tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 29, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
the atrocities are committed by isil. held populations hostage. committing incredible atrocities against sunnis. wheret retook on province, it massacred hundreds of people from a tribe in the valley. we have to make sure that when security operations come to liberate areas from my soul that these lawless groups of the operation. as we mentioned, in the early days of the falluja we had serious problems. bey turned out to not credible but some do appear to be credible. a special representative to the u.n. testified last week, particularly about the measures now in place to mitigate the risks. one thing that happens when you liberate a territory and civilians come out is to screen to make sure i sold have not
population.the there is a local official part of that process every step of the way and that is something the local leaders of anbar insisted on. on how to do the muscle campaign, we have to make sure these types of events do not occur in most soul and that all the forces that take part in the muscle campaign are operating strictly on the part of the security. the government of iraq is a real partner in this. atrocities were a tarnish on the government, the iraqi security forces, and that is something the prime minister recognizes. >> did they agree falluja was a mistake? >> certainly. in the first 24 hours of the offensive movement into the city in which we had the reports, it was top to bottom voices in iraq. people to the
government, the minister of defense and announced the arrest of some of the members of the iraqi army involved in the abuse. they have to remain vigilant. when you have a lot of young people out on the streets with guns, it is impossible to mitigate the risk of anything happening. when you see something like you saw in the early days of falluja -- >> how may people of been punished for what happened in falluja? >> i think about four or five members of the iraqi army have been detained and some members of the -- has notnvestigation been concluded. we are saying repeatedly people have to be accountable when reports of found to be credible. so, what is the answer to why
were the shia militia allowed to be put in those positions where they can commit those kinds of atrocities? when answered you get from the government? mr. mcgurk: there is one unit of the mobilization forces on the shia side operating totally outside the law in some of the suburbs of falluja. i can't say specifically why soi can't say specifically why , that unit was there that the government has taken measures to make sure it is addressed. senator markey: i know my time is going to run out, but i guess what i was going to say was if those five individuals and more are not punished in a way that is public and clear, then there will be no discouragement in the other cities. i think that is sure could -- i
think that is your key political job. is to make sure that punishment happens so that other militias will not do it. on the just get a slap wrist, at the end of the day they just create a political control and conundrum. at the end of the day, in the years of the head we do not want to have to revisit this thing. is that a goal that you have? mr. mcgurk: accountability is fundamental. senator markey: accountability can be just saying don't do it again. mr. mcgurk: they have to have a process and a have to be punished when violations occur. senator murphy: i know we consider mr. mcgurk to be a global citizen, but he's a graduate of connecticut and is -- has overcome the rivalry.
let me try to recover from that. thank you for being here, mr. mcgurk, and thank you for taking on what is frankly a nightmare of a job trying to manage this crisis and coalition and we are lucky to have you at the helm. in response to a question from senator corker earlier, you were talking about some of our coalition partners not being as involved as we would like, especially with the air campaign. i want to ask you a question relative to the reason members of the coalition are not participating at the level we would expect. when i was in abu dhabi at the
and of last year, i went to get relief from the ministry of defense and i was there to oversee our counter isis campaign. knowing i was there to talk about the coalition fight against isil was the threat from iran and the entire brief was about the work the uae and other coalition members are doing to counter the expansion of iranian influence and, from what i understand, their focus on yemen has been one of the primary reasons why they have been less participatory in the campaign against isil. speak to the worry some of us have that this concentration of focus we have has quite frankly distracted resources from members of the coalition that we would like to be used in the fight against isil. many of us, it appears we have facilitated that withdrawal by assisting their air campaign, so talk about the intersection of those two conflicts and how we get our partners to focus first on isil. >> there's no question the conflict in yemen has pulled resources away from what was a real focus on the counter isil campaign. that's one of the reasons we've tried to establish a particle process to end the conflict in
yemen. when the saudi's ca threat on the board, they have to act, and a been one of our closest partners militarily and have maintained a strong participation in the counter isil campaign. we believe the primary focus is on isil and is a threat not only to us but to the kingdom of saudi arabia. where we are right now, in the war in yemen, to focus on the counter isil campaign. as these multiple conflicts have been going on, it has reduced the resources we have been able to focus over the skies of syria. we have had coalition partners extend their strikes into syria. as was the most kinetic phase of the campaign to date. 70% of the planes are dropping their munitions. we have more partners on the ground fighting and that rings us to the key point we are raising. we need more key points in the sky as we consider you -- as we continue to accelerate. senator murphy: there's been several reports of groups within the rebel coalition fighting each other and some of this is relative to groups that are
backed covertly by the united states and i understand the limitations on how much you can talk about that. for many of us, our reluctance to arm and train groups inside the fight is because we been -- we have a belief that we are in the second order of fighting. the second order is the part of the war in which isis has joined but there are third, fourth, fifth orders that may involve groups that may have been funded by the united states funding each other as the battlefield shrinks and perhaps we make progress against some of the groups that provide a buffer between organizations funded by the united states. we need more resources in the
skies. i am hopeful that as the yemen political moves forward, and we all hope and does, we will have more capacity to bear against isil. >> second question, a number of reports over the last month or so about groups within the rebel coalition fighting each other and some of this is relative to groups that are backed covertly by the united states. talk about that. recent reports about conflicts between the fsa and the white pg. -- white pg. for many of us, the reluctance to harm a and train groups is because we have a believe we are in the second order of fighting today. the first order was the fight between the rebels and a sod. the second is the war in which isis has joined that then there
are third and fourth and fifth orders which may involve groups funded by the united states funding each other as the bountiful drinks and we make progress against some of the against those that fund against the united states. spring to the fear that ultimately groups armed today by the united states to maybe fighting the same enemy may ultimately be fighting each other. if we are successful to downgrade the power of some of these existing groups. tracks a senator, we are successful at tamping down the locally based conflicts where we have relationships and a presence on the ground. in iraq, we have had problems. the different groups in anbar province and soon i. where we have -- and sunni. where we have relations, we can
tamp it down. nothe serious side, we do have anybody on the ground. sometimes it is difficult to tell them what is happening. we rely on people telling us what they think is happening. our ability to temp down localized x escalation is not what i wish it was. in eastern syria, where we do have platforms, we are developing a relationship based that has been very effective and we hope we can build upon in this northwest part of the country where we have these localized competitions between different groups we support that we can work locally to deescalate that. i have to be honest, without people on the ground working the problems it is very hard. remoteard to do it by control. and iraq, we have people on the ground. onean work to tamp down
thing's flareup. we have close relationships. we recognize we need and the air force to move in iraq and not just the kurds. we are recruiting arabs by the thousands now. and northwest syria, it is incredibly difficult and it is one of my frustrations. >> you have identified the gordian knot we all have to deal with. you are same without war, without presence on the ground of americans, we risk local conflicts becoming more heated and problematic and of course many of us know the risks with theing more u.s. forces on ground. this is a tough one to figure our way out of the hand part of the reason the im glad you have taken up this assignment. thank you mr. chairman. >> i will be very brief. about therlier talks foundation of what we were doing. i know you talked with senator rubio about what needs to
happen. do we feel that forces can be assimilated to deal with rocker in the near term -- with rocca in the near term? >> we realize we have to have an arab forced to move into the arabic areas. in february this was just getting off the ground. i was there to talk about this operation which at the time was the biggest operation in syria in an arab town. we organized a force of about 6000 or so. 2500 were arab. the first time we had in inclusive mix. that was one of the things that gave president obama the strength to organize the forces. what is so important is the ratio is reversed. it is mostly and arab force moving. a much more limited force for
the kurds. force we would use. the americans working this on the ground every day in northern .yria, they are encouraged more and more arab leaders are coming to join the force. they want to be part of the push . the timeline is good but i would not underestimate how hard it is to pull these forces together to organize them and make them an organized force. however, i think we have hit on something that can work. -- don't want >> you don't want to lay out a them, we thought last june was going to be the time we went into mozilla but obviously it is this june and we
are still not ready. i look forward to that off-line conversation. i know you are going to the white house and i don't know who the audience is there but i know --od is still killing people assad issod -- still killing people. what kind of forces going to be needed to stop the civil war? it is evident russia and iran have not had the effect on assad that was contemplated when the cessation began in i hope you're able to talk to me after to their little bit more about the thinking. we thank you for your service to our country. the record will be open until the close of business on thursday. if you can answer promptly the follow.question we will
journal, live every day with music and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, with the release of the benghazi report, we want to open a conversation with you with your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. then, we openly talk to immigration policy including a obama's immigration order and laredo, texas, where we talk to border officials in the border town about immigration. the debateo look at on the brexit campaign. be sure to watch beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. >> coming up wednesday, a hearing on preparing for the zika virus outbreak in the u.s. this summer. later, we with -- will bring new remarks by cia erector john brennan at the
council for foreign relations on global security threats. life coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> on july 1, 1976, the smithsonian national air and space museum open its doors to the public with president gerald dedication. for the friday marks the 40th anniversary and live coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. will see one-of-a-kind aviation artifacts including the spirit of st. louis and the apollo lunar module. learn more as we talk to the andum there into curator the chair of the museum's space history department. you can join the conversation. the 40th anniversary of the smithsonian national air and space museum live friday evening beginning at 6 p.m. on c-span3 american history tv.
next, house benghazi republicans to reporters on their investigation into the attack inptember 11 -- thatat included killed americans. this is the final report of the committee that was created in 2014 and chaired by senator trey gowdy us -- of south carolina. this is about one hour. >> i want to begin by expressing our collective gratitude to those whose families and loved ultimateificed -- the
sacrifice they laid on behalf of our country and i went to express our collective appreciation of the americans thatfought so valiantly night and in controverted way saved other lives. this desire to protect him defend fellow americans and our interests abroad truly represents the best of what our country has to offer. 100 witnesshan interviews, including 80 with witnesses no other members talk to and tens of thousands of ages of documents, that is the single greatest impression we are left with. there are many and women who love this country enough and what it stands for and how it can inspire others, to serve in dangerous places under dangerous circumstances. i will respectfully ask my citizens to do this. read the report.
if you doeport, and read the report, i think what will become manifest to you is what has become manifest to us which our -- which are two different images. the image of what was happening in benghazi during the relevant time into the image on the other hand of the decisions made and not made in washington during that same time. we -- you will see the urgency shown by the grs agents at the annex as they went to the mission compound to try to save american diplomatic lives. you will see the frantic this through which they entered and reentered burning holdings in in attempt to locate and save sean smith and ambassador stevens. you will see the ingenuity of got their own
aircraft and deployed themselves from tripoli to benghazi because fellow americans needed their help. you will see the firefights at the compound. learn about the ambush from the compound to the annex. you will learn about the firefights before the final lethal border attacks. there are only three assets that it to benghazi. to unarmed drones and the team from tripoli who deployed themselves. they were not order to go. they deployed themselves. glenn doherty was on that plane from tripoli to benghazi. in him at glenn doherty not only flew from tripoli to benghazi but he negotiated at the airport with libyans that were supposed to be our friends to get to the annex so he could help defend that facility. and, he got there just in time to join his fellow navy seal tyrone once minutes before they
both died. it has been said that nothing could have reached benghazi before the lethal border attacks and i suppose what is meant by that is nothing other than the two unarmed drones and the team from tripoli that deployed in self. what is missing in that analysis and is pretty simple and straightforward to those who have been a bit scared for the past two years is nothing could have reached in gaza because nothing was ever headed to benghazi. was everilitary asset deployed to benghazi despite the order of the secretary of defense at 7:00 that night. had access toton real-time information yet some time yet -- yet somehow they thought the fighting has subsided. washington had access to real-time information but somehow they thought these fighters were going to evacuate even without the remains of the ambassador. and without asking how that
evacuation was supposed to be effectuated? how are you supposed to get from the annex to the benghazi airport because it took you almost three hours to get from the airport to the annex. who was supposed to take you? those were the discussions being contemplated in washington in the mistaken believe an evacuation was imminent without asking the question of how do you expect us to effectuate this evacuation? washington had access to , buttime it information that real-time information that not in form and and struck the decisions made in washington. were ordered to deployed to help, the white house convened a two-hour meeting and perhaps nothing shows the contrast between what was happening in benghazi and what was happening in washington the end that two-hour white house meeting and some reason
the readouts that came from it. so it is true, nothing could have reached glenn doherty and tie woods before they were killed because nothing was ever going toward glenn doherty and mr. woods. that would eventually of the mortar attacks had taken place at 7:15 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. or the 12th.nchtime on because at the time those two americans were killed, not a single wheel of a single u.s. military asset had even turned .oward libya our report starts with the attack and there is a section on the post-attack communication between the government and the american citizenry and there is a section on pre-attack decisions made and not made which led to the environment
which made our facility vulnerable. it is always better to be the first committee to investigate. it is always better to investigate contemporaries -- contemporaneously to an event as can be done. our committee did not have the those.of either one of we began a year and a half after the incident. but collectively and individually, all seven of us believe there are more questions asked, there are more answers to acquire, more witnesses to acquire, more documents to access, and this report validates that belief. what is new information on happened in benghazi ended that information should fundamentally change the way you view what happened in benghazi and there are recommendations made to make sure it does not happen again. in conclusion, with respect to my remarks, want to thank the house of representatives for giving us the honor of
our brave,ng courageous citizens and those who were injured and those who fell so valiantly that night. i want to thank the six member standing up with me who took on this assignment not a little of their other committee assignments but in addition thereto and the women and men on our staff who took on what proved to be and incredibly difficult challenge. they did so out of a singular motivation. whoseng for people political ideations none of us know anything about. they gave their lives in benghazi. lastly, i want to thank my fellow citizens for bearing with our committee as we went through the process of uncovering new information and accessing .itnesses and documents i hope my fellow citizens will read this report, not for me,
but for those who sacrificed and those nameless, faceless americans who in controversial bully saved other -- who in country veritably saved other americans. i would hasten to add you can read this report from pillar to post in less time than our fellow americans were under .ttack in benghazi so what i am asking you to do is a fairly small investment given what others were willing to do on our behalf and with that i would recognize the gentleman >> i too want to thank the committee members here. it has been a lot of hard work but we need to recognize the staff that we have it's not easy working for seven members.
i want to thank all of them. especially the staff with benghazi. what we have done is produced new evidence that takes all the different pieces and investigation and tie those things together. one of the problems that we had is that in the house of representatives, these lanes were continually getting confused about who had the authority to interview who. this committee was to bridge those gaps. that is what we have done. i think if you will read the report that you will see that what was going on in washington at 10:08 when the secretary made
her first comment, we had men on the roof at the annex. what we have done in the new facts that we have discovered is that we have allowed people to take those new facts with the old fact and some of those old facts have been reevaluated and determined that they were not actually good. to take this new information that we have got to put it together. the american people will come up with their own opinions. there is enough new evidence that people will be able to put together for themselves of what
led up to this attack and what went on during the attack and then the post attack where there was so much misinformation that was being repeated by this administration. with that i will turn it back over. >> he mentioned that before the attack ended, military assets were headed toward benghazi, and there was a political spin. with tyrone woods still on the annex, secretary clinton issues this statement. some have thought to justify this behavior, we know that statement was misleading because an hour later she told her daughter that terrorists killed two of our people today. she tells the egyptian prime minister that the film had nothing to do with it. it was a planned attack, not a protest. this public-private contrast
continues for four days. publically telling the american people it was a protest, privately telling the truth. maybe the best example was on the 14th, the same day he issued his talking points. we had him at a press conference saying this, no information to suggest benghazi was a preplanned attack. this time he says this, it was a well-planned attack. you could not have a starker contrast between those two statements. it is important to remember this. don't forget the context. libya was supposed to be the crowning jewel of the clinton state department foreign policy administration foreign-policy. this is their example of how it works. no boots on the ground, ousted dictator, healthy arab spring.
it was supposed to be how it worked. out,f the things we found he talks about leadership and ownership of this policy from start to finish. this is something hillary clinton pushed for and got done. the better one is the e-mail from cindy blumenthal. two days after gadhafi gets removed, he sends an email that says you should do a press event. moment,this is a big you are vindicated, don't wait. help cleo now. cleo is the goddess of history. they were committed to this. this was it. how it was supposed to work in their administration and their state department and administration. it didn't matter that one diplomatic security agent went
to benghazi and did his service and came back. he said it was a suicide mission. everybody there is going to die. it didn't matter that in august, three and a half weeks before the attack, beth jones sent a memo to secretary clinton talks about the uptick in violence and urgency and lawlessness. that didn't matter because they were committed to this policy. and then it happens. then it happened. it was a terrorist attack on september 11, 2012. days before vice president biden has said that bin laden is dead and that the narrative was al qaeda was on the run. now they have a terrorist attack. they had to mislead the american people because it is 56 days before an election. their legacy is on the line and she has the goddess of history
looking over her shoulder. so they mislead the american people. mr. pompeii and i put a report that supplements the report. we did that because we felt it is important to know what happened but also the why. i am convinced because it happened because of political concerns this administration had. why did we stay in benghazi? almost everyone else was leaving. why did we mislead the american people? why did they take so long -- why were they talking about americans military going in civilian close. it was political concerns that drove this. that is what we outlined in our report. i would encourage you all to read both because it tells that
story and that should not happen in a country as great as ours. for political concers -- concerns to dominate, instead of telling the truth. >> america asks its citizens to go to dangerous places and to do difficult things. these are people who were in the military and clandestine services. they were diplomats. they go willingly and they know acknowledging that there are a risk. the understanding they cary with them is that if they end up in harms way, historically they rest assurance assured that their country will do everything it can do to rescue them. that is not guarantee and they know there is an inherent risk . the understanding is that their nation will move heaven and earth to save them. that did not happen.
four people were murdered. that is the scandal of benghazi. the thing that i take away and it is been mentioned by previous speakers is this contrast between the ingenuity and heroism that was taking place at benghazi. you can read these communications and understand the urgency of what they were dealing with an this overwhelming sense of responsibility to rescue fellow americans. meanwhile, across the ocean, a disposition of fecklessness. the summary of this white house meeting that took place at 7:30, half of the discussion and readouts suggested that they were talking about the video. when you read this information you come to the conclusion that they are concerned about whether
they are going to be offending the libyan government by how it is that this rescue is going to take place than whether it is actually successful. marinate in that for a second. they are worried about approvals and how this will come off. were worried about pulling back from benghazi because an early exit would have done what? it would have been upset to libyans. that is outrageous. chris stevens goes and lands with no diplomatic immunity. he is on his own. it was a white house policy of no boots on the ground that does -- deprived him of military support that was previously going to accompany him. he goes in alone. it is a foreshadowing of things to come. we need to look at this notion
of responsibility. there's been a lot of discussion of secretary clinton. at the end of august we learned that she approved a $20 million grant to who? the libyans. this was the same state department that basically stiffed armed one request after another request. cumulative requests for security and more support that were essentially rejected, ignored, put somewhere else. here is what is in it for us. here is what we have to recognize. if we're going to ask americans to put themselves at risk in the future, we have to remedy this. america needs to have a reputation who are serving america and that america will follow its end of the bargain.
they failed us miserably. >> 56 days. you cannot begin to understand and place all the facts of this committee has worked diligently for a year and a half without understanding that this took place 56 days before a contested political election for president of the united states. whether it was the failure to put adequate security on the ground or the dithering while americans were at risk that night. where the continued story despite evidence of the contrary about a youtube video. it all takes place against the political backdrop. you can read the e-mails themselves. before it falls, they are talking about politics. as they are debating to whether or not to send additional
security, the concerns are about the libyan government, not about the americans who are on the ground that night. i sit on the intelligence committee. i come at it from that perspective. if you read what it was on that night, it is uniform and uncontroverted. this was an attack but radical islamic terrorists on an american facility. there was no fog of war. there was no dispute. the evidence was very clear. go and read what secretary clinton herself said. go read the words. backwere communicating what transpired. it wasn't about a youtube video. when secretary clinton said, what difference does it make? we can now tell you what difference it makes. it makes a difference and how you respond to an attack. whether you think these were a
bunch of folks walking around or a five-day assault on america. washington, d.c. viewed this as somehow ended once they were evacuated to the annex. i can assure you when you read the timeline of events, the men on the ground that night understood that this was not over. terror was still upon them. the risk to their lies continued. we debated things in washington dc that had nothing to do with whether or not we had aircraft in route to the top -- benghazi, libya. you cannot begin to exercise leadership if you do not know what is happening on the ground. if you choose to put political expediency and politics ahead of the men and women on the ground, you have to answer to yourself. i find this morally reprehensible and if it was your son or daughter who was on the ground, you will watch the actions and you would have every right to be disgusted from the
senior american leaders. i hope the recommendations that this committee resents will make sure nothing like this ever happens again. >> let me start a saying i am so proud of this report. i am so proud of the work that this committee has done and i want to thank our chairman gowdy for the way in which this investigation was handled and for his leadership as our chairman. this investigation has uncovered a ton of new information which leads to our understanding about what happened before, during and after. while our guys were on the
ground taking fire, washington was moving at a snail's pace. the administration was more concerned about diplomatic sensitivity with the libyans and promoting its policy as successful then about the american safety that they sent to benghazi. at the end of the day, no military assets were ever moving towards benghazi. the bottom line is that washington failed to have our guys back when they needed it. from that perspective, this represents incompetence, indifference or both. as we know now, but for the bravery of a few americans, the unexpected response of gaddafi's underground militia. there would have been an even greater loss of life that night.
i believe the government failed the people and lied to the public in the aftermath. this is unacceptable. i know this report shines light on that. god willing, it will prevent this from ever happening again. >> i want to thank our chairman again. this has been an incredible task to take. we have worked day in and day out. particularly, the staff, to bring out the truth. i have been focused on issues prior to the attack. the things that we learned from benghazi, there were many new things that we learned. we have all admitted and the
security was inadequate. what we didn't know is that they made a conscious decision to keep the benghazi compound off the radar. none of the facilities met any of the security requirements in libya, required by the state department and law. when chris stevens was sent to benghazi, he was going in with the military. but at the last minute, that military support was pulled. he had a mission and he had a mission to ensure that benghazi became a permanent post at some point. the individuals and benghazi
helped lead the mission to topple gadhafi. the clinton administration and secretary of state wanted to show benghazi how important they were. they wanted to show that the americans would not leave. we learned during this investigation that it was in october of 2012 that the secretary had a planned trip to benghazi. she had planned the trip to libya in order to show the libyans that the americans had been there for them and under her leadership had led the charge. this was failed american foreign-policy. it was failed american foreign-policy from the beginning. we learned, as the president has even said, the worst thing that we did was not planning for the day after. he has indicated that he did not plan for the day after gadhafi
fell. we sent people, american diplomats, to benghazi, libya to a failed state. what they were most concerned about was it wasn't a failed state. what is it today? a terrorist safe haven. isis, al qaeda. other militias are there controlling the resources of oil. in other places in libya. it is failed policy. we failed the american people. but i want to close by making sure that people realize that we said we would try to make sure this didn't happen in the future. so not only did this committee work hard to uncover the facts and truths and to put light on the truth, but we have pages of recommendations. many pages of recommendations. and i would encourage you to please look at the recommendations. just a couple recommendations
that are so critical is that our government agencies and the leaders of those government agencies had not planned for an attack like this. cia, defense department, state department -- had not been prepared and had no plans were in place to execute something like this on of all days -- september 11, even though the president had called a meeting of top government officials asking if we were ready for september 11. and while leaders said we were ready, we were not ready. we were not prepared to respond. we also learned that political operatives got involved in messaging after this incident occurred. that should not be happening. internal and public government communications about terrorist attacks should not be taking place. the government should be telling the people the truth, not trying to put political spin.
so we have had many recommendations that we hope and will encourage members of congress as well as administrations to look at, to change their policies, to change their laws, to find more funding mechanisms to make sure that our people are protected in the future. and with that, i yield back. >> if you have questions, please identify yourself, the entity with whom you work and who the question is directed to. >> the democrats on your committee say that you put out a lot of new details, but that they don't really change the fundamental understanding of what happened. and a lot of the broad themes that you discussed have been known for years. at the end of the day, was this the best use of taxpayer dollars and your time? >> it is difficult for me to
begin with where i disagree with the foundation of your question. who says that stuff was new? nobody has ever reported that nothing was headed to benghazi. nobody has ever reported that that not a single wheel was headed towards libya. god knows nobody has ever reported who actually evacuated our folks. you may have reported that secretary clinton was headed back in october but you did not have the corroboration of the e-mails. you didn't know why. first of all, you didn't know about any of the e-mails from ambassador stevens or the e-mails from sidney blumenthal. to whomever he was e-mailing. you didn't know that a single u.s. military asset did not meet a single designated timeline. think about that. the world's most powerful military did not meet a single solitary self-imposed timeline. so, all of that is new. and as for the democrats, color
me shocked that they are critical of our report. all five of them voted not to form the committee. they threatened not to participate and for the most part, they did not. they been serial leakers of information and they missed a good opportunity -- i don't know if you have had a chance to read the report but if you do, their report mentions her name far more times than our report does. our report does not mention the republican nominee for president because he was not involved in benghazi. you can direct those questions to elijah and the rest of them. i am proud of what we found. >> are you saying the military could have saved those people if they done more? >> clearly you couldn't have saved two of them because they were dead within 15 minutes of the fire being started. there were three assets that made it there. the group from tripoli that deployed itself, an unarmed drone that was elsewhere in position over the facility, and
then another on armed drone, and let's just say the evidence is split on whether or not it could have been armed. it got there before the mortar attack. so -- i don't know. i'm not going to make a reckless allegation that their lives could have been saved. what i am going to tell you is that if it had happened at 7:15 or 9:15, the result would have been the same. nothing was ever coming to benghazi. i think that is a fundamentally important question to ask. there is an e-mail that sticks out in my mind right now that is a takeout from the white house meeting, which, which if you knew about it, no one reported on it. so for the democrats to claim there is no new information i have not heard about that meeting until our report was issued. one of the takeouts from that, to our white house meeting, in addition to the five action
items on the video -- consider this. the video had been out for a while. it wasn't new. cairo had happened. cairo happened before benghazi. so, if you were concerned about this video, you have done absolutely nothing after you receive notice that the video was going to be disseminated. you have done absolutely nothing after cairo happened. you with me? cairo happened and you have not changed one iota of military posture. but yet when the attack in benghazi happens, which is unconnected with the video, 50% of your action items coming out of the civics related to the video. [indiscernible] >> 56 days before the election. when we have talked to members of the committee and read through the report, there are different lanes that deal with
secretary clinton, the defense and so on. there are folks who read this and say this is a ploy to get hillary clinton 130 days before the election and 27 days before the convention. how do you, regardless of what is in the report, how do you deflect that? some of you have said this demonstrates incompetence at the highest level. how do not get that perceived as -- >> read the report for yourself. if you can read this report and you believe on the last page of the report that it is about one person instead of four people than i have nothing to say that can disabuse you of that. that is just what you believe. there is no amount of fact that will dissuade you from your previous conviction. the democrat's mantra all along is that there was no new information. so now their position is -- it
doesn't fundamentally change the way we view benghazi. if who evacuated your folks does not change how you view benghazi, if the fact that no asset was ever headed towards the place that had a crisis, this e-mail that we need to plan in case a crisis emerges, this is what came out of the civics. we need to have a plan in case a crisis expands and a real threat emerges. what the hell was going on in benghazi? was that not a real crisis? was that not a real threat that emerged? i can't do anything to this a -- to disabuse what elijah thinks. he is not my audience. my audience is reasonable americans who want to know what happened to their fellow citizens. >> you said -- quoting hillary clinton -- what difference does it make. saying that you cannot be a
-- do not know what is going on on the ground and then saying she was morally reprehensible for the leadership -- how is that -- >> i don't think you will see any of that in the report. >> but you are promoting that right now. >> you are going to write a story about your take away from the report. i stand on our report. how you read the report, what story you do on the report -- you read the report, you will not see any of that. >> can you address that? is hillary clinton's leadership morally reprehensible? >> yes. it is. absolutely. let me be clear about what we were doing and what we did. none of us volunteered for this assignment, i can assure you. we were asked to undertake this mission and it was clear. i remember it like it was yesterday. we looked each other in the eye and we said this day would come and what we want to be able to tell each other is that we worked hard, worked our tails
off to develop every fact we could. to tell the american people everything we could possibly glean. we have been obstructed every step along the way in that effort. including by the democrats. go read the transcripts. look who asked the questions. this is not the first congressional inquiry in the history of america. i dare you to find another congressional inquiry where one party behaved in a way that was so deeply instructive to getting the american people the facts that the needed. with respect to my statements about secretary clinton, i believe them in my heart. the reason we chose to write a separate report is that we felt that we had delivered an important work in the committee's tally of the information that was available. we also are asking everyone of you to develop your conclusions about what took place. i have been knee-deep in this for over two years. so has representative jordan. we feel like it is incredibly important to highlight the conclusions that we draw from the facts.
read the facts, read the report. i think you will see that the conclusions we draw are real and accurate and fair. >> the flip side of that could be that, because you chose not to draw the conclusions, does that suggest that you do not have the goods on placing any blame on the administration? specifically the woman who wants to be the president of the united states? >> shockingly, that was not what the house asked me to do. look at the resolution. the resolution doesn't mention secretary clinton. speaker boehner nor speaker ryan have never asked me to do anything about 2016 presidential politics. they asked me to find out what happened to our fellow citizens and i believe that is what i have done. you are welcome to read the report, i hope you will, i know you will. if you at the end of the report that you can conclude it is about one person instead of
about four people, i will be shocked. >> i'm asking the opposite question. you believe that after doing this for two years and spending all of your time and millions of dollars, the believed that based on this, the american people should look at this and see that the woman who wants to be president has a responsibility? >> i was with you until the close of your statement. i believe the american people should look at it. they ought to look at it because fellow americans died and americans went to heroic lengths to save other americans. what conclusions a draw after reading it is up to them. >> do disagree with pompeo? >> i wrote the report that i think is centered in the facts. i have a background of who, what, when, where. i don't have a background on the why. i don't. my job is to report facts and that is what i have done. you could draw whatever conclusions you want to draw. >> who was tapping the brakes on the military response? and my second question is what did you learn about the covert
weapons operation? >> we asked questions about a covert weapons operations and we made some progress. the lawyers intervened when we were beginning to make a lot of progress. and among the questions i asked the president included that one specifically. i have not heard back from him yet. i have heard from his lawyer and i am not holding my breath that i am going to get an answer for that. i think it is important because the house asked us to examine policies that could have led to the attack. it is important to ask that question but that is not the focus of our committee. >> who was tapping the brakes on the military response? >> tapping the brakes is a pejorative phrase. i remember when we said we were going to interview -- i remember a lot of raised eyebrows. why are you going to be talking to him again, as if all the
right questions i been asked the first time. i think military leaders would tell you what i said in my opening. they believed an evacuation was imminent. when you question why they believed an evacuation was imminent, the answers do not withstand even the mildest level of scrutiny. you have real lives, witnesses who can tell you what is going on. if you think the fighting has subsided, i don't you talk to the witnesses who are being shot at? if you really believe an evacuation is imminent, at some level, you are going to have to ask, how will that evacuation be effectuated? because you don't have the proper vehicles to take them from the annex to the airport. and the only plane that you have is one that is privately commissioned. it is not even a u.s. aircraft and you have no idea whether it will hold everybody. so how are you going to evacuate in the midst of a firefight? general ham did not even know our guys were ambushed from the compound to the annex.
he didn't even know about it. so for everyone who wanted to know why we wanted to talk to him again, we thought it would be nice for the general to have all of the facts because he didn't have any night he made decisions. >> some have described this as a perfect storm of bureaucratic inertia. obviously your report places blame on many levels. is there one entity or person to whom you lay most of the blame after the analysis? >> that is in the eyes of the fellow citizens. i'm not in the business of apportioning culpability. i think there is enough to go around, just like there is enough urgency and ingenuity and valor. that really is my take away. and maybe it is because i have talked to the families of the four. in the last couple of days. but when you do what i used to do for a living, you ask the families what is it that you would like to see done?
and i am at peace that we did exactly what the families that we said we would do. it took longer, but we did what we said we would do. i want to be able to tell the widow about the truth of the military response. i wanted to be able to tell sean smith's mother the truth about the security leading up to it. and i am at peace that we have more information than the other committees had and we could have had more if we had cooperation from the other side. >> mr. chairman, along those lines, put aside the attack itself and what happened that particular night -- have you been able to, in some way, some abstract way, get to ambassador stevens' mind regarding the u.s. presence in libya? about the facility there in benghazi? how much he wanted the american
president to not appear militarized? >> let's be very clear about something. chris stevens loved the people of libya and in particular, he loved the people of benghazi. and the heroism that he showed going in as the envoy and what he had to deal with as the envoy before he was ambassador is a level of valor and heroism and commitment to this country where if you don't read the report for any other reason, read it for what he endured in 2011. you ask me if we had an insight into his mindset? he got there on september 10 and started meeting with intelligence officials about the state of security in libya. and he began to postpone subsequent meetings because of what he was hearing. he knew it wasn't great. he had no idea how bad it was. so he began to postpone the next meeting is ready, and here is our ambassador saying, i am not through getting my debriefing.
and then he moves the off-campus meetings and engagements on campus. and then you see his diary entry. diary entry september the 11th. read his diary entry. read the e-mail that he sent to the british diplomat. no, we did not know exactly what was on his mind. benghazi had deteriorated in a way he didn't expect and security was on his mind. >> but he wanted the appearance that the united states presence there was not solidified -- >> i think he wanted to stay alive more than anything else. with all due respect. i think he wanted to stay alive. and if that means a slightly higher footprint, then at their -- then there need to be experts or supervisors who say, we appreciate your valor but we are going to give you the security you asked for originally.
>> people have asked a version of this question in different ways -- >> they didn't like my answer. [laughter] >> americans who have viewed these events and all these investigations through certain lenses and will probably continue after today, despite sticers they read 800 -- stickers of the report. there are bumper stickers and t-shirts over this country that say "hillary clinton lied, people died." is that true? >> you don't see that t-shirt on me and you have never seen the bumper sticker on any of my vehicles and you have never heard me comment on that. >> can you shed any light on that? >> have you read it? >> i'm asking you. >> i'm asking you to read it. i'm asking you to read it. i'm not going to tell you what to be on the lookout for. i'm going to tell you there is new information and it fundamentally changes the way i feel about what happened before, during and after.
who was it, ben rose that said reporters literally know nothing? was that right? i don't believe that. i trust you to read the report for yourself and draw your own conclusions. >> but you are the expert, what do you think? do you think she lied? >> that is a word you cannot use in a courtroom. i know this. i want you to contrast the information and the evidence that was available on the evening of september 11. look at the full body of evidence that was available. and then look at what was said. and then you draw your own conclusion on whether or not you made the best views of the evidence and information that was available. it is one thing to say the evidence didn't exist. it existed, we found them. we found the dsa agents. we found the grs agents. their conversations were ongoing throughout the night. she talked to greg hicks.
so that argument works both ways. if there is a failure of information, she was definitive in certain statements she made to people privately. there was no ambiguity. it wasn't like, i can't answer that question mr. egyptian political leader, we don't know. she was pretty definitive. it was just in the public statements to us that it was less definitive. so you will have to decide that for yourself. >> i will pick up where the chairman was. look at the statements made privately. you decide for yourself. what the administration said privately and what they said publicly. someone said the intelligence analysis changed over time. that is true. but their statement didn't. they were consistent publicly. the video inspired protests -- privately, terrorist attack. that continued. look for yourself. you can decide. but when you look at private statements versus what they told
the american people, a stark contrast and a dramatic difference -- look for yourself. >> let me just say that this report has never been about one person. it has been about the four americans and what the other americans inside libya did to save their colleagues. the media has made this -- wants to make this about one person. the democrats want to make this about one person. that has never been our intention. but we have enough facts in the report that i think every american can make their own mind up. if you talk to ty woods' dad, he will have a different opinion reading the report from what the secretary told him and what the facts say in the report.
sean smith's mother is probably going to have that same different way of looking at the report. so each american needs to look at this report. it's lengthy, but it had to be lengthy so that we could spell out what the truth is and what these new facts have given light to. but this report -- i promise you, the chairman has made it clear that each and every one of us -- this was not about one single person. in fact, the report, i think, we reached our goal when we came up with a different recommendations that needs to be done to prevent this from happening again. and i think the detail that we went into makes these recommendations all the more important. and hopefully the speaker and other people will take them and
do something with them. because i do think they lay out a means of us not getting in this same situation. i would like to comment, too, that when these americans arrived from tripoli to the airport in benghazi, they were there for about three hours. so, i don't think we knew if we had another hostage situation at the airport or not. but as it has been said by other members, not one wheel had been up, not one person headed to benghazi, and we didn't really know how those guys -- if they were going to even be allowed to leave the airport. so there were many other situations that should have been talked about at different times in washington that were never talked about. do we have another hostage situation? is the ambassador hostage?
are these military guys -- are they being held hostage? we didn't see any evidence of that ever being talked about while these guys are standing there trying to talk their way off the airport to get to help their friends. >> last question. >> i haven't gotten the question yet although this last one may be about the latter part of what i called section two, the post-attack communication. want to pin it for just a second to the person the administration put on the five sunday talk shows. we talked to her and i appreciate her being available. i found the interview informative. she was the third choice. i thought she was inadequately prepared and that is what happens when you are inadequately prepared. you say a series of demonstrably false things on national
television. including about the fbi, including conflating the video with the demonstration, including saying that a handful of the extremists -- this is all stuff that is just made up. it would be one thing if it was in the talking points. multiple sets of talking points. it would be one thing if it were in there and they got wrong, therefore she got a wrong. it is not even in there. it is just made up whole cloth. i guess that is not the person i have been asking about. if this is the person who made most of the public pronouncements on that sunday after the attacks. i was told one more. >> do you actually name in the report the officers who told them to get off the plane?
do you name names? >> no, sir. do you name the details with the names? >> the actual names of people who gave orders. >> we tried to honor dod's request about how high up you are before revealing names. we tried to be sensitive to that. across all agencies i do not think he was you the names of people. you'll see the title, i think you will be able to get the transcript. and you'll be able to see the underlying data. that to me is what is important. you may read an e-mail from ambassador mole. you may read it differently from how i read it, i don't know how you could, but you might. i want you to be able to read the e-mail. i want you to be able to see what pat kennedy said during the firefight. i do not want you to take my word for it.
but i need some help from the administration to clear the underlying data and the transcripts. i do not think this is lost on ya'll, i really don't. you know all the transcripts i could make publicly available are going to be made likely available. i think they ought to be made publicly available and you all ought to look at the data and you can decide whether or not the report barely addresses the testimony of witnesses. if you read the transcripts and you say it is in context or that is not in context, i do not want you taking my word for anything. i want you reading it for yourself. >> joe's woods has asked the president publicly if the -- do you know if the drone capture that and was sent to the white house? >> i know the drone was in place at the time of the mortar attacks.
i do not know the degree of granularity and particularity that the drone video footage has. but you raise an interesting point. when you meet with the families privately, you hear questions you would never hear in a press conference. they are incredibly personal questions. while these are four fellow americans to us, their sons and husbands and brothers to the people we talked to at the beginning and he lost group i talked to, which are the families. the questions are very different. even though it is not in the report, i'm happy that we are also able to answer some of the intimate questions that were asked by the family of those killed. >> thank you. [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span's washington journal's live every day with the news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, with the release of the benghazi reportedly want to open the conversation to you for your phone calls and its. eets.d tw talk about the recent supreme court decision on president obama's immigration order. talk about border customs officials. we will look at the immigration debate surrounding the brexit campaign in the united kingdom. join to watch c-span torsion to journal beginning live at 7:00 eastern.
coming up wednesday, a hearing for preparing for a zika virus outbreak in the u.s. this summer. public health officials testify before the committee live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. later, we bring you remarks by cia director at the council on foreign relations. live coverage begins at 2:00 here on c-span. >> this weekend, along with our comcast cable partners we explore the history and literary life of provo, utah. moon's rare books. the showcases many of his great finds including brigham young's copy of the book of mormon. >> thomas payne went to robert bell, and wanted to have this printed. to buted the proceeds
the soldier's mittens. they had a falling out after three printings. thomas payne allowed anybody to print it. the lower the price. that is one reason that book is so well known. "thed the author of peculiar people," talks about anti-mormonism in america. >> the latter day saints fit awkwardly in that. not only when it is minority, but they over time have figured in disproportionately visible ways in the debates about religion. >> take a tour of brigham young university museum of paleontology, and to the dinosaur fossils collected by dr. james jensen, the curator of the museum. the fossils were gathered from
utah and surrounding states. have you changed the way fossils and bones are displayed. you look at the still supports, the animal looks more alive, in the sense you get the feeling that these are bones. it brings life to these bones. a professor of history of brigham young university tells how after mormon pioneers first settled salt lake city in 1847, he began setting up satellite communities. 33 families established the settling of provo in 1849. this weekend, watch c-span city store to provo, utah. the c-span city store, working with our cable affiliate in visiting cities across the country.
>> the hard-fought 2016 primary season is over. with the store conventions to follow this summer. >> colorado ?? florida >> texas >> a while. -- ohio. , listen live on c-span on the c-span radio app or get video-on-demand on c-span.org. you have a front row seat to every minute of both conventions on c-span, all beginning monday, july 18. >> donald trump call for u.s. economic independence from trade deals like nafta and the tpp in a speech on tuesday. the republican presidential candidate spoke at an industrial plant in the western pennsylvania city. this is 35 minutes.
donald trump: thank you so much, i appreciated. i would like to thank the owner, and gloria, your here someplace. thank you. i want to thank rick santorum, our sons are -- senator for being here. i have to say all of the amazing workers, they are the most important. the amazing workers. i know you have been through some very tough times but we are going to make it better. just watch. today, i will talk about how to make america wealthy again. we have to do it. we are 30-miles from steel city . pittsburgh played a central role in building our nation. the legacy lives in the bridges,
railways, and skyscrapers that make up our a great american landscape. but our workers' loyalty was repaid, you know it better than anybody, with total betrayal. our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of mobilization, moving our jobs and wealth and our factories to mexico and overseas. globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. i used to be one of them. i hate to say it, but i used to be one. it has left millions of workers with nothing but poverty and heartache. when subsidized foreign steel is dumped into the markets, threatening our factories, the politicians have proven they do
nothing. for years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment. many of these areas have never recovered, and never will unless i become president. [applause] donald trump: and able recover fast for the politicians took away their means of making a living and supporting their families. skilled craftsmen and tradespeople and factory workers have seen the jobs they love shifted thousands and thousands of miles away. many pennsylvania towns once thriving are now in a state of total disrepair. this wave of globalization has wiped out our middle class.
it does not have to be this way. we can turn it around. we can turn it around fast. [applause] donald trump: but, if we are going to deliver real change, we will have to reject the campaign of fear and intimidation reading -- being pursued by powerful corporations, media leaks, and political dynasties. the people that rigged the system for their benefit will do and say anything to keep things exactly the way they are. the people who rigged the system are supporting hillary clinton, because they know as long as she is in charge, nothing is going to change. the innercities will remain poor. the factories will remain closed. the borders will remain open. the special interests will remain firmly in control.
hillary clinton and her friends in global finance want to scare americans into thinking small. they want to scare the american people out of voting for the better future. and you have a great future. you have a great future. these people have given her tens of millions of dollars. my campaign has the absolute opposite message. i want you to emagin -- imagine a much better life for you can believe in the american dream again. right now, you can't do that. [applause] donald trump: i want you to imagine how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who led us from one financial and foreign policy disaster to
another. our friends in britain recently voted to take back control of their economy, politics, and borders. [applause] donald trump: i was on the right side of that issue, as you know. with the people. i was there. i said it was going to happen, i felt it. while hillary, as always, stood with the elites. both she and president obama predicted that one, and many others, totally wrong. now, it is time for the american people to take back their future. take it back. [applause] donald trump: that is the choice that we face. we can either give into hillary clinton's campaign of fear, or
we can choose to believe again in america. good morning very sadly, we lost our way when we stopped believing in our country. america he came the world's dominant economy by becoming the world's dominant producer. you know that from right here in this plant. [applause] mr. trump: the wealth is created, shared broadly, creating the biggest middle-class the world has ever known. then america changed its policy from promoting development in america -- in, in, in america -- to promoting development and -- in other nations. that is what is happening. we allowed foreign countries to subsidize their goods.
-- subsidize their goods, currencies,r violate their agreements, cheat in every way imaginable. our politicians did nothing about it. trillions of our dollars and millions of our jobs flowed overseas as a result. i visited cities and towns across the country where one third or one half of manufacturing jobs have been wiped out in the last 20 years. today, we import $800 billion more in goods than we export. we cannot continue to do that. this is not some natural disaster, it is a political and politicians made disaster. very simple. it can be corrected. we can correct it fast when we have people with the right thinking. right up here. it is the consequence --
[applause] mr. trump: it is the consequence of a leadership class that worships globalism over americanism. this is a direct affront to our founding fathers who wanted this country to be strong. they wanted to be independent, free. [applause] mr. trump: our founding fathers understood trade much better than our current politicians, believe me. [applause] mr. trump: george washington said that the promotion of domestic manufacturing would be among the first consequences to flow from an energetic government. alexander hamilton spoke frequently of the expediency of
in,uraging manufacturing in, in the united states. [applause] mr. trump: listen to this. the first republican president, abraham lincoln, warned "the abandonment of the protective policy by the american government will produce want and ruin among our people." he understood it better than our current politicians. that is why he was abraham lincoln, i guess. [applause] mr. trump: our original constitution did not even have an income tax. instead it had tariffs emphasizing taxation of foreign, not domestic, production.
yet today, 240 years him after the revolution, we have turned things completely upside down. we tax, regulate, and restrict our companies to death and allow foreign countries that cheat to export their goods to us, tax-free. how stupid is that? how could it happen? how stupid is this? [applause] as a result, we have become more dependent on foreign countries than ever before. ladies and gentlemen, it is time to declare our economic independence once again. that means -- [applause] mr. trump: that means voting for donald trump. [cheering]
mr. trump: i will do it, no doubt about it. not even a little doubt. it also means reversing two of the worst legacies of the clinton years. america has lost 1/3 of its manufacturing jobs since 1997. even as the country has increased the population by 50 million people. at the center of the catastrophe are two trade deals pushed by bill and hillary clinton. the north american free trade agreement, or the disaster called nafta. second, china's entry into the world trade organization. nafta was the worst trade deal. china's entrance into the world trade organization has enabled the greatest job theft in the history of our country.
it was bill clinton who signed nafta. people don't remember. in 1993 -- and hillary clinton who supported it. the havoc that it wreaked after he left office was unbelievable. it was also bill clinton who lobbied for china's disastrous entry into the world trade organization, and hillary clinton who backed that terrible, terrible agreement. as secretary of state, hillary clinton stood by idly while china cheated on its currency, added another trillion dollars to the trade deficit, and stole hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property. [applause] mr. trump: i have been talking about china for many years.
you know what? no one listens. they are listening now. that, i can tell you. [applause] mr. trump: the city of pittsburgh and the state of pennsylvania have lost 1/3 of their manufacturing jobs since the clinton's put china into the wto. 50,000 factories across america have shut their doors in that time. this factory, because of your great owners, dave and gloria, is hanging in. they just told me, it is not easy. almost half of all of our manufacturing and trade deficits, and goods with the world, is the result of trade with china. it was also hillary clinton, the secretary of state, who showed who shovedved us --
us into a job-killing deal with south korea as reported by the economic policy institute in may. this deal -- trade deficit with south korea and destroyed nearly 100,000 american jobs. as bernie sanders said, hillary clinton voted for every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs. [applause] mr. trump: trade reform and the negotiation of great trade deals is the quickest way to bring our jobs back to our country. [applause] mr. trump: to understand why trade reform creates jobs and it creates a lot of them, we need to understand how all nations grow and prosper.
massive trade deficit subtracts directly from our gross domestic product. from 1947 to 2001, a span of over five-decades, our inflation adjusted gross domestic product grew at a rate of 3.5%. since 2002, after we fully opened our markets to chinese imports, the gdp growth rate has been cut in half. what does this mean for america? not good. for every 1% of gdp growth we failed to generate in any given year, we failed to create over one million jobs. what a waste. what a sad, sad thing. [applause] mr. trump: american's job
creation deficit, due to slower growth since 2002, is well over 20 million jobs. that is just about the number of jobs our country needs right now to put america back to work at decent wages. wages are very low, because there is no competition. they will go up because we're going to thrive as a country. [applause] the transpacific partnership is the greatest danger yet. the tpp, as it is known, would be the death blow for american manufacturing. it would give the economic leverage on international commission that would put the interest of foreign countries above our own. it would open our markets to
aggressive cheaters. they are not playing by the rules. they are cheating. it would make it easier for trading competitors to ship cheap subsidized goods into the united states market while -- markets while allowing foreign countries to continue putting up barriers in front of our exports. it is very hard to export to their countries. they make it difficult. we on the other hand -- come on in, everybody. come on in. bad leadership. the tpp would lower tariffs will leaving in place for and practices that keep american cars from being sold overseas. that isn't all. china will enter the tpp through the back door at a later date. they are watching, studying, and they are not in it now, but if
it is good, they will be there. if it is not, they will pass. the agreement will force american workers to compete directly against workers from vietnam. one of the lowest wage countries on earth. not only will the tpp undermine our economy, but our independence. that is what is happening. the tpp creates a new thatnational commission makes decisions the american people are no longer given the right to veto. these commissions are great for hillary's wall street funders who can spend vast amounts of money to influence the people on the commissions and the outcome. it should be no surprise that hillary clinton, according to bloomberg, took a leading part in drafting the transpacific partnership.
please remember that. especially in november. [applause] mr. trump: she praised or pushed the tpp on 45 different -- 45 separate occasions and even called it "the gold standard." hillary clinton was totally for the tpp just a short while ago. when she saw my stance, which is totally against, she was shamed into saying she would be against it too. i will tell you, it was the same shame she had recently where she was forced into saying "radical islamic terrorism." she didn't want to say it, but she was shamed into that one. [applause] mr. trump: have no doubt that
she will immediately approve it if it is put before her. that is guaranteed. guaranteed. she will do this just as she has betrayed american workers. from wall street and throughout her career. her whole career she has betrayed the american worker. she is trying to put on a good front. she will betray you again. her career and her husband have signed so many disasters. never forget nafta. you know what it has done and i .now what it has done in touring, i've seen the devastation it left behind. she would make a small token change, declare the tpp pact fixed, ram it through, and you will suffer. that is why hillary is saying she only has problems with tpp in its current form.
that means they will make a two-word change, they will fix it, and she will feel great. she can rush to embrace it again and will at the earliest opportunity. if the media doesn't believe me, i have a challenge for you and hillary. ask hillary if she is willing to withdraw from the tpp her first day in office and unconditionally rule out its passage in any form. [applause] and there's no way to fix tpp. we need bilateral trade deals. we do not need to enter into another massive international agreement that ties us up and binds us down, like tpp does. [applause]
a trumpp: administration will change our trade policies, quickly. [applause] mr. trump: thank you. here are seven steps i would pursue right away to bring back our jobs. number one, i am going to withdraw the united states from the transpacific partnership, which has not yet been ratified. [applause] mr. trump: i am going to appoint the toughest and smartest, and i know them all, trade negotiators to fight on behalf of american workers. [applause] i am going to direct
the secretary of commerce to identify every violation of trade agreements a foreign country is currently using to harm you, the american worker. [applause] i will then direct all appropriate agencies to use every tool under american and international law to end these abuses. abuse is the right word. [applause] number four, i am going to tell our nafta partners that i attend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal by a lot. not just a little, by a lot for our workers. [applause]
mr. trump: if they don't agree to a renegotiation, which they might not because they are so used to having their own way -- not with trump, they won't have their own way. [applause] mr. trump: then, i will submit under article 2205 under the nafta agreement that america intends to withdraw from the deal. [applause] number five, i will instruct my treasury secretary to label china a currency manipulator, which should have been done years ago. [applause] mr. trump: any country that devalues their currency in order to take unfair advantage of the united states, which is many countries, will be met with sharply.
that includes tariffs and taxes. [applause] mr. trump: number six, i am going to instruct the u.s. trade representative to bring trade cases against china, both in this country and at the wto. [applause] mr. trump: china's unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited under the terms of its entrance to the wto. i intend to enforce those rules and regulations. basically, i intend to enforce the agreements for all countries, including china. [applause] seven, if china does not stop illegal activities, including the theft of american
trade secrets, i will use every lawful -- this is so easy, i love saying this -- i would use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes, including the application of tariffs consistent with section 201 and 301 of the trade act of 1974, and section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962. when they say trade expansion, they are talking about other countries, not us. there is no expansion. they get the expansion, we get the joblessness. that is the way it works. it is not going to happen anymore. [applause] mr. trump: president reagan deployed similar trade measures when motorcycle and semi conductor imports threatened
u.s. industry. i remember. his tariff on japanese motorcycles was 45%. his tariff to shield american semi conductor industry was 100%. that had a big impact. a big impact. hillary clinton and her campaign of fear will try to spread the lie that these actions will start a trade war. you already have a trade war and we are losing badly. [applause] mr. trump: she has it completely backwards. hillary clinton unleashed a trade war against the american worker when she supported one terrible deal after another. from nafta, to china, to south korea. it doesn't matter where she went, the american worker was hurt. you will be hurt worse than before if she becomes president
of the united states. that i can tell you. [applause] mr. trump: a trump administration will end the war by getting a fair deal for the american people and the american worker. the era of economic surrender will finally be over. you are not going to see it anymore. i cannot guarantee it, because after me they will probably start doing it again. but we will have 4 and maybe 8 great productive years. and we will never go back and we make sure we never go back. [applause] mr. trump: thank you. thank you, very much. thank you. a new era of prosperity will finally began.
america will be independent once more. doesn't that sound great? [applause] mr. trump: under a trump presidency, the american worker will finally have a president who will protect them and fight for them. [applause] mr. trump: we will stand up to trade cheating. cheaters, that is what they are. we will stand up to trade cheats anywhere and everywhere it threatens the american job. [applause] mr. trump: we will make america the best place in the world to start a business. we will hire workers who will open factories, and we will get rid of these horrible regulations that make it impossible to do business in this country. [applause]
mr. trump: this will also include massive tax reform to lift the crushing burden on american workers and businesses. we will get rid of all of these rules, problems, and bureaucracy which are destroying absolutely destroying our job creation capacity. we used to be the best in the world. now we are getting close to the bottom. [applause] mr. trump: many people think these regulations are an even greater impediment than the fact that we are one of the highest taxed nations in the world. we are also going to fully capture america's tremendous energy capacity. this will create for our workers growth for our economy and begin
reducing our budget deficits which are massive. yearly budget deficits are massive. on trade deficits, we don't want to talk about it. our budget deficits are massive. hillary clinton wants to shut down energy production and the minds. -- the mines. she wants to shutdown, she said it recently, she wants to shut down the miners. i want to do exactly the opposite. [applause] mr. trump: a trump administration will ensure that we start using american steel for american infrastructure. [applause] mr. trump: and aluminum. [applause] mr. trump: just like the
american steel from pennsylvania that built the empire state building, it will be american steel that will fortify america's crumbling bridges. it will be american steel that sends our skyscrapers soaring into the sky. a beautiful site. more beautiful with american steel. it will be american steel that rebuilds our cities. -- we built our inner cities. it will be american hands that remake this country. it will be american energy mined from american resources that powers this country. [applause] mr. trump: it will be american workers who are hired to do the job. nobody else. american workers.
[applause] we are going to put american steel, and aluminum, back into the backbone of our country. [applause] mr. trump: this alone will create massive numbers of jobs. high-paying jobs. good jobs. not the jobs we have today, which everyone agrees are bad jobs. we will create massive numbers of good jobs. on trade, immigration, foreign policy, we are going to put america first again. [applause] mr. trump: we are going to make america wealthy again. [applause] mr. trump: we're going to reject hillary clinton's policy of fear
and her policy of absolute nonsense, because it is not working. it is grossly incompetent, we cannot take it any longer, and we are not going to take it any longer. [applause] mr. trump: we are going to embrace the possibilities of change, but real change, not obama change. real change. [applause] mr. trump: it is time to believe in the future. it is time to believe in each other. it is time to believe in america again. this is how we are going to make america great again for all americans. for all americans. [applause] mr. trump: we are going to make america great again for everyone. greater than ever before. i promise you, if i become
president, we will be working again. we will have great jobs again. you will be proud of your president. you will be proud, proud, proud of your country once again for -- once again. thank you, very much. i appreciate it. thank you, very much. i appreciate it. thank you, very much. [applause] [cheering] [speaking spanish] [speaking foreign language] -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up a hearing on the fight against isis. remarks by u.s. trade representative michael froman on nafta and the tpp trade agreements.
house benghazi committee republicans talk to the media about their final report. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news of the issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, with the release of the benghazi report, we want to open the conversation to you for your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. we will move the conversation to immigration policy in the u.s., including the decision on president obama's immigration order. our recent visit to laredo, texas we talked to officials and others in the border town about immigration. focus the immigration debate around the brexit campaign. watch washington journal on c-span. join the discussion. >> president obama travels to canada for a visit.