1890, when wyoming was seeking statehood, members of the senate were outraged. some people say senators are always outrage. they said wyoming can't join the union unless they rescinded suffrage for women. famously tabled back to d.c. and said, quote, we re not coming in without our women. wyoming is very proud of our trail blazing heritage. i'm tremendously proud and honored to represent wyoming in congress and very grateful you us this morning to help commemorate. thank you very much for that. we have a few other things we want to talk about as well. i'd like to start by turning things over to the republican ways & means committee, mr. brady, to talk about usmca. brady: good morning, everyone. the announcement of the the united states-mexcio-canada agreement -- major win for american america. president trump and ambassador have fought hard and delivered hard for a pro-growthed a modern trade pack with our north american neighbors after much delay by democrats. ow it's time for congress to pass this agreement as soon as ossible without further delay to lock the benefit of this agreement for u.s. workers, for community r our tech and our local small businesses. this agreement means more jobs, customers for made in america goods and the stronger the united states. i give president trump credit a new bipartisan and fair trade, to level the playing field for american workers and can be used future trade agreements going forward. sends a strong signal to the world and to our partners, america is open for trade, and we will work iligently with our trading partners around the world the agreements that are free, that level the nd that playing field for our american workers and farmers. leadership of the house conference for leading the profile, raising the insisting congress take this up and move this forward without as our leaders have said, every day we delay it america. it benefits china and our other competitors. act.s the time to at this point, this agreement is o solid, there is really no excuse for any member of ongress to oppose it because this is clearly a win for american workers and for our economy. you. very eney: thank you much, kevin. now we are very focused what we an do to help reduce medical costs, reduce prescription drug prices across the country for and despite the fact that speaker pelosi is unwilling to bring a bipartisan to the floor, there are many bipartisan bills that she we arering to the floor, to put as republicans forward solutions that will help americans and that can be signed nto law, see these prices reduced. to discuss that this morning i'd like to begin with the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton. mr. upton: well, this week of s the third anniversary the enactment of 21st century cures that president obama signed. the bill, of course, passed the house 392-26. strongly bipartisan in both the house and the senate, and one of focal ngs that the main points what it did was expedite the approval of drugs and devices. later, we've rs seen some tremendous successes. was with a young girl last week in a wheelchair who has s.m.a. muscular atrophy. for young children. she had been on a drug for just days and already she was getting muscle -- she was able to move her head back and for the first time in more than a decade. last week, i met with some folks that were very excited about a 4 pancreatic tage cancer drug that's been normously successful in the first number of trials. is because of cures, if it successful, could be the first drug that actually deals with to market years faster than it perhaps would otherwise would have. the seen some success on alzheimer's drugs. -- week in ""usa today" this steps forward." all this happened because of what we did on 21st century cures. bill, h.r. 3, would stifle the innovation and c.e.a. or the e c.b.o., they all talk about drugs that will not likely make to market for years slower would.ey otherwise our substitute will continue the that we've seen because of 21st century cures be able to find the cures for diseases that really impact whichfamily that's there, is one of the reasons why h.r. substitute ortant that we'd like to see be offered on instead and voted of h.r. 3, which really has no chance of either getting through senate or ever reaching the president's desk and, therefore, the research ans and ability to find cures for diseases. ms. cheney: and now to speak further about this, i'd like to newoduce the gentleman from york, mr. reed. r. reed: thank you, madam chair. i wanted to come today and was nvited to come to discuss the lower cost of more cures act. as a member of congress who's his entire career to finding common ground, i can what we're offering in regards to lower cost, more cure act is something that could be signed into law. these bills consists of egislation that is broadly supported across democrat and republican circles. it has a pathway to get to the president's desk. we go to h.r. 3, in my opinion, is an exercise of the part of on health care, who loses in that environment? the american people. heard, asl you, i have my colleagues have also heard from seniors, from folks who are counters, e pharmacy drug prices in america is at a level. we need something to do that is oing to address this for the american people. and the lower cost more cures that.h.r. 19, is just it brings people together. it is not a perfect bill, but i tell you, when you can get 0% of the wealth, that's not a defeat. that's a victory, as ronald reagan taught us. so i ask my colleagues to but rt this legislation also ask them to support this legislation for another reason. of the diabetes caucus and the father of a type 4, abetic son diagnosed at 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 imit the exposure to diabetic patients so their out-of-pocket expenses are not going to put business, take food out of their refrigerators, or make them to decide whether or afford can actually insulin because we capped the ost on those patients at the pharmacy counter. i applaud my colleagues for putting this bill together, and father of a type 1 diabetic and millions of folks that suffer from diabetes out let's do something rather than just blow a lot of hot air 3.regards to h.r. and with that i turn it back to our chair. ms. cheney: thank you very much. i'd like to turn things over to our whip, mr. scalise. you, liz.se: thank congratulations to the great tate of wyoming for your 100 years. 150 years of women having the right to vote and being a a pioneer in e's too.onference, it's at a time, especially, we have a lot to be concerned about. we're working on. as house republicans, we're families or american to help improve their lives, to lower drug costs, help address they're he problems confronting. it's an unfortunate, isappointing contrast what you're seeing speaker pelosi do with her majority. and let's start, first, with is somethinge this that we've been working on since president trump took office. he said that he would make nafta better for american he would actually go and negotiate a better trade deal with mexico and canada to up more opportunities. right now a lot of products that we make in america we can't sell canada. we can't sell in mexico. and under the united tates-mexcio-canada agreement, we open those doors up and we create more jobs. more jobs for american workers. higher wages for american workers, and the ability to sell products. but even more than that, what it does is sends a message to the rest of the world. friends of lot of ours around the world. you see it with japan. ou see it with the united kingdom. so many other countries want to have better trade relationships with the united states, but can get done, they don't believe that they can deallly go and negotiate a with america until they see we can actually get the agreement with our neighbors from the north and south put into law. . i set up a whip team just specifically for usmca. this morning chairman brady an myself hosted a call with ambassador lighthizer where he laid out the details. we talked about how important it is for american workers, for the president to get this done. hopefully it gets done quickly. should have been done a long time ago. again as we have seen with speaker pelosi, she, instead of using her majority to focus on things like lowering drug prices, which we have a great bill, h.r. 19, that would lower drug price, that only includes bipartisan legislation, not a partisan approach. something that can't get signed into law. but ideas that actually bring republicans and democrats together. we have worked on this incredibly hard for months to get an agreement for republicans and democrats to lower drug prices, something that can't be signed into law by the president. something that would actually work for families. families that expect congress to do for them. families that are struggling with the high cost of drug prices. and they know that there is a better approach. we bring those approaches in h.r. 19. a really important piece of legislation, that i hope speaker pelosi would bring to the floor instead of the partisan approaches that she's been taking. finally, when you look at what she really has done with this majority, 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 with this president but they wanted to overturn the results of the 2016 election, they were committed to impeaching him, regardless of the facts. that's been going on from day one that speaker pelosi took that gavel. and today unfortunately she boughed -- bowed down to the most radical elements of their base instead of standing up to them and saying she would work for the american people. by bringing articles of impeachment after years of investigations, with the mueller investigation being the linchpin, what they thought was going tonight thing that delivered something to impeach the president on, it didn't, there was no violation. the only collusion that happened where russia tried toint fear 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 aren't being asked why they didn't stand up to russia and stop them from interfering in our election is a good question can. that's not being asked. but president trump has stood up to russia on so many accounts. president trump stood up to russia with our ally, ukraine, and still standing with ukraine against russia. when he told the jaffle lynn mils missiles to president zelensky on that call thanked president trump for doing t giving ukraine the tools they need to stand up against russia. all the times that the democrats brought witness after witness that were supposed to be the star witness, they were asked by our members, point-blank, can you name an impeachable offense? not one. can you name any kind of bribery? not one. yet they still go forward with impeachment, not because there is evidence, which is what the constitutional standard should be, but because they are afraid he will get re-elected. time after time, you heard democrats in this house say exactly that. they are not impeaching the president because they can enlist an impeachable offense, they are impeaching him because they are afraid he'll get re-elected. that's not the power of impeachment. that's the abuse of power. speaker pa lowsy, adam schiff, and her counterparts have been abusing the power of impeachment because they are afraid donald trump will get re-elected on his own. the american people should be the ones that decide who the president is. not nancy pelosi or adam schiff. because they disagree with the results of the 2016 election. that's going to be a low mark in congress. when you see what they have done to the standard of impeachment. turning it, instead, of what it's always been is a unique power of congress to hold the president accountable if they violate the law. instead now using it against a president because they are afraid he will get re-elected. on his own. that's something that she's ullsmatically going to have to account for. again, you have seen a lot of her own colleagues trying to find an off-ramp, get away from impeachment. thee she couldn't stand up to the most radical elements of our conference. make no mistake, they wouldn't be talking about this if they felt confident if their field of candidates. ultimately 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. not an impeachable offense. keep in mind, zelensky never did the investigation and got the money. zelensky himself said no pressure applied. 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. they have 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 at the colloquy last week, can you tell me how many journalists? he couldn't answer that. how many members of congress is he spying on or other citizens across this country? they can't even answer a basic question like that. at the wee should be alarmed how they abuse their power with this majority in congress. it's a shame because there is a lot more we should be doing and families across this country are counting on us like lowering drug prices. as house republicans we'll stay focused on fighting hard for those families across america who are counting on us and working with president trump to go deliver more wins for american workers and the american economy. with that i'll turn it over to our republican leader, kevin mccarthy. mr. mccart -- r. mccarthy: back in 2016, the democrats called those who supported president trump deplorbles. democrats still cannot get oferte fact that the president won the election and they lost. just last week at this podium nancy pelosi went to point out they created a timeline to impeach president trump she said started 2 1/2 years ago. many of you know though timeline because once they took the majority they had to decide who would become chairs of the committee. the impeachment committee of the judiciary, who could win? jerry nadler campaigned on he would be the very strongest member to lead a potential impeachment. on the day of swearing-in, these new freshmen that gave them the majority, a mere few hours after being sworn in, congresswoman talib proclaimed, we are going to impeach the mother. you had al green admitting that the democrats have true fears that they do not impeach president trump 245 he would -- that he would win re-election. now today we watched them introduce two articles of impeachment. change the course of congress to take away due process for any point of where we are. is it a fear that alexander hamilton had came to fruition in this congress. i just hope no congress ever repeats what we are going through today. they have a lot of members on their side very concerned. from the moment they started impeachment and letting the american public see what they believed and keep changing the term what they thought is out there, it's 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 within less than an hour, the speaker finally relented and said she would bring usmca up. she's held it for more than a year, making america weaker in our negotiations with china. our number one and number two trader in mexico and canada was being held up within our own agreement. ut those who are vulnerable in this vote for impeachment continuing to make the argument as the rest of america was too. at no time if she brought this bill up was there no fear of it passing. the only reason she relented 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, the fastest impeachment in the history of america. he then went to say if there was an abuse it would be abuse on the democrats to move forward. the speaker must not have listened to that hearing. if the speaker had only waited 48 hours to release the transcript, meshing would not -- america would not be put through the nightmare. if the speaker would pause and read the i.g. report, the inspector general, that we would have a law enforcement agency spy on a presidential campaign in more than 51 instances not hold up the rule of law or change all the information in evidence to be able to move forward on something they knew or should have known was not true is 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 facts or the hearings. this is not a day that america will be proud about. it's not day that history will write that anybody wants to repeat. alexander hamilton warned us that this day would come. that a majority would use their political power just for politics. even though we all raise our hands to uphold the onstitution. i just hope no congress, regardless who is in the majority, will ever take us down this pathogen. e have such great -- this path again. to waste a majority on this is an embarrassment to this congress. questions. yes, ma'am. reporter: does it make it harder to defend the president when his personal attorney is still traveling to ukraine, investigating his campaign, claims he wants to get -- [indiscernable] mr. mccarthy: it's not hard to defend this president on the facts out there. i think it's hard for the democrats to move forward when they start with a quid pro quo, to bribery, to every element they g it's hard for the democrats to continue this when the people they bring forth in their hearings are pretty much donors. their expert witnesses when it comes to scholars were donors to presidential campaign. the idea they are going to change the course of history that staff is going toint view staff and they are going to come out with articles of impeachment, what pow do members of congress who run to represent their district that they take it away? the idea democrats would control who can hold questions inside a hearing or how the structure would go. that's an embarrassment. it's not difficult to defend this president because this president did nothing that's impeachable. it's hard defend democrats on how they are running this house and what they are doing inside their majority. that's the difficulty that i have. he's an individual citizen that has not -- is not the question we have us. -- we have before us. 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 deplorables, but you do not have the right to disqualify their vote 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 committee. they would disallow individuals to even 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 vote i think we would have a member congress is whether we send women or men out to war, but the way they have handled this, from the very beginning, i know they set a timeline and they wanted to keep to 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 shear fact of the country of who we are. one of our greatest strengths is the rule of law. other countries admire us because we believe in the rule of law. we believe in due process. but not in nancy pelosi's house when she becomes speaker. she has weighed and hinged her entire majority on impeachment of the president. when she selected adam schiff to be the intel chair and kept him there after he lied to the american public, that he proof beyond circumstance, -- circumstantial, when we walked down to a nightmare, spent millions of dollars, 14 different countries and found that was a lie, you are an inspector general give you a report yesterday to show that a law enforcement agency spied on a presidential campaign, and when they couldn't get their own facts, they changed it to go to a secret court in fisa to try to spy further. they based that all on something that the democratic party spent money on that was a lie to try 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. if you can't meet your timeline, change all the rules this history has ever seen. so, no, it is not difficult to defend this president. but it's very difficult to defend this congress on what they have done and history will not be kind to them. reporter: the democrats say that they are defending the rule of law and doing their -- mr. mccarthy: what law? reporter: because the constitution. the proper role of the president. they say this president on that call asked a foreign government to announce an investigation by name of his political rival. i'd just like to get each of you on the record do you agree with the president that that call was perfect? that's what we want presidents to do? mr. mccarthy: the president we have before us is that call impeachable. reporter: is it perfect? mr. mccarthy: you asked the question. let me answer. we are members of congress. we are going to take a vote on two articles of impeachment. uary not going to 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 the rest of the world is going to look at from an idea of who we are. see, i simply believe that america's more than a contry, america is an idea. an idea so powerful that millions in hong kong will rise up for the idea of the freedoms we see we behold. the idea that these individuals in the majority, they have the transcript of a phone call, made a president do that that 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 but the head of the intel committee actually met with the whistleblower. they started this all on the idea that the administration would not allow the whistleblower come forward. we saw all the sunday shows, what adam schiff said, he's going to fight so hard to allow that whistleblower to come forward. he's the only one who has denied us the whistleblower from coming forward. but anywhere else in a law in america that if you base something upon a hearsay or informant, that informant has could come forward not in the dea of impeaching this president. somehow the law doesn't uphold to him because the people who voted for him are deplorable. nothing on that phone call was wrong. the attorney general was already looking into it. if somebody as an elected official and did something wrong but they run for another office, somehow what they did s not wrong anymore? why do you fall into a trap of an idea when we are talking about the highest elected office in this land and in this entire world. that they are so brazen that the dislike that they will change the rule of law to impeach him? they just introduced two articles, and your question is about is it perfect? the question is is it impeachable? the answer is absolutely no. even their own witnesses when asked, name me something that is impeachable, they could not name it. when the american public watched these hearings, the support went further down. they held a press conference at 9:00 to announce impeachment, and at 10:00, she finally relented and let usmca come up. she held is for more than a year. when negotiating with china, mexico's our number one trader, canada's our second. why? because it's another promise that this president made that he kept. it's something no one thought he could do. that he could renegotiate nafta and make america stronger. did he it. but but again the speaker has the power of when it comes up. she held it for more than a year. when every economist said you would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. she wished we would go into a recession. but we just had a jobs report that no one thought would happen. who, by more than 200,000, in canada? they went down. they will not give this president any credit. they are more willing to tear the country down if they could tear this president down. he's width stood this all, why? because ---she's withstood this all, why? because did he nothing wrong. reporter: by agreeing to the usmca, has nancy pelosi done donald trump a favor? mr. mccarthy: no. she's actually -- agreeing to it she's doing her 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 the negotiation was china? everyone would tell you yes. why did we have to wait this long to have these many more jobs that are going to be created? why did we have to wait this long to have the g.d.p. grow? maybe she wanted to give as much time as possible before the next election. just narrow that. we are less than a year away before the election, and just now usmca came up. yes, she's probably very fearful the president will get credit because he deserves it and so does lighthizer. and lighthizer showed the professionalism, through all of this, through everything they said about the president, he was professional every single day in this negotiation. the idea that you brought two countries outside of america together, and i hope you go back and write the lesson about this, i believe business 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. then went to mexico before they even changed governments and got an a-- an agreement. then he brought canada into t he showed the art of the deal how to make it happen. it was the -- probably some of the finest negotiations i have seen by this president. it just shows 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. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> and the articles of impeachment that have been announced by house democrats have been released. you can read that online, -span.org/impeachment. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy event from washington, d.c., and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979. c-span is brought to you by your local cable our satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of overnment. >> also today an agreement was announced on the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement. president trump tweeting america's great usmca trade bill is look good. it will be the best and most important trade deal ever made by the u.s.a. good for everybody. farmers, manufacturers, energy, and unions. and here are. so remarks from house speaker nancy pelosi on the usmca. speaker pelosi: good morning, everyone. this is day we have all been working to and working for on the path to yes. we were in range for a while, but until we could cross a certain threshold of enforcement, workers rights, environment, and for the prescription drug issue, as you know they were three of the areas that we had put out there. i want to thank our chairman, richard neal, chair of the ways and means committee. the eight members of the task force. i will acknowledge momentarily, but thanking them for their leadership in negotiating on different segments of the legislation. also want to thank richard, the president of the afl-cio. he was persistent, dissatisfied, knowledgeable, he really got us to a place which is far distant from where we started with the proposal that was given to us. there is no question, of course, that this trade agreement is much better than nafta. but in terms of our work here, it is infinitely better than what was initially proposed by the administration. and i credit our chairman, rich neal, for helping us navigate all of these places. the unity of our caucus on specific priorities in order to get the job done. again, the brilliance and knowledge of richard as to the ramifications of every provision that was in the legislation. we'll be handing out a memo from the ways and means committee, and they have it, which explains why we are so proud of the distance that we have come from where we started with the administration on this legislation. it's a victory for america's workers. it's one that we take great pride in advancing. members of the task force, congresswoman rosa delauro, who as a markup in her committee about workers rights. in appropriations. congresswoman jan schakowsky, you'll hear from. mike thompson of california. terri sewell of alabama. sue -- suzanne bonamici. mr. gomez from california. where are the others? john lars -- larson of account k earl blumenauer of oregon. -- of connecticut. earl blumenauer of oregon. and now it's my honor to yield to richie. he was, indeed, a maestro to make all of this happen. it's with great respect and admiration for his work and gratitude that i yield to the chairman of the ways and means committee, richie neal. mr. neal: thanks, madam speaker. [applause] every once in great while you get to participate in it will never happen moment. and we are witnessing that today. the other value of technology, i will point out, was after a round of intense finishing conversations and negotiations over the weekend that started on saturday morning with the speaker and myself and the trade rep, robert lighthizer, out a -- he sent hunting expedition, we spoke with him. but the speaker talked to me ernestly about we are near, we are near. on sunday when tom brady was about to take it in, all of a sudden i looked at my phone and said pelosi for caller i.d. long wisdom tells me the hell with brady, take the call. speaker pelosi: i was watching baltimore. mr. neal: this is a transformative agreement. it's a template for future agreements. our constant emphasis was on enforcibility, enforcibility, enforcibility, we fixed that. the idea and notion that the president of the afl-cio would be supportive of this initiative i think tells the story. this is more than a triumph for organized labor, it's atry oomph for workers everywhere across -- it's a triumph for workers everywhere across america. they strengthened the labor standards. the environmental chapters. they enhanced the verification mechanisms for environmental trade. with the unflinching leadership of the speaker we secured important changes to preserve congress' ability to change u.s. law to address the crisis we are facing with respect to high prescription drug prices. the intense period of these negotiations with the administration i repeatedly emphasized that usmca will deserve a vote because it's an agreement that democrats shaped. i don't think anybody on this diaz would have said two months ago that we would have been able to get as far as we did in this negotiation. it was based upon good will, but also a determination that we acknowledge the problems that have existed in the past with enforcibility, and it was a very telling moment. this was shared with the media. on the day of the break in august, with the working group, i said to the trade rep, the last meeting, i said, nothing has fostered more disagreement about trade than the lack of enforcibility. and the trade rep said to me, you are absolutely right. and he said i want to tell you -- this is i think i'm not speaking out of school. he said, there have been people in the state department, the defense department, and the oval office over the years who said don't get this one upset and don't get that one upset because we might need them on future geographic issues. he said our position has been that we are supportive of the thrust of what you want to do here. and i think that the initiative we offer, his position, i think the offering that we have in front of us today is indicative of the good will, but some of the members on this task force, including the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. blumenauer, what a job they did. these were intense, argue menive, angry -- argue menive -- argumentative, angry negotiations. this got really hot. at the same time we also knew this was an opportunity we couldn't let get away from us. we did that. so we will continue to share more details and text. the last point is a reminder that i traveled to mexico with a delegation to meet the president of mexico. right after that i traveled to canada to meet with the prime minister of canada. and the minister for defense and trade. they are, i believe they were good partners in this. they conceded just about to every point that we asked for because enforcibility, enforcibility, enforcibility. with that, madam speaker, i turn it back to you. speaker pelosi: turn it to jan schakowsky. champion on the issue. ms. schakowsky: it's been an honor to serve on the working group. the trump administration sent us a deeply flawed trade deal that, among other things, would have raised the price of pharmaceuticals across north america by locking in high drug prices and expanding big phrma's monopoly. over the past six months, my democratic colleagues and i on the working group we worked for a deal that helps america's patients, workers, and all consumers. we now have a new and improved renegotiated nafta that prevents big phrma from raising the price of prescription drugs across the united states, mexico, and canada. first, we eliminated provision that is undermine congress' ability to change domestic policy that lead to high drug prices. the trump administration tried to tuck into the -- to tuck in big big corporate gifts to big phrma in the usmca. 10 years of market exclusivity for biologics. though we currently have for -- in the united states 12 years of exclusivity in the united states, this trade bill would have tied congress' hands and prevented us from enacting legislation. i have a bill that would actually lower the exclusivity period. but that provision is now out of the trade deal. it is gone. [applause] and because of our current prescription drug pricing crisis, many americans actually would go to canada and to mexico to get lower cost drugs. this would have raised the cost across the hemisphere. and this deal would have caused prices of prescription drugs in those countries to skyrocket. on the first day of our negotiation, i told the u.s. trade representative lighthizer that the biologic exclusivity provisions needed to be removed. now they are gone. the trump administration also tried to gift big phrma with increased protection for secondary patents and ever greening, changing little bit after drug to get a new and extended patent. those provisions are gone. finally, the trump administration also tried to prioritize brand name drugs and include barriers to market entry of generic drugs. and we have now revised the those provisions to ensure generic competition and to improve access and affordability to medicines for people across north america. lots of people to thank. we had an amazing staff on the committee and in our offices. i want to thank congressman blumenauer. he and i were working on the pharmaceutical. i also want to thank organized labor, rich, they made the drug provisions would be an important part of this legislation. we have fixed the usmca for america's patients, could be sumers -- consumers throughout the hemisphere. thank you. >> jim has done a remarkable job. jim. mr. gomez: first, let me thank the speaker and chairman for trusting a red shir freshman to be on this working group -- redshirt freshman to be on this working group. i come from labor. i worked for the american federation of state, county, municipal employees nurses union in california. i learned and understood the seriousness of any trade agreements. when it comes to this one we were asked to really work on the labor and enforcement parts of the agreement. we look at it as a three legged stool. one, the labor rules within the agreement. two, monitoring. and three, is enforcement. when it comes to the rules, if you have swishy language, then it's hard to understand if there is any violation of that agreement. we tie up the language to make it stronger and more enforceable. two, you have to have monitoring of any violations on the ground. we created some monitoring mechanisms to atest mexico's progress in implementing its labor reforms and complying with the rules that we laid out in writing. three, if there is no consequences to a violation that we discover through monitoring of those rules, then the agreement is not worth the paper it's written on. we traded an enhanced labor specific enforcement mechanism that will support and ensure violation of the agreement standards will have real world consequences. these provision goes the to the perspective that the speaker laid out and caucus laid out at the beginning of the negotiating process. i want to make clear this is no longer nafta light. this is a new trade agreement that the working group anti-democrats have achieved. with consultation with our partners. it is something that when you look at it that has included -- that's never been included, parts we have negotiated have never been included in any trade agreement ever in the history of this country. ever. that means that we are going to have more confidence that this is actually going to benefit the american workers and create a level -- more level playing field between mexico and the united states and canada. i think this is big win. this is no longer nafta light. and to the extent where we have next could he and canada have to open up the agreement again and sign off on it again. but i want to just say that i learned from some of best staffers. we have great staff up here who have provided the guidance and expertise, stakeholders, the speaker is a master legislator. i think without her chairman neal and chairman blumenauer, we would not be here today. thank you so much. mr. neal: suzanne bonamici who managed the environmental side. ms. bonamici: four years ago today president obama signed the every student succeeds act to replace no child left behind with better policy. somebody a lot of people said would never get done. here we are today. the reason it happened is because of strong leadership and when we fight hard for the american people, we can get something done. and we are here today to say thank you to speaker pelosi, thank you to chairman feal, and thank you to the work group who did work and fight hard for better provisions. and i can say unequivocally, this is significantly better than nafta, and importantly a new trade agreement setting high standards that is significantly better than the usmca that came to us in the work group. with regard to the environment, we fought hard for these provisions. we have better rules on the environment. importantly we have enhanced monitoring. so we know when violations happen. and then critically we have strong enforcement and strong funding to make sure that those provisions are being enforced. we incorporate several multilateral agreement, environmental agreements. we have an interagency committee to assess and monitor. this is going to be the best trade agreement for the environment. that is because of the hard work of the speaker, the hard work of chairman neal, and the hard work of the work group. and all the stakeholders who fought hard. thank you-all for being here today on this critical day and look forward to continuing so we get this over the finish line. thank you. ms. pelosi: thank you very much for your hard work of the gang of eight and the rest. what will happen now, right now, as we are speaking, the trade representative son his way to mexico for there to be a signing of this new revised trade agreement. which has come a long way from the original agreement that they presented to us. makes all the difference in the world to american workers, workers in canada workers in mexico. it makes all the difference in the world in terms of environmental issues. and it makes all the difference in the world in terms of what congresswoman schakowsky talked about in terms of not putting in a trade agreement something that not only bars those countries, but our country from making any changes to strengthen the hand, give more leverage to consumers rather than to big phrma. with that we'll take some questions, but perhaps first the distinguished chairman would like to say what we do next in terms of the implementing legislation. mr. neal: we'll share text and people will have an opportunity to review parts of the agreement before there is any expedited period of bringing it to the floor, but i also think that minister freeland is in mexico now with the trade rep. and we hope that they'll copper fasten the issue. as the -- i want to say something -- that ways and means staff, trade staff, they are the best. [applause] ms. pelosi: i want to acknowledge my katherine. mr. neal: that will begin to get the information out. people have a chance to sort the implementation language. and get this to the floor. i think that there is no reason for -- unnecessary zhraydelay, but at the same time we want to make sure there is a chance for people in the caucus to vet what we put together. reporter: on the impeachment -- [laughter] reporter: do we want to take questions? indiscernable] reporter: is it a coincidence you are announcing this bipartisan deal on the same day that you are unveiling your articles of impeachment? ms. pelosi: it's not a coincidence. we get to the end of a session there have to be decisions made. the timetable for impeachment is the timetable of the committee. and that came to an end with the hearing yesterday. but for us, this is -- we didn't know what day it would be. but the trade representative lighthizer, who was remarkable to work with, he shared our -- he understood why we could not accept the trump administration product. he wanted to get this signed by the mexicans and the canadians. when are you dealing with something like this, it could be perishable. he wanted to close while we were all in agreement and therefore we came to agreement. mr. neal: again, it was just -- the idea of timing on this was that notification was offered that we might get there so that we had to prepare the mexican president, canadian prime minister. as i noted earlier the ambassador and speaker cautioned him on saturday. i'm witness to the conversation on the phone. he was very anxious. she said, no, we need another confirmation phone call with rich which took place. and i think that -- ms. pelosi: he had his communication. mr. neal: with his affiliates. speaker pelosi: we are coming to the end of the session. if you engineer back from what we hope will be the end, december 20, if you engineer back in order to get something accomplished, which we hope to do before the end of the session, you have to move. reporter: what do you say to those who wonder how you can say president trump is an existential threat to democracy on the one hand, but also worked so closely with his administration to get something like this done which is a pry court for them. speaker pelosi: i would say we came a long way from what he originally proposed. there are some people who say why make it look like he has a victory. we declaring victory for the american worker and what is in this agreement. but we would never, not any one of us is important enough to hold up a trade agreement that's important for american workers because of any collateral benefit that might agrew to any one of us. mr. neal: this is a hemispheric trade agreement. that's how important this is. we were determined to alter the conversation about trade. e made this agreement. speaker pelosi: mind you, mexico has nafta. what is their motivation? we had to take everybody to a different place. certainly we would never have agreed to what the president proposed. reporter: can you explain to the american people, you fought hard, what this means for the economy long term? and also will the americans have the ability to go into next can and verify? mr. neal: yes. we also believe that as we proceed now into the final stages of the text sharing, that we'll be able to confirm what i just said. not to miss the point that we can't turn our backs and deny the reality of trade. as i noted earlier, 95% of the consumer class of the world lives outside the united states. if you talk to your children or grandchildren, you talk about the internet, we are already globalized. the idea for us is to shape these agreements so the american worker is covered as ell. reporter: a whiplash morning for you. the impeachment at 9:00. speaker pelosi: and the day is young. laughter] first of all, all you talk about when we come together is when are we getting out of here? now you're saying whiplash all this activity. reporter: we have been through many crazy decembers. we are getting there. that said, when i talk with gems who are very interested in getting usmca who might be skeptical about impeachment. they emphasize while it is important to get this done but wonder whether or not the intention and legislative success of usmca could win the day in the court of public opinion over impeachment when those issues are more prominent. do you expect to prevail more than impeachment? speaker pelosi: this has life of its own. this is about as the chairman has said, globalization is a reality. it is not going away. and when we are shaping a bill hat led trade with the environment, with workers' rights and the rest, this is -- its own reason for being. it has nothing to do with the rest of what you were talking about. i will say that it is -- in terms of globalization, environment, and then talking about -- not using a trade agreement to hurt our ability to make our own laws in the united states and those countries to do so. i was too late coming in on it. reporter: could you explain that a little bit. speaker pelosi: i lost. here's the thing. they had 230 in the agreement. there are some members who wanted that, i guess, i don't know. didn't name names. he had 230 in the agreement, which is, in my view, the wrong way to go. it's a real gift to big tech. i had said to the -- we know this, i had said to the trade representative, we are not adding any more issues to the discussion. environment, pharmaceuticals, workers' rights, enforcement. that came to my attention after i made that commitment. and by the way it was a letter from the chairman of the committee and the ranking republican member asking that it be removed. but unfortunately i got it after i made the pledge of not moving anymore. reporter: more than a year ago when the original deal was signed, how come it took so long to take this up? mr. neal: we were not going to accept the original deal. that's what it comes down to. speaker pelosi: it's a real indication why we are celebrating today this victory for the american worker. under the leadership of our chairman, richard neal, hard work of our eight members of the working group and in addition to that the trade committee and the input that we are getting from all of our members of our caucus about what the impact was in their areas, and we share that with the trade with mr. lighthizer and the rest, it takes a while, especially when you are starting with something that is a nonstarter. that's what the trump administration gave us. a nonstarter. if you want to talk about the time, just understand the change that was necessary in that. and had to be made in the agreement. the treaty, not just what we would do in implementing legislation, which is our own discussion. but what we had to have with the canadians and mexicans. i found it to be relatively short. perhaps you haven't been around here when you have had major battles on trade. remember nafta one? oh, my god. that was something intense, heated, and long. this was really quite easy compared to that. the chairman said, this can be -- what we wanted was not only to inch our way to a place -- we wanted to take it to another place where it could be a template for future trade agreements. a standard was set in terms of workers and how we respect our own legislative process here. as well as how we say whatever you want to say there is a direct connection between trade and the environment. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. sit ncicap.org] >> president trump responded to the announcement of the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement tweeting looking like very good democratic support for usmca. that would be great our our country. america's great usmca trade bill is looking good. it will be the best and most important trade deal ever made by the u.s.a. good for everybody. farmers, manufacturers, energy, unions, tremendous

Related Keywords

Japan , Alabama , United States , Upton , Wyoming , Hong Kong , Washington , China , California , Togo , Oregon , Russia , Canada , Michigan , Connecticut , Ukraine , Mexico , Americans , Mexicans , America , Canadians , Canadian , American , Rosa Delauro , Richard Neal , Earl Blumenauer , Lars Larson , Barack Obama , Nancy Pelosi , Terri Sewell , Reed R , Adam Schiff , Tom Brady , Jan Schakowsky , Mike Thompson , Alexander Hamilton ,