will give a chance to show that we will defend the constitution and that our oath mean something to us. thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> madam speaker, that a speaker, why do -- [inaudible] obstruction of justice, why include that? [inaudible question] >> you can read the articles of impeachment against president trump easy go to our website, c-span.org/impeachment. at the news briefing today house republicans took questions on

the impeachment articles. they also talked about the justice department's report and the fbi's investigation of russia and the u.s.-mexico-canada trade deal. >> hi, everybody. thank you so much for being here today. it is particularly special that you are all here on this important day to help commemorate what i know you all are here to commemorate, the 150th anniversary of women having the right to vote in the state of wyoming. december 9 -- or december 10, 1869, the first place anywhere in the united states that women had the right to vote and run for office. our territorial legislature passed death in this day when

and if that if it use go, and 0 when wyoming were seeking statehood, members of the senate were outraged. people say senators always outrage. they say what's on the could not join the union and lest they rescinded suffrage for women. our legislature famously cable back to d.c. and said quote, , e are not coming in without our women. wyoming is very proud of our trailblazing heritage. i am tremendously proud and honored to represent wyoming in congress, and very grateful that you all to join us this money to help commemorate. so thank you very much for that and with a few other things we want to talk as well. i'd like to start by turning things over to republican leader of the ways and means committee, is to break to talk about usmca. >> good morning, everyone. the announcement of the agreement of the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement is a major win for america there president trump and ambassador lighthizer have fought hard and

delivered on the promise for a pro-growth and modern trade pact with our north american neighbors after much delay by democrats. now it is time for congress to pass this agreement as soon as possible without further delay to lock the benefit of this agreement for u.s. workers comp for our farmers, for our tech community and our local small businesses. this agreement means more jobs, more customers for made in america goods, and a strong economy for the united states. i get president trump credit for creating a new bipartisan model for free and fair trade that levels the playing field for american workers and can be used in future trade agreements going forward. this agreement sends a strong signal to the world and to our trading partners, america is open for trade. and we will work diligently with

our trading partners around the world to agreements that are free, that are fair, and help level the playing field for our american workers and farmers. i think the leadership of the house conference for leading the charge and raising the profile, insisting congress take this up and move this forward without delay. because as our leaders have said, every day we delay, it hurts america. it benefits china and our other competitors. now is the time to act. at this point this agreement is so solid there is really no excuse for any member of congress to oppose it. because this is clearly a win for american workers and for our country. thank you. >> thank you very much, kevin. now we also are very focused on what we can do to help reduce medical costs, reduce prescription drug prices across

the country for all americans. and despite the fact speaker pelosi is unwilling to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor, there are many bipartisan bills she could bring to the floor, we are focused as republicans are putting forward solutions that will actually help americans and that can be signed into law,, help americans see these prices be redistrict to discuss that i'd like to begin with mr. upton. >> well, this week marks the third anniversary of the enactment of 21st century cures act, the president obama site. the bill of course passed the house 392-26, a strongly bipartisan in both the house and the senate. and one of the things that the main focal point of what it did was expedite the approval of drugs and devices. and now three years later we've seen some tremendous successes. i was with a young girl last week in a wheelchair who has

sma, that spinal muscular atrophy, often fatal for young children. she had been on a drug for just barely 15 days, and already she was getting muscle coasters able to move her head back and forth for the first time in more than a decade. last week i met with some folks that were very excited about a new stage three stage for and credit drug that is been enormously successful in the first number of trials, and because of tears, if it is successful, could be the first drug that actually deals with this -- cheers -- and get to market faster that otherwise would have. we've seen success on alzheimer's drugs. last week in "usa today" the headline autism research takes a step forward. all of these happen because of what we did on 21st century

cures. the democratic bill h.r. three would stifle the innovation, and whether it is cen or the cbo the altitude what drugs that will not likely make it to market for years, slower than they otherwise would. our substitute will continue the innovation surge we've seen because of 21st century cures act, and be able to find the cures for diseases that really impact every family that is up there, which is one of the reasons why h.r. 19 is an important substitute that we would like to see be able to be offered and debated and voted on, instead of h.r. three which really has no chance of either getting through the senate or ever reaching the president desk and, therefore, denying americans the research and ability to find cures for these diseases.

>> to speak further i would like to introduce the gentleman from new york, mr. reid. >> thank you, madam chair. i wanted to come today and was invited to come to discuss the lower cost on cures actor as a member of congress has dedicate down his entire career to finding common ground, i can tell you what we're offering in regards to lower cost, more to your act is something that could be signed into law. these bills consist of legislation that is broadly supported across democratic republican circles. as a pathway to get to the president desk because if we go down the path of partisan politics which h.r. three in my humble opinion is an exercise in partisanship on the healthcare issue, who loses in that environment? the american people. i can tell you i have heard asked my colleagues have also heard from seniors, from folks who are going to the pharmacy counters, drug prices in america is at a crisis level.

we need something to do, that is going to address this for the american people. and the lower cost more cures, h.r. 19 19 come is just that. it brings people together. it is not a perfect bill but i will tell you, when you can get 80% of a loaf, that is not the defeat. that is a victory, as ronald reagan taught us. so i asked my colleagues to support this legislation but it also ask them to support this legislation for another reason. as the cochair of the diabetes caucus and a father of a type one diabetic son diagnosed at four now 19, insulin in particular is probably the best example of the crisis in drug prices in america. and what we do in this bill is limit the exposure to diabetic patients so that their out-of-pocket expenses are not going to put them out of business, take food out of their

refrigerators, , or make them to decide whether or not they can actually afford insulin because we have cut the cost of the pharmacy counter. i ask as a father of a type one diabetic and the millions of folks that suffer from diabetes out there, let's do something rather than just blow a lot of hot air in regards to h.r. three. and with that i i turn it backo our chair. >> thank you very much. that would like to turn things over to our with mr. schooley. >> thank you. congratulations to wyoming for your 100 years -- mr. scalise -- and being a pioneer. she is a pioneer in a conference, too. it's at a time when this week a special we have a lot to be concerned about. there's a lot more working at their house republicans are working to fight for american families to help improve their lives, , help lower drug costs,

help address some of the problems that they are confronting. it's an unfortunate very disappointed contrast what you are saying speaker pelosi do with her majority. let's start first with usmca because this is something we've been working on since president trump took office when he said that he would make nafta better for american families, that he would actually go and negotiate a better trade deal with mexico and canada, to open up more opportunities. right now a lot of products we make in america we can't sell in canada. we can't sell in mexico. and under the united states-mexico canada agreement we open those doors up and create more jobs, when her 60,000 more jobs for american workers, higher wages for american workers and the ability to sell our products. but even more than that what he does is since a message to the rest of the world. there are a lot of friends of ours around the world, we sit with japan, with the united kingdom consuming of the countries want to better trade relationships with the united

states but until usmca can get done, they don't believe they can execute integration to do with america until they see that we can actually get the agreement with our neighbors from the north north and southt into law. the fact will finally get the boat on usmca is a big win for those american workers. but also then it sends a message to china. everybody knows, not just in america but all of our friends around the world that know the china doesn't play by the same rules and that they have to come in line with the rest of the world and they haven't needed to because nobody said up to them until president trump finally stood up for america but also for our allies all about the world that say china will have to play by the same rules. getting usmca fast also sends a message to china that if you want to be a part of the greatest and hottest economy in the world, which is the united states economy, they will have to play by those rules, too. the getting usmca moved to as a topper of ours. i said that the team specifically for usmca this morning chairman brady myself

posted a call with ambassador lighthizer where he laid out those details and we talked about how important it is for american workers for the president to get this done and hopefully it gets them quickly. it should have done a long time ago but again as we seen with speaker pelosi, she instead using her majority to focus on things like lowering drug prices, which we've got a great bill h.r. 19 that would lower drug prices, but only close by present legislation, not a person approach, something they can't get signed into law. ..

we bring those approaches in hr 19, an important piece of legislation that i hope steve's policy would bring to the floor instead of the partisan approaches she's been taking and finally, when you look at what she really has done with this , that is from day one when she became speaker , she made it very clear that the most radical elements of her base who didn't want to work withthis president but they wanted to overturn the results of the 2016 election so they were committed to impeaching him. regardless of the facts . that's been going on from day one when speaker pelosi took that gavel and today, unfortunately she bowed down to the most radical elements of her base instead of standing up tothem, saying she was going to work for the american people so by bringing articles of impeachment , after years of investigations with the molar investigation being the linchpin, what they thought was going to be the thing

that deliveredsomething to impeach the president on and it didn't. there was no violation. the only collusion that happened where russia tried to interfere with our election was when barack obama was president. that's when russia tried to interfere with our election. why barack obama and joe biden are being asked why didn'tthey didn't stand up to russia and stop them from interfering is a good question but it's not being asked the president trump has stood up to rush on so many accounts. president trump stood up to russia with our ally ukraine and still is standing with the ukraine against russia . when he sold the javelin missiles. thanks to president trump for doing that, forgiving ukraine the tools they need to stand up against russia . all the times the democrats worked with us witness after witness that were supposed to be the start witness they were asked by our members

pointblank can you name and impeachable offense? not one. can you name an account of bribery? not one yet they still go forward with impeachment, not because there's evidence which is what the constitutional standard should be but because they're afraid he will get reelected and time after time you heard democrats in this house say exactly that. they're not impeaching the president because they can list and impeachable offense, there impeaching him cause they're afraid he will get reelected.that's not why you have the power of impeachment. that's the abuse of power. speaker pelosi, adam schiff and her counterparts have been abusing the power of impeachment because they're afraid donald trump will get reelected on his own. the american people should be the ones that decide who the president is, not nancy pelosi or adam schiff because they disagreed with the results of the election. it's going to be a low mark in congress. you see what they've done to the standard of impeachment turning it instead into what it's always been , a unique power of congress to hold the president accountable if they violate a law and instead now using it against a president

because they're afraid he will get reelected . on his own. that's something she's ultimately going to have to account for.you've seen a lot of her own colleagues trying to find an offer, trying to say let's get away from impeachment but she couldn't stand up for the most radical elements of her congress and they wouldn't be talking about this if they felt confident in their field of candidates. more and more democrats are talking about getting in the race for president to this day but they ought to trust the american people with the election and not still try to reverse the results of the last election. that's what impeachment was supposed to be for but not and impeachable offense and keep in mind zelinski never did the investigation and got the money. he himself said there was no pressure applied and that's the basis for them impeaching a president? i think people know what's really going on here. they know this is all about politics and they've seen the abuse of power. last week adam schiff spying

on members of the press, subpoenaing phone records of journalists, we don't know how many. i asked steny hoyer how many members of the journalists was he spying on and they can't even ask or answer a basic question like that. we should be alarmed at how they abuse their power with this majority in congress and it's a shame because there's a lot more we should be doing and families across this country are counting on us to lower drug prices, at least as republicans we're going to stay ficus focused on fighting for those families who are counting us and working with president trump to deliver wins foramerican workers and with that i'll turn it over to our republican leader kevin mccarthy . >> good morning. back in 2016 the democrats called those who supported donald trump horrible. and now they're trying to disqualify the votes. democrats still cannot get over the fact that the

president won the election and theylost . just last week at this podium , nancy pelosi went to point out they created a timeline to impeach president trump that she said started 2 and a half years ago. any who know of this timeline but once they took the majority had to decide who would become chairs of their committee. the impeachment committee of the judiciary, who could win? jerry nadler campaigned on that he would be the very strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. on the day ofswearing in these new freshmen gave him a majority, a few hours after being sworn in . congresswoman tlaib claimed we are going to impeach the mother. our green admitted the democrats if they did not impeach president trump he would win the reelection and today they introduced to articles of impeachment .

to change the course of congress, takeaway due process. it is a fear that alexander hamilton had came to fruition in this congress. i just hope no congress ever repeats what we're going through today . they have a lot of members on their side very concerned that from the moment they started impeachment and letting the american public see what they believed and keep changing the terms of what they thought, they've been falling in the polls. if you need any more evidence of how unpopular impeachment is, watch the two press conferences today. after announcing impeachment withinless than an hour , the speaker finally relented and said she would bring usmca up. she's held it formore than a year, making america weaker in negotiations with china .

a number two trader in canada was being held up but those who are vulnerable in this vote for impeachment continuing to make the argument as the rest of america was two, at no time when she would bring this bill up was their fear of it not passing but the only reason she would finally relent is because of the unpopularity of impeachment itself. we watched in a hearing, a democrat constitutional scholar that did not vote for president trump say this was the weakest, the thinnest facts of impeachment in the history of america he then went to say if there was an abuse, it would be abuse on thedemocrats to move forward . the speaker must not have listened to that hearing . if the speaker had only waited 48 hours to release the transcript, america would not be put through this right now. but the speaker if he would

pause and read the ig report, the inspector general, to think we have a place in america we went where we would have a law enforcement agency spy on a presidential campaign in more than 51 instances and not hold up to the rule of law and change all the information and evidence to be able to move forward on something they knew or should have known was not true. it's a sad day for america. but to compound that, with the idea just because you created a timeline to impeach a president that you disliked , you ignored facts. we would never be here if they paid attention to the fact . this is not a day that america will be proud of. it's not a day that history will write that anybody wants to repeat. alexander hamilton warned us that this day would come . that the majority use the political power just for politics.

even though we all raise our hands to uphold the constitution. >> i just hope no congress regardless of who's in the majority will ever take us down this path again. you have such great potential in this nation. but to have wasted a majority on this is an embarrassment to this. questions. yes. >> would it be harder to defend the president when his personal attorney is still battling the ukraine, investigating his campaign violence to claim he wants some sort of impeachment in congress. >> it is not hard to defend this president surely on the facts. i think it's hard for the democrats to move forward when they start with a quid pro quo bribery to every other element ago. it's hard for the democrats to continue this when the

people they bring forth in their hearing are pretty much donors. their expert witnesses when it comes to their scholars were donors to presidential campaigns. the idea that they're going to change thecourse of history , that staff is going to interview staff and come out with articles of impeachment, power to members of congress who run to represent their districts have that they take it away. the idea that democrats would control can ask questions inside a hearing or how the structure would go. that's an embarrassment. so no it is not difficult to defend this president. the president did nothing that's impeachable. it's hard to defend democrats on how they're running this out and what they're doing inside their majority. that's the difficulty that i have. >> he's an individual citizen that it is not the question that we have before us which is about impeachment. you've got to understandwhat impeachment means . impeachment is the removal of the highest elected person in this land.

i don't care if you think americans who support president trump are deplorable but you do not have the right to disqualify their boat just because you do not like president trump. we are a nation of law. and the idea that they would use their power, they would lie. and they would continue to lie just because they dislike this president. they would change the course of history where they would move it from judiciary into the intel community. it would disallow individuals toask questions . they would disallow the president to have due process . it would not allow a minority to have witnesses there proud about that? idea of a vote of impeachment , the only higher boat i think we had a member of congress is whether we send women or men out to more of the way they have handled it from the very beginning, i

know they set a timelineand they wanted to keep their timeline. they just never paid attention to the facts .so they changed the rules to meet their timeline. they may think it's not important, but it goes to the sheer fact of who we are. one of our greatest laws is the rule of law. other countries admire us because we believe in the rule of. we believe in due process but not in nancy pelosi's house when she becomes speaker. she has weighed and hingedher entire majority on impeachment of the president . when she selected adam schiff did in healthcare after he lied to the american public that he had proof beyond circumstantial. when we walked down to one night he spent millions of dollars, went to 14 different countries and found that was a lie, he had an inspector general just give you a report yesterday. to show that a law enforcement agency spy on a

presidential campaign and when they couldn't get their own facts, they changed it to go to a secret court in isa to try to spy further. they based not all on something that the democratic party is money on that was a lie to try to discredit somebody running for office area i would have used the majority to clean that up. to go back to the rules. i would not use the majority simply for your own political gain and if you can't meet your timeline, change all the rules . so no, it is not difficult to defend this country but it is very difficult to defend this congress on what they have done in the history will not be kind to them. >>. >> the democrats say they're defending the rule oflaw . because the constitution says

the proper role of the president, they say this president on the call asked a foreign government to announce investigation by name of his political rival i'd like to give each of the record, do you agree with the president, the call was perfect, that's what we want presidents to do. >> the question we have before us is that call impeachable? you ask the question, let me answer thank you . we are members of congress, we're going to take a vote on two articles of impeachment. we're not goingto take a vote on whether a call is perfect because that's not what's before us .you may think impeachment is not important. but it hinges not only on our nation but what the rest of the world is going to look at an idea of who we are. i simply believe america is more than a country, america is an idea had an idea so powerful that millions in hong kong will rise up to the idea of freedom when we say what we hold. the idea that these individuals in the majority

of the transcript of the phone call made a president who only made our nation weaker in our defense. because to tell me what other foreign leader is going to be open and honest with whoever is sitting in the oval office . but they did that because they said they had a whistleblower they did not know what the head of the intel committee met with the was a lower red they sold us all on the idea the administration would not allow the whistleblower to come forward. we saw all the sunday shows, so all of what adam schiff said that he's going to fight so hard to allowthat whistleblower to comeforward . the only one who's denied us the whistleblower coming forward . but anywhere else in a long in america, that if you base something upon a hearsay or an informant, an informant has to come forward but not in the idea of impeaching this president