mr. chairman? mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney-client privilege, which cannot be overridden, and is a rule of the house to the extent -- >> the gentle woman will suspend. >> and that is what this witness is asserting. attorney-client privilege, and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentle woman will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney-client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by the fbi not to answer the question. now -- >> by lawyers. >> he knows -- he knows the advice i have just given him. if he would like, i'll restate it. but knowing this, will you answer the committee's question as directed, or do you refuse to answer the committee's question? >> point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from south carolina has the time, a parliamentary inquiry is not in order during the gentleman's time. the chair is instructing the witness to answer the question

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i must say before i begin my formal statement that this country has a number of emergencies right now under the jurisdiction of this committee which we're not spending any time or any attention to. the leading one obviously being the fact that 3,000 children were improperly taken away from their families and the administration seems either unwilling or out of total incompetence unable to return the kids to their families even under court order. we ought to be holding hearings about the intentions or the competence of the department of homeland security on this question. mr. chairman, it's of more immediate concern than this hearing certainly. at the outset of this, when i asked to hold hearings about the russian government's campaign to undermine our last election you said no and offered a variety of excuses. we could not look into president trump's overt attempts to obstruct the early stages of the russia investigation because you said, quote, there are other committees that

mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege, which could not be over ridden, and is a rule of the house to the extent that -- >> -- to an attorney/client privilege in this house. that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege, and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> suspend. gentlemen has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by the fbi not to answer the question. now. >> by lawyers. >> he knows -- he knows the advice i have just given him. if he would like, i'll restate it. but knowing this, will you answer the committee's question as directed, or do you refuse to answer the committee's question? >> point of parliamentary inquiry. >> point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from south carolina has the time, parliamentary inquiry is not in order during the gentleman's time. chair is instructing the witness to answer the question, and the question to yo

mr. chairman, point of order. i believe there's a point of order that's been raised and you've ruled we have a right now to answer mr. -- >> it is not a valid point of order -- >> you can't just repress this, mr. chairman -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok, you have not stated a valid point of order -- >> and that is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order, yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is what he's requesting. he's appealing it that requires a vote. >> that was just a taste of it. let's bring in one of the congressman involved in the exchange, democratic david cicilline represents the state of rhode island. first off, give our viewers an idea of what was going on right there. peter strzok was refusing to answer a question saying the fbi instructed him not to talk about the investigation into russian meddling that started in the summer of 2016. why the animosity between democrats and republicans over his answer? >> the fbi has a wel

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i must say before i begin my formal statement that this country has a number of emergencies right now under the jurisdiction of this committee which we may not spend any time or attention to, the leading one being obviously the fact that 3,000 children were improperly taken away from their families and the administration seems either unwilling or out of total incompetence to return the kids to their families even under court order. we ought to be holding hearings about the intentions or the competence of the department of homeland security on this question. mr. chairman, of more immediate concern that this hearing certainly. at the outset of this congress when my democratic colleagues and i asked you to hold hearings about the russian government's campaign to undermine our last election, you said no and offered a variety of excuses. we could not look into president trump's overt attempts to obstruct the early stages of the russia investigation because you said, "there are oth

mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you just made on whether you have -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that's your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order. yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege, which cannot be overridden and it is a rule of the house to the extent the witnesses have the right to an attorney/client privilege in this house? >> mr. -- >> and that is what this witness is asserting, attorney/client privilege and he's been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney/cl

mr. chairman. mr. strzok, when i hear you talk about your passion for america, i believe you. i can see that passion. when you talk about your love for the fbi, i see it. i believe it. when you talk about your faith in the american electorate, i believe that. now, what concerns me is you said that you didn't trust the elections, to quote you, you didn't trust the elections after russia put their finger on the scales. remember saying that earlier? >> i don't believe that's exactly what i said, sir. i think i said something slightly different, but i recall that exchange. >> but that was the meaning, and i don't think -- >> i don't think that was the meaning, sir. the meaning was i was concerned that russia was attempting to do that. >> you specifically said russia has put their fingers on the scales. >> i don't recall what i said specifically. >> you can find it later, but i wrote it down. >> i would be happy -- >> what i want to ask you is, do you think that justifies then you, mr. mccabe, and lisa page

mr. chairman. congressman, what i think is critical and i am glad you brought up a lot of these -- >> i didn't bring them up. i just asked you to bring your own words. >> sir, if i may, what is important is that these texts represent personal beliefs just like those that you would find on my personal phone. what those texts do not represent is any act, any suggestion of an act, any consideration that we need to do this or not do this and furthermore, i would encourage you, as i believe -- i forget who i said this to earlier this morning, you need to read these texts in the context of what was going on at the time. so when i make the comment about trump having no idea how destabilizing a presence he would be, that came on the heels of a speech where then-candidate trump said he didn't know whether or not the united states should honor its commitment to mutual defense under nato. >> i appreciate that. >> sir, when you think about that -- >> that's not briefly. mr. chairman, in light of -- >> may the

mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. emmer: i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my colleague from minnesota and co-author of this amendment, representative nolan. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. nolan: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. emmer, for yielding. the lady for whom i have enormous respect has failed to mention the fact that this or any other project anywhere in the country, let alone the state of minnesota, would nevertheless be subject to endless reviews by the environmental protection agency, some of which take up to 10 and 12 years. so it's not as though we're approving a mining project here. it's going to have to undergo rigorous review. as my colleagues from minnesota know, i was an original sponsor of the 1978 boundary waters wilderness legislation. i'm very proud of that fact. at the time i, i want everybody to know here, however, we made a solemn commitment to pre

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i must say before i begin my formal statement that this country has a number of emergencies right now under the jurisdiction of this committee which we're not spending any time or any attention to. the leading one obviously being the fact that 3,000 children were improperly taken away from their families and the administration seems either unwilling or out of total imp competence, unable to return the children to their families. we ought to be holding hearings about this question. mr. chairman, it's of more immediate concern than this hearing, certainly. at the outset of this congress when my democratic colleagues and i asked you to hold hearings about the russians undermining the election, you said no. you said, quote, there are other committees that have jurisdiction over part of this, unquote. you were also reluctant to interfere with the special counsel. until mueller's investigation is complete, it's redundant for the house of representatives to engage in fact gathering

mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nunes: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 6237, the matthew young pollard intelligence authorization act for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. passing an annual intelligence authorization bill is the most important tool congress has to conduct effective oversight of the intelligence activities of the united states government. today the intelligence committee is bringing its annual intelligence authorization bill to the floor. once again the bill is a bipartisan product that reflects contributions from all committee members. it was reported out of the committee by unanimous voice vote. the legislation provides the intelligence community with the necessary resources and authorities to protect and defend the united states. for example, this bill authorizes a committee initiative to streamline defense intelligence related to the defense intelligence agency. it enhances congressional oversight of int

mr. chairman? the chair: the ntleman has three minutes remaining. >> i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman, distinguished gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. the chair: theentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. speaker. i wan to applaud my good friend from alabama, mr. palmer, and my colleague from north carolina, mr. walker, for their work on this particular amendment. i chont disagree more with the gentlelady from the district of columbia. this is not about individual liberties. in fact this amendment supports individual liberties. it keeps-- leans from -- keeps liens from being placed on properties, quite frankly, congress overwhelmingly has supported repealing the individual mandate. and for some city to say that they're wanting to implement an individual mandate, it has nothing to do with health care and has more to do with political statements. i can tell you that to have the particular initiative here in washington, d.c. limit short-term health plan

mr. chairman, mr. chairman, mr. chairman you are assuming someone else's position. chairman, you are coming to conclusions on someone else's viewpoints in the hearing. allow the witness to respond. >> i'm sure it's my time and the gentle lady is not recognized. >>> i hesitate because of my gut sense there is no concern there is no big there there. >> sir -- >> what were you concerned wasn't there? >> sir, my concern was not knowing, given these allegations, what existed. whether on the one hand there was no criminal activity whatsoever towards the middle, that there were individuals kind of pursuing their own agendas for their own self-enrichment, or on the far end there might be an impeachable offense. >> why wouldn't you investigate it? >> i answered your question. >> my question is why would you not want to investigate that? >> sir, i did want to investigate that. that is not what you're reading. what you are reading is my trying to decide what i want to do with the course of my career and whether to stay as a deputy assistant director in the counter intelligence

mr. chairman. i move that we dispense with the requirement for a quorum. i ask unanimous cop sent. >> there is a unanimous consent request to dispense with the requirement for a quorum -- >> i've got a parliamentary -- >> gentleman is recognized, from california. >> i don't believe that can be done. a quorum's required to conduct business, and that business would include waiving rules. >> i would yield to counsel. >> it is the opinion of counsel that the committee can waive by unanimous consent. >> well, i'll raise a point of order that i believe that exceeds the authority of the committee acting without a quorum. a quorum can do several things. it can recess, it can set a time to which to adjourn, and it can adjourn. but i don't believe it has the power to waive the quorum requirement without a quorum present. >> then the chair will take the gentleman's point of inquiry, point of order as an objection to the unanimous consent request, and with that -- >> we're considering a very important question.

mr. chairman. -- mr. pearce: thank you, mr. chairman. with respect to the gentlelady if the science were sound and even the agency themselves admitted the science was seriously flawed, if the stakes re not so high, the entire listing of species would demand the sound science so this is a serious problem throughout the west and throughout the united states. if it weren't a matter of being able to provide jobs and have economies in these big rural areas of new mexico and there are other -- no other tax bases in those areas, so as we crowd out ranchers, counties can't, they don't have revenues to survive themselves. if the stakes weren't these then i would listen more closely to the gentlelady's arguments but as it is i just don't think we can sustain a decision like this if the fish and wildlife service had showed up at that meeting where we found other critical habitat within a couple of miles. it just, that critical habitat didn't block access to this source of water. the only source of water in that section of the ranch. these are ranch

mr. chairman. point of order, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman will state his point of order. >> it is, i think, against the rules of the house for a member of the committee to be impugning the character of a witness. it is -- he should ask questions to -- the purpose of this hearing is to elicit information. he should ask questions to elicit information. he should not be impugning the character of the witness. >> the gentleman is advised the rules of the house only are directed to members of the house and the president of the united states. >> therefore, in other words, it is okay to impugn the character of witnesses in any way whatsoever? >> listen, i've heard many members on yourside side of the aisle -- [inaudible] but the gentleman has 20 seconds left, the clock will be turned back on, and he can complete his time, and then the witness can respond. >> so have you talked to hillary other than -- hillary clinton other than the time she was examined in front of the witnesses? >> no. >> so after throwing away what you h

mr. chairman. >> mr. vanderwal. i look at the reason this is a crisis right now is we've gone through four or five years of really low commodity prices. if we have perfect tried agreements and our ag products got into every market across the globe and we were treated fairly, we probably wouldn't have had as low of markets the last four or five years. am i correct? president trump correctly identified we needed to fight for better trade grooms, would you agree with that? >> better trade agreements -- >> i agree with that. we've westbound beat out historically in trade agreements -- we've been beat out -- there are higher tariffs coming this way. >> i agree whole heartedly. we've been living with unfair trade agreements. we've been paying the price, and our farmers and ranchers have been dealing with that when previous mayings did not fight for the american farmer. this president is fighting for him and china knew directly where we were the most vulnerable. they came after our farmer and the ranchers. it gets me upset

mr. chairman. -- mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i am over here to your right. got you. thank you for being here and thank you for your service to this country. i will tell you, since you've taken office, we have, as a committee and as a congress, tried to give you tools to do better for our economy, to do better for our consumers. tax law. we did a little banking light to open up some capital in the community banks and reduce their regulation. there's a lot more we'd like to do but we're running out of time. there's a lot you can still do in the department of treasury, especially when it comes to housing finance. we can't forget what happened in 2007 and unfortunately we've prevent staff torle recurrence of what -- statutorily recurrence what happened in the housing bubble and i'd like credit transfers being implemented from the private sector to release some of that burden that the government now has in backing these mortgages. but yet we're moving slow. and so we have to rely on you. public remarks earlier this year, agreeing philips, one of your counselors,

mr. chairman. robert, good to see you. good to have you here today. i appreciate your willingness to serve as acting secretary and your willingness to step forward now during what i believe our unprecedented times times at the va. if confirmed, you will be tasked with ensuring our nation's veterans have access to timely care and services, benefits both housing and education and others that they have earned. they will treat every veteran regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation with dignity and respect they deserve. today this committee is here to determine whether you're the right person for the job. every new administration brings its own priorities and its own people to the table. that transition can often lead to turmoil and confusion and can generate uncertainty inside and outside the agency. from my days, the va has always been above that. the secret mission of serving our veterans and families has always transcended personal political agendas or political affiliation. since i've been in

mr. chairman. mr. krebs, thank you for articulating how clearly you feel the mission is for you and your team. we have all kinds of narratives that are out there, but will you reiterate for this committee and perhaps for the american people your primary responsibilities to make sure that our election process is secure and that every vote is counted, counted accurately, not double counted and not interfered with, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so -- and you've had that articulated from the administration to you and that you feel empowered to do that? >> i have a very clear guidance from my secretary. i have received guidance from the white house. i am empowered to do any job. i have clarity of mission, clarity of purpose. i spend 40 to 50% of my day focused on the 2018 midterms and beyond. >> i appreciate you reiterating that, because i talked to the secretary, and she has articulated that very clearly to me. and it's good, because sometimes it doesn't get transferred to those that actually do the wor

mr. chairman, before mr. gowdy responds may i respond to mr. jordan. >> very briefly. >> sir i would love to do that, there is an appropriate time for oversight and that is at thend of an investigation once it's concluded and i am certain that congress will have the opportunity to look at any investigation once its closed and ask all of these questions and i would love to answer each and every one of your questions when the fbi allows me to -- >> we know that answer from you and you have been advised that you can answer the questions here because guess what, this is the united states congress where you are testifying, not under the jurisdiction of the federal bureau of investigation? >> mr. chairman we cannot be asked about an ongoing investigation that is sabotaging and that is what he is not cooperating with, and he cannot -- >> these questions are table setting questions regarding the foration of this and he can answer those questions. >> he cannot answer questions about an ongoing investigation? >> he has been advised by the fbi that he can

mr. chairman. i just have a couple questions for you, mr. strzok, and i'd like to yield the balance of my time to chairman gowdy. but in light of the last round of questioning, it's fair to say that you wanted to stop president trump from being elected in your own words, didn't you? >> no, sir, that was my expression that i had a preference not for candidate trump to be president, but that i did not and would not -- >> did i not hear you read your own text correctly, you would stop it? >> no, sir, you misunderstood or misheard me. i said my since not recalling writing that text, the american populist would elect donald trump. >> you don't like donald trump, do you? >> fair to say i'm not a fan. >> are you the only one that could have led this investigation in the fbi? >> sir, it was logical given i was number two in counter intelligence i would have a role in this investigation. no, there are very qualified folks in the fbi. d.a.d.s, there are not that many at my level. >> should you have recused yourself in this case? >> no, sir. >> you didn

mr. chairman. mr. young: i rise in opposition. wasn't going to rise in opposition until you talked about maine and the free-running streams and all the tourists and king crab and all these other things. i do admit, i've been to maine, and i would agree with you. you are just a tiny one. we're a great big thing with bigger streams, bigger fish, bigger crab, no lobsters, though. i have no lobsters. i'm going to ask you why haven't we've seen more lobsters from maine. i'm not sure why but i'll yield to the gentleman. mr. poliquin: mr. chairman, i know deep down in your heart you're a mainer at heart. i know that, sir. i've been to alaska. it's a good state. maine is a great state. i know you will support the bill. mr. young: i wanted to get my slicks in -- licks in for alaska. i will yield back. the chair: does the gentleman from maine yield back? mr. poliquin: i do yield back. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maine. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the op

mr. chairman, mr. appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege which can not be overridden and is a rule of the house to extent that right to attorney/client privilege in this house. that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege. he has been advised not to answer the question. >> gentle women will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by the fbi not to answer the question. now -- >> by lawyers. >> he knows, he knows, the advice i have just given him. he if he would like i will restate it. but knowing this, will you answer the committee's question as directed or do you refuse to answer the committee's question. >> point of parliamentary -- inquiry. >> according to ruling of the chair, it is not in order. >> point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from south carolina has the time, parliamentary inquiry is not in order during the gentleman's time. the chair is instructing the wit

mr. chairman. mr. strzok, i'm going to go through a few real quick questions. i think earlier in your testimony today, i want to make sure i have clear. i think you were quoted as saying we don't ever talk about ongoing investigations outside of the fbi, is that true? >> i don't know the context in which i said it. i can think of -- >> i think you were talking about sharing with the media -- >> oh, right. no, you don't -- so in my experience, that is -- i can think of examples not that i've participated in where members, if there's an ongoing case say in the field office wanted to end list the public's help, and they would talk to the media about getting a lead on a kidnapper. so there are times where that might occur, and so that's why i want to be careful in how i frame -- >> so you have never talked to anyone outside of the fbi about the russia investigation at all? >> i have never spoken to any member of the media about the russia investigation. >> have you spoken to anyone who is not in the media

mr. chairman. mr. have here -- i'm sure you're familiar with this handbook -- the ethics handbook of the department of justice. there's several paragraphs that i want to read to you. the first is general principles of ethical conduct continued. employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they're violating the law or the ethical standards set forth, whether particular circumstances create an appearance of the law or these standards have been violated should be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with the knowledge of the relevant facts. next was the appearance of an impropriety. the employee should avoid the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in these guidelines. further more it states, for whom that a security clearance is required -- and you do have a security clearance. >> today i do, yes. >> you've had one for quite a while. >> yes. >> other than the circumstances. >> yes. >> for performance of their

mr. chairman. -- mr. rutherford: thank you, mr. chairman. i want thoo the panel for being here -- i want to thank the panel for being here today. mr. norquist, i have spoken with you at length in the past bout some taxation issues. i know that the physical presence rule is kind of at the heart of the no regulation without representation principle that you talk about. i'd like to ask you and mr. bramble. you already touched on it a little bit, i believe. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think from our previous discussions, one of the principles that you also process is government should not pick winners and losers among business through taxation policy, is that correct? is that a correct interpretation of your position? mr. norquist: you would not want to use tax policy to punish one product or industry versus another or subsidize one product or business over another. congress and state legislators would get winter off if they quit doing that. mr. rutherford: going to the core of it, there seems to be a fairness issue. you know, to me, anyway. i

mr. chairman. mr. strzok, you mentioned i think to my count over 30 times about your personal beliefs when it comes to your text and that was it was just your opinion. one of the texts, you said we will stop it, referencing the trump campaign. mr. strzok, that's not a personal belief text, that's a plan of action. who's the we in that text? >> sir, i disagree, that's not a plan of action. the we as i stated, the reason i am stating it so many times, i have been asked at least twice as many times, the reason i said, i don't recall that text. when i look at the context of it in the middle of the night, i can tell you i am certain it is not a suggestion that me or the fbi take any action. i can also assure you. >> you answered the question. you don't recall it. >> under oath, there was no plan of action. >> my eighth grade english teacher used to teach me stop was an action verb, so i believe it sounds it. from the content of text, as despicable as they were, let's talk about the volume of texts if we cou

mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, first, thank you for the 30 seconds, maybe, for yielding time and just i have to say a couple of things. one is i support this amendment. families are fleeing to america. they are fleeing horrific violence and seeking safe harbor in our nation. yet young babies and children are being taken from their parents. kids are being held in cages. as a psychiatric social worker, i know the very profound and long-lasting health and mental health consequences of separating children from families. child abuse is child abuse, but it's also a violation of human rights. >> thank you. >> those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the opinion of the chair is the nos have it. other amendments, gentleman from new york? this is amendment number 14, i believe. the clerk will designate the amendment, the staff will distribute copies if not already. >> amendment number 14 offered by representative jeffries related the state and local tax deduction. >> the chair recognizes mr. jeffries. >> thank

mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to submit for the record the social security administrator's statistics on women, which is that almost 49% of all elderly, unmarried females receiving social security benefits rely on social security for 90% of their income. thank you, mr. chairman. welcome.e mr. kelly, you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. looking through all this, and again, i think sometimes we forget where the revenue for social security comes from, and it is, of course, from wage taxes or federal insurance contributions act, whatever you want to call it. so it does become a math problem, or a consideration. when i was looking at the total of dollars that come in, payroll taxes make up for 87% of the revenue that comes into social security. another 3% comes from taxes on benefits, and then another 9% on interest on that money. but i'm getting down to when social security was started, if you look at mortality rates, retirement versus the end of benefits being paid to somebody because they past

mr. chairman. i begin my formal statement that this country has a number of emergencies right now under the jurisdiction of this committee which we aren't spending any time or attention to. the leading one being the fact that 3,000 children were improperly taken away from their families and the administration seems either unwilling or out of total incompetence unable to return the kids to their families even under court order. we ought to be holding hearings about the intentions or the competence of the department of homeland security on this question. mr. chairman, of more immediate concern than this hearing certainly. at the outset of this congress my democratic colleagues and i asked you to look into russia undermining our last election you said no and offered a variety of excuses. we couldn't look into president trump's attempts to obstruct the early investigation because other committees have juries dick over part of this. you also reluctant to interfere with the special counsel. until mr. muel

mr. chairman, welcome chairman powell. the issue of wages has been discussed by some of my colleagues and yourself. in 2000, the last time we were at this situation where we were touching 4% unemployment, the share of national income by corporations was about 8.3% and share in wages was 66%. today we're reaching the point of 4% unemployment. yet corporate profits count for about 13.2% of national income. they've gone up significantly. wages as a share of -- going down from 66% to 62%. if those trends continue, the situation where working men and women have not going to get their fair share of growth. what are you trying to do at the fed to insure they get their fair share of growth? >> the decline in labor share of profits labor share of profits was generally oscillating fairly constant for a long number of decades. and right around the change of the turn of the century, begin to drop precipitously and continue to do so for more than a decade. it's very troubling. we want an economic that works for everyone. and that happe

mr. chairman. >> senator van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. chairman, welcome. good to have you here. a couple of questions that relate to the tax bill because much has been said about that. senator toomey said it resulted in increased investment. what i've seen is a huge whopping increase in stock buy backs. as of today, the number is 600 billion dollars in stock buy backs. those are corporations that have decided not to invest the money back into their workers or their plant or their equipment but give it to stockholders which include one-third of the stock holdings in this country are foreign stockholders so it is a great wind fafall for accounts of stockholders much has been claimed about the economic impact. i'm looking at the most recent projection that the fed had for median, long term growth as of june 13th report 1.8%, is that correct, for current long term growth >> yes, it is. >> are you aware of what the projection was a year ago before the tax bill was passed? >> i'm going to say 1.8%. >> i mean, the reality is despite the hype around here, it's not

mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess my question would be for mr. vanderwal. i'm going to call you scott because it seems weird to call you mr. vanderwal when i know you so well. here's what's frustrating for me. because i look at the reason that this is a crisis right now is because we've gone through four or five years of really low commodity prices. and if we had perfect trade agreements and our ag products were able to get into every market across the globe and we were treated fairly, we probably wouldn't have had as low of markets? president trump correctly identified we needed to fight for better trade agreements. would you agree with that? >> mr. chairman, yes, i would agree with that. i think we've kind of been beat out historically in some of these trade agreements. and admittedly, there are higher tariffs on our products going the other way than they are coming this way. >> exactly. i agree wholeheartedly. that's why this coming at this time creates such a crisis. we've been living with unfair trade agreements. we've been paying the price and our far

mr. chairman. >> mr. engel and i are going to be meeting with deputy secretary at 4:00 so we'll raise that issue with him at that time. we'll go now to iliana ros-lehtinen. >> thank you so much chairman royce and thank youing ranking member engel for holding a hearing on a timely and important topic. since widespread protests began on april 18 in nicaragua we have seen over 300 people killed under the direction of daniel ortega and his henchmen and in venezuela, nicholas maduro continues to rule with impunity. ignoring the pleas of the venezuela for new leadership. and in cuba, raul castro continues to call the shots, while hiding behind the veil of the so-called transition of power. under diaz-canal nada has changed for the people of cuba. activists are being held for days at a time. they're still being beaten and arrested and the regime continues to rule with an iron fist, more worrisome, mr. chairman, is that cooperation between these rogue regimes has actually increased. just last week there were repor

mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for being here, mr. o'rourke. you got a great colonel sitting behind you. i've known the man for a number of years. i am glad to see him working with you. i'm the end user of the va to the t. i get every bit of my health care through the va. i hold weekly office hours in the va for any veteran that wants to talk about any issue, va related or otherwise. i'm walking the halls there frequently. i see my fellow veterans constantly. i see the smiles on them. and i see their truly heartfelt gratitude when they get the care that they were seeking at the va. and i also see their frustration when their care was lacking in timeliness or appropriateness and i hear about it both as we all do. and that's -- in summation what we all want to see, we want to see the care for every end user of the va. just be the best possible care that it can be. it's summed up very simply like that. i think we all agree on that. it is what we want to see. you've said in this hearing several times that you want to see a change in the culture of

mr. chairman. before i call on my good friend, mr. clay from missouri for three minutes, i do want to respond. my friend from texas is right. this will certainly provide a lot more clarity for public -- i mean, for private enterprise. i'm not sure it's the kind of clarity we want, because they're going to get their nose into the business of rulemaking to serve their interests. there are rules that could not have been enacted if h.r. 50 had been law. for example, after the deepwater horizon explosion that killed 11 crewmembers and set off the worst oil spill in american history, the department of interior finalized a rule in 2016 to tighten controls and blow out preventers and calling for rig operators to have third parties certify the safety devices worked under extreme conditions. that rule would have been precluded because of the provisions of this bill. the sanitary transportation of human and animal food, this rule establishes requirements for parties engaged in the transportation of food, including food for animals, to use sanita

mr. chairman, ms. downs could she respond? >> will i without objection extend another minute because i would like to follow up with one of the questions. mr. johnson: i yield. >> the second point you made about disclosing who paid for political ads. mr. goodlatte: you also disclosed how much they paid or the rate they paid for the ad? ms. bickert: no, mr. chairman. we disclosed who paid for it. mr. goodlatte: ms. downs. ms. downs: google has strong security protections in place to protect against state interference. and we have worked to extend those security protections to campaigns. we have trained over 1,000 campaign professionals on a suite of tools called protect your election. these are digital tools designed to protect election websites and political campaign from digital attacks. as i mentioned we also have implemented more transparency with election advertising as i described. previously and we're continuing to fight misinformation on our products. both through enforcement of our policies against the behavior and throu

mr. chairman. thank you for calling today's hearing. this region is particularly important to me as a former western hemisphere subcommittee chair. ambassador merten, assistant ambassador lynch, thank you for your service. you're both doing great work. but again, i must say the white house is failing to fill key positions in a timely manner and means we cannot hear from those setting the course for foreign policy. that's too bad, because in my view, the administration has put us on a very dangerous course when it comes to the western hemisphere. the way the president talks about this region says it all, falsely insisting mexico will pay for a border wall we don't need, filthy language, calling mexicans drug dealers and rapists, the dehumanizing language about immigrants and characterization of haiti and el salvador using a word i won't repeat. democrats and republicans have worked for two decades together to improve the u.s.-mexico relationship long characterized by mistrust. bilateral cooperation

mr. chairman. i am ok. >> you are ok. ok, then you have establisheda number of qualities without further comment.[laughter.]mr. -- further comments. [laughter] mr. kavanaugh, on the second round, whichwe begin now, i have noticed a reticence on your part to criticize people, not necessarily a bad habit. you did not want to criticize karl rove. you did not want to say how you would vote on impeachment to criticize president clinton. notwant to criticize judge pryor you did notwant to criticize judge pryor on roe being an abomination. youdid not want to criticize judge bybee on the bybee memo. you did not want to criticize mr. manny miranda. you did not want to criticize judge pickering. you did not even want to criticize the american bar association. now, i do not consider that, and you did not want tocriticize justice scalia or justice thomas. i do not consider that necessarily a bad quality. senators sometimes criticize people. in fact, it is seldom when we do not. that seems to be a stock in trade

mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. smith you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman for allowing me to be here today. thank you to our witnesses for sharing insights and expertise. you are practitioners in agriculture and not just economists saying how things ought to be or could be, but how things really are. i think it is important. i think this entire debate on trade has generated more discussion across our country. i think we can be better off for it. and makes a lot of us nervous and certainly as you reflect on that. meeting with some folks back home, a being company for company forean example. they have a great insight and are concerned about their situation, reflecting the concerns of the producers that they work with. i appreciate your testimony. certainly you how appreciate president trump's effort. i part of the concern is that this is all in the context that agriculture has not enjoyed the economic uptrend that perhaps other parts of our economy have. in that entire context, i think it is very important that we address these issues in a timely fash

mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the strengthening fishing communities and increasing flexibility in fisheries management act. not only does this bill re-authorize the magnuson--- magnuson-stevens fishery conservation and management act, which is long overdue, but it also updates the language of the act to put more power in the hands of local councils, to manage their fisheries effectively. one-size-fits-all approaches rarely work. so i'm proud to co-sponsor this bill, which allows local councils to tailor management plans to the needs of their regions. further this bill would lift burdens of outdated, arbitrary scientific practices and data which limit the american people's access to affordable, domestically caught fish. the seafood industry is economically booming and it's past time that we lift these restricting regulations and allow a win for not only the recreational fishermen of which i have been a lifelong proponent of and participant, but also of our commercial fishermen. b

mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary for your time today and all of your tremendous work on our economy and job growth. it is just amazing. one of the benefits of going at the batting order is i get to listen to all of my colleagues and respond to some of them. for the record, i consider you to be a genius. >> thank you, i take that >> take it as a compliment. >> the long is by definition, i am. >> for the record, mr. meeks is misguided when he suggest you go back and admonish the president. the real problem we all know is the senate. there are 569 bills that have been passed out of the house that are dead in the senate. and i for one, sam happy you will have to be here the month of august to get some work done and hopefully they will confirm a few investors. mr. scott from georgia suggested that his state would be the most hard-hit state by the trade war. i take issue with that. my state of michigan no doubt will suffer the most of the trade war ends badly. it is my concern. and i spent 30 years in business, a

mr. chairman. >> senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary sing, for being with here. appreciated the opportunity to meet with you at the shangrila dialogue. a chance to speak with you about my legislation, the asia reassurance initiative act that senator markey is a part of, senator koons. i want to follow up a little bit with what senator markey is talking about. in january of this year, at least in asia realm -- in january of this year, china suspended access to marriott's website for referring to taiwan as a country. it was lifted only after marriott's chief executive issued a public apology. in april this year, according to the "chicago tribune," a letter was delivered demanding they stop referring to today juan wa as a part of china. including potential action against american airlines, delta airlines, and united airlines. these actions, there's articles yesterday about the iphone that if you had the taiwan flag in china, that your iphone would lock up if you used the taiwan flag. in fact, if you look a

mr. chairman. mr. krebs, did you say that -- you mentioned something called an intruder detection system that had been put -- did i understand you to say that 21 states had the benefit of that? what was it you said? >> at the time in 2016, 21 -- about 21 state election systems at the state level were behind an albert sensor, this intrusion detector sensor, yes, sir. >> were those the states that flagged that there was -- >> yes, for the most part. we were able to upload some of the indicators that were provided on another activity, including in the midwest state, and load it up into the system. it's managed by a group called the multistate isac, so the indicator was loaded up into the system and then it took -- there were hits across prior traffic. >> i see, so in those 21 states, it was evidenced through this detection system that there had been efforts to hack into it? >> there had been visits, yes. >> was the ids in place in other states? >> not on the election systems, but albert sensors are deploy