>> >> and reaction from house republican leadership to the articles of impeachment coming up. first they talk about the u.s.-canada-mexico trade agreement and other priorities for house republicans.

>> our territorial legislature passed the act on this day, and in 1890 when wyoming was seeking statehood, members of the senate were outraged. some people say senators are always outraged. they said wyoming cannot join the union unless there was suffrage for women. our legislature cabled back to d.c. and said we are not coming in without our women. wyoming is proud of our trailblazing heritage, and i am proud and honored to represent wyoming and congress. we are grateful you will join us to commemorate. thank you for that, and we have other things we want to talk about. i want to turn things over to the republican leader of the ways and means community -- ways and means committee. >> good morning everyone.

the announcement of the agreement on a u.s.-mexico-canada agreement is a major win for america. and ambassador lighthizer have fought hard and delivered on the promise for progrowth and a modern trade pact with our north american neighbors. now it is time for congress to pass this agreement as soon as possible without further delay. for our farmers, our tech community and our local small businesses. this agreement means more jobs, more customers for american goods and a stronger economy for the united states. i give president trump credit for creating a new bipartisan trade,or free and fair it levels the playing field for american workers and can be used

in future trade agreements. this agreement sends a strong signal to the world and to our trading partners that america is open for trade. we will work diligently with our trading partners around the world for agreements that are free, fair, and level the playing field for 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 it forward without delay. as our leaders have said, every day we delay it hurts america othernefits china and competitors. now is the time to act. at this point, this agreement is so solid, there is no excuse for any member of congress to oppose it. this is clearly a win for american workers and our economy.

thank you. >> thank you very much. we also are focused on what we can do to reduce prescription americans, for all and despite the fact speaker pelosi is unwilling to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor, there are bills she could bring asthe floor, we are focused republicans on putting forward solutions that will help americans that can be signed into law. pricesericans see these reduced. i would like to begin with the gentleman from michigan. >> this week marks the third the billry of president obama signed. strongly the house bipartisan in both the house and senate. one of the things, the main

focal points of what it did is expedite approval of drugs. three years later -- three years later we have seen tremendous success. a girl last week in a wheelchair who has a spinal muscular atrophy, often fatal for young children, she had been on a drug for just barely 15 days, and already she was getting -- she was able to move her head back and forth for the first time in more than a decade. last week i met with folks who threexcited about a stage pancreatic cancer drug that has inn enormously successful the first number of trials. and because of cures, if it is successful, could be the first drug that actually deals with this and get to market years faster than it perhaps would otherwise would have. we've seen some success on the alzheimer's drugs.

last week in "usa today," this steps forward." all this happened because of what we did on 21st century cures. the democratic bill, h.r. 3, would stifle the innovation and whether it's the c.e.a. or the c.b.o., they all talk about drugs that will not likely make it to market for years slower than they otherwise would. our substitute will continue the innovation surge that we've seen because of 21st century cures and be able to find the cures for diseases that really impact every family that's there, which is one of the reasons why h.r. 19 is an important substitute that we'd like to see be offered

and debated and voted on instead of h.r. 3, which really has no chance of either getting through the senate or ever reaching the president's desk and, therefore, denying americans the research and ability to find cures for these diseases. ms. cheney: and now to speak further about this, i'd like to introduce the gentleman from new york, mr. reed. mr. reed: thank you, madam chair. i wanted to come today and was invited to come to discuss the lower cost of more cures act. as a member of congress who's dedicated now his entire career to finding common ground, i can tell you what we're offering in regards to lower cost, more cure act is something that could actually be signed into law. these bills consists of legislation that is broadly supported across democrat and republican circles. it has a pathway to get to the president's desk. if we go to h.r. 3, in my opinion, is an exercise of partisanship on the part of health care, who loses in that environment? the american people.

i can tell you, i have heard, as 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 act, h.r. 19, is just that. it brings people together. it is not a perfect bill, but i will tell you, when you can get 80% of the wealth, that's not a defeat. that's a victory, as ronald reagan taught us. so i ask my colleagues to support this legislation but also ask them to support this legislation for another reason. as the co-chair of the diabetes caucus and the father of a type 1 diabetic son diagnosed at 4, 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 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 capped the cost on those patients at the pharmacy counter. i applaud my colleagues for putting this bill together, and i ask, as a father of a type 1 diabetic and 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. 3. and with that i turn it back to our chair. ms. cheney: thank you very much. now i'd like to turn things over to our whip, mr. scalise. mr. scalise: thank you, liz. congratulations to the great state of wyoming for your 100 years. 150 years of women having the right to vote and being a pioneer and she's a pioneer in our conference, too. it's at a time, especially, we

have a lot to be concerned about. there's a lot we're working on. as house republicans, we're fighting for american families to help improve their lives, to lower drug costs, help address some of the problems they're confronting. it's an unfortunate, disappointing contrast what you're seeing speaker pelosi do with her majority. and let's start, first, with usmca, because this is something that 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 that 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 we create more jobs. over 160,000 more jobs for american workers. higher wages for american workers, and the ability to sell our products. but even more than that, what it

does is sends a message to the rest of the world. there are a lot of friends of ours around the world. you see it with japan. you see it with the united kingdom. so many other countries want to have better trade relationships with the united states, but until usmca can get done, they don't believe that they can actually go and negotiate a deal with america until they see we can actually get the agreement with our neighbors from the north and south put into law. that we will get a vote is a big win for those american workers, but it sends a message to china. everybody knows around the world know that china does not play by the same rules, and they have to come into line with the rest of the world. they have not needed to because nobody stood up to them until president trump stood up for america and our allies around the world. mca past sends a message to china that if they

want to be a part of the hottest economy in the world, they have to play by those rules. usmca is a top priority of ours. chairman brady and i hosted a call with ambassador lighthizer, and we talked about how important it is for our american workers to get this done. it should have been done a long time ago. as we have seen with speaker pelosi, she is abusing her majority to focus on things like we have arug prices, bill that would lower drug prices. approach that cannot get signed into law. ideas that bring republicans and democrats together. we have worked on this hard for months to get an agreement between republicans and democrats to lower drug prices. something that can get signed into law and would work for families who expect congress to

work for them. families struggling with drug prices. they know there is a better approach, and we bring those approaches. an important piece of legislation. i hope speaker pelosi would bring it to floor. finally, when you look at what she has done with this majority, from day one when she became speaker, she made it clear the most radical elements of her base who did not want to work with this president but overturn the results of the 2016 election, they were committed to impeaching him regardless of facts. that has been going on from day one since speaker pelosi took the gavel. most she bowed to the radical elements of her base instead of standing up and saying she would work for the american people. i bringing articles of impeachment after years of investigations.

the they thought would be thing that delivered something to impeach the president, and it did not, there was no violation. the only time russia tried to interfere with our election is when barack obama was president. barack obama and joe biden are not being asked why they stopped russia from interfering. that is not being asked, but president trump has stood up to rush up. president trump stood up to russia with ukraine and his standing with ukraine against russia. .e sold the missiles all the times the democrats brought witness after witness that were supposed to be the star witness, they were asked can you name an impeachable offense, not one.

can you name any bribery? not one. if they go forward with impeachment not because there is evidence, but the constitutional standard, but because they are afraid to get reelected. and you have heard democrats say exactly that. they are not impeaching the president because they cannot listen impeachable offense but because they are afraid he will get reelected. that is the abuse of power. speaker pelosi, adam schiff, and her counterparts have been abusing the power of impeachment because they are afraid donald trump will get reelected on his own. should bean people the ones who decide who the president is, not nancy pelosi or adam schiff because they disagree with the results of the 2016 election. low mark and congress when you see what they have done to the standard of impeachment, turning it to what

it has always been, a unique power to hold the president accountable if they violated a law and using it against the president because they are afraid he will get reelected. that is something she is going to have to account for. you have seen a lot of her colleagues trying to find an offramp and say let's get away from impeachment, but she could not stand up to the radical elements. they would not be talking about this if they felt confident in their candidate. more democrats are talking about getting into the race. americant to trust the people with the election and not try to reverse the results of the last election. that is what impeachment was supposed to be for. did the never investigation and got the money. that is the basis for them impeaching a president.

people know what is really going on and that this is about politics, and they have seen the abuse of power. adam schiff spying on members of phoneess, subpoenaing records of journalists. we do not know how many. adam schiff cannot answer that. is many members of congress he spying on or citizens across the country? we should be alarmed at how they abuse their power with this majority in congress. there is a lot more we should be doing. are counting on us to lower drug prices. as house republicans, we will stay focused to fight hard for those families who are counting on us in working with president trump to deliver more wins for american workers. i turn it over to kevin mccarthy. >> good morning.

democrats16 the called those who supported donald trump -- now they are trying to disqualify the vote. democrats cannot get over the fact that the president won the election and they lost. last week nancy pelosi went to point out they created a timeline to impeach president that started 2.5 years ago. the majority, they had to decide who would become chairs of the committee. the impeachment committee, who could win? jerry nadler campaigned that he would be the strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. on the day of swearing-in, the new freshman, a few hours after omang sworn in, congressw we will impeach

them. al green admitted the democrats have fears that if they do not impeach president trump, he could win reelection. now today we watched them introduce articles of impeachment. it changed the course of congress, took away due process to where we are. this is a fear alexander hamilton had. i hope no congress ever repeats what happened today. they have a lot of members concerned. from the moment they started impeachment and let the american see and change the term of what they thought was out there, it has been falling in the polls. if you need any more evidence of how unpopular impeachment is, watch the press conferences today. ,fter announcing impeachment the speaker relented and said up.would bring usmca

she has held it for a year. those who are vulnerable in this vote for impeachment continue to make the argument as the rest of america wants to. at no time when she bring this it nothere was fear of passing. the only reason she relented is because of the unpopularity of impeachment. watched in a hearing a democrat constitutional scholar that did not vote for president weakesty this was the fastest impeachment in the history of america. he then went to say if there was an abuse, it would be an abuse of the democrats moving forward. the speaker must not have listened to that hearing. if the speaker had waited 48 hours to release the transcript,

america would not be going through this nightmare. if the speaker would pause and , we wouldg report have a law enforcement agency spy on a presidential campaign in 51 instances not hold up to the rule of law or change the information and evidence to be able to move forward on something they knew or should have known was not true is a sad day for america. with the ideaat because you created a timeline to impeach a president that you dislike, you ignored facts. we would never be here if they paid attention to the facts. this is not a day that america will be proud about.

it is not a day that anyone wants to repeat. alexander hamilton warned us this day would come, that a majority would use political power just for politics. even though we all raise our hands to uphold the constitution. hope no congress regardless who is in the majority will ever take us down this path again. we have such great potential in this nation, but to have wasted a majority on this is an embarrassment to this congress. questions. does it make harder to defend [inaudible]t when >> it is not hard to defend this

president on the facts of what is out there. move hard for democrats to when -- it is hard for democrats to continue this when the people they bring forth in their hearings. were expert witnesses donors to presidential campaigns. the idea they would change the course of history, that staff would interview staff and come out with articles of impeachment, what power do members of congress who represented districts have that they take it away. the idea democrats win control who can ask questions inside a hearing or how the structure would go, that is an embarrassment. it is not difficult to defend this president because he did nothing impeachable. it is hard to defend democrats on how they are running this house and what they are doing in their majority. that is the difficulty i have.

citizen,individual that is not the question before us. you have to understand what impeachment means. removal of is the the highest elected person in this land. i do not care if you think americans who support president trump are deplorable, but you do not have the right to disqualify their votes because you do not like president trump. we are a nation of law. the idea that they would use lier power, they would because they dislike as president, they would change the course of history where they would move it from judiciary into the intel community, they would disallow individuals to ask questions, they would disallow the president to have due process to ask a question, they would not allow a minority to have witnesses, and they are proud about that. the idea of a vote of

impeachment, the only higher is whether we send women or men toward. the way they have handled this know theyeginning, i set a timeline and wanted to keep their timeline, they just never paid attention to the facts. they changed the rules to meet their timeline. they may think it is not important, but it goes to the fact the country of who we are. one of our greatest things as the rule of law. other countries admire us because we believe in the rule of law and due process, but not in nancy pelosi's house when she becomes speaker. she has weighed and hinged her majority on the impeachment of the president. when she selected adam schiff to kept himtel chair and thereafter he lied to the american public that he had aoof, when we walked down to

nightmare and spent millions of dollars, went to 14 different countries and found that was a lie, you had an inspector general give you a report yesterday to show a law enforcement agency spied on a presidential campaign, and when they could not get their facts, they changed it to go to a secret court to spy further. they based that on something the democratic party spent money on that was a lie to discredit somebody running for office. i would have used the majority to clean that up, to go back to the rule of law. i would not use the majority simply for your own political gain. and if you cannot meet your timeline, change all the roles this history has ever seen. it is not difficult to defend this president, but it is difficult to defend this congress on what they have done,

and history will not be kind to them. >> the democrats say they are defending the rule of law ,ecause of the constitution they say this president on that call asked a foreign government to announce an investigation by .ame of his political rivals if i can get you on the record, do you agree with the president that the call was perfect? >> the question we have before us, is that call impeachable? we are members of congress. we will take a vote on two articles of impeachment, not whether a call is perfect. that is not what is before us. you may think impeachment is not important, but it hinges not only on our nation but the rest of the world will look at from an idea of who we are. the idea that america is more than a country, an idea so

powerful that millions in hong kong will rise up for the freedoms that we say we behold. individualst these in the majority, they got the transcript of a phone call, made a president do that that made nation weaker. what other foreign leader will be open and honest with whoever is sitting in the oval office? they did that, they said they had a whistleblower, but the intel community met with the whistleblower. they start of this on the idea that the administration would not allow the whistleblower come forward. we saw what they said, they would fight to allow the whistleblower come forward. he is the only one who denied us the whistleblower from coming forward. anywhere else in america, if you base something upon hearsay or an informant, the informant has

to come forward, but not in the idea of impeaching the president because the rule of law does not apply to him because they think the people who voted for him are deplorable. nothing on that phone call is wrong. that is a case already open. the attorney general was already looking into it. if somebody is an elected official and run for another office, what they did is not wrong anymore. do you fall into a trap of an idea when we are talking about the highest elected office in this land and this world? , they will brazen change the rule of law to impeach him. articles,tered as two and your question about is it perfect, but the question is, is it impeachable? their own witnesses when asked

name me something impeachable, they could not name it. when the american people watched the hearings, their support went further down. they held a press conference at 9:00 to announce impeachment and at 10:00 she relented and let usmca come up. she held it for more than a year. negotiating with china. mexico is our number one trader, canada our second. it is another promise our president made that he kept. it is something no one thought he could do, renegotiate nafta, he did it. the speaker has the power of when it would come up, she held it for more than a year. economist said you could create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. she wished we would go into a recession, but we have a jobs report that no one thought would happen.

they will not give this president any credit. they are more willing to tear the country down if they can tell this president down. he has withstood this all as he did nothing wrong. he is not below the law. has nancy pelosi done donald trump a favor by agreeing to the usmca? is doing hero it job. waiting a year, she has weakened america. we have been in negotiations with china for how long? would america not be stronger if we had the usmca agreed to prior to a negotiations with china? everyone will tell you yes. why did we have to wait this long to have these many more jobs created? why did we have to wait this long for gdp growth? maybe because she wanted to give as much time as possible before

the next election. we are less than a year away from the election, and just now usmca came up. she is fearful. lighthizer showed the professionalism through all of they said about the president, he was professional every day in the negotiations. the idea that you brought two countries outside of america together, and i hope you write the lesson about this week as i believe is the schools will study this. it was difficult to get to this agreement, but what did the president do? he showed part of the art of the deal and went to mexico before they changed government and got an agreement. he brought canada intuit. if you could not get them all at once like he tried, he showed the art of the deal how to make it happen. it was some of the finest negotiations i have seen by this

president, and it showed if he did not have to spend all this time being investigated, how much greater this country will be and how much greater potential we will have. >> house democrats move ahead with two articles of impeachment against president trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of congress. read the text now on our website c-span.org/impeachment.

wednesday at 7:00 p.m. eastern members of the digit shared midi -- judiciary committee will meet to write processhe impeachment ate on c-span two, online c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. event yesterday, a report coming from the inspector general taking a look at actions of the fbi and joining us on the phone to talk about it is jeff murdock, has the lead story taking a look at the warrant application looking at carter page. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: can you remind viewers what the exact goal of this report was when it was put into place? guest: the exact goal was to find out if the fbi abused authority when it applied for a warrant