tv CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto CNN February 15, 2019 7:00am-8:00am PST
construction. that is the part that requires the declaration of a national emergency. we have 2.5 billion for drug interdiction, 1.375 billion is in the big spending bill coming over and 600 million from treasury department forfeitures. there is a lot of opposition to this, even some republicans on capitol hill concerned that when the tables get turned another president from the other party could do this in a way they don't like. the other thing, too. i think we have to re-emphasize is there is also a potential for the house and the senate to vote against emergency declarations by the president of the united states. he gets the opportunity to veto that. >> joe johns at the white house. the president will appear, make that declaration. let's bring back our team of experts, among several, we have
abby phillips. just a little bit of experience there. i want to start with you because you served for presidents. the white house saying this is nothing new. what is different about this one? >> there is no emergency. it's a fake. everybody knows that. it is all about politics. it is clear that the supreme court is likely to uphold this. many conservatives believe and constraints on the executive. they do not like to see a president go beyond the bounds of the constitution. and under the constitution under article one, the power to appropriate money, the power of the purse belongs to congress, not to the white house. >> it's pretty clear in article one. let's be clear that congress is
voting today, they voted already to not give money for this wall. they have made their opinion clear as to whether this is an emergency. we have news just in to cnn. he says house democratic leaders are considering their options for challenging an emergency declaration if the president goes forward with that. charlie dent, you served a few terms in congress as a republican from pennsylvania. what are the options on the hill to block the president's potential action here? >> well, there will be a resolution of disapproval, developing a legal strategy. i'm sure the appropriators will also be already writing their bills. they are going to further restrict transfer authority. they will be doing all sorts of things to torture the administration. there is another issue here that if you are going to declare an emergency, your remedy has to address the underlying emergency. i can make a very strong case,
there is no emergency in building a wall won't stop poor migrants from central america who are trying to come through legal ports of entry. you couldn't build it fast enough. there are political ramifications here, too, just on the military construction side. where does he plan to take the money from? there is hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild the national guard facilities. there is hundreds of millions of dollars going to alaska for vital infrastructure projects, a new hospital to take care of wounded troops in the middle east and elsewhere. european reassurance initiative to protect eastern allies from putin. korea moving troops out of the line of artillery fire. these are questions that i would politically -- it is terrible. i would never argue on the legal aspects. i can't imagine a court approving this type of blatant congressional authority. i hope jeffrey is wrong.
if he is right, i will buy him dinner. >> response? >> i have a lot of experience being wrong. so you should not exactly take to the bank my prediction about this. you can just ask president hillary clinton because i predicted she would win, too. i'm just doing my best here, but this is an area where courts have shown a lot of deference to the presidents especially in an area of national security where they say it is not our place. we don't have the resources to determine whether there is an emergency. that is a job for the executive branch. that's not a job for the judicial branch. this is a reordering of the constitutional system that the power of the purse is a bed rock power that belongs under article one of the constitution to the congress. but the lines between the branches have not always been clear. this is one area where there is
some play in the joints. and the courts are going to have to resolve it. i'm just doing my best out here. >> short of this going all the way to the supreme court, you do have -- democrats are going to challenge this on the hill. you have the possibility that a number of republicans join them. do you get to two thirds? that is quite a big standard to override a potential presidential veto of that. looking at that playing field, how likely do you think that this stops on the hill? >> i don't predict the future, but it does seem if we look at the way that republicans have behaved under donald trump that they are not supereager to challenge him. >> they disagreed with this president on the u.s. support for saudi war in yemen. they disagreed with this president on lifting the sanctions against russia. they have shown greater willingness to challenge frankly or contradict the president.
>> greater willingness where there was zero willingness. i think that the question is whether or not it's not just the precedent issue and because i think the administration is making this argument that this actually fits with the precedent in the sense that this is a national security situation and so past presidents have invoked a national emergency and a national security situation. the problem is which has been identified which is this is not a crisis. it is a manufactured crisis. if you look at where he went to make his case in el paso, you had pretty much every elected official there including the republican mayor say this isn't -- everything you said isn't true. the place he went to to make his case, they are all saying the fence did not do the things that you said, the way you described the crime did not occur. the underlying facts of this are the problem, i think. i don't think there is a real
dispute that the president has the authority to declare a national emergency. >> the question is -- >> in el paso he repeatedly used a falsehood about the crime rate being impacted by a wall when the crime dropped many times before and increased a little bit. tell us how the white house is processing all of this. >> i think they are just in a wait and see mode. one thing we need to be careful about as we watch what happens is in what order is the white house going to do all of these thing snz is he going to declare a national emergency first or is he going to pull money from some of these pots that are easier to acquire without delaying the national emergency until the politics are more clear? i think for republicans the white house has reason to believe that on this issue on the wall republicans are less likely to bulk against president trump. unlike a lot of foreign policy
issues the wall is a central political issue that the president has organized the republican party around. i think that they believe voters are much more motivated by those issues than they are by russia. >> remind us, cnn's polling the opposition to the wall is two to one against this being a necessity. >> republican vote rrs support e president on the wall. >> those are national figures cht independent voters have a very similar ratio against the wall. >> he's created this problem for himself. he is the one who has demagogued this and convinced the conservative base that this is a crisis. you have the voters who are most engaged who are going to make the most noise who 100% believe that this wall will solve their problems. >> his strategy has consistently targeted. if i can ask you, the president has been sitting on this for months. we should note he is leaving for
a long weekend after declaring a national emergency. presumably, if it was a national emergency, he would have declared it months ago rather than waiting and having all these various debates on the hill. is that relevant to how both the courts and the hill react to this? >> i do think it is relevant especially for the courts that he has selected this through the congressional process and went through a shutdown and the political system said we are only going to give you a poultry amount of money. that shows that the political -- he tried to solve this as a political problem. he saw it as a political problem and not a national security problem. going to the courts by definition will take months and months. i think that diminishes or weakens the argument, we got this thing on the border where if we don't shut it down
tomorrow you will have people running through the country screaming and robbing you. that is simply not the case. one other question i would be curious about is what kind of barrier does he now envision? does he plan to go back to the idea of a concrete wall? that i think would be a huge turn off for the country. if it is more like the kind of fencing we have heard about with the previous administrations, i think he has -- it's potentially going down better. >> we have a lot more questions. please stay with us as we wait for the president's announcement coming in moments from the rose garden. a split over the decision to pull u.s. troops out of syria. why the top general leading the fight against isis says he will carry out the president's order though he disagrees with it. this just in to cnn. cnn learning that supreme court justice ruth gader ginsburg is
back in court today. we'll have a live update. the stats regarding my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. like how humira has been prescribed to over 300,000 patients. and how many patients saw clear or almost clear skin in just 4 months - the kind of clearance that can last. humira targets and blocks a specific source of inflammation that contributes to symptoms. numbers are great. and seeing clearer skin is pretty awesome, too. that's what i call a body of proof. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. want more proof? ask your dermatologist about humira. this is my body of proof.
we know losing a lure means you took a chance. we know nothing stirs curiosity like what might be around the next bend. we know the great outdoors. we love the great outdoors. bass pro shops and cabela's. your adventure starts here. check out this year's spring fishing classic-- the one fishing show and sale you don't want to miss.
this just in, justice ruth bader ginsberg has returned to the supreme court for the first time this year. let's bring in cnn kourpter. >> we learned that she is going to be back at court today for the closed door conference. this is the regular conference. they sit around the table and talk about cases that are pending. the court is also meeting for arguments after a long recess on tuesday. we don't know if she will attend that. we expect that she will. but this is the first time we have seen here. she has been back at the court since her cancer surgery. and also we know that she went
out a couple weeks ago and she watched a concert. she hasn't been back at the court shiince she made that announcement. >> do we have a sense of her health status right now? >> we know that this was caught very early. she had this cancer surgery and they only found it after she fell in her office back in november and she cracked a couple of ribs. when they were looking at that they found this very, very early. that's what we know now. we will see if we see her on the bench next tuesday. she is at the court today. >> perhaps the most closely watched supreme court justice. we know you will stay on top of it. thanks very much. this is first on cnn, the top u.s. general fighting isis disagreeing with president trump on the withdrawal of troops from syria. the commander of central command warning that icesis far from defeated. he said u.s.-backed syrian forces are not ready to handle the isis threat on their own.
cnn pentagon correspondent sat down with the general this morning and joins us now on her continuing trip there. these are remarkable words to hear from a uniformed officer. are they not? >> reporter: they are indeed. important to say general hastened to add he is following the orders. he is a serving military officer. he is carrying out president trump's orders. that is what military officers do. if the president was to make a decision to change the orders and leave some troops somewhere in syria then he will follow those orders. right now he is talking about the fact that when the president first announced this withdrawal back in december he was not consulted. he has already said that. he really didn't agree with the president's decision. have a listen. >> it would not have been my military advice.
>> reporter: the top u.s. commander in the war against isis flatly disagreed with president trump's decision to pull out of syria. in an exclusive interview the general says it is too soon to bring u.s. troops home. >> i would not have made that suggestion. >> reporter: president trump announced in december he would pull more than 2,000 remaining troops from syria. >> we have won against isis. we have beaten them and we have beaten them badly. >> reporter: aligning himself with the u.s. intelligence community assessment that despite significant advances, there are tens of thousands of isis fighters spread across syria and iraq. and the decision to pull out of syria leaving defense secretary james mattis to resign last year. last week he made a stunning revelation that the president did not consult him on the decision to withdraw. >> certainly, we are aware that he has expressed a desire and
intent in the past to depart iraq. >> you weren't consulted before that decision was announced? >> i was not consulted. >> reporter: he is emphasizing he is carrying out the president's orders. this morning he stressed military pressure must be maintained and success relies on the u.s.-allied syrian democratic forces. >> when they are capable of handling the threat on their own that will be another key criteria indicating to me that we have accomplished our mission of defeat of isis. >> as you sit here today? >> we are not there. we are not there on terms of that. >> reporter: adding that he believes iran still remains the biggest long term threat to the middle east. he sees indications that iran's advanced ballistic missile technology could be a precursor to a more significant weapon. >> it shouldn't be lost on anybody that an advanced
ballistic missile program can be used to move weapons of mass destruction. >> reporter: so iran at the end of the day still the major threat in this region. >> thanks very much. just any minute now the president expected to appear in the rose garden where he is expected not only to sign a compromise funding bill but to announce executive actions which may include declaring a national emergency in this country to reallocate money for his border wall. that announcement just seconds away. jim acosta live from the rose garden where the president is about to speak. do we have confidence now as to what action the president is going to take here? >> reporter: we do believe the president is going to announce that we heard yesterday that he will sign this budget agreement that was reached by members of both parties up on capitol hill, that he is going to declare a national emergency down on the border and that he is going to announce how they are putting together this $8 billion that the president is going to use to
try to construct that wall that he wasn't able to get through mexico or a trade deal or through a government shutdown forcing congress to do it. he will try to do it on his own. this is sort of a little bit of a bake sale budgeting under the seat cushion budgeting. they have had to scrounge around to find various sources of funds to draw from. of that $8 billion, $1.3 billion coming from the appropriations bill, 600 million from the asset forfeiture fund, 2.5 billion from the drug interdrikz program. some of that is going to involve the national emergency declaration and that is why we will be hearing the president talk about that. as you know we have been talking about this over the last 24 hours since mitch mcconnell went out and made the stunning announcement that the president will be doing all of this, they are prepared for legal challenges at the white house. i talked to a white house
official who basically quipped that just about every attorney working for the administration has reviewed all of this and that they do think that democrats up on capitol hill will hear what the president has to say, decide to go ahead and mount a legal challenge and that this is going to get tied up in the courts. while the president has been on this quest to get money for his wall down on the border, it may not happen as quickly as he would like. i do understand earlier this morning there were some white house officials holding a surrogate call. this is one of the conference calls they have with surrogates of the administration who go on cable news and so on laying out some of the strategy behind all of this and from the sound of that call it sounds as though officials here are pretty confident that they can get this done. of course, we have seen them confident about wall construction.
the president has been scrounging around for money to build this wall. >> we see the picture there in the front row. bill barr just confirmed as attorney general of the united states. he was among the lawyers consulted. let's go to capitol hill. we understand democrats are already planning their response what do you know? >> they are. i think this event today really sets the stage for the next battle that is very clear ahead, a battle that we have heard from democrats on capitol hill that plan -- the house and senate will very likely move very quickly to take up a joint resolution to end and block president trump's move on the national emergency. we know from our colleague he is
reporting that house democratic leaders are in talks to make this a top priority. they are on recess for about the next ten days. very clear this story line will not end with president trump declaring this national emergency and that is the next big battle ahead. democrats railing against this move. notably republicans here, too. we have heard from many calling this a bad idea, a mistake, violates the constitution. we have heard that from many republicans. key here we are discussing the move towards a resolution of disapproval. do they have two thirds of a majority to override a presidential veto? that many steps down the line, important tafigure out in the days and weeks ahead. how many republicans here will cross and vote with democrats essentially sending a stern message to president trump that we are trying to stop this move. >> there is a big gap between expressing reservations about a national emergency declaration saying it is not their
preference and standing up and voting against this president. the president moments, perhaps seconds away from this announcement. we saw people leaving the white house there with photos. do we know who they are? >> reporter: we believe those are some of the angel moms that the president has talked so much about on the campaign trail at rallies. these are parents of victims who were allegedly killed by undocumented immigrants. the president likes to point to these folks who have been just through terrible experiences as evidence that a wall is needed down at the border. of course, we have talked about this on numerous occasions. there are lots of different reasons for why there is crime committed by undocumented immigrants in this country. of course, multiple studies have shown that undocumented immigrants commit crimes and are incarcerated at lower levels than native born americans. the president i suspect will be drawing on that sort of
emotional energy to make this announcement. we have to point out that border crossings are near historic lows right now, that most of the drugs that come in to this country go through ports of entry and so on. so the president we may be hearing and we saw this when he ended the government shutdown and was talking about people coming in to the country with tape over their mouths and so on. he sort of draws on some of this antiimmigration mythology to try to sell this wall on the border when we know that the facts in many cases fight against what he has to say. so i suspect if we are seeing some of the angel moms coming in the president will try to drum up emotional energy to try to sell the wall. we have seen him do it before. it sounds like he will try to do it again. >> it bears repeating. the president has repeated falsehoods. border crossings are back down.
crime rate among undocumented immigrants. the crime rate in el paso dropped long before the border bar i barrier. the president continues to plak tplak -- make the claims. we have a team of experts here. i want to ask you, will the president change anyone's mind today on this? >> i seriously doubt it. he has had an address from the oval office to try to persuade people. that wasn't done. he went up to the congress to give the state of the union, devoted a big chunk of the state of the union address to try to scare people. that didn't move the needle either. so i think this is unlikely. if anything the attention will switch over to emergency questions and in a sense coming
from the left that this evoking this emergency is really a direct attack on the democratic traditions of the country. if anybody is going to stop it, it has to be the congress. after all, if you are in congress, your pledge to preserve the authority of congress. and when the president of the united states encroaches upon that authority and does it arbitrarily they have every reason to fight against that. >> the president lost on the border wall in terms of a government shutdown. did not get what he wanted here. with this declaration in light of the opposition from democrats and republicans, is he setting himself up for another loss? >> i don't know. if he ends up being successful in the courts which jeffrey seems to think is a possibility then i don't think it is a loss for him. i think he will have grabbed a bunch of power and i doubt this is the last national emergency that we see which i think is a frightening idea to think this
could become a new normal regardless of who is president. >> the white house is looking at this both from what they can do right now but also the idea of having the wall as a political issue for the president is not a bad one. the president is running for reelection in two years. this is something that really motivates his supporters of his base. even if there is a protracted legal fight, the president can keep talking about it. we saw just earlier this week he did a campaign rally and the massive signs that were up there were not about the economy. it was finish the wall. that is the chant that the president wants to continue into his reelection campaign. i want to say one thing about what we are likely to see. i think it is important to make sure we have the facts around this. the white house is talking about a crisis at the border which in many ways is true. there is a crisis of family units coming across the border into the united states.
so that's the problem that we are facing. and the white house is claiming that the wall is going to fix that. in some ways it is not responsive to the problem that the angel families have about their children or family members being killed by criminals. the family unit issue is somewhat separate from that. i think we have to make sure to lay out the facts so that people understand what we are talking about. >> the president has sat on this national emergency declaration for months here now and the data in crossings have been going down for a number of years. from a legal perspective, does that matter? will the court say if it was truly a national emergency, mr. president, then you would have -- why wouldn't you have declared it months ago as opposed to on this day when all other political efforts failed when you were voted down? >> we draw a distinction. the second fact that the president waited so long to declare the national emergency, big problem for the president,
big issue. the courts will certainly take that into consideration in weighing whether an emergency took place. less so the first fact about the number of crossings. one thing courts don't want to get involved in is testing their own expertise about issues of national security against that of the executive branch. judges recognize they don't have the staff and resources and the constitution constitutional confidence that the executive branch does to make factual judgments about what is a problem and what is not a problem. the timing, though, the issue of waiting this long to declare an emergency, that is undoubtedly a problem. they will have an answer. the administration will try to address that in one way or another, but the plaintiffs in the lawsuits and there will be lots of different plaintiffs, will certainly make a lot of the
fact that the president waited so long to declare, to assert that there was an emergency. >> tell us what you know. >> these are veterans of the travel ban, the asylum ban. all of these actions that trump has taken. so they are waiting very carefully to see what he says so that they can pounce with lawsuits. who is going to pounce? states, maybe california, the house. people who may have had contracts and suddenly see funds being taken away and the people who own the land maybe in the area. one thing that is interesting is there was a meeting in the white house and conservatives came in and were worried about lawsuits. here is why. they have seen this relatively new phenomenon nationwide where the president in the lower
courts has been blocked, stop short. they are fearful of that happening here. we saw in the travel ban that the third version wanted the supreme court. they are worried early on about a nationwide injunction to stop things. >> charlie dent, former republican congressman, you have heard from mitch mcconnell. he warned the president early on before flipping yesterday on the national emergency declaration that this is a decision that would split his own party, split the republican party. there have been many republicans who very publically have come out against this. do you see this as a potential for a true split in the party or do you see republicans lining up even if reluctantly behind the president? >> i think there is going to be a split. republican members of the armed services committee in the house and the senate, they should be
setting themselves on fire over this. these projects that the president is going to shift money from are projects that were requested by the secretary of defense and the president. these are their priorities and congress approved them. the fact that the president is going to take money out of the department of defense for nondefense purposes, these guys in the armed services committee, they guard this jealously. somebody like -- very fine congressman from texas, he has expressed concerns. those folks will go wild, i think. also, what is going to happen, too. this is bad for national defense for another reason. this whole thing goes to court. these funds will be tied up for some time. these projects, where will you park the billion dollar f 35 if you can't build the hangar? we are talking about military schools, military hospitals, infrastructure, all the things that support military families. these are critical funds to
support the mission. this is what the department of defense wanted. they are going back on it. this is law. i think these republican members of the armed services committees i suspect will rebel. >> we just got a two-minute warning. these are sometimes fungible numbers from the white house. just moments away the president to make this announcem. david gurgen, let me come back to you. who is the president's audience for this announcement? democrats are not going to be convinced. they are plotting how to turn this around against him. is he trying to convince anyone today? >> obviously, he wants to make sure that sean hannity on fox news are happy so they calm down although some of them won't. i think fundamentally, this is about politics of the base.
he is going to go to the hill on that issue. he may be right in the long run. it comes at a considerable expense to our democratic norms and traditions. >> again, as you are watching here, the president just moments away, perhaps a moment away from making this announcement. that is a live picture of the rose garden there. you have reporters and members of administration, you have his newly confirmed attorney general sitting in the front row. you have women known as angel moms, mothers who lost children or alleged to have lost children to undocumented immigrants into this country. as you watch this and we await the president's comments, this is a shot through the window there just outside the rose garden, what is the potential that the president changes any minds with comments this morning? >> i think it is low because he
has already been making this case. this isn't the first time he has come out to say this. this is more directed at the base to make them feel like he is -- that is the thing you have to remember that right now both parties, there is a sense among the base that he will come to washington. they have made promises and don't fulfill them and they don't fight. so i think what he is trying to show is i'm fighting. abby was alluding to this. as this plays out in the courts, he can still say i'm doing everything i can to fulfill my promise and i'm going to fight and fight and fight. i think that that probably will be enough to make the base feel like he is doing enough. there is the separate substantive issues that we have been talking about that are very important. i think the base and donald trump believe this is what is necessary to protect the country. >> this president, this vice president, many of the republicans on the hill including mitch mcconnell supporting him now have very publically explicitly criticized
land basted president obama for executive actions short of reallocating money which is a qualitative difference here. does that matter to them? >> not at this moment. there is a tweet for everything. there is as you read earlier in the program very explicit donald trump tweet that calls out basically this exact scenario but in the case it was president obama. i don't think that the white house is really concerned about that at all. i think you will juts see them ignore it faz if it never reall happened. as the executive, he has the responsibility to use it. >> jim acosta is there in the rose garden. if you can -- we don't have jim. as we await the president there and when the things get pushed back, of course, presidents refine their comments before they go. is it likely he is on the phone with some of the many folks he
speaks to to make sure he has their support before he makes a comment like that? >> it is possible he has been working the phones all morning. you can sort of see some shadows there. you are sort of looking into the oval office a little bit just to the left there of the screen. you can see people in there, his advisers and aides talking through this. it's not clear. there is a little bit of a delay which is not entirely unusual for this president. he often changes this as he goes along. so much of his speech will be about the president making his own case for the crisis at the border and for the wall even though that may not be entirely -- >> here comes the president of the united states in the rose garden, an announcement not only on a bipartisan budget deal we expect. let's listen in. >> thank you very much, everybody. before we begin, i would like to say that we have a large team of
very talented people in china. we have had a negotiation going on for about two days. it's going extremely well. who knows what that means because it only matters that we get it done, but we are very much working very closely with china and president xi who i respect a lot, very good relationship that we have. and we are a lot closer than we ever were in this country with having a real trade deal. we are covering everything, all of the points that people have been talking about for years that said couldn't be done whether it was anything, the unfairness. we have been losing on average $375 billion a year with china. a lot of people think it is 506 billion. some people think it is much more than that. we will be leveling the playing field.
the tariffs are hurting china very badly. they don't want them and frankly if we can make the deal it would be my honor to move them. we have never had that before with china. it has been very much a one way street. so that's happening. the relationship with china is very good, but i think they finally respect our country. they haven't respected us for a long time, not for a long time. the u.k. and the u.s. as you probably have been seeing and hearing, we are agreeing to go forward and preserve our trade agreement. you know all of the situation with respect to brexit and the complexity and the problems. but we have a very good trading relationship with u.k. and that has just been strengthened further. so with the u.k., we are continuing our trade. we are going to actually be
increasing it very substantially as time goes by. we expect that the u.k. will be very, very substantially increased as it relates to trade with the united states, the relationship there also is very good. we have a lot of great announcements having to do with syria and our success with the eradication of the caliphate. that will be announced over the next 24 hours and many other things. a lot of positive things are going on. we are working on a summit. you know all about the summit. it will be in vietnam. and we will be meeting in hanoi. i think a lot of you will be going. i hope we have the same good luck. a lot was done in the first summit. no more rockets going up, no more missiles going up. no more testing of nuclear.
get back to our remains of the great heroes from the korean war. we got back our hostages. but we hope we will be very much equally as successful. i'm in no rush for speed. we just don't want testing. the sanctions as you know remain. everything is remaining. china has been helping us and russia has been helping us. and south korea i think you can say has been -- we have been working very closely with south korea, with japan. but china, russia on the border have really been at least partially living up to what they're supposed to be doing. that's okay as per the united nations. so we will have a meeting on the 27th and 28th of february. and i think that will be very successful. i look forward to seeing chairman kim. we have established a very good
relationship which has never happened between him or his family and the united states. they have really taken advantage of the united states, billions of dollars has been paid to them. and we won't let that happen. we think that north korea and chairman kim have a tremendous potential as an economic force and economic power. their location between south korea and russia and china, right smack in the middle is phenomenal. we think they have a great chance for tremendous economic prosperity in the future. so i look forward to seeing chairman kim in vietnam. today i'm announcing several critical actions that my administration is taking to confront a problem that we have right here at home. we fight wars that are 6,000 miles away, wars that we should have never been in in many
cases, but we don't control our own border. so we are going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border. and we are going to do it one way or the other. we have to do it. not just because it was a campaign promise which it is. we are rebuilding the military. our economy is thriving like never before. you look at other economies, they are doing terribly. we are doing phenomenally. the market is up tremendously today. i will go back in and they will say the market went back down. the market is getting close to the new highs that we created. we have all the records. we have every record. we are getting close to that point again where we will create new records. our country is doing very well economically and we have done a lot. one of the things i said i have to do and i want to do is border security because we have tremendous amounts of drugs flowing into our country, much
of it coming from the southern border. when you look and when you listen to politicians, in particular certain democrats, they say it all comes through the port of entry. it's wrong. it's just a lie. it's all a lie. they say walls don't work. walls work 100%. whether it is el paso -- i really was smiling because i was in el paso. we had a tremendous kracrowd. i asked the people many from el paso. i said let me ask you as a crowd, when the wall went up, was it better? you were there, some of you. it was not only better, it was like 100% better. you know what they did. that's only one example. there were so many examples. in el paso they have close to 2,000 murders right on the other
side of the wall. they have 23 murders. it's a lot of murders. but it's not close to 2,000 murders right on the other side of the wall in mexico. so everyone knows that walls work. there are better examples than el paso, frankly. take a look at israel. they are building another wall. their wall is 99.9% effective, they told me. 99.9%. that is what it would be with us, too. the only weakness is they go to the wall and go around the wall. they go around the wall and in. that's what it is. it's very simple. and a big majority of the big drugs, the big drug loads don't go through ports of entry. they can't go through ports of entry. you can't take big loads because you have people. we have very capable people, border patrol, law enforcement looking. you can't take human traffic, women and girls, you can't take
them through ports of entry. you can't have them tied up in the back seat of a car or truck or a van. they open the door and look. if they can't see three women with tape on their mouth or three women whose hands are tied. they go through areas where you have no wall. everybody knows that. nancy knows it. chuck knows it. they all know it. it's all a big lie. it's a big con game. you don't have to be very smart to know. you put up a barrier, the people come in and that's it. they can't do anything unless they walk left or right and they find an area where there is no barrier and they come into the united states. welcome. we have detained more people. our border agents are doing such incredible work. our military has been incredible. we put up barbed wire on top of
certain old walls that were there. we fixed the wall. we loaded up with barbed wire. it is very successful. our military has been fantastic. i want to thank them. it's very necessary. we have broken up two caravans that are on their way. they are in the process of breaking up. we have another one that we haven't been able to break up yet. we have been working with mexico much better than ever before. i want to thank the president. i want to thank mexico. they have their own problems. they have the largest number of murders that they have ever had in their history, almost 40,000 murders. 40,000. i got to straighten that out. i think they will. i want to thank the president because he has been helping us with these monstrous caravans that have been coming up. we had one up to 15,000 people that is largely broken up. others have gotten through. and you have a lot of people staying. if we didn't have the wall up
and secured and strengthened, they would have walked right through. they would be welcome to the united states. one of the things we saved just a tremendous amount on would be sending the military. we don't need the military. we would have a wall. so i'm going to be signing a national emergency. and it's been signed many times before. it's been signed by other presidents from 1977 or so it gave the presidents the power. there has rarely been a problem. they sign it. nobody cares. i guess they weren't very exciting. they sign it for far less important things in some cases. we are talking about an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, all types of
criminals and gangs. we have some of the greatest people we know almost from the first week, the angel moms. unfortunately, we have new angel moms. one incredible woman who showed me her daughter who was killed in the year of '18. i said i haven't seen you before. she said i'm new. i said it's too bad. it's so sad. stand up just for a second. show how beautiful your girl was. thank you. i have such respect for these people. angel moms, angel dads, angel families. these are great people. they're fighting for their children that have been killed by people who were illegally in this country. and the press doesn't cover them. they don't want to.
and they're not treated the way they should be. they are fighting for other people because they don't want what happened to their children or husband or anybody. we have one young lady whose husband -- please stand up. your husband was just killed in maryland. incredible man just killed. beautiful children won't be seeing their father again. these are brave people. these are people that don't have to be here. they don't have to be doing this. they are doing it for other people. i just want to thank all of you for being here. i really do. i want to thank you. last year 70,000 americans were killed at least -- i think the number is ridiculously low -- by drugs including meth and heroin and cocaine, fentanyl.
one of the things that i did with president xi in china when i met him in argentina at a summit before i started talking about the trade, it was a trade meeting, went very well. before i talked about trade i talked about something more important. i said, listen, we have tremendous amounts of fentanyl coming into our country, kills tens of thousands of people, i think far more than anybody registers. and i'd love you to declare it a lethal drug and put it on your criminal list. their criminal list is much tougher than our criminal list. their criminal list a drug dealer gets a thing called the death penalty. our criminal list a drug dealer gets a things called how about a fine. and when i asked president xi, i said you have a drug problem?
no, no, no. i said you have 1.4 billion people, what do you mean you have no drug problem? no we don't have a drug problem. i said why. death penalty. we give death penalty to people that sell drugs, end of problem. what do we do? we set up blue ribbon committees, lovely men and women. they sit around the table. they have lunch, they eat, they die and waste a lot of time. we can get smart. you can end the drug problem. you can end it faster than you think. president xi agreed to put fentanyl on his list of deadly, deadly drugs. and it's a criminal penalty and the penalty is death. so that's frankly one of the things i'm most excited about in our trade deal. i think maybe there is no more
important point. we are going to make billions of dollars with this trade deal. it will be great with this country and great for china. their market is down close to 40%. our market is way up. we have picked up trillions of dollars of worth, many trillions. china has lost trillions of dollars. but i want it to be good for china and for the united states. we'll see what happens. china is coming here next week. they are coming home. and then china is coming here next week. i'll be meeting with president xi at some point after that to maybe have remaining deals. we'll make them directly one-on-one ourselves. so we're going to be signing today and registering national emergency and it's a great thing
to do. because we have an invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people and it's unacceptable. and by signing the national emergency, something signed many times by other presidents, many, many times, president obama, in fact, we may be using one of the national emergencies that he signed having to do with cart cartels. it's a very good emergency that he signed. we will use parts of it on our dealings on cartels. that would be a second national emergency. in this case it already implies. it's not like it is complicated. it's very simple. we want to stop drugs from coming into our country. we want to stop criminals and gangs from coming into our country. nobody has done the job that we have ever done. nobody has done the job that we have done on the border.
and in a way, what i did by creating such a great economy and if the opposing party got in this economy would be down the tubes. i hear a lot of people say maybe the previous administration -- let me tell you, the previous administration it was heading south and it was going fast. we would have been down the tubes. the regulations were strangling our country, unnecessary regulations. by creating such a strong economy, you just look at your televisions and see what is going on today are through the roof. what happens is more people want to come. so we have far more people trying to get into our country today than probably we have ever had before and we have done an incredible job in stopping them, but it is a massive number of people. if we had the wall it would be very easy. we would make up for the cost of the wall just in the cost of the fact that i would be able to
have fewer people. we wouldn't need all of this incredible talent, some of whom are sitting in the first row. you wouldn't need all of this incredible talent. we would get thousands of law enforcement people including border patrol. you put them in different areas and doing different things, law enforcement and border patrol. i want to thank law enforcement and i want to thank border patrol and i.c.e. i.c.e. is abused by the press and by the democrats. by the way, we are going to be taking care of i.c.e. we talk about the new bill. we will be taking care of i.c.e. they wanted to get rid of i.c.e. and the bill is just the opposite of that. a lot of good things happen. so that's the story. we want to have a safe country. i ran on a very simple slogan,
make america great again. if you are going to have drugs pouring across the border, if you are going to have human traffickers pouring across the border in areas where we have no protection, in areas where we don't have a barrier, then very hard to make america great again. but we have done a fantastic job. we haven't been given the equipment. we haven't been given the walls. and in the bill, by the way, they didn't even fight us on most of the stuff. ports of entry. we have so much money we don't know what to do with it. i don't know what to do with all the money they are giving us. it's crazy. the only place that will want to give us much money, it sounds like a lot, but it is not so much although we are putting it to much better use than it used to be. a lot of the past
administrations it was easy to get. they didn't do what they could have done. it would have been great. it would have been great to have done it earlier. i was a little new to the job and profession. we had a little disappointment for the first year and a half, people that should have stepped up did not step up. they didn't step up and they should have. it would have been easy. not that easy, but it would have been a lot easier. some people didn't step up. we are stepping up now. so we have a chance of getting close to $8 billion whether it is 8 billion or 2 billion or 1.5 billion it will build a lot of walls. we are right now in construction with wall in some of the most important areas and we have renovated a tremendous amount of wall making it just as good as new. that's where a lot of the money has been spent on renovation. we are restricted to renov