tv U.S. House of Representatives House Leaders on Next Weeks Schedule CSPAN September 13, 2019 7:59am-8:48am EDT
american history tv every weekend on c-span2. >> thursday as the house wrapped up its business for the week, house geordie whip steny hoyer of maryland and minority whip steve scalise talk about next week's schedule, the appropriations process and impeachment efforts. >> thank you, mister speaker. i would be happy to yield, and stuff for next week. >> help the gentleman for yielding. the speaker on tuesday, the house will meet at 12:00 for a morning debate and 2:00 pm for legislative business and with both postponed until 6:30 p.m.. wednesday and thursday next week the house will meet at 10:00 am for morning our the dates and 12:00 pm for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 :00 am for legislative
business, the last votes are expected no later than 3:00. we will consider several bills under suspension of, complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. the house will consider a clean continuing resolution to fund the government passed september 30th. .. appropriations -- sent 10 appropriation bills to the senate, funding 96% of the government, the first time that's been done in over three decades, i'm disappointed that the senate failed to pass a single appropriation bill. not one. not only that, they haven't filed any until just the other day. when we got back from the summer break. i'm disappointed that the senate failed to introduce a single appropriation bill for the first time in more than three decades. so that while we were very successful, the senate failed to so while we were very successful, the senate failed to move forward. therefore as wait for them to complete their work so we can
begin conference acculturation continuing resolution we will be necessary. l to prevent another government shutdown like the one we experienced earlier this year. in addition that will consider h.r. 1423 forced arbitration injustice repeal. call that their act. the legislation would eliminate forced arbitration in the employment, consumer and civil rights cases. so americans as have under the constitution would have the right to seek redress of grievances through the courts. this would restore access to justice for millions of americans who are currently locked out of the court system on our force to settle disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration. i yield back to my friend. >> thank the gentleman for yielding back. as a relates to the funding of
the government i know it's important that as we finally got an agreement a few months ago to come up with a two-year budget process where we agreed on numbers of funding come specially for the defense department which needs that certainty, they don't want the short-term cigars. they need longtime certainty say got an acquired the kind of equipment we need to keep our men and women in uniform safe to effectively do their job in a safe manner. one of things i would point out as nujoma joe talked about thia process that speak clear the house the house bills that were passed out partisan basis. the when a bipartisan agreements as you pass the bills out of the house. the senate does work differently. the senate has to have a 60-vote margin to get any bills moved and so they been in negotiations. to try to record get a partisan agreement but a bipartisan agreement and, unfortunately, so far they've had a lot of problems from some of the senate democrats who try to put partisan poison pills in those budget talks that would
ultimately not you something you can sign into law and would not comply with the two-year budget agreement that we reach. i would encourage both on our side there should have been are bipartisan agreement on the bills that are moved through and at least there are some talks going on but they haven't resulted in bipartisan legislation. that can get signed by the president. the senate needs to get same thing. now was a time we need to come together and agree on those things that we can put in the building and get signed into law, drop the sidekick of this poison pills that everybody knows will gum up the works. let's get the certainty we deserve for for a full budget process for the year. we are not there yet. if you're to do a short-termha budget agreement or short-term cr then that's one thing that we may consider next week. we have seen the final details of course no poison pills attached to it, but hopefully
that yields talks that are truly bipartisan. happen unfortunately seen to this point.yo i hope we get beat on that next week and give us more time to a real negotiations that canea result in something that can get signed into law and give certainty to our men and women in uniform andci all the other agencies that rely on us doing that work in a bipartisan basis. i would like to shift gears and ask a gentleman about that united states-mexico-canada agreement. i would yield back. >> thank the general and for yielding. the senate need 60 votes. i didn't introduce a bill. not a single appropriation bill was introduced. you had the same 60-vote requirement last year, and they passed a lot of bills last year.
the reason they didn't pass bills that because the president of the united states wouldn't come to the table and agree on caps. so the could of done the same thing we did. and independent branch of government. we are the article one branch of government. we appropriate money.pr we spend money, but the senate has not done its work. and if you brought the bills to the floor and you could get 60 votes, we get it. i will tell my friends that there's great frustration. we, for the first time, since you been a member of the congress, passed 96% of the funding for the government by june 30. otherwise known as three full months before the end of the
fiscal year, giving the senate a lot of time. but no, we had to wait and wait and wait until the president sit down with sector miniature number filing made an agreement on 302b. excuse me a period in other words, the caps. what we're going to spend. so with all due respect to all this talk about bipartisanship and we need to work together, that's of course true. it was not true in the congresses when your party within the majority. you passed partisan bills. they went over to the senate. the senate didn't take them and we went back and forth. there's been no back and forth. we did our work. and although you disagreed with the numbers, publicly, privately very frankly a lot of your members still admit the numbers were pretty good numbers and they liked them. including defense. and we passed a defense bill with a substantial increase for
our troops and for our readiness, , and for operations and for training. and i say that, mr. whip, not to criticize you, that you simply say all this verbiage about the nice to get together and do things, the regular order is we pass bills. the senate passes bills. and then you have a conference. unfortunately, we've gotten away from that which i think is very bad for the house, the senate, and for the american people. and we cannot go to conference if the senate doesn't even pass a bill, doesn't even introduced a bill, waiting on the president of the united states to say, simon says. we can't get a bill supported by
90% of the american people. conference of background checks which 90%, a majority of your party, a majority of my party, a majority of independence thinks it makes commonts sense. we passed it in february, and we can even have it on the floor in the united states. so not only on the net to appropriation bills but they're not doing any of the bills either jerk they spent all the time on judges. so we are a little frustrating on this site because we've done our work. 96% w of government was funded, yes, they could of been differences of opinion, and they should've pass bills and said no but don't agree with this. now, the the problem they would've had, my friend, i tell mr. speaker, my friend, that they didn't want to bipartisan
bills. because yes, it would have required them to get 60 votes. and they didn't want to make the compromises necessary to get 60 votes. and so we are here, just a little more than 15 15 days bee the end of the fiscal year and the senate has not passed a single bill while we have funded 96% of of the bills. this cr is necessary. nobody wants to shut down government, i hope. hopefully, the seer will not have anything that either party will disagree with, no extensive things that need to be extended the cousin we have an active fund in a timely fashion. but i'm hopeful that the cr will get to thel senate, past the c, no drama. and then as a gentleman suggests, and i agree with him, sit down in a bipartisan way, try to reach an agreement on each one of the 12 appropriation bills and either put them
separately or in a minibus or omnibus, pass them to fund the government. and not have whatbu we had last year, into the first, part of 2017, a shutdown of the government of the united states. that wasr not good for the peou of our country, not good for government employees and not good for the congress of the united states being unable to do its work resulting in shutdown of the government. i proceeded -- you can't do things and of operas away if they don't come to the floor. and if you don't have that votes as a leader does not 60 votes then he needs to reach a compromise because we need to get our business done. we passed all of our bills. some were not partisan and i think in many ways, but there
was a termination not to vote for them because we had not reached the caps number. i think that was unfortunate because i think as someone who served on the committee forse 23 years, mr. speaker, we passed our bills in many, many instances, , both instances and about personn fashion. so i yield back to my friend but i did want to make the comet, not to go un-responded to in terms of the senates refusal, and willingness to act and do its business. you are, not a single bill, not one has been passed through the committee. you have the majority on the committee, your party. at least you could report by committee and working getting 60 votes. mr.ri speaker, i yield back to y friend. >> thank the gentleman for yielding back and/or number of items you brought up. i'll start with the government shutdown at you refer to last
year because when we were in the majority last year, we actually passed bipartisan bills to fund over 70% of the government prior to october 1.en no shutdown, more than 70% ofe the company that we worked with democrats and president trumpeto get an agreement on including defense. men and women in uniform did not have that uncertainty, andd a full year of funding. all that was worked out and clearly met a different of agreement over the homeland security department because of funding for border security. and the government shutdown was clearly over whether or not we s were going to have a secure border in the things involved including physical barriers. and we resulted in the president was able to get over $4.5 $4.5 billion of new money to continue putting that physical security in place to secure our nations border. that took us a few more months but we resulted. but keep in mind over 70, 70% of the company was t wholly funded prior to the end of the fiscal
year working with republicans and democrats in the house and senate. as you brag about passing over 96% of the bills out of the house, it's got to be noted that you didn't work with republicans to do it. the easy things to say we will talk amongst ourselves knowing it will never get signed into law. of course a partisan bill is awkward to get signed into law when you have a president of a idfferent party come when you senate controlled by different party.y. so the senate work strictly than us. we can have that debate for another day. we would probably both agree on a lot of the differences we have without the senate operates but because of their six vote requirement, they know nothing is going to pass unless they wve republican or democrat agreement in there in those negotiations. but let's be clear about what's bottling up those negotiations. there are senate democrats in your own leadership on the democrat side that are offering up things that everybody knows our poison pills that would not get signed into law, and so they are at an impasse. they need to break the impasse.
that's the issue but you could talk to some of the senate democrats that are kind offer up things that everybody knows will not happen become law or passed over there. but both sides need tot come together. when you pass in ndaa bill, the gentleman from marilyn knows this, and national defense authorization act is a bill, republican, democrat controlled house and who's been in charge. we have always come together. always, every single year that we moved in ndaa it's been bipartisan. this is a first year you all broke from that. he passed a a partisan bill onil defense knowing it was never going to become law. but not worked with democrats and breaking the tradition that every year we have followed thaa republicans and democrats will come together and safe with all these other differences. there are a lot of differences we have that we need to work through and we might get some, we might not get others but we put defense on the site and said this is one where we will come together, republicans and democrats.
every year we did it including last year when we were in the majority. this year y'all did not pick yo, broke that tradition. it's unfortunate it is again that will never become law. you can brag you got it done but you get something done that will never get signed into law in broke a tradition we've always had the fat bill is bipartisan, making sure that we work together to take care of her men and women in uniform in in a wy that they deserve, and a timely way. i hope we would get those things done before october 1 but we all know what came out of his house will not be a final product. let's work better to get these addressed. working with members of both parties and the president who by the wicked agree with us on the numbers. we are in agreement. the house and senate and white house have finally agreed on the numbers. so now it's up to us in thein congress to come to an agreement. it's not just hey, we passed by the with just our members of our party. it's going s.b. people work otogether through those differences like we done in the
past. sometimes we disagreed 70% government was founded last year. prior to october 1. we ultimately got agreement on the rest. if the gentleman has anything elsees to say speedy with the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> they get. >> -- i yield. >> mr. speaker, the defense bili passed this house with almost every republican voting against it. it was a bill the provided $733 billion. i figure that the joint chiefs of staff suggested, publicly. it was a figure that i know personally was a figure that was deemed acceptable by the leadership of the authorizing
committee and the appropriating committee on the republican side. the rhetoric was totally partisan. we have now made a deal and we are not going to save defense because we did 5 billion more. the figure last year of course the summer around 700. a little over. so i will tell my friend, we believeis on our side of the aie that the opposition to the defense bill was totally partisan. no attempt at bipartisanship. and yes, you at some success in getting bipartisan bills through. why likes because we were prepared to vote in a bipartisan
way. that's the difference. we were prepared to vote in a bipartisan way. we were prepared to accept you were the majority. mr. speaker, we understand when you're in the minority you work to get the best objective you think is possible, and we did that, and the gentleman, mr. speaker, says they got bipartisan bills done because democrat voted for them, including myself. but i know the number was an acceptable number and it was a number suggested by the joint chiefs of staff. yet, we heard rhetoric after rhetoric of how this was letting down the defense department. so what did they do? they made a deal. not 733. 738, my goodness. what an extraordinary differenc
difference. and they voted against funding them in a women in uniform, funding operations, funding overseas contingencies. so i hope that, want to get office. ifif you want to talk bipartisa, act bipartisan, mr. speaker. that's what, you know, talk is cheap. and it was clear that democrats, in fact, when the republicans were in the majority, did, in fact, vote on a number of occasions. not every occasion for bipartisanship. but you can't have bipartisanship if you don't introduce a bill. and, mr. speaker, the republicans have the majority in the united states senate on the
committee. they don't need 60 votes in committee. they don't need 60%. they don't need two-thirds. all they need is i a a simple majority to passma the bill outf committee. and as the gentleman pointed out when he said we did find some pieces of government before. as we got bipartisan agreement. and i have never seen him as i say, in three decades the senate failed to even introduce an appropriations bill prior to the end of july. i hope the senate will move with some degree of alacrity. i hope that we'll get to agreement on these 12 bills. i hope we will fund government and not have shut down as we had last time, first time it's ever happened in a new congress where the government which shut down. all over the wall. which a number of republicans had
said is not a useful thing to do. i won't name them. i'm sure they come my noted whip, the republican whip knows a lot of them. they serve in this body. some are chairman of the committees over there now. so i'm hopeful we will look together on the appropriation process into a business can do it on time as we've done in-house so the american people can be welll served and i yield back to my print. >> thanks for yielding back. let's be clear on the funding of government. from last you we did fund over 70% of the government and we didn't play partisan gain with our nations defense. talk about what -- >> with a gentleman yield? >> let me make this point because you make some points that are not completely accurate. the number we agreed upon but it is okay, , we agree on a certain spending level, that's one part of the debate but if you then go put policies in the bill at that
level that undermined that on our beliefs, what's best for national defense but for the present needs to do to go to his job to secure our border. you didg that in the bill knowg that would make it partisan. it was a part of -- bipartisan bill and you have provisions like things that would undermine security billy to secure america's border in that bill knowing it was partisan. if you took that out you know when you been up a person feel it in. that's a pattern we've seen from speaker pelosi's majority this year. we had a bill and energy and commerce committee to lower drug prices, major problem in this country. republicans and democrats worked for months and came up with a bill in the committee of jurisdiction to solve the problem and/or drug prices do you know what happened? it was a unanimous vote. unanimous. vote. people look at the congress going wow, here in between 19 on a major issue like lowering drug prices republicans and democrats can together and figured out a
way to lower drug prices and the vote was unanimous. you would figure we put that on suspension the next day to pass up so we could get it signed on the president as soon as possible and lower drug prices as soon as possible. and you know what happened? it just happened a few months ago. as the bill came out of committee unanimously to lower drug prices, the speaker made a decision that she was going to put a poison pill and it after it came out of committee report is voted on on house floor knowing what that would do. and immediately became a partisan bill because you put something in that you knew was not going to get republican support. and so the bill passed out of the house and you can brag he passed it but it's not going to go anywhere. it will not become law but we had a bill that was unanimous out of committee to lower drug prices. it would be signed intoig law today if you would not have done that. if you want to play political games and it's happen over and over here and so you can talk about what you passed that
windows a bill that was unanimous out of themm committee of jurisdiction, where doctors, people and healthcare profession, people in business, people on both sides of the aisle that know this issue figured out a way to put all of the differences aside and passyo the bill to lower drug prices and you had to make that partisan after came out of committee unanimously. that's what's been done over and over, that undermines the ability for us to get a job done. it could be signed by the president today and we get all hail that as a major accomplishment. that's just one example and it's happen over and over again and it should happen that way. yes, we need to move this process along that we move along by working together to defense could of been done in a bipartisan way. the things that were added in that you knew would make it partisan shouldn't have been put in the field andit it never happened that way before, ever. we have always passed a bipartisan ndaa bill through the house and this washe the first year it didn't happen. drug pricing could be solved but
if hassan happened yet. it should happen if i hope we get it done but it shouldn't have been done in a partisan way when the committee figured out a way to do it unanimously. and i would yield. >> i'm not going to get into, we can discuss all sorts of bills but we're discussing appropriations process and the gentleman express how they were able to pass 70% of funding of government because they had the fence bill and the labor bill which of the two because bills passed and signed byby the president. why was able to do t that, mr. speaker? -- why were they able to do that -- because democrats acted in a bipartisan way to affect that and.is this year we that no opportunity to do that. we had no opportunity conference on our bills. republican elites the senate. if you can't get 60 votes, yes,
you would have to compromise in the senate. you didn't compromise when you were in charge, frankly, i'm off lot of things that close rules more than any of the congress so we didn't have an opportunity to amend. but that aside, when you claim that you passed those bills you did and the only reason you could do it is because the democrats acted in a bipartisan fashion because you did not have the votes to pass them on your own, you needed democratic votes. democrats gave you those votes because we knew that in order to get things done you had to move it in a bipartisan fashion. that's the only way you able to do it. we have not been given the opportunity in the united states senate because there are no bills to consider, except for the last three days the bills came forward. but for the first nine months of the year, no bills came forward, mr. speaker,. not one.
i yield. >> thank the gentleman for you and i would hope the standard of them both sides of the aisle as they are having negotiations, they are negotiating and there are senators that know the some of the provisions that they are insisting upon our things that will not become law because it undermines our nation security. and yet they keep insisting and so they're not at an agreement. but the need to keep working just like we need to work in ia bipartisan way on this issue. it will get resolved if we do that.ok again, i think you take a look at the example of what the house energy and commerce committee did on lowering drug prices, it's a great model to follow. that bill should've been brought to the floor.. that bill should not have been changed by the speaker of the last man to become partisan and now it's not law. i'd like to move on to something that's been troubling that we've been seeing outen of the judiciy committee, and that is thisth drumbeat towards impeachment. it seems like there is an infatuationat by this majority o
impeach the president of the united states, whether or not the facts are there. and so there was the mueller report that went on for years and all of these members, chairman's opinion on committees thank there was evidence they had and is going to show the president included here and there, then it turned out to be false. there was no collusion. we know that. s the reports show that. russia tried to interfere with our elections when barack obama wase president. maybe they should be investigating why he didn't do more to stop the russians from trying to interfere with our elections, that there was no collusion. so instead of saying okay,, e at's it, moving on. ask the american people like to see us do, maybe that committee that has jurisdiction over the border, over immigration law that esters problems that should be worked out in a bipartisan way could be worked out in a bipartisan way, but it's not because the committee of jurisdiction is infatuated with impeaching the president. in fact, the chairman of the
committee said today this is formal impeachment proceedings. the chairman of the committee said that today. ask their having a hearing on impeaching the president without any evidence to impeaching. there is nothing to impeach him on.ch they have articles of impeachment drawn upaw with blas that they're just looking around fill in on this witch hunt and they'll just looked and looked and looked. imagine some is that we will targetai a person and will try o indict him. we don't do anything to indict him on over going to write up an indictment in a look around and hope to find something. that's what's going on in the judiciary committee. so they had tos shooting today. they change the rules. they had this big drama. the media is all covering it. the chairman says this is formal impeachment proceedings. if you look at the rules been brought forward, the rules they brought forward allow the children to do things he can already do. it was a farce. it was a farce to try to appease the radical left basal wants to
impeach the president even though there's nothing to impeach him on. instead of just giving it up and focusing on their job, the things i should be focused on, they're just going to keep meandering around on this witch hunt. i know something a majority, may be it with leader himself, are trying to distance themselves from it because they know the american people thinks it's lunacy to be wasting time trying to impeach the president even though there's nothing to impeaching on. and just driving around on a witch hunt. and so i guess the real questiou is, if the chairman of the committee, your chairman today said this is formal impeachment proceedings, he talked about hopefully i the end of the year they will vote on articles of impeachment. hopefully by the end of the year. there's nothing to impeach them on and get they're going to actually go out on a witch hunt and say we're going to look for something and by thein interview we hope to impeach the president. y'all bringing articles of impeachment to the floor? is the chairman wifely going to
an impeachment road? and what exactly are those articles? what are the articles of impeachment if the committee today, your chairman of your committee said this is formal impeachment proceedings. what exactly is the adjustment plan on impeaching the president of the united states on, and are unity brings those articles of impeachment out of committee, blanks that haven't even been filled in, if they bring into the floor, or they move them out of committee by the end of the year as the chairman hopes, is the gentleman prepared to bring that to the floor of the uniteds states house of representatives? i would yield. >> the chairman of the committee spoke about the process. their process has been a fact-finding process. that is our responsibility as a congress. that is his responsibility in the committees responsibility as a committee.
the majority party claims that they have an agenda for the people, andfo the people believu we ought to exercise our responsibility. that's what the committee is doing. i do not want to anticipate what the committees find is ultimately know what the committees actions will finally be. we will wait to see. but it is exercising responsibility as a coequal branch of government as provided in the constitution i'm not going again to the arguments about, mr. speaker, the premises in the mueller report. other than to say i disagree with the characterization made by the republican whip. that would be for another day te argue that. but the committee is doing its duty and it will continue to do so. and if it decides that requires
further action, my presumption is it will pursue that as well. go i yield back. >> i think the gentleman for you link but it don't think the question has been answered. the gentleman says the committee has responsibility and i agree that the committee has a responsibility to be responsibl responsible, and it's highly irresponsible. it's reckless and dangerous for the committee to start impeachment proceedings when there's nothing to impeach the president on. we were in the majority when the president of the united states was somebody we had a lot of disagreements with. we never filed articles of impeachment or talk about impeaching the president because there was nothing to impeach the president on. we never did that. we might've disagreed with him on a lot of things but there were no committee hearings of the chairman said quote this is formal impeachment proceeding.
with nothing to impeach the president on. if you do something years down the road when he gets reelected, this is not the time to go and try to harass the president when there's nothing that you have found, and you looked. there's been this witch hunt going on for years. it didn't yield what you're hoping for to yield. we all should have plotted when the mueller report said that there was no collusion. but instead of closing out, there's still i guesse he says y the interview he wants to move articles of impeachment. i guess that means they drafted it up and hoping to find something to fill in the blanks. but that's irresponsible of that committee to be moving down a course of impeachment when there's nothing to impeach the president on. and especially when there's so much of the work that needs to be done by that committee. we have a border that's out of control right now. thousands of people coming across every day. good thing the president of the
trent as actual work and agreement with mexico. the president was able to achieve that recently with the mexican president said he'sin going to start putting thousands of troops at the mexican southern border. and you know what it's starting to yield results that we still have human trafficking, across our border. we still drugs coming across our border and there's been a request made to get more funding to secure that border, to put that bulge in place, to put tools in place so our border patrol agents can do their job, securing america's border and that's the committee of jurisdiction. they are filing articles of impeachment or hoping to move articles of impeachment in the next three months at is not even anything filled and becauseis there's nothing the present hasa done to be impeached upon. this is a serious responsibility the committee has and yet they're acting in such a reckless fashion just to appease the radical left base wants to impeach the president even though there's nothing to
impeach them on. but everybody else in america says do your job and focus of the things that are in front of you andis drop this daily harassment and drumbeat of impeachment and witch hunt. it's time on into the work of the committee instead of focusing on impeaching the president even though there's nothing to be to jim on. there's something to show us what it is. but to recklessly talked an open hearing that the going to impeach the president and the move articles of impeachment to this house house floor by the f this year? on what? this has to end. we've got to focus on the things that actually need to be fixed by that committee and this congress and drop this witch hunt. and look, at some point your side skynet to figure out which way they wantch to go. because some people in your radical base my want to impeachment matter what but everybody else knows it's the wrong thing to do. nobody else knows it's irresponsible for the committee to act that way.
and i would hope that y'all would make the right decision and saysa we're going to move forward on the things that need to be addressed by the committee. if the something that comes up, sure, the go look at it but there's not anything. and if the was they would've filed it over to. but you sayo it will file it evn if there's nothing, that is dangerous, reckless and irresponsible. and i would yield back. >> i think the gentleman for yelling. i didn't want to get its debate. i don't want to prolong it, but it do not want the premises articulated by the whip, mr. speaker, to stand on objected to. in my view, mr. speaker, the mueller report is replete with instances of cooperation by members of the trump team with the russians, page after page
after page. as a matter fact, one of them was page, of collusion. now, collusion is not a legal definition. conspiracy is the legalfi definition, and mr. mueller said we didn't look at collusion because it was not a legal premise. and, in fact, mr. mueller made it very clear that the reason they did not find criminal wrongdoing was because they believed under justice department rules a president cannot be indicted during the course of his term. they did not absolve him. and so whether it was obstruction of justice, using a foreign government who is essentially not our ally, not
our friend, meeting with putin secretly and not allowing the american people or the congress to know what was said, my friends premise that there is no smoke, no fire, is wrong. and very frank a summer to assert here a long time and who is seen some of the most irresponsible attacks on the president during there obama administration, hearings over and over and over again, a tragedy in benghazi, seven hearings, seven hearings all concluded nothing there. so they had an eighth hearing. talks about the judiciary. eight hearings on benghazi -- four lives lost tragically.
with an attempt over and over and over and over again to be made a political issue. the eighth committee found nothing there either. so when i hear this wringing of hands, mr. speaker, i'm notnd impressed. i've been here a long time. i've seen irresponsible action. and the american people has see seen. and so the judiciary committee is doing what it is pledged to do when they all raised their hands to defend and support the constitution of the united states of america. the president would like us to think everything is fake news. now, you have used the fake news
yet, but the witch hunt. poor me. i'm the victim of all this. when daily, the president says things that are demonstrably not true. so, mr. speaker, the judiciary committee will continue to pursue its duties as it needs to do. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. and if you talk about benghazi, there are a lot of skus questions that have not been answered yet. eight. >> -- >> eight hearings. >> to investigate why those deaths happen that should not have -- >> all found nothing happened. although nothing happened. >> was unwanted what happened. fast and furious. a lot of questions raised. the were multiple times with the president took action, werewh
ultimately he was found to be out of compliance with the law. reports -- courts reverse what the president did. we never meant to articles of impeachment. that doesn't want high crimes and misdemeanors but surely we does it those things and in most cases it turned out we were right with benghazi this questions still have been answered about whyth they died d shouldn't have because everybody knew -- >> eight hearings found nothingg there. >> found nothing there? found out speedy all led by republicans. >> americans died when he was known that was dangerous where they were. why? why weren't planes circled? you could afloat get over there in 15 minutes to scare with the people that were attacking that embassy and killing americans. but we looked into it and it, it raised a lot -- >> eight time to look into it. >> and maybe it should have been more. looking into why those americans died. so that it doesn't happen again. like that that shouldn't have happened.
we shouldsh find out why, what went wrong. why did people miss telltale signs andns let those people die who shouldn't have died? yes, those hearings were wanted that we never found articles of impeachment. we never said we were going to move to impeach and now let's go figure something out, see if we can find something. even if we don'tn' find somethig we're still going to do it. that's reckless. that's reckless. they took an oath absolutely like all of us to uphold the constitution and protect this country and we have a board that is not secure. with thousands of people coming over every single day including people were bringing drugs, trafficking humans, young kids that are being abused or will know what's happening and that's the committee of jurisdiction. they are ignoring it. they haven't produced a single bill to go and solve the problem. aree they okay with what's going on at the border? they don't think that legislation is warranted to address it, to close the asylum loophole that would knows is a
magnet that spring people over illegally. comic to other countries are offering the asylum to coming illegally. we don't't want to fix that problem because the committee is focused on impeachment.is so we will see what they do but the american people are watching, too. the american people are tired of this kind of games every single day focusing their energies and taxpayer dollars on attacking the president, on attacking his family, on attacking his cabinet members. people are did business deals with them 20 years ago that are getting subpoenaed. that is nothing to do with his presidency just because you want sito rest the president becausee don't like the fact he was duly elected.el in 2016. do you know what? the american people did duly-elected president and his doing his job and is getting at his mission despite all of that. but shame on the committee for continue to abuse their power by going after something whether it's there or not. every prosecutor knows you don't try to go find something on somebody pick you shouldhi follw the facts and the facts to leau to a dead income then you end
picky don't keep looking, it's not there. but they want to keep doing it. and abusing their power. but there's accountability that happens, too, and that's why we have elections. so if that's with the committee wants to do, and if that's what the leadership of this house democrat conference wants to do, people are watching. i want to talk about one final thing, , and that's using ca, an opportunity for us to get something big ten for this country. i had a meeting yesterday with ambassador lighthizer, , the tre reps to who i know has been meeting with speaker pelosi and her team in fact, a few weeks t ago the speaker to her working group, portrayed working group on usmca, sent to ambassador areas that they would like addressed in the usmca trade agreement, and understand that
last night ambassador lighthizer sent a reply, including things that he's worked with the democrat majority on to try to address some of those issues and ultimately get this done. and i say this in the most sincere way. i really do think usmca is something we can do together, that we can get an agreement with our friends from the north and south, canada and mexico have both come to the table and agreed to make nafta work better for american workers come for american industries, are dairy farmers that can't sell the products anticandida right now that we'll be able to better open markets, better working conditions. clearly won't want to make sure there's enforcement and i know that is being worked through. but at the end of a everyday we wait w on more jobs that were missing out on creating for our economy. and so i know that there's still the opportunity to get this done maybe in the next few weeks. we have a with team that's been
put in place specifically for usmca and another a lot of democrats that been working as well with ambassador lighthizer to try to get this done and i would ask the gentleman if he has any idea of where the process is on your side if there's any idea of a timeline to finally bring this to pass this important agreement that would send the message not only to our friends from the north and south, canada and mexico, but our friends speedy the u.s. house returns on tuesday for legislative work. live coverage as always is on c-span. this news conference by the way, you can follow online at c-span.org. we will. we will take you live to baltimore with the house republicans are holding the retreat, second day of the retreat news conference here with republican leadership. >> in terms of what we're doing in a retreat. we had a great evening last night with president trump, and i think you really saw the contrast in