Marshall Sanford

No. One, it's not believable given the degree to which the Trump administration last go round, over which I overlapped a couple of years, incessantly talked about the market and what it was doing next.

I think it's going to be disastrous. You know, people go down to the local bank because it sends signals that there's stability there. And what the president right now is doing both domestically and internationally, is sending a signal…

That which has traditionally worked in GOP politics isn't so much working these days. I've seen this erosion, you have too.

I would say, well, I'm for Trump in this area, but I'm against in these different areas. But people didn't want nuance. They want, are you for or against him?

It shows the danger of Donald Trump in my mind, because what it says is somebody as highly elected as Kevin McCarthy will twist himself in knots to stay relevant with the Trump base.

This is going to be a thankless job, for whoever gets it. I mean, you do not have a governing majority.

The conservative movement, in your view, you write, 'represented by the Republican Party had devolved into a lukewarm mess.'

The idea of Canada being a national security threat is something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in anybody's book.

We now have a Republican Party that is muted and silent on the issue of a bailout package which is what is being proposed in consequence to the tariffs that the administration itself imposed.

If this were a Democrat, if this were a President Obama or President Hillary Clinton, would there be more outrage by Republicans voiced? I assume the answer would be yes?

In a trust-based political system, the idea that you institutionalize lying is a real problem.

It's incredibly disturbing, because leaving the legal issues and the federal election issues and all the other issues that people have been talking about, I think in the last segment you pegged it, which is fundamentally what we have going…

Are we the party of Donald J. Trump or are we the party of the ideals of conservative philosophy, market principle, limited government that we've always been about for a long time?

Time will tell. I mean, that was the statement of my opponent last night. This is the party of Donald J. Trump and I could not more vigorously disagree.

It may have cost me an election in this case, but I stand by every one of those decisions to disagree with the president.

I thank Chairman Shuster for agreeing to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford). The amendment was agreed to…

This amendment is not only about being against a Soviet-style regime and the quotas and a variety of other things that come with it, but this amendment is, hopefully, about common sense. The one thing we don't want to subsidize are the…

I will take that as a yes, that Milton Friedman was right, that ultimately an important measure toward making government more efficient is, in fact, making it smaller.

Milton Friedman once observed that the only way to make government more efficient was to make it smaller.

Sailing straight into sovereign debt crisis is not pro-go strategy.

It's nefarious, it's awkward, it's unpleasant, it's unseemly, it's not something people feel that comfortable talking about, but frank, it's something we ought to talk about because it is a big deal.

If you look at your projections in 2012 on the ACA, it was not margin of error. It was just plain error.

Is it optimistic? Are we lulling ourselves to sleep based on forecasts that are relatively benign in what may prove not to be the case?

I think that is a really dangerous myth to perpetuate.