House Minority Leader Mc Carthy News Conference CSPAN May 17, 2019 4:05am-4:30am EDT
with our faith and our belief that every person has dignity and worth, that every person has a spark of divinity in them that we need to respect and that we have that spark of divinity that we need to act upon. so god bless some of the religious groups down there respecting some of the divinity of people. so sad that another baby, a 2.5-year-old baby died in custody. we are hoping to address some of this in a bipartisan way in our supplemental disaster assistance legislation. thank you very much. >> probably 11:40 a.m.
committeergy commerce voted on three bills that received support. it would remove barriers to generic drugs entering the market, improving the quality of delivery of prescription drugs. patients nationwide would see benefit from increased competition and greater options. those same provisions are up for a vote today up until yesterday it would have been a positive moment of bipartisanship in this house.
something changed. added democrat majority partisan poison pills to try to bail out pieces of the aca. they took a situation where we found common ground on drug pricing and transparency, voted unanimously working together on committee that with rebels brought to the floor -- three bills brought to the floor but before they came to the floor, they put poison pills in it dealing with the affordable care act. we have differences of opinion. i understand that. in this provision they added, the cbo says, 1.5 billion americans will lose preferred health care plan under the democrat proposal. they added a poison pill that will take 1.5 million americans health care plans away from them, onto three bills that were unanimous.
it really says something about whether you are serious about solving a problem or not. this is not the only time this has taken up. if you look at ways and means, the secure act came out with unanimous support. the majority is breaking the deal by removing the ability of families to use their own hard-earned money in their 529 accounts to pay for education expenses for the children. we have another bill dealing with an issue americans care most about, retirement and security, and it came out unanimously, but before it gets to the floor, democrat leadership changes the agreement in committee that brought everyone together to find compromise. they put politics before people. not with the american people are looking for. that is what they are fighting to change. another item i would like to
bring up that i thought was very interesting. hearing ina judiciary, kelly armstrong asked the democrat witness during the rr would have ba broken the law if he agreed with chairman nadler subpoena. you know what the answer was? yes. he would break the law if he followed through on the subpoena. go, with chairman nadler trying to ask the attorney general a simple question. will you uphold the rule of law or held in contempt? it is telling why that is not on the floor this week. because, if it comes to the floor, it not only would be an embarrassment to the democrats,
it would be an embarrassment to the house. every member of the house should be asked the same question that witness was asked. the subpoena you sent to the attorney general would have to break the law or you hold him in contempt. what would you have done? i would expect, the attorney general to uphold the rule of law. other than that, let's get to questions, because i know you have been waiting so long. you don't get to go first. you didn't hear the beginning. iran, -- there seems to be -- [indiscernible] there was anr said appetite for that. she was concerned about authorization. [indiscernible] actionworking military -- [indiscernible] i wasn't here for what the
speaker said. i'm not sure what she knows about the presidents appetite. i know about the actions the administration has taken. first of all, we look at the middle east, saudi arabia tinkers, the drones attacking pipelines, the rhetoric of what iran has been saying and we also see the administration take the forward look to remove americans out of iraq, in harm's way. any action this administration takes will be thoughtful, will look through and will be in consultation with the house and senate. >> [indiscernible] -- >> but there is no action being taken. your putting a hypothetical out there. the has transpired today is administration is trying to make sure there is not. it is sending a clear message to iran.
b-52s, aircraft carriers are being sent there. why would you do that? based on the intel they got, tankers attacked, pipelines attacked by drones, you can take the rhetoric of exactly what iran has been saying. is takingstration actions to make sure that question is not raised. read kant? to >> alabama just past possibly the most restrictive abortion laws in the country? >> goes further than i believe. first of all, i believe the most precious god gives us his life. i defend my pro-life position. in my whole political career, i incestlieved in rape,
and the life of the mother, were exceptions. that is what our platform says. that is where many of us stand. yes, sir? linku have tried to washington democrats with some of the most liberal elements of the party on abortion legislation. >> and i watched of not stand up against it. let me let you finish. >> do you think people on your side of the aisle should be linked with things such as the alabama abortion law or the six-week law? >> people should show where they stand and put their own actions with their own words. if democrats do not believe in infanticide, if they believe in the comments of the governor of virginia, are the actions of new york, they have the ability to do something about it.
they can sign a discharge petition and protect a baby, surviving abortion and born alive. that is the question before them. that is actually inside the house. if you want to be fair in the process, look at my votes, look at where i stand, i am pro-life. i believe in the sanctity of life. that same point i have always said, i believe in exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, and that is what i voted on. democrats say one thing but will not sign to protect a child born alive. i would not think you have to have that legislation. if you want to compare them, they have the ability to stand and show what they say they stand for and actually sign a discharge petition. >> i have a question on trade. the alabama thing -- >> i have not read the law yet. >> i understand.
would you like to see the court strike down that law? >> i am not an attorney, i am not on the supreme court. i will have to look at it. if you listen to an iconic clip of the interview of the author, his point was to get it to the court. the individual tried to make it to an extreme position to make it to a debate in the court. >> on trade, -- [indiscernible] seekingcrats are enforceable positions in the deal on labor, the environment and perception drugs. on the republican side, are you willing to negotiate in order to get this done? >> we want to get this done. why? more jobs for america, more growth economically. it modernizes the nafta agreement, it makes america stronger. the thing democrats have asked for prior, they wanted to hold mexico -- [indiscernible]
-- to pass legislation. this is what they asked for in negotiation. what took place last week? mexico passed in their labor laws. for the democrats changing what they want now? now the opportunity is to vote on this and move this forward to make america stronger. i don't know that they need to have more negotiations. negotiations were ahead of time, you had the countries along with ours, combined together to sign it. they can get to that point. i don't believe you should keep moving the goal post because you don't want to vote on something that would make america stronger. yes. >> the republican party has always said, labeled itself as the family values party. can you talk about the president's immigration plan where he puts degrees and grades ahead of families -- [indiscernible] ? >> have you read the proposal?
have you read the proposal? >> no. >> ok. let's take the premise of your question. i sat down with jared. there is family reunification in it. there is a section designed to bring a family together in immigration. our immigration system is broken. you're watching right now what is happening along the border. i have been to the border. i have seen children come by themselves across. i have seen children handed two other families coming across. i have watched everyone in this country understand the crisis on this border, even the new york times editorialized this. the only people who believe this is not a crisis is the majority party here, the democrats, who will not let us take action. just last week, if the republican party believes in helping families, we put a motion to recommit, to provide the money for the children and
families on the border. you don't have to read about it. watch it. the democrats voted no. republicans voted yes. again, sometimes people say things they might not mean because they do not take action. republicans backup the action by making sure families are reunited, that we have resources to care for these children that do not have family sitting along the border. there was a democrats who voted no. i look forward to you asking them that question. >> you believe immigration, something on immigration can get done? [indiscernible] the president is putting forward messaging. >> what the president is putting forward is not complete immigration but it is a good start, a base where people can work from. the crisis today, we have to solve the loophole problems going down along the border. that would be one element. we tried to get immigration reform done earlier this year.
unfortunately, speaker pelosi declined doing anything with the daca population. the president was prepared to make that happen. i watched the president in the state of the union go further on almost any president where he would go on immigration. when we were in majority, we put bills on the floor, overall immigration reform, came very close to a pass but not one democrat voted for it. are they serious about solving immigration or do they want to keep it just as a political decision? i would hope that would not be true. when i look what we are voting on this week, that even though, let's say this -- we get a bill out of committee, much like we have got a prescription drug bill out of committee that would lower the price and give more options, and we were able to come to agreement and debate and find common ground and have all the republicans and democrats vote for it, but before it got
to the floor, put a poison pill in it. maybe they just had a bad day. lo and behold, we were able to do something like that in ways and means as well. the secure act. we could deal with retirement and find common ground. it came out of committee with all the republicans and democrats. oh. before it goes to the floor, we will change it for political reasons. can we get it done? if they continue the behavior of what they are doing now, putting politics before people, the answer would be no. i am willing to work with anybody that wants to solve this immigration problem. >> what is the next step for congress after the president puts together a working group -- [indiscernible] ? >> the president is the individual, the only one i know that continues to offer ideas on solving immigration. roomsat in the situation
in the white house during the shutdown and we had many discussions about this, the answer we always got from the speaker of the house was, i cannot talk about that until the government is open. even though, this is the same speaker, when she was the minority leader, that holds the record in the house, for the longest beach ever given -- longest speech ever given, just over a year ago, and it was about dr.. -- daca. the moment she had the chance to fix the problem, she declined the opportunity to solve it. does she want to solve the problem? some people want to keep a problem out there. >> you are extremely critical of chairman nadler and the subpoena without having read the less redacted version. >> did he read it? has he read it now? >> not to my knowledge. neither has ranking member nunez. >> did his staff read it?
>> staff is not allowed to read it without a member. -- [indiscernible] -- >> the same -- ok. devin nunesequate with nadler? >> they are asking for the same thing. >> they are not the same thing. is a subpoena the same thing is a letter? >> it is not the same thing but -- >> ok so we got that framework. nunez is not holding barr in contempt. i think the same position, i have before. if nadler is so concerned and if you watch the history of being in his position before, such as committee concerned about an attorney general holder, that ended up with a contempt about a year later, having a bipartisan vote were democrats voted with
it, what did chairman nadler do at that moment? he was strong. he stood up for his members. he ran out of the chambers. he was proud. he left. now, we have witnesses, a democrat witnessed that has asked to come to the committee this week. in this subpoena, dlerten by chairman na to william barr, with the attorney general have to break the law? yes, the answer was. not by a republican witness. by democrat witnessed asked to come by a committee he chairs. it is not just me. members individuals and on both sides of the aisle who come to me, based on the way he carries out his committee, that he carries it without form. he will not listen to
individuals when they make a motion. he demeans an individual because he disagrees with what they offer. that is not being a chairman of a committee. that is a problem i have, besides the fact that i think he is handling it all wrong. let me go back. if the democrats believed in what chairman nadler was doing and thought it was a strong idea, why don't they bring it to the floor? why don't they bring the contempt about to the floor, when their own witnesses said he would ask the attorney general to break the law, why do not they bring that to the floor and have their members vote for contempt because the attorney general won't break the law? i am still upset with chairman nadler, for many reasons. that has not changed. if he cares so deeply to go this far for a subpoena, he can walk himself down to the skiff and read the less than 2%, the six lines that he will not read when he has the right to do it. i think that is being honest. >> you think chairman nunez
will? [indiscernible] >> the money for the problem -- [indiscernible] to address the problem at the border and the disaster --? >> that is a great question. if i was speaker, the answer would be 100% yes. i do not have a lot of options on the floor. i have one. the motion. you know what i did? we took that option to offer that. when it comes to a disaster bill in an emergency bill, we tried to put it in. hurt offer that amendment. the chair of that committee said they cannot deal with it. we offered it on the floor to give everyone an opportunity. interesting. majority of democrats said no. >> [indiscernible] --the disaster relief bill where does that stand? >> great question.
republicans have gotten together. last week, recent to the we sent appropriations, them an option of what we thought of an idea of a bill. i got good response. honest offer. very good points. i have been waiting for democrats to offer something back. people, with with mr. clyburn, to the speaker. i would like to get this done. the only people hurting are the people who are sitting in disaster. the will is great to solve this. i would like to have got it done this week. an offer has been sitting there more than a week. i have not heard anything back. i have gone back to them and told them in a serious manner i would like to make sure we solve this problem and i am more than willing to work through the night or any day and that my commitment is there that we can
get this done together. >> puerto rico? >> yes, it did. >> are you confident the president would sign a bill that had money for puerto rico in it? >> yes. i have spoken to the president on this. it has to be overall. we have a lot of problems. we have disasters, an emergency on the border, others. there is an ability to get this done. put partisanship aside. when people are in disaster, it doesn't matter whether you are republican, democrat, green party. this is the moment government should help. putting poison pills -- i go back -- they are doing it to lowering drug pricing. to poison pill is to take 1.5 million americans health care away from them. that is the cbo's numbers. to help of retirement people safer children school? let's take that out because we have a new democratic party that
we do not all agree, so even though the committee did the work, and even though it voted 100 sent on both sides, leadership decides. we will make a partisan. last question. vote, original nafta republicans voted against it, are you to the point where you are finding out there are a publicans that are not ready to support it, the new deal, and have you heard from lighthizer, whether he is listening to you, there was a letter saying please do not lower -- [indiscernible] -- we made it clear? >> we meet with lighthizer, our members. it doesn't matter with this bill or anything else, we do not start whipping until the bill is scheduled. the person who determines that is the speaker. i think it is time to vote on it. anytime you have legislation sitting before you that would make your country stronger, improve your economy and
actually get the requests you made, mexico changed their labor laws, what you requested before they could vote on it actually happens, you should now keep your word and do what you said you would do. schedule a vote. >> [indiscernible] -- trying to lower to match -- [indiscernible] >> that is a question for him. no bill has been scheduled. thank you all very much. i appreciate you coming. >> when the house returns at 9:00 a.m. eastern, they will debate a bill to amend the 1964 civil rights act to add protections based on sex, sexual