President Trump on Environmental Reviews for Highways and Pipelines CSPAN January 9, 2020 1:29pm-2:18pm EST
so no, i never use the word "but" when i refer to him and i don't think any other american should either and if they do, i'll question them on it as well. thank you very much. the impeachment of president trump. continue to follow the process on c-span leading to a senate trial. live, unfiltered coverage on c-span. on demand at c-span.org/impeachment. and listen on the free c-span radio app. today president trump announced new proposed rules to speed up the federal permitting process for major infrastructure projects. it includes the easing of
environmental regulations. here is a look. good morning, everyone. today we're taking another historic step in our campaign to slash job-killing regulations and improve the quality of life for all of our citizens. in the past, many americans -- of america's most critical infrastructure projects have been tied up and bogged down by an outrageously slow and burdensome federal approval process and i've been talking about it for a very long time, where it takes years to get something done, the builders aren't happy, nobody is happy. it takes 20 years, it takes 30 years, it takes numbers that
nobody would even believe. these endless delays waste money, keep projects from breaking ground, and deny jobs to our nation's incredible workers. from day one my administration has made fixing this regulatory nightmare a type priority and we want to build new roads, bridges, tunnels, highways, bigger, better, faster, and we want to build them at less cost. that is why for the first time in over 40 years, today we're issuing a proposed new rule under the national environmental policy act to completely overhaul the disfunctional bureaucratic system that is created these massive obstructions. now, we're going to have very strong regulation but it's going to go very quickly and if it doesn't pass, it's going to not pass quickly. it doesn't have to take ten years or much longer than that. these proposed reforms will reduce traffic on our cities, connect to our rural communities and get americans where they need to go more quickly and more
safely. we're pleased to be joined by secretary david bernhardt, sect elaine chao, administrator andrew wheeler and council on environmental quality chairwoman mary newmeyer. you've done a fantastic job on this. also with us are representatives of american workers including sean mcgarvey, president of the national cattlemans beef association, jennifer houston, president of the american trucking association, chris speer, and many other leaders of labor and industry. america is a nation of builders. it took four years to build the golden gate bridge, five years to build the hoover dam, and less than one year, can you believe that, to build the empire state building. yet today it can take more than ten years just to get a permit to build a simple road, just a very simple road. and usually you're not even able
to get the permit. it's unusual when you get it. it's big government at its absolute worst. and other countries look at us and they can't believe it. for example, in north carolina it took 25 years to begin construction of the mark bass knight bridge. in alaska, improvements on a 15-mile stretch of sterling highway, the only road connecting local communities to the rest of the state, and a very dangerous area, it's been delayed for over 15 years. but we're getting it started. in washington state it took two decades to finish environmental reviews for the runway at the seattle tacoma international airport. think of that. it takes decades. the united states will not be able to compete and prosper in the 21st century if we continue to allow a broken and outdated bureaucratic system hold us back from building what we need. the roads, the airports, the
schools, everything. right now it takes over seven years and oftentimes much longer. and seven years is like record time. to complete approvals for a simple highway, the simplest of them. with today's proposed reforms we will reduce that number by northeastemore than 70%. we'll cut the federal permitting timeline for major projects down to two years and ideally try to get even less than that. so you'll be, instead of 21, 22, 25, eight, nine, 12, 15, we're going to get it down to two years and maybe less, with strong regulation, especially environmental and safety regulation. we'll get it down to a very low number and we're going to do it fast, we're doing it with a rule change that just is being signed. in the past, those seeking infrastructure permits have had to go to numerous federal departments all over, and "numerous" means many, many. sometimes you get the same exact
change but you had to get them from different departments. so you go to these federal departments and agencies requesting approval from countless governmental bureaucrats, each of whom was empowered to hold up the process and leave urgently-needed projects in limbo and for the most part they wouldn't get built, if they did get built it would take so many years and cost many times more. but our new one federal decision policy, it's called one federal decision, requires agencies to work closely together to promptly deliver one decision. yes, the entire process would be completed. the entire federal government approval process will be done. we're also cutting red tape by allowing federal departments to increase the use of documentation, prepared by state, tribal, and local governments. this is just common sense. there's no need to do all of the
duplicate work, so much duplication, you would go for a permit, you would have to go for another permits. you're just going to different agencies to get the same approval. at the same time we're maintaining america's world class standards of environmental protection. we have some of the cleanest air and cleanest water on earth. for our country the air is right now cleaner than it's been in 40 years. i guess you go before that, there was a lot less activity, so we're competing, i would imagine 200 years ago it was great, 500 years ago, before we got here, it must have been really nice, right? but in the last 40 years it's the cleanest right now. by streaming line infrastructure approvals, we'll further expand america's unprecedented economic boom. that's what we have. we have an economic boom. we've created 7 million jobs including over 700,000 construction jobs. unemployment has reached the lowest rate in over 51 years,
after years of stagnation, real wages have increased nearly 10% for low income workers, the biggest beneficiaries. our regulation cuts are giving average american households an extra 3,000 per year. and if you look at the tax cuts and all of the other cuts, it's close to 10 thousand dollars a year with all of the cuts we're getting. that's for an average median income family. $10,000. you know, i've talked about past administrations, the one was $475, the other one was $975. last two, $975. and we're $10,000. and the number is actually higher than that if you include certain regulations that we got cut. so that's an amazing thing. and that's one of the reasons consumers are doing so well and leading us so strongly in this boom that we're in. but this is just the beginning. it will not stop until our
nation's gleaming new infrastructures made america the envy of the world again. it used to be the envy of the world and now we're like a third world country. it's really sad. you get approval, they even get financing for jobs and then they can't build them for 15 years and then it ends up costing five times more than it was supposed to cost. so i would now like to ask chairwoman mary newmeyer to say a few words and we'll have another couple of speakers and then we'll take some questions. go ahead. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. president. president trump promised a more efficient permitting process so that americans receive timely decisions on permits for vital infrastructure projects affecting their everyday lives. today, we are proposing the first comprehensive update to the national environmental policy act regulations since they were issued over 40 years
ago. over the past three years, the white house counsel on environmental quality has been working closely with federal agencies and their leadership including the leaders here today to improve the implementation of nepa for the american people. nepa requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed major federal actions including the issuance of federal permits and other approvals as well as when providing federal funding. nepa affects communities and the quality of life of americans across the nation, from the construction of roads, bridges, airports, and harbors, to water infrastructure, agriculture, forest, land, and fisheries management activities, and environmental restoration. the goal of nepa is to ensure well-informed decisionmaking. but the process can be unnecessarily complex, burdensome, and protracted. a lengthy process can delay or even derail important projects to modernize our nation's
infrastructure, manage our federal lands and waters and restore our environment. the council on environmental quality has found that the average time for federal agencies to complete environmental impact statements is 4.5 years. further, for highway projects, transferred over seven years on average and many projects have taken a decade or more to complete the environmental review process. these delays deprive hard working americans of the benefits of modernized roads and bridges that allow them to more safely and quickly get to work and get home to their families. nepa is the most-litigated area of environmental law. delays due to lengthy reviews and lawsuits, increased costs for project applicants, states, tribes, localities, and taxpayers. these delays deter investments and these delays make our country less economically competitive. today's proposal would modernize the environmental review process. the proposed rule would make common sense changes to
establish a presumptive two-year time limit for environmental impact statements, require federal agencies to request information from applicants and the public earlier in the process, increase coordination by agencies to reduce delays, avoid duplication by facilitating use of documents required by other statutes or prepared by state, tribal, or local agencies, and ensure that the regulations reflect current modern technologies. the proposed rule would provide for a faster process while ensuring that agencies analyze and consider the environmental impacts of proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to address significant impacts. it's important to note that the proposal would reform the process of gathering information on environmental effects but would not change any substantive environmental law, regulation, such as the clean air act, the clean water act, and the endangered species act. nothing in the proposal would eliminate the protections that congress has enacted to safeguard our environment and the american people.
today's proposal has undergone extensive interagency review and the council on environmental quality has carefully considered thousands of public comments. under the president's leadership the administration is committed to ensuring that we are good stewards of our environment while supporting american prosperity. as we move forward with this proposed rule, we will remain focused on improving the environmental review and permitting process while ensuring a safe, healthy, and productive environment for current and future generations of americans. mr. president, thank you for your leadership. it's important. >> i appreciate it, thank you. [ applause ] secretary chao. >> thank you, sir. good morning. we are delighted to be here because today is indeed very historic. today's action is really needed. our nation's infrastructure is
in danger of deterioration and it needs to be repaired and rebuilt. and as you have heard from the president and also from the director of ceq, the time that it is required to rebuild a new project is now unsustainable. our nation needs our infrastructure needs to be addressed. we all care about the environment. what we are talking about are cumbersome, unnecessary, overly burdensome, duplicative and outdated regulations. many of these regulations have not been updated, modernized, in decades. what we're seeking is common sense solutions. as i repeat again, we all care about the environment. what we need to give as regulators is certainty to the regulated community so that if a project were not to go forward,
they deserve a quick "no." right now we string along so many people who are waiting decades for answers from the federal government. and again, that is not responsible governing. so today is historic. this nprn will solicit comments, remarks, so it will be an open process. and what we are hoping to do is to address the infrastructure needs of our country as the president has said on so many occasions and that of course we want to see new projects be constructed and new jobs being created. thank you, mr. president. [ applause ] >> thank you, elaine. i want to also thank elaine for doing a great job, she's doing a fantastic job. secretary bernhardt, please.
>> mr. president, thank you for the introduction and for the honor of being here today. i'm thrilled. for those of you that don't practice in this area, let me tell you, this is a really, really big proposal. this proposal affects virtually every significant decision made by the federal government that affects the environment, and i believe it will be the most significant deregulatory proposal you ultimately implement. >> big statement. >> well, the reality -- you know, he's the bottom line. you have been crystal clear since the day you arrived here that you wanted to have a common sense approach to ensuring that the government made better decisions for the people. and what you see here today are the people. and the reality is that the nepa
law serves an incredible noble purpose. at the heart of the law, it establishes and ensures that we as government decisionmakers think about the consequences of our action before we make them, that we consider alternatives to our action, and that we receive the participation of the public before we make the action. and everything in this rule does precisely that, sir. but when i arrived at the department of interior, it took on average the bureau of land management five years to complete an environmental review document. we now are doing those in an average of 1.2 years. and the consequences are far-reachi far-reaching. for example, the quicker we can do our environmental reviews for indian schools means the sooner
students can have safer schools to go to school in. the quicker we can improve and enhance our visitors centers at national parks means the sooner people can enjoy those parks. we even have the same process here for nepa as utilized when we're thinking about good things to do for wildlife. and the longer it takes to implement those conservation actions, the more delayed those are. our firefighter depend on the speed of environmental review to do our treatments in the forest. our ranchers, which are here, depend on the speed of our environmental review to know whether or not they're going to have grazing opportunities next year. our farmers need to know that they can depend on our decisions, so they can know that our water operations are likely to be consistent and secure. and what you're doing here is a very big thing. we have, in the last 40 years,
we've gone backwards. and your actions are changing that. and it's a big step forward. so thank you and thank you, mary. [ applause ] >> please, andrew wheeler. where is andrew? come on, andrew. >> thank you, mr. president. i'm pleased to be here today to celebrate yet another promise this president has fulfilled to update the nepa regulations. this year marks the 50th anniversary of both the epa and the nepa law. a lot has changed over the last 50 years and we've made tremendous progress in protecting both the environment and growing our economy. from 1970 to 2018, the emissions of the six contrary air pollutant have decreased by 74%, and all six have gone down during the trump administration. likewise on the water side, in 1970, over 40% of our nation's drinking water systems failed to
meet the epa standards. today, over 92% of all water systems meet the epa standards every single day. at the same time, our economy has grown by 275% with record breaking growth over the last three years. all of our major environmental statutes have been updated over the last 50 years and the regulations under those statutes, multiple times. the nepa regulations should have been updated and modernized decades ago. it is long overdue. we have had incredible advancements in environmental protection and the nepa process has not kept up to date. it is important to remember that nepa is mostly about process. today's changes will have no impact on the important safeguards of our nation's environmental statutes such as the clean air act, the clean water act, or the superfund process. the nepa process today is too bureaucratic and burdensome and has delayed important environmental projects.
the permitting process for a new drinking water plant, flood control project, or waste facility can take years if not decades. the nepa process today is more about preparing documents for litigation than protecting prot environment. nepa established a simple but important principle that the federal government considers the impact of its actions on the environment before committing resources. the nepa process has lost sight of that goal. over the years, step after step has been added to the nepa process creating a frankenstein regulatory regime. today's proposal would empower lead agencies to make executive decisions when more than one agency is involved in the process and will streamline the permitting process without compromising environmental protections. this streamlined approach to nepa will free up countless career employees to focus more of their time protecting the environment instead of protecting the jobs of attorneys who sue to stop each and every
project. nepa was not meant to be a welfare program for trial attorneys. i want to congratulate the president for his leadership and the council on environmental quality and sister agencies who put so much time in this proposal. this proposal is another bold stop to modernize the federal bureaucracy and the permitting programs for the benefit of all americans. thank you, mr. president. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. president. joe mcgraw, north american building trades. we are fully supportive of the president's initiative when it comes to nepa and permitting reform. few people in this country understand the archaic nature of our system the way the president does based on his background where we partnered with limb for years to try to build buildings and infrastructure in the united states. this proposal does nothing to take away from the protections for our citizens, for our
taxpayers, for our workers, or for our environment. so on behalf of our membership, we're fully supportive and look forward to the opportunities for thousand, hundreds of thousands, millions of people to go to work in the construction industry, once these reforms are fully in place. thank you, mr. president. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. president. america's cattle men and women are subject to need for review on a regular basis, whether renewing their grazing permit, applying for usda program, or improving their rangeland. and although well-intentioned, it's become mired in a complex web of litigation and complexity and delay. so these reforms are very exciting. they will streamline the process. reduce duplication. allow more local control. and let our cattlemen and our beef producers going back to what they do best, and that's raise high quality beef to feed the world. on behalf of the national cattlemen's beef association and
the public plans council, thank you mr. president, secretary burnhardt, collect chao, chairman neumayr, we appreciate all your work and remembering the cattle men and women in rural america and everything you do. thank you. [ applause ] >> and for the cattle men and cattle women, we're sign canning, as you know a very big deal among many other things, with china. probably january 15th. and we just signed a $40 billion deal with japan that has already kicked in. you see that. we did. south korea. we have others that we've done. and some that we're doing. tremendous trade deals being made. and they're actually good deals for our country instead of bad deal force our country. so it has been good. i'm going to ohio in a little while. we have crowds of people that for two and a half, three days have been standing out in the cold. i don't know how they do it. strong people. but they have been out there. and it's pretty much zero degrees, and it is a great state, and we have a tremendous
crowd. so i look forward to that. i'll be leaving in a little while. but we'll take a few questions. please. >> mr. president, you mentioned the chinese trade deal that you're working on and signing next week, phase one, can you give us a sense of phase two, what you hope to accomplish there and will you be traveling to beijing for that. >> phase one is a big, big number. it is a big percentage of the deal. some would say half. some would say a little less or a little more than half, but it is a tremendous percentage. it's pretty much all for the farmers. also bankers. we also have regulations for our, a lot of different, a lot of things are covered that people are going to be very surprised to see. but it is a big chunk of it. and we'll start right away negotiating phase two. it will take a little time. i think i might want to wait to finish it until after the election. because by doing that, i think we can actually make a little bit better deal. maybe a lot better deal. but phase one was, is a phenomenal deal. it could be up to $50 billion in farm products, so that's
something that, the most they ever did was 16 billion, so they go from 16 billion to up to 50 billion, so that's numerous times more than they were buying in the past. it's going to have a huge impact. and i see farm prices are going way up. i see corn has just had some big increases over the last little while. cattle has been doing really well. and the farmers like me anyway. that's what i like about the farmers. but you know what, i did do, and you know this better than anybody, i got, i was able, they were targeted, by china, china's negotiating, i don't blame them, but they were targeted, they say, you know, the farmers like trump so we'll target the farmers, and they did, and the first year, it was 12 billion, and i took 12 billion, i asked sonny perdue, secretary of agriculture, what do you think sonny, and he said it is 12 billion, and i think that would have caused tremendous consternation and they were hit for 12 billion and i took twelve billion out of the tariffs and we had tens of billions left over and i gave it to the
farmers and next year 16 billion, i took 16 billion oust tariffs and gave it to the farmers and so the farmer dispretty well and you in they're doing great and the prices are going up pretty substantially, and china is kicking in. china has been buying, japan, the deal has been done, a $40 billion deal but my question is the farmers will be able to supply that much, because it is the biggest contract ever signed so i think it will be great for the farmers but also great for regulatory, great for bank, great for finance companies, really a lot. and we will be covering the opening of china, and various other things in phase two. >> and on impeachment sir, would you support a deal for witnesses, if that included testimony from adam schiff and hunter biden. >> i'm going to leave it to the senate, but i would like to hear the whistle-blower. i would like to hear shifty schiff, i would like to hear hunter biden and joe biden. hunter biden with no experience whatsoever. would anybody, sean, would you
like the hunter biden experience, no experience, make nothing money and all of a sudden he is making millions and millions of dollars. would you take that, would you leave the union for that? i think so. i know so. but i'm not going to tell. no, i would like to hear from hunter biden. i would like to hear from, he's a corrupt politician, adam schiff, he's corrupt. he gave a sentence, he never knew i was going to release the transcript, he gave a sentence that he made up, he made it up, and it was not, it was not what was said in the conversation. that's why i released the transcript. got approval from ukraine. we released the exact transcript. and it turned out to be totally different. these are kruptd politicians. the whole thing is a hoax. but i would like to hear hunter biden, joe biden, adam shifty schiff, and some others. the informer that never showed up. once i released the transcript, you know what happened, the informer, he never showed up, and the second whistle-blower, john, whatever happened to the second whistle-blower? the second whistle-blower
disappeared. there probably was none or maybe we know who the second whistle-blower was, maybe we do but he never showed up. all of a sudden they don't talk. because this he were really unexpectedly met with the actual conversation, the exact conversation. so yes, if we do that, i would like to have those people. plus others testify. because it's the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the united states government. this has gone on since the day i came down the es clatder. this isn't just here. this isn't just the ukraine hoax. this is the witch hunt. this is the whole thing with russia. that turned out to be a total fabricated plot. the ones who were guilty are the democrats, the dnc, and all of the dirty cops that were involved, that we caught. yeah? >> mr. president, dur national security team really say that it would be wrong for congress to debate military action on iran? >> so here is what happened on that. i had calls from numerous senators, and numerous congressmen and women, saying it was the greatest presentation
they've ever had. mike and rand paul disagreed, because they want information that honesty i think is very hard to get. it's okay if the military wants to give it, but they didn't want to give it. and it really had to go do with sources and information that we had, that really should remain at a very high level. could we individually maybe give one or two of them some information, possibly, if we can do that, i get along great with mike lee, i have never seen him like that, but other people have called, and they've said, it was the best presentation they've ever seen. and let me tell you what was the best. forget about presentation. the result. we killed a man who killed many, many americans, and many, many people, thousands and thousands of people, and when i go over to walter reed and i meet these young incredible folks, mostly it just seems mostly men, but also women, where their legs are gone, their arms are gone, and some cases both the legs and the arms are gone and the face and
the body is badly damaged and frankly five years ago, they couldn't have lived, and today, they can live, because of the wonders of medicine and the wonders of walter reed and the people over there, the job they do, the medical doctors. but i will say this, we caught a total monster. we took him out. and that should have happened a long time ago. we did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy. we also did it for or reasons that were very obvious. somebody died. one of our military people died. people were badly wounded. just a week before. and we did it. and we had a shot at him. and i took it and that shot was pinpoint accurate. and that was the end of a monster. then, and that was really, that was the second attack, it was not, we didn't start it, they started it by killing one of our people and wounding badly other of our people. so that, you call retribution. ukraine, if you look at what happened with ukraine, that's a hoax, well this is a hoax, too. iran went in, and they hit us
with missiles. shouldn't have done that. but they hit us. fortunately, for them, nobody was hurt. nobody was killed. nothing happened. they landed, with very little damage even to the base. they landed. but we had a chance to take out a monster. we took him out. and it should have been a long time ago. >> congress, to take further military action against iran, would you seek congressional -- >> it would all depend on the circumstance. i don't have to and you shouldn't have to be able because you
have to make split second decisions sometime, you have to move very, very quickly john and in certain cases i wouldn't mind doing it. you know what bothers me, when i see nancy pelosi trying to this monster from iran, who killed so many people, so many people are walking along without legs without arms because he was the big roadside bomb guy, and they would send him to iraq, they
would send him to iraq, he was big, that was his favorite thing, he thought it was wonderful, he doesn't think
it is wonderful anymore. when nancy pelosi, the democrats want to defend him. i think that is a very bad thing for this country. i think that is a big losing argument politically, too. >> outside the jcpoa and also with total sanctions implemented, what's left? >> it's close to expiring. in other words, if i didn't terminate it, it expires in a very short period of time, one of the problems of which there was many, $150 billion, $1.8 billion in cash, all of that money, and then that money was used for terror, because if you look at iran, it wasn't so bad until they got all that money. they used that money for terror. that's when it became really bad. you just take a look. i mean it really got bad when they had $150 billion, $1.8 billion in cash, the j, the
agreement, i call it the iran nuclear deal that didn't work, the iran deal, it was just something that, that is no, is no good for our country. it expires in a short time. that means they would be on their path to nuclear weapons. and for me, it's about nuclear weapons. more than anything else. iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. iran will never have a nuclear weapon. they understand that. we have told them very strongly. iran now is not wealthy like it was when president obama handed him $150 billion. they're a much different country. we will see whether or not they want to negotiate. maybe they want to wait until after the election and negotiate with the weak democrats, somebody like a biden or a pocahontas, or buttigieg, or one of these characters, okay, maybe they want to wait, but i think they're probably well off doing it now, because if you look at the poll, and if you look at what's going on, we're doing very well. they're losing a tremendous
amount. they are getting hurt very badly by the sanctions. they're walking in very quickly, but as to whether or not they want, that's up to them. not up to me. it's totally up to them. they can straighten out their country. iran right now is a mess. they can straighten out the economics of their country very, very quickly. let's see whether or not they will do so. >> when should we expect to see sanctions on iran following the attacks. >> immediately. >> tomorrow? >> this week? >> we've increased them. they were very severe but it is not increased substantially. i just approved it a little while ago with treasury. >> and who will they be against and what sort of sanctions -- >> you'll see. we will put out a minor announcement. it is actually a major event. it is like this. to me, this is a major event and so far, i have no questions on the fact that we can build a highway on a small fraction of the time, that we can build all of these beautiful bridges that we want to build, but they can't get approval, i've had no questions on that.
are you chicagoe are, are you shocked? honestly, they should have some questions. >> the plane that went down what do you think happened to that plane? >> well, i have my suspicions. i don't want to say that. because other people have those suspicion, also. it's a tragic thing when i see that. it's a tragic thing. but somebody could have made a mistake on the other side. could have made a mistake. it was flying, it was flying in, not our system, it has nothing to do with us, it was flying at a pretty rough neighborhood, and somebody could have made a mistake. some people say it was mechanical. personally, i don't think that's even a question. personally. so we'll see what happens. >> [ inaudible question ] >> i don't know. i really don't know. that's up to them. at some point they will release the black box. ideally they'll get it to boeing
but if they gave it to france or some other country, that would be okay, too. i think ideally that will be released. i have a feeling that it's just some very terrible, something very terrible happened. very devastating. >> mr. president, the situation in venezuela has not gone as smoothly as some people or likely even yourself have hoped. were you prepared -- >> i have to say, venezuela hasn't gone smoothly since it became socialist or worse with that country so i never expected anything to go smoothly. we will see what happens with that country. when we say this country will never be a socialist nation. it was a great case. it was a wealthy country 15 years ago, 20 years ago. a really wealthy country. and now they don't have water, they don't have food. we're supplying a lot of food. we're supplying a lot of water. so no, it takes a period of time. it's been, you know, i've only been here a relatively short period of time. we will see what happens.
>> are you pleeprepared to -- >> we have a good strategy, we are helping people, taking care of people, columbia is helping, some of the nations surrounding are helping people, and i think we are doing a good job. they have a system right now that is very broken. we will see what happens. stay tuned. >> blowing up the embassy in baghdad, you can provide more details of what that was? >> i think it was obvious, if you look at this, this was the anti-benghazi, benghazi was a disaster, they showed up a long time after it took place, they saw burning embers from days before, and i said get out today, immediately. they were saying we think we can have them tomorrow, i said no, they got to go right now, and they were on their way, very quickly, and they got there, almost, i mean they got there quickly, they could have done that with benghazi, too, by the way, same thing. had they gotten there. had they done what i did, you wouldn't have had, you wouldn't know the name benghazi. it would not be a very famous name. now it is a very famous name. this is the anti-benghazi.
we got the apaches there very quickly, they were doing the flare, people didn't know what was happening. but if you look at those protesters, they were rough warriors, they weren't protesters, they were iranian backed, some were from iraq, but they were iranian-backed, absolutely, and they were looking to do damage, and they were breaking the window, and you know, those are very structurally sound windows as you know. and they were almost through, and had they gotten through, i believe we would have either had a hostage situation or we would have had a worse, we would have had a lot of people killed. those people are go were going to do very serious harm. they were soerlsd. they were warriors. and we stopped it. we stopped it. . that was a totally organized plot. and you know who organized it. that man right now is not around any longer. okay? he had more than that particular embassy in mind. >> do you have a problem with john bolton testifying? >> always got along with hem. he didn't get along with some of
our people but that is really up to the senate. >> will you stop it? >> i don't stop but i do have to, i would have to ask the lawyers because we do have to, to me, for the future, we have to protect presidential privilege. when we start allowing national security advisers to just go up and say whatever they want to say, we can't do that. so we have to protect presidential privilege. for me, but for future presidents, i would have no problem, other than we have protect, we have to be able to protect. people can't go up and say whatever my thoughts are, whatever your thoughts are, about us, countries, views, you don't want that to be out, we have to protect presidential privilege. >> you said yesterday you want nato to do more. can you be a little more -- >> yes -- >> have you gotten any indication from them. >> i spoke to them yesterday. i spoke to the secretary-jen yesterday and we had a great
conversation. he was very, i think he was actually excited about it. and i actually had a name. nato, right, and then you have me, middle east, nato-me. i said, i'm good at name, right, usmca, and ymca, and nobody could remember it, and i said think of the song, ymca, and they don't remember the previous name, nafta, previously known, but if you look at the middle east at the end of it, it's a big problem, and it is a source of problems nato-me, what do you think, and obviously he is not getting it, he is not smiling. he used to smile. before i ran, he was smiling. now he's not smiling. >> more nato personnel in the region? >> yes, to be honest with you, this is an international problem, and we can come home,
or largely come home, and use nato. this is an international problem. we caught isis. we did europe a big favor. we got 100% of the caliphate. thousands and thousands of isis fighters are killed. and thousands and thousands, tens of thousands are in prison right now. and europe doesn't want them. it's not right. they want to go to france. they want to go to germany. they want to go to u.k. they want to go to these countries where they came from. that's their home. the u.s. is not their home. they want to go. it's not fair that we're holding these people and that other countries aren't taking, because we're bearing the cost. so i think that nato should be expanded. and we should include the middle east. absolutely. and we pay for a big percentage of nato. and by the way, if you look at and speak to secretary general, who is doing a terrific job by the way, he will tell you that i raised $130 billion more than
they were getting, it was going down from past administrations, every single year, it was down to a very low number, i came in, i said you got to pay, folks, you got to pay, we're working with you, we are protecting you, we're a part of this, you got to pay, we don't want to be the fools like we have been for so many years, and we raised almost 130 billion almost immediately and had a meeting with all of the countries and i said you got to pay. i can imagine they don't like me as much as obama and other people, but hey, got to pay. we're protecting you. you got to pay. we got 130 billion more. more. 130 billion more. but my biggest fan in the whole world is secretary general stoltenberg, because he can't believe it and he now just announced $530 billion we've gotten under my watch, so we're in great shape with that whole situation. and i think nato should be helping us now with the middle east. having an international flavor there is good. plus you had a deal signed, with many of these countries, that
are in nato. so you know, the economic deal, with iran, so i have actually, i have actually said that i think the scope of nato should be increased. and they should be looking for isis, we'll help, but right now the burden's on us and that's not been fair, but we did a great job with isis. when i came in three years ago, isis was all over the place, it was a disaster, and now, isis is, the caliphate, 100% of the caliphate, is gone. 100%. and we have tens of thousands of prisoners, well, we have them in prison, but they should be taken, and europe should be helping with that burden. but i like the idea of nato expanding their views. >> the environment is something on the table, and what is your position on global warming? do you think it's a hoax? >>
no, nothing is a hoax about that.
very serious subject. i want clean air. i want clean water. i want the cleanest air. i want the cleanest water. the environment is very important to me.
somebody wrote a book that i'm an environmentalist that was called the environmentalist, actually before i did, this they wrote a book, i'd like to get, it i have it in the other office, i'll bring it to my next news conference, perhaps. i'm sure you will be thrilled to see it. i'm sure you will report all about it. i'm a big believer in that word. the environment. i'm a big believer. but i want clean air. i want clean water. and i also want jobs. i don't want to close up our industry because somebody said, you know, you have to go with wind or you have to go with something else that's not going to be able to have the capacity to do what we have to do. we have the best employment numbers we've ever had. we have the best unemployment numbers we've ever had. so that's very important. all right, one more. >> how much of your own money are you prepared to spend on your re-election? >> i literally haven't even, i spent a lot on the first one, and i said, i did the primaries and obviously that came out to
be very successful, and i have not thought about it. i will say this. because of the impeachment hoax, we're taking in numbers that nobody ever expected. you saw the kind of numbers we're reporting, we're blowing everybody away. nobody has ever taken in the money that we're taking in from the public, and it's good, because it is an investment they're making. they're making that investment. it's better than the big donors. we're taking in, we're taking in numbers that nobody has ever seen before. frankly. >> the voters in 2016, by saying you wouldn't take donor money. >> well, i don't know, i put in a lot, you know the number that i put in? you know the number i invested, i put in for the primaries and for the first election? do you know that number? >> we don't have that number. >> it's a big number. and i, to this day, say i wonder if it matters, because i never noticed, myself, getting any credit for that. i did. i spent a lot of my own money. tens of millions of dollars. times a lot.
but i spent a lot of my own money. and i always asked the question, i said i wonder if it was necessary. because i don't think anybody even knew that i was spending. it i had mentioned it every once in a while, but i don't know, for instance, i give up my salary $450,000, approximately 450,000, presidential salary, i give it up, it goes to, usually i give it to drug, i give some to elaine, sometimes for transportation, but everybody quarter, i think it is paid on a quarterly basis, i give up 100% of my sally ri that i make as president. i don't think anybody has written that story. you guys don't want to write that kind of a story. but that's okay with me. listen, i'm going to ohio, some of you are coming with me, we look forward to it. i want to congratulate all of you because i think this is going to make a tremendous difference in your unions and for your workers and for your investments and everything. this is going to a fantastic thing. we'll bring numbers down from 20 years to less than two, bring them down from ten years, i really think that you'll hit much less than two, even for major projects and i want to
thank everybody to be here. it's a great honor. thank you very much. thank you. [ applause ] >> president trump holds a keep america great campaign rally in toledo, ohio. watch live this evening at 7:00 eastern on c-span 2, online at c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app. senate republican leaders held a news conference on the u.s. mexico canada trade agreement. they said progress on the legislation largely depends on when house speaker nancy pelosi brings the articles of impeachment to the