ford to select his running mate prior to the presidential balloting process. we will feature speakers -- speeches from president ford and ronald reagan. >> we have heard a call to arms based on that platform. a call to us to really be successful in communicating and revealed to the american people the difference between this platform and the platform of the opposing party which is nothing but a revamp and a reissue and a running of a late late show of the thing we have been hearing from them for the last 40 years.

>> the 1952 convention in chicago with dwight eisenhower. [video clip] >> you have summoned me on behalf of millions of your fellow americans to leave a great crusade for freedom in america and freedom in the world. i know something of the solemn responsibility of leading a crusade. i have led one. >> known for his military career record than political expertise he was selected as the republican nominee and later one bank the 1952 election. the 1996 republican convention in san diego with former kansas senator bob dole. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. washington journal continues. host: we want to welcome to our table, representative body wants and coleman, democrat of users

he. she sits on oversight and government reform. let's talk about what is happening in america in race relations related to the conversation. the new york times poll with cbs news out this morning, 69% of americans say race relations are generally bad. one of the highest levels of discord since 1992 riots in los angeles during the rodney king case. guest: i think it is absolutely accurate. race relations are tense right now. i'm sure it is fueled by high unemployment in the african-american beauty, high insecure -- in the average american community, high insecurity in the white community, all the gun violence, all of the negative presidential airing that is taking place sort of fueling hate and disrespect and lack of dignity for people of other races. i get that it is at heightened

point but i think it has been moving to that point ever since we elected the first president of the united states who happen to be an african-american. host: what do you think needs to be done? guest: i think we need to confront the fact that racism is real america and that it is not healthy for us to be that way. we are better than that and we should be more than that. i think we need to be placing resources in the building of community relations. we need to put resources back on the local level. we need to have conversations, .raining, diversity training we need to have respect for the fact that this is one of the most heterogeneous communities in the whole world. we are a melting pot. we are a country that has been formed out of immigration. we are a country that has a history of using people of different races in different ways.

but we are a country that has moved forward one minute and the next minute we are finding ourselves back where we don't want to be. we need to be careful about the rhetoric that we are responding to. i think the media has to be careful about what it is covering. i think we need to be honest about how we feel about america and what we can expect from it. host: is gun control legislation related to that conversation and if so how could that help solve the situation? guest: the interest in thing about gun control legislation is that the nra keeps saying just get the guns out of the hands of criminals and thugs, etc.. in many instances we see in mass , these individuals are not criminals or thugs until they've committed the acts. mass incarceration, disparate

incarceration of african-americans particularly men, it conjures up an image immediately and this negative stereotype is reinforced over and over and over again with codewords. i think it is particularly damaging to the relationships that should be healthy, supportive, and collectively working to make america great. president host: the other day said at the memorial in dallas that we are not as divided as we seem. do you agree or disagree with him? guest: i think my president is very hopeful. he has spoken to the greatness of this nation and the greatness of the people. he has always reminded us of what we can be and should be. divided.e are i think there is more opportunity to bring us together if we are willing to work toward those and's and if our leadership is willing to stand up and if good people -- and there are a lot of us -- there

willing of good people to stand up for the goodness of all. host: good morning, thank you for taking my call, when we talk about gun control the fact of the matter is do we look at continuing gun controls or do we need to look at the amendment to the constitution in the right to bear arms? debate. been a long over the centuries, as we enter the 21st century do we really need to re-examine that whole amendment? one passing comment on donald trump. i think back to the 1960's. trump plus attitude towards race is i see him standing with george wallace in mississippi

when they did not want to allow african-americans into the colleges. that is the way i see it. thank you for taking my call. guest: thank you for that question. i am not a lawyer. i know it the second amendment to the constitution was created we were talking about in armed militia. we were talking about security on a level we do not have now. we were talking about muskets, not assault weapons or semi-us a weapons or weapons in the hands of very dangerous people. i think it's important that we passed laws to make it clear what is expected under the second amendment of the constitution and i think that has to do with commonsense legislation. making sure the wrong people don't have guns. making sure the wrong guns are not available under any circumstances. holding people accountable and making sure we are closing loopholes that create opportunities for these guns to get out into our communities.

at the same time i think we need to be doing things that ensure there is economic opportunity, opportunity for people in this country to be able to express themselves and the same time enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i don't think anyone wants to trample on the second amendment to the constitution. i think we need to get a handle on what it means. host: what will democrats do today, tomorrow, that will put pressure on republicans like democrats did before they broke for the fourth of july recess, holding a sit in for 26 hours, what will you do this time? if you are not planning the same sit in or guerrilla tactics, why not? guest: we have done something every day since we have come back. we have spoken on the floor for five minutes. we have done one minute. we have done vigils. we have had conversations.

our leadership has had meetings with the speaker of the house hoping that he would see interest in bringing gun sense -- commonsense gun legislation to the floor. those't seem to move people there were controlled by the nra. today, 7:00 tonight on the west lawn of the capital the congressional black caucus, under the leadership of congressman john lewis and countryman james clyburn, we are conducting a speak out. people are coming from around the country to speak out on the impact of having guns, the proliferation of guns in their community. what it has done to their families, their communities and what we are expecting of congress to do. democrats are not backing down off of this issue. we will continue to raise it.

we'll use whatever tools we have to bring this to the forefront of the conversation. the narrative that is taking place. it will be something that is campaign. through the through the election until he can get some movement. we need the people in this country who recognize this is not about the second amendment to the constitution. this is about the wrong guns in the hands of the wrong people. the wrong guns that are available for sale. on the about trampling second amendment in the intention of the second amendment by the framework of our constitution. if we are tired of our children being killed because they are in school, friends being killed because they simply go to a movie theater, our friends being killed because they happen to be having a good time at a nightclub in orlando or just the

killing that takes place every day in our communities, we need to stand up as a collective. 85% of the people in this plugry want us to loopholes and 85% of them at least want us to ensure that people who should not have guns and people who are named terrorists on the no-fly list should not be able to buy guns. host: c-span will becoming the democrats and the vigil there holding tonight. go to c-span.org for more details. janney in fremont, ohio. isler: all this man is doing -- we don't trust anybody in washington. they have all let us down. as far as guns, what if a person went through a hard time because of something that happened in their life and they got help and things like that, would their

way of looking at things you will never own a gun. everybody has a hard time at some time or another and how we seen a doctor. i have. i don't think it is fair to us because we have to live in this world where people break into our homes and there is looting all the time and all these other things just because we at one time were going to hard time we are not allowed to protect ourselves? host: talking about mental illness and protections related to mental illness. what are your thoughts? guest: it is clear we need to do more with mental illness in this country. we need to have more resources and destigmatize mental illness. we also need to recognize that there are certain people who should not have guns under any circumstances. if that is related to a diagnosis of some mental illness

, so be it. if that is empirically based that is the way it is. i don't think that is the major issue. i think the major issue is the proliferation of guns. the loopholes for purchasing guns and ammunition and the fact semi-usault weapons and a weapons and weapons that can be converted to assault weapons are killing individuals and many people at the same time. host: akron, ohio. jim, a democrat. good morning. caller: i'm a 60-year-old white man. when i heard about police obviously -- it's the police they would not do that. social media, i am seeing a black man shot in the back because he owed child support. a black man choked to death because he sold cigarettes.

a black man shot to death for selling cds. the pillar of the community shot in his car because he was telling the officer he was licensed to carry a gun. is a lot of racism in this country. mitch mcconnell is a big one. he was going to make sure obama was a one term president. he has been blocking everything that came to him to vote on. just thrilled to see my representatives sitting in on the house. that is a first amendment right to assemble and have your grievances addressed in this country. the second amendment right is militia. if you read the constitution, congress is supposed to be arming the militia and using them to discipline and disciplining them and using them to stop invading armies and to suppress insurrection, not to have people with guns so they can threaten to take over the

country because they don't like a black man in the office. thank you very much for your call. let me say that the majority of police enforcement do indeed take care of their job. do their job and have an expectation of coming to work and going back home safe and secure just like we expect to be of to walk our communities, go to work, go home and be safe and secure. the majority of our law enforcement is doing their job. in those instances where we see that that is not the case and some of them you just illustrated, those issues need to be addressed in need to be addressed swiftly and by the fbi, the justice department, the state in which this is happening in the local municipalities. those people need to be held accountable for what they are you fort thank

recognizing we do indeed have an issue in some instances and we do have an issue of racism in this country. .t's not just police forces may individuals on police forces that need to be addressed and therefore i think we need to engage in training again. more diversity training, more de-escalation training, more community policing community interactions. i think it's time for conversations in communities even beyond law enforcement to talk about who we are and what we expect and to respect the dignity of other people who might be different from us but actually share many of the same desires. host: those conversations happening last night on the espy awards. also on the senate floor. i want to show viewers what senator tim scott, republican of south carolina, had to say about his own experience serving in the senate. oft 2 of a three part series

speeches he plans to give. he spoke about dallas police officers and honoring them and yesterday's speech, here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> even here on capitol hill where i have had the privilege of serving the great people of south carolina as united states congress member and united states senator for the last six years. for those who do not know, there are a few ways -- there are few ways to identify a member of congress or senate. typically when you have been here for a couple of years the law enforcement officers get to know your face and they identify you by face but if that does not badge, ad you have a license you can show them or this really cool pen. i often say the house pin is larger because our egos are bigger so we need a smaller pin.

it is easy to identify a u.s. senator by our pin. i recall walking into an office after beingt year here for five years on the capital. the officer looked at me, attitude and set the pin, i know, you i don't. show me your id. i will tell you, i was thinking to myself, either he thinks i'm committing a crime, impersonating a member of congress, or what? i will tell you later that evening i received a phone call from a supervisor apologizing for the behavior. host: what is your reaction to hearing that? guest: that is an experience

many of us have had on some level. i have had an encounter where i have been asked, let me look to your pocketbook, that kind of thing. host: wearing your congressional pin? guest: yes. an unfortunate situation that happened with one officer and i suspect the illustration of something that happened with another officer. by and large, the capitol police are very diligent about knowing who you are and are very kind and respectful. when you are an african-american in a predominantly white world you want to say sometimes how do you not know me. .hat is the issue we are who we are and things of that nature. host: for those that do not know, bonnie watson coleman, the first african-american woman elected to congress from the state of new jersey.

dan, hillsboro north carolina. your next. caller: referring to the congresswoman's comment about legislation to support the second amendment, the militia act was passed in the 19th -- outhe 1780's, which spells the militias and the army and the whole bit. there is no question what the second amendment was referring to. this is the thing that drives me nuts. the act has been in power for many many years. my other big complaint is, no one is pointing out that the tea for valock funding hospitals and clinics 41 times. passing 62nds of effort to shut down the aca.

obstruction is not the way to run government. guest: i don't disagree with this question. this statement at all. thank you for calling. bill.an opioid crisis this from the washington times. the of good bill cleared congress -- the opioid bill cleared congress. legislation has become an important part of several election battles were opioid addiction has been a particular problem. republican leaders were eager to clear the bill before congress went home for a two-month break. in in 15 coming minutes this morning with the hope of wrapping up legislation -- wrapping up their legislative session later today and coming back in september. don in new hampshire. democrat. go ahead.

the voting rights act. i have not heard anybody raise this issue. --ecially highlighted host: highlighted issues of what? with the president's speech against discrimination and what have you. one of the biggest things i am not seen. guest: the democratic caucus has on more than one occasion attempted to raise that issue and bring it up. congressman john lewis and alabamawoman pool from our sponsors of this legislation ensuring there is unfettered access to voting rights.

there are states around this country that have been using all kinds of tactics to make it more andicult for people to vote get to the polls and register and to be eligible to vote. this is not something we have not tried to bring forth but we are in the minority and frankly the republican majority refuses to do with issues of this nature. host: vince, republican. you are on the air with the covers woman. -- the congresswoman. caller: you bring up the word accountability. i like to rewatch the show and see how may times you have said that word whereas the democratic presidential candidate is not accountable for anything she has done or dances around words. the second thing is, everyone has said negative things about all trump. i agree with you but this might be one of our only chance is to bring back the people to the

government and get rid of the ruling class. the establishment, we've got to stop them. guest: this is a very interesting statement and comment that you have made. i don't know that donald trump brings anything to our enterprise that does not divide people more than we are already divided nor do i think he is anyway demonstrated he is capable of being the president of the united dates whether because of his temperament, his lack of understanding or lack of experience. nor do i think he seriously wants to be because if you wanted to be human be more serious in his consideration of the issues that are coming before us. i must respectfully disagree that hillary clinton is not accountable. she has been more accountable than any candidate that has run for any office. she has been vetted for 30 years if not longer just because she has been getting her life to

public service. the one thing that is starkly contrasting between the two is one of these candidates is woefully inadequate to serve as the president of the united states and hillary clinton is imminently qualified. she understands domestic policy, how to get things done through washington, d.c. and she understands the complex foreign world we are living in and the global implications of those relationships host:. the chairman of the oversight government in reform committee would like hillary clinton to be held accountable for which equals congress under oath about classified e-mails. sheetermine whether or not lied to congress. guest: for those of us who are older and have played lps and you find there is a scratch on repeating and accused the same thing over and over and over again and you have to move the needle in order to get beyond the scratch in the

record, that is where chairman chaffetz is. he is in the crack and he can't seem to break out of the crack as it relates to hillary clinton because it is a distraction. the distraction takes away from woefuldequacy and inadequacy of the republican nominee for president and the dysfunction of republican majority in congress. host: if she lied under oath is that not problematic for you as a member of congress that you are sitting there wanting to get truthful testimony from your witnesses? guest: i think truth is important under also from stanzas and i think she has not willfully lied about anything. i think if we're going to start adding up fact checking, what is truth and untruth, there is an inbounds between what donald trump has been fact checked every day by even you all and

where hillary clinton has been from how every issue she wakes up in the morning to whether or not she comes her hair to the left or right. host: jean, democrat, you're next. caller: good morning. vet. disabled in the second amendment i have a lot of reservations about that. at that time there was segregation and so on. you don't call them guns, you call them weapons. back to donald trump, what --ald trump has done is taken the mess of republicans. that,ids and all report -- motor ids and all of that, controlled by republicans.

guest: i think you pretty much .nformed what is going on i appreciate your calling in and the statements you shared with us. thank you. host: a few more calls before the house gavels in early this morning. paul in franklin, tennessee. independent. i'm watching you on the tv this morning and i am seeing that you look like you have integrated into our society very well and taken charge and doing something the way it should be done but i will tell you, what i see is slavery has not existed for 150 years and i believe dr. martin luther king would at howy be dissatisfied the black society has decided to be segregationist all of this time. if you go on to the internet -- host: why do you have that belief? caller: because what i see is

mattereople, black lives , don't say all lives matter. they say black lives matter. the naacp is for the association of colored people. they don't say we want to do everything for the whole world. we want to do something for colored people. here? can i weigh in you are all, i think misunderstanding what black lives matter means. i don't think black lives matter's means that no other lives matter. it means that in this country, where we see this disparate, negative impact on the black recognize people black lives matter as well. in terms of the segregationist aspect that you are mentioning, i don't think blacks decided they want to live in segregated communities with lack of

services. they don't want to go to segregated schools with the lack of the most up-to-date technology and educational opportunities. i don't believe there is anything that is happening with the naacp that has not been on the forefront of all civil rights movements, whether it is and women's rights. i think the naacp was in response to what was negatively impacting the rights of black people in this country. i think that any movement that is addressing the inadequacy of the system responding adequately to african-americans does not in any way shape or form d mean the dignity respect and worthiness of other communities. to mississippi.

darrell, a republican. caller: as a vietnam veteran i know what it is like to be treated as second-class citizen. if she wantsw why to take away the second -- i have toht agree with the caller from tennessee. the blacks in this country are wanting to separate from everybody else, have their own way. they are saying too many of them are in jail. were they not tried by a jury before they were put in jail? do they not have the same rights as the rest of us? guest: no. in this society it is clear that the mass incarceration of african-americans as demonstrated empirically that there has been disparate treatment in the criminal justice system as it relates to african-americans. no empirical evidence that says african-americans create more crime than other americans, including when americans. while they represent 12% to 13%

of our entire population to represent somewhere upward of 51% of the prison population. so no, that is not the equal application of the law protecting everyone. secondly, there is no dispute about the second amendment and the rights of the second amendment. onone is trying to trample the second amendment rights. i need to remind you that when the second amendment to the , theitution was crafted founders were talking about militia and army in the absence of police forces, in the absence of an army. they were talking about muskets, not semi automatic weapons, not weapons that are designed only to kill people. hear how often do you comments like the couple you are hearing?

guest: unfortunately, too much. i think that is fueled by the rhetoric of ultraconservative republicans. it comes out of the tea party and it is coming out of the mouth of the presidential nominee of the republican party. at the end of the day this is not america. we are better than this and this country was founded by immigrants. this country was made great by immigrants and this country will only survive and thrive and be the model nation that it needs to be, a beacon of peace and prosperity and hopefulness for all people, not just some people. host: we will get gloria in the suitland, maryland. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know what is it about hillary clinton -- it seems like a lot of women are really jealous of her career something. i get goodbye to hillary even just -- i get good vibes from

hillary watching her on tv. everyone makes mistakes in life. i don't understand why anybody with their right mind would try to put donald trump in the white house. it's going to be something else. thank you. guest: thank you for that question. i think that hillary's career spans several generations and during those decades there was a time when a woman in that role, in that space come acting in that capacity, was sort of foreign to our nation and just knew. she was react to because she was spunky and smart and had something to say. she has been the most dedicated public servant in this country. people do not know why they don't like her. they don't even know why they may not trust her because it is not based upon facts. it is based upon perceptions that have been advanced by people that don't like what she

stands for. what the she stand for? equal rights for women, equal rights for minorities, equal rights for immigrants. economic well-being for all people, keeping this country safe, respecting the multiplicity and complexity of a foreign world. she has a vision for this country and people who want us to be isolationists and want us to be racists use every opportunity and every resource they have to advance that unfortunate notion. host: hillary clinton heading up to capitol hill today. she will be meeting with senate democrats. she will be meeting with senate democrats to rally them behind her candidacy. later in the afternoon she will be with senator tim king who has been mentioned as a vp pick. covers moment -- congresswoman, thank you. the house is gaveling in

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. . chaplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god we give you thanks

for giving us another day. on this day in the midst of sometimes contentious debate, we ask again that you give all members peace and patience, with wisdom and courage to do what is best for our nation. perplexing and competing questions and answers challenge us all to remember that our nation is a people descended from immigrants most in history and many in faith. may all americans and those members who represent them here rise to the challenge of these days and prove to be the best of ourselfs. -- ourselves. as always may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved.

the pledge pledge will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. mr. doggett: thank you, mr. speaker. let us join in honoring our great contry. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chamber will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i rise to give a one-minute speech. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to support the paper and wood products industry in virginia which employs over 1,500 men and women in my district and i wish to recognize the achievements of the industry in improving purchased energy efficiencies. sustainability is inherent to the pulp paper packaging, tissue, and wood products manufacturing industry.

these products are made from renewable and repsychable resources. mr. griffith: these companies have a good track record of managing natural resources to ensure they can continue making useful products in the future. in 2011 the industry established the better practices, better planet 2020 initiative pursuing one of the most extensive sets of sustainability goals established for a u.s. manufacturing industry. this week the american forest and paper association is releasing their 2016 report on the industry's performance. the industry has improved their purchased energy use per ton of production by 8.1% in 2014 compared to 2005, the baseline year. nearing the goal of at least a 10% improvement, and some pulp and paper mills are largely energy self-sufficient. in 2014, 15% of electricity needed to power manufacturing processes was self-generated. in some cases supplying energy

to the electric utility grid. i ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating this industry on taking steps to improve environmental performance, continue economic progress, and support of our communities. i am proud of this industry's progress and their continued commitment to advance sustainability performance and the fact they provide jobs throughout the united states. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise today with a heavy heart. i rise to honor the memory of an extraordinary young man who worked in dedicated service at the democratic national committee, seth conrad rich. he was just 27 years old when he was killed this past weekend. in our nation's capital. the victim of an unknown shooter. he was a dedicated selfless public servant protecting one of

our most essential freedoms, the right of all americans to vote. carried out this work because he believed together we can make the world a better place. we were fortunate to know and work with him. just last friday seth wrote a response on facebook to the terrible shootings in dallas. he wrote, stop hating each other. we have to be better and more true. please stop killing each other. i hope the members of this body will join me in offering our deepest thoughts and prayers to the rich family today. our thoughts and prayers are simply not enough. in seth's prescient words, we must stop the hate. we must do better and more true. thank you. i yb. -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin, the speaker of the house, seek recognition? the speaker: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker: mr. speaker, i rise today to acknowledge what is happening in america. i think it's important that all of us, every single citizen,

take stock with what is going on in our country. there are a lot of people hurting. there are a lot of people upset. high anxiety, a lot of confusion. i think this is a time for us to take stock as citizens and to think about how we can be better listeners to each other's concerns. i think this is the time for us to calm down and think deliberatively. how do we open our heart, open our ears, and see if we can understand the perspective that other people share. but i think there's one thing that we must all reflect on the most as citizens. i think about chief brown in dallas and that press conference he gave a week ago where he said most days we don't feel appreciated. let's not make this most days. when a member of our law enforcement wakes out of bed and has breakfast with their family and kisses their loved ones

goodbye and puts that badge on and walks out the door, they go out there to keep us safe. they go out there to protect the streets. they go out there and risk their lives to preserve our lives. we throw a lot of big words around in this chamber -- duty, honor, sacrifice. they do it every single day. so i think it's so important that as americans we take stock and we thank the men and women serving in our law enforcement all around this country for what . ey do for us i think it's really important we think their families for enduring the stress and hardship that comes with such a job. and as we try to make most days different than most days in the past, and as we try to make sure that we give our law enforcement

community the respect and the thankfulness they deserve, let's make sure that we listen to each other in this country so we can better understand so we can make most days in the future better days than we have had in the past. our country's hurting and it needs to start healing. with that, mr. speaker, i urge all americans to do their best to make this country better. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. clyburn: request permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank speaker ryan for his comments this morning and thank him so much for asking the people of our great country to take stock. i want us to take stock in more ways than one. i often talk about having been parsnitch sed in a

and one of the early discussions i remember is amoo my father talking about what to do about getting rid of a minister that had betrayed his trust. so i think we have to look at these issues on all sides. i honor police officers. i have relatives who are police officers. i have great friends who are police officers. but the fact of the matter is there are times when people of he cloth need to be defrocked. there are times when people in the law enforcement community need to take stock. and the fact of the matter is we do know that any time you see a young african-american being stopped 52 times by one jurisdiction, something is wrong. and when i say to my 21-year-old grandson, son, when you're stopped by the police, suppress

your manhood so that you can be sure you come home safe at night. let's take stock on all sides of this issue. this is not about being against law enforcement. i support law enforcement. but i do not support those who do -- or use the color blue to commit criminal acts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of savannah global solutions company in pembrook, georgia, for being georgia institute of technology's faces of manufacturing award recipient for june of 2016. this prestigious award presented by georgia tech and the georgia manufacturing extension partnership program honors the company each month that embodies

the face of manufacturing in georgia. savannah global solutionings began as savannah forestry equipment in 1987. after diving headfirst into the market, they grew as an example of the american success story. now the company operates on an international scale and maintains multiple palents. furthermore, in 2014, the small business association awarded savannah global solutions with the exporter of the year award. i'm honored to have them in the first congressional district of georgia and thank them for the work that they have done to grow america's economy. i wish them the best of luck in the fuhr. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. doggett: i would ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: today republicans are shutting down this congress for the next 53 days. that's true. most americans probably won't

notice the difference since the congress has accomplished so little this year. last week republicans told us this house needed to act on their homeland security -- homeland safety and security act. but this week they have abandoned that act because they were so fearful it would lead to a discussion of gun violence. it's much like what happened last year when they had a much bally hooed -- ballyhooed border security bill that would do as much for the border as donald trump. at the thought it might lead to a debate about real immigration reform, they shelf everybodied it, abandoned t. and long forgotten t when they leave prematurely today, they will have done nothing to accomplish a bipartisan response to the spreading zika virus, which last -- yesterday led to the birth of the first child with zika related birth deflects in texas with experts saying many more

are to come. nothing about the lead contamination of families in flint. nothing about justice reform. nothing about the budget. an unwillingness to cope with the problems american families face. they have so many needs, so many challenges our country faces that we need to work on, but this congress is totally incapable of doing that work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the 100th birthday of boo coors, resident of golden, colorado. he'll be celebrating this momentous birthday on august 11, 2016. bill is the grandson of adolph coors, founder of coors brewing k after graduating with a master's degree in chemical

engineering from princeton in 1939 he began in the family business. over the course of 64 years he worked his way up in the business ranks starting as chemical engineer, etchtually earning title as president. mr. tipton: he retired from coors in 2003 at the tender age of 87. when he first started at the company it was a regional operation. today it's a recognized brand throughout the world. this serves as a testament to bill's determination and hard work. his management of coors brewing company has had a tremendous impact on the third congressional district of colorado, and it continues to provide jobs in all parts of the production process. from the early stages in the barley fields to the delivery trucks that carry coors products to their final destination. mr. speaker, bill coors' life has been full of incredible accomplish. as a brewery pioneer, successful manager for his family's company, and live long coloradoan, he's truly an inspiration for all. it's an honor to pay tribute to his life and legacy and i wish

him a very happy 100th birthday this year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. defazio: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: congress leaving town for 53 days, the longest. i guess there are no important issues confronting the country. zika virus, no additional funding, spreading north into the u.s. no time for that. background checks. no time for that. they do have time for a couple little things, every day republicans are for states' rights except, well, maybe kinda today the state of vermont has labeling requirements for foods produced by g.m.o.'s. here are some m&m's.

they say it's impossible, impractical. if we wanted them to know they won't need to know. they'll pass a bill to take care of their corporate friends that will preempt any state from having a meaningful labeling law to inform their citizens, something over 90% of americans would like when it comes to g.m.o.'s. and they're going to come up with a meaningless proposal to say, oh, well, you can put a q.r. code on there and everybody will pull out their iphone and you can give them a lot of information. instead, we can do what mars has already done here, partially produced with genetic engineering. there are big corporations that don't want to do that. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the health care benefits and pensions for 120,000 coal miners and their

families are in serious jeopardy due to bankruptcies and challenges in the coal industry. mr. mckinley: this isn't just about a shortfall of funds, it's about people's lives. a retired coal miner told me his wife has cancer. he was so afraid of losing their health care coverage he was nearly in tears. another retiree told me that his pension, he needs his pension to take care of his handicapped granddaughter. these miners are scared. coal miners help build this country. they've earned these benefits and they deserve to have the secure retirement they worked so hard for. legislation i've been working on for over three years will help protect the health care and benefits for these retirees and their families. we need to act soon. time is running out. look, promises were made. promises made by the federal government years ago, and those promises need to be kept. let's get this bill to the

floor so these families can have peace of mind and know that we care about them. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker to clause 2-a-1 of rule 9, i rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may give his notice. mr. fleming: the form of the resolution is as follows -- house resolution 828, impeaching john andrew cost then, commissioner of the internal revenue service, for high crimes and misdemeanors. resolved, that john andrew cost then, commissioner of the internal revenue service, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the senate. articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives of the united

states of america in the name of itself and of the people of the united states of america against john andrew cost then, commissioner of the -- koskinen, commissioner of the internal revenue service in support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors. article 1, john andrew koskinen in his conduct while commissioner of the internal revenue service engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with his duties as an officer of the united states as follows. commissioner koskinen failed in his duty to respond to lawfully issued congressional subpoenas. on august 2, 2013, the committee on oversight and government reform of the house of representatives issued a subpoena to the secretary of e treasury, jake obviously lew, documents. that subpoena demanded, among her things, quote -- jacob

lew, documents. that subpoena demanded, among other things, quote, emails by lois lerner. on february 14, 2014, following the senate's confirmation of john andrew koskinen, as commissioner of the internal revenue service, the committee on oversight and government reform of the house of representatives may issue the subpoena to him. on march 4, 2014, internal revenue service employees in martinsburg, west virginia, magnetically erased 422 backup tapes, destroying as many as 24,000 of lois lerner's emails responsive to the subpoena. this action impeded congressional investigations into the internal revenue service targeting of americans based on their political

affiliation. the american people may never know the true culpability or extent of the internal revenue service targeting because of the destruction of the evidence that took place. wherefor, john andrew koskinen, by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. article 2, john andrew koskinen engaged in a pattern of deception that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as commissioner of the internal revenue service. commissioner koskinen made a series of false and misleading statements to congress in controvention of his oath to tell the truth. those false statements included the following -- number one, on june 20, 2014, commissioner koskinen testified that, quote, since the start of this investigation, every email has been preserved.

nothing has been lost. nothing has been destroyed, end quote. number two, on june 23, 2014, commissioner koskinen testified that the internal revenue service had, quote, confirmed that backup tapes from 2011 no longer existed because they have been recycled pursuant to the internal revenue service's normal policy, end quote. he went on to explain that, quote, confirmed means that somebody went back and looked and made sure that in fact any backup tapes that had existed had been recycled, end quote. number three, on march 26, 2014, commissioner koskinen was asked during a hearing before the committee on oversight and government reform of the house of representatives, quote, sir, are you or are you not going to

provide this committee all of lois lerner's emails, end quote ? he answered, quote, we will do that, end quote. each of those statements was materially false. on march 4, 2014, internal revenue service employees magnetically erased 422 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 of lois lerner's emails. on february 2, 2014, senior internal revenue service officials discovered that lois lerner's computer hard drive had crashed, rendering hundreds or thousands of her emails unrecoverable. commissioner koskinen's false statements impeded and confused congressional investigations into the internal revenue service's targeting of americans based on their political affiliation.

wherefor, john andrew koskinen by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. article 3, john andrew koskinen as commissioner of the internal revenue service has acted in a matter inconsistent with the trust and confidence placed in him as an officer of the united states as follows -- during his confirmation hearing before the senate committee on finance, john andrew koskinen promised, quote, we will be transparent about any problems we run into, and the public and certainly this committee will know about those problems as soon as we do, end quote. commissioner koskinen repeatedly violated that promise. as early as february, 2014 and no later than april, 2014, weighs aware that a substantial

portion of -- he was aware that a substantial portion of lois lerner's emails could not be produced to congress. however, in a march 19, 2014, letter to senator wyden of the senate committee on finance, commissioner koskinen said, quote, we are transmitting today additional information that we believe completes our production to your committee and the house ways and means committee. in light of those productions, i hope that the investigations can be concluded in the very near future, end quote. at the time he sent that letter, he knew that the document production was not complete. commissioner koskinen did not -- did not notify congress of any problem until 2013-2014 -- excuse me, june 13, 2014, when he concluded the information on the fifth page of the third

enclosure of a senate committee on finance. wherefor, john andrew koskinen warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. article 4, john andrew koskinen has failed to act with confidence and forthrightness in overseeing the investigation into internal revenue service's targeting of americans because of their political affiliation as follows. commissioner koskinen stated in a hearing on june 20, 2014, that the internal revenue service had, quote, gone to great lengths, end quote, to retrieve all of lois lerner's emails. commissioner koskinen's actions contradicted the assurances he gave to congress. the treasury inspector general for tax administration found over 1,000 of lois lerner's emails that the internal revenue service had failed to

produce. on 15 scoveries took days of investigation to uncover. the treasury inspector general for tax administration searched a number of available sources including disaster backup tapes, lois lerner's blackberry, the email server, backup tapes for the email server and lois lerner's temporary replacement laptop. the internal revenue service failed to examine any of those sources in its own investigation. wherefor, john andrew koskinen, by such conduct, warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9, a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedents only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.

pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from louisiana will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution institutes a question of privilege. -- constitutes a question of privilege. that will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. mr. fleming: mr. chairman, i thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the question on adoption of the motion to

concur with senate -- with s. 764 be subject to postponement as through -- under clause 8 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, pursuant to house -- mr. conaway: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 820, i ask knack to re-authorize the national sea grant act with the senate amendment to the house amendment thereto and i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill, designate the senate amendment to the house amendment and designate the motion. the clerk: senate 764, an act to re-authorize and amend the national sea grant college act and for other purposes. senate amendment to house amendment. mr. conaway of texas moves that the house concur in the senate amendment to the house amendment to the bill senate 764. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 822, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on

agriculture. the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway, and the gentleman from minnesota, mr. peterson, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i thought it was 30 minutes. . the speaker pro tempore: that's correct. it's 30 minutes on each side. mr. conaway: i'm sorry. i thought you said 20. it is 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on senate bill 764. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. for thousands of years mankind has used biotechnology in its various forms to improve crops and livestock. these technologies have led to the evolution of nearly every food product we consume and enabled us to enjoy the safest,

highest quality and most abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber in the history of the world. the majority of the scientific community, including the american medical association, the world health organization, and the national academy of sciences contends that food products grown with the use of biotechnology are just as safe if not safer than any other food. just last month a group of 107 nobel laureates joined the effort to fight back against greenpeace for its attempts to stifle these lifesaving advances. where almost 800 million malnourished people worldwide and the global population expected to rise by nine billion in 2050, we're more reliant than ever for biotechnology for a safe and stable food supply. in recent years campaigns against biotechnology have raised concerns among consumers. some states have begun to implement arbitrary and inconsistent labeling laws that threaten to increase the

consumer confusion and food costs while interfering with interstate commerce the. the bill before us today addresses these issues by providing a blueprint for a nationwide uniform standard or labeling products derived from biotechnology. i believe the government should only require labels when it is a matter of health or safety or to provide valuable nutritional information, it's important that this state buy state patchwork not disrupt the nationwide marketing of food. with the vermont mandate kicking in early this month, time is of the essence. i reached out to usda last week asking for clarification for limits of the authority that the senate bill vests with the secretary. usda's response has helped to provide much needed clarity. i ask unanimous consent that both letters be inserted in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. advances in biotechnology are key to the future of agriculture and ensuring the world has an adequate and stable supply of food. those advances can only be maintained if we preserve

interstate commerce while turning the page on a debate that has unnecessarily maligned this technology. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, the bill we're considering today, senate 764, recognizes consumers' demand to know more about their food by directing usda to create a national mandatory genetically engineered food labeling program. my colleagues may remember that almost a year ago this chamber passed legislation to establish a voluntary labeling program. i still believe a voluntary label is best, but frankly if we're going to address this issue and as the chairman said we're out of time, we need to work with the senate and this is

a compromise that was reached and in my opinion is probably the only alternative that's available at this point. science tells us that foods ingredients from genetically engineered crops are safe to eat. this technology allows farmers to protect natural resources and provide an abundant food supply. unfortunately there is a lot of public confusion about these issues, but labeling products is really more about marketing than any safety concerns that people have. this legislation is needed to avoid a situation where 50 states set up 50 different labels, which would only create confusion for consumers, farmers, and food companies. news reports indicate that vermont's labeling law, which want into effect july 1, already led to the loss of some 3,000 products from store shelves. the legislation -- this legislation would rectify this problem while also addressing the law's shortcoming.

for example, the vermont law exempts processed food products containing meat from labeling so that cheese pizza would be labeled from -- but pepperoni pizza would not. that doesn't make sense. senate 764 close this is loophole, requiring an additional 25,000 food products to meet new labeling requirements. i'm also pleased that usda will be responsible for implementing and enforcing this program. they have the expertise to do this and they have shown this with the labeling that they did for the successful national organic program. i would also like to note that s. 764 received strong bipartisan support in the senate and more than 1,000 farm and food organizations, including the american farm bureau, organic trade association, and others, are calling for its passage. i believe this is a good

compromise. it's another example of what the agriculture committee has consistently done so well. no one gets everything they want, but at the end of the day i believe this is a bill that will provide transparency consumers crave while at the same time allow continuing innovation and food production. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: i now recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for your hard work in getting us to where we're today. i want to give a special thanks to mike pompeo who helped craft this legislation that over a ear ago in the house 275 republicans and democrats voted on a bill to establish a voluntary nationwide program that would give consumers access to the information that they

requested about the food that they are actually consuming. this bill would have protected advancements in food production and innovation, and would have ended the patchwork of state laws threatening our interstate commerce. i was extremely disappointed to see that a small group of members from the other body blocked this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to protect vital agricultural technology that has been proven time and time again by science to be safe. i want to ensure that americans have access to affordable food. this bill would have done that. and to help address our world's hunger needs that biotechnology can only do in the future. unfortunately, this process is stalled for months. congress is not able to act before vermont's law went into effect on july 1. nd just having one state alter the law, their law, would provide a drastic, drastic negative impact on producers in my district.

despite what you may hear today, mr. speaker, this is not and never will be a movement for folks to know more about what is in their food. this is a movement by folks who want you to pay more for food using practices that are elite, not readily available, and expensive to the hardworking families in this country. these activists have publicly acknowledged their objective is to stigmatize a safe and valuable tool for america's farmers an ranchers. if leaders of this movement in vermont were so pure in their motives, they would not have exempted processed dairy foods, which include -- exclude g.m.o. labeling of a little ice cream company that operates in vermont. i say if ice cream from illinois ought to have a label in vermont, the environmentally conscious ice cream company from vermont ought to follow the same rule. while i still believe the voluntary approach is the correct course of action, i am supporting this legislation. the clock has run out. my producers need certainty.

and an interstate commerce nightmare will shortly ensue if we don't pass this bill. i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize the gentlelady from maine, miss pingree, for one minute. -- miss pingree, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for one minute. ms. pingree: thank you to the gentleman from minnesota for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, this bill is a complicated solution to a simple problem. consumers do have the right to know what's in their food, but the problem is that right now when you pick up a box of cereal or bag of rice in the grocery store, you don't know if you're buying something with g.m.o. ingredients in it. the solution is simple. list the ingredients on the package in the list in plain english. it's a solution that's 64 other countries around the world have already adopted. most of europe, japan, russia, even china all require a simple on pack and label that anyone can read. but this bill fails to take that

obvious simple step towards transparency. instead, it calls for a q.r. code on the label which would require a smart phone and a special app and a good cell signal to translate. a complicated solution to a simple problem. to be clear, knowing what's in the package does not determine the safety or health of g.m.o. ingredients. it's about the consumer's right to know so they can make that decision for themselves. i'm voting against this bill and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. to the way: i yield gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. mr. newhouse: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer my support for s. 764, the senate-passed biotechnology labeling legislation we're considering today. without enactment of this legislation, today, right now, we will continue to see the emergence of an incompatible

patchwork of state laws like the one that took effect in vermont o weeks ago. as a farmer myself, i can tell you with some authority that if these state laws with their conflicting definitions and labeling requirements are allowed to take effect, it will increase the cost of production and compliance for farmers as well as food producers. this will drive up grocery bills for american families by hundreds, even thousands of dollars. that, mr. speaker, i believe is unacceptable and unconscionable of an outcome to inflict on the american people. to be clear, don't think this bill is perfect. it's far from it. it's filled with ambiguous statements and in many places offers little guidance to usda on how to best implement the bill's provisions. i'm also disappointed the senate waited until the very last moment imposing this crisis on the house leaving us with only two options, either act on this imperfect bill or let the

american people suffer. mr. speaker, let the record reflect that the house did its job, passed a biotech labeling bill for the senate's consideration, an entire year ago. generally when we're talking about food labeling, it's for health and safety purposes. i believe people have a right to know what it is they are eating, but today we find ourselves in a place to require mandatory labeling for agricultural products that are 100% safe. with my reservations noted, passing this bill is the right thing to do. it will establish a meaningful national standard for biotech labeling that will prevent an unworkable patchwork of conflicting state laws, it will provide consumers with information they want, and finally, it will create an environment where farmers, researchers can continue to do their work, develop new food varieties that are healthier, more abundant, more pest and disease resistent, and allow us to continue to feed our nation and world. i urge my colleagues to support

its passage. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from washington has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i now recognize the gentleman from oregon, the esteemed ranking member of the transportation and infrastructure committee for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, is recognized for two minutes. the fazio: i thank gentleman for yielding. i agreed with one of the yerl speakers, it would be confusing for consumers to have 50 different state standards. there is a simple solution but it's not what's before us today. a simple forthright disclosure in plain english, for instance as this is obtained out of a house vending machine, just today, distributed by mars chocolate, we're all familiar with m&m's, partially produced with genetic engineering. that wasn't too hard, was it? now, i think that's what we should be doing here today instead of saying, oh, we're

going to maybe have one of three ways of doing it, one will be a q.r. code. this doesn't have any q.r. codes on it. i won't get my q.r. reader out. the average american will be in the grocery store pulling out their iphone and hope there is a good cell signal in there. they are going to read that. that's ridiculous. there are 64 countries require this. the last time we debated this i brought in a hershey bar wrapper, nice flag on it, made in america, contains g.m.o.'s that's the version they sell in 64 other countries. they can't do it here. they can't do it here. it's too expensive. we'll have to change the labels. well, m&m's just changed the labels. with what you're doing today they'll change it back and take oft words that say partially produced with genetic engineering because they won't have to do that. this is not about passing judgment on the safety or the science behind genetic engineering. it's to say that 90% of the

american people want to know what's in their food. they want to know it has blue one lake yellow 6, red 40, corn syrup, cornstarch, peanuts, milk, soy, and partially produced with genetic engineering. that's not too hard. that's what the american people want. but you're going to deny them that. on any other day i would hear my republican colleagues say, we're for state's rights. now we're just about to preempt the states because if the states do it it will become confusing. how about we just have a national standard? . plain english so american consumers can know. it's not too hard and it's very sad we've come to this point. with that i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. ompeo, who has been involved

with this process for a long time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, is recognized for two minutes. mr. pompeo: thank you for yielding time. on behalf of the farmers and constituents in my district and across the country, i rise in support of s. 764 today. it amounts to three years, representatives and senators, from both parties have been diligently working on a solution to not have disastrous food labeling laws taking shape and causing havoc throughout the food supply. as a proud sponsor of h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act, which passed the house almost one year ago way, it's bipartisan not perfect, it's not the bill we passed over but without this legislation inconsistent state level food labeling laws will lead to market disruptions and supply chain complications which are simply intolerable for our ranchers and our farmers and those attempting to

feed the world. it would not only harm agriculture communities but result in high plieses at the grocery for hardworking kansans and people across the country. i'm proud of the coalition we have all built. our committee, energy and commerce committee, the agriculture committee have worked hard to get to this day. rom coffeeville to colby kansans, this legislation will do that trick. we could not get here without the massive support. people like rich phelps, the president of the kansas farm bureau. stacy who came and helped me at the most difficult times in making this legislation works. she's a mother and farmer. mick, a great friend in cedric county. max jayden and his wife, ann, worked diligently to help make this legislation come into being. kent winter, leslie kauffman, philip bradley, matt perrier from the kansas livestock association. dennis and ray were all part in

making this day happen. it will be better for kansans. it will be better for america and they will have the capacity to use biotechnology to feed that next billion people and solve the incredible hunger risk that faces our globe. i thank you, mr. speaker, and, mr. chairman, thank you for yielding time. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader forks three minutes. -- mr. schrader, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker. s. 764, well, we can demonize the work of congress on a regular basis and unfortunately sometimes we're our own worst enemies. i, on the other hand, feel that 764 is an example of congress getting it right. this is a big country. a lot of diverse opinions about what we should and shouldn't be doing. i'm a farmer and i'm a veterinarian, man of science.

i am concerned, very concerned, much like my good colleague and friend from washington state on the other side of the aisle, that there's a campaign of misinformation and disinformation about the health and safety of the american food. i'll stack american farmers and producers up against anyone in the world for producing the healthiest and safest food for american consumers. this is a hard-fought compromise. hard fought. very hard fought. i was on the ag committee when we started this discussion. a lot of people want to know what's in their food, they say. well, that's why we have ingredient labeling so as my good colleague and friend from oregon talked about, you can read what's on the label that might be important to you in terms of allergies, safety information, things you might actually -- that might actually affect your health and welfare. genetic engineering has been around for centuries. as a man of science, i'll tell you it's a lot a lot safer to do it in a laboratory than you

have in the field where you have mutations you can't control. that might be detrimental to your health and safety. in the laboratory you can control a great deal of that. and lost in this discussion is what genetic engineering, biotechnology has done for the people of this world. i remember not too many years ago -- i'm a little older -- where we were worried about feeding the world's population. back in 1965, 1966, there was concern. do we have enough land. is the food going to be nutritious? a lot of people in other countries in not conducive climates can't raise their own food. in this country we can. through science and engineering, we created more nutritious crops, crops that can grow in bad environments. we can now do it because we have agents that will control weeds and pests.

if you're concerned about climate change, you ought to be strongly in favor of this bill. strongly in favor of this bill. this is less use of some of the very agents that some of my friends on my side of the aisle are concerned about. having said that, i am from oregon. we're a transparency state. we want to know as much as we can about everything, our election processes, our environment and apparently our food. the senate has come up with a compromise. i like our house bill but they came up with a compromise. we now have labeling for g.m.o. we actually have a definition in this bill of what g.m.o. is so the consumers are protected. again, it's not a patchwork of regulations around the country. now, we have a standard that the consume consider take to the bank and understand. the idea that people don't have cell phones is ludicrous. i have people in pretty tough

situations in inside district don't have a heck but they have a cell phone. they know how to use it, get the apps and make sure they understand what's in their food. i think this should be an hour we celebrate. the other side has to finally, i hope, accept victory. we have a mandatory labeling for g.m.o. this is a great compromise, democrats and republicans, senate and house, let's accept and vote for senate bill 764 for the american consumer and the american farmer. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. and i certainly appreciate the previous speaker's comments. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. : thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: thank you. mr. speaker, this bill is a prime example of why the american people are so frustrated with congress. this is a deeply, deeply flawed bill. you know, we're told that this is a mandatory g.m.o. labeling bill, but the truth is not really. this bill is a deception. when people think of labels, they expect something that is easily identifiable, that is clear, like a written label. that's not a controversial idea. this calls for a so-called quick response code, whatever that may be, that is confusing and can only be accessed by using a smartphone with internet access. never mind that many americans don't have smartphones and many supermarkets don't even get service, thereby making it impossible to get information on g.m.o.'s and keeping consumers in the dark about what's in their food. but let's be honest. this is exactly what some in big industry want. they want people to be

confused. they don't want people to have access to information. when big industry speaks, congress not only listens, congress rolls over and gives big industry whatever it wants. and let's be clear about another thing. this debate is not about the science regarding g.m.o.'s. it's not about whether you love g.m.o.'s or hate g.m.o.'s. i consume g.m.o.'s. my kids consume g.m.o.'s, but i still believe that every consumer is entitled to know whether the food they buy contains g.m.o.'s. that's what this debate is about. it's about transparency. for those that thinks this ends the debate, this is it, i have a prediction -- you're wrong. people are going to continue to fight to demand for clear, manned -- mandatory g.m.o. labeling. they have a right to know what is in their food. the overwhelming majority of the american people, democrats and republicans, all favor clear, mandatory g.m.o. labeling. i got a radical idea. why don't we give them what

they want? why don't we just put it on the package? it doesn't cost anymore. the idea this is an effort that will raise food prices is ridiculous. this convoluted, complicated labeling system outlined in this bill, if that's not going to raise food prices, then a simple in plain english listing on food that says this contains g.m.o.'s will certainly not list -- certainly not raise food prices. mr. speaker, sooner or later we're going to get clear, mandatory g.m.o. labeling. i prefer sooner and therefore i urge my colleagues to reject this bill and let's give the american consumer what they want. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: mr. speaker, i recognize myself for one minute. i'd point out to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that there are other options besides the q.r. code with complying and getting information to consumers that want it. this bill requires that the secretary, within one year --

actually, before the rule written, within one year to conduct a study to make sure the consumers really are in fact they get information they want in the ways they get it and the secretary will have ways of proposing additional comparable options for this issue. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. conaway: no. the gentleman is misleading in the sense there are other options to make this happen. if it's not working, the secretary of the department of agriculture will make that study. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. gabbard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for three minutes. mr. abbard: thank you, speaker. people shouldn't have to jump through hoops to know what's in their food. that's really what this issue is all about. when we go to the grocery store, the very first thing that you do is you pick up whatever it is you're looking at and you read the label to see if it contains products or

ingredients or things you want to eat or that you want to feed your family. nearly 90% of americans have called for this clear, simple, direct labeling of foods that have been either genetically engineered or modified. they support this very simple concept that we have a right to know what's in the food we eat. yet, the g.m.o. bill that we're voting on today is very misleading. proponents will say this is a labeling bill, but it is not really about the right to know. it actually creates an illusion of transparency while making things more difficult for consumers, not easier, and this is, as we heard earlier, this is exactly what people hate about washington, that we pretend to solve a problem when actually we're just making things harder and more confusing for the american people. if this bill is really truly intended to expand consumers' right to know, why not require a simple uniform food labeling

standard that's clear, straightforward and easy to read? instead of doing that, this bill creates a system of electronic codes, symbols and texts that are intentionally confusing to consumers, making them work harder to try to get access to information that should be readily available to them. additionally, this bill lacks any enforcement measure to hold companies accountable if they don't comply with labeling requirements. this bill has raised concerns from the f.d.a. over the bill's narrow definition of genetic engineering that leaves common food without any labeling requirement at all. so let's stop pretending that s. 764 does anything but create confusion, making it harder for the american people to know what's in their food. this is exactly the opposite of what they're calling for. 76 countries around the world have -- 64 countries around the world have required labeling of genetically modified foods like

the e.u., japan and australia. here in the united states we must have one uniform national labeling standard that is simple, clear and makes it easier for consumers to make their own informed decisions about the food that they're eating. i've co-sponsored h.r. 913, introduced by my colleague, pete defazio, which would do just that. the bill passed by the senate and the bill before us today is a bad bill that does not serve the best interest of the american people. that's why i strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: mr. speaker, thank you. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, little background on this bill. this started in vermont where

there was a strong citizen movement to have the right to know what was in their food. it was not a battle about the science of g.m.o.'s or about whether it was healthy or not. it was really based on the proposition that for a consumer who wishes to know what is in their food, whether it's a number of calories or whether it's g.m.o. produced, they had a right to know. it's as simple as that. the irony here is that the pushback has been from folks who are advocating the benefits of g.m.o.'s and if they're so great -- and i'm not disputing what some of their benefits may be -- why not brag about it by putting it on the label? why hide it? . it doesn't make sense. in vermont we had a bipartisan vote in the senate 28-2, and strong bipartisan vote in the house that was based upon the right of vermonters who wanted to know whether there were