--SUPERS--
Friday
Pratt, KS



 --VO SCRIPT--
A MAN ACCUSED OF A MULTI-STATE CRIME SPREE MADE HIS FIRST COURT APPEARANCE IN KANSAS.
ALEX DEATON IS CHARGED THERE WITH ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE MURDER, AGGRAVATED ROBBERY, FELONY THEFT AND FLEEING AND ELUDING A POLICE OFFICER.
POLICE SAY DEATON SHOT AND WOUNDED A STORE CLERK LAST WEEK IN PRATT COUNTY.
THEN, HE ALLEGEDLY STOLE THE CLERK"S CAR AND LED POLICE ON A CHASE THAT ENDED IN A FIERY CRASH.
KANSAS HIGHWAY PATROL TROOPERS ARRESTED HIM.
DEATON IS ALSO ACCUSED OF KILLING TWO WOMEN IN MISSISSIPPI AND CAR-JACKING A COUPLE IN NEW MEXICO.
HIS BOND IS SET AT FIVE-MILLION-DOLLARS.
 -----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----

 --KEYWORD TAGS--
KANSAS PRATT MISSISSIPPI NEW MEXICO ALEX DEATON



1450 HOUSE FLOOR FS101 88 HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE: The House meets for legislative business. // H.Res. 755 - Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors (Closed Rule, Six Hours of Debate) (Rep. Nadler / Judiciary) Mr. Mcnerney: ...usurp for themselves the reins of government. How wise he was. Vote no on this assault to our republic. The constitution -- republic, the constitution and against President Trump. 145010 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, John Adams warned in a letter to Thomas Jefferson that these risks are unavoidable and might sometimes overlap. Quote, you are apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence. So am I. As long as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence occurs. Closed quote. I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence. The speaker pro tempore: The gent gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 145043 Mrs. Lawrence: Madam Speaker, today history is being written. The facts are conclusive. The President attempted to use the power of the powerful office of President to force Ukraine to influence our 2020 election. In the process, President Trump jeopardized our national security and withheld vital military -- withheld vital military assistance, attempted to prevent further Russian aggression to our region. However, as our committees, including government oversight, which I sit on, and which I'm a member, sought to interview additional witnesses and obtain documents, the President ordered from the power of his office that the executive branch to not participate and obstructed the congressional oversight. 145134 Article 1 provides the House of representatives with the sole power of impeachment. As well as the authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch. What did very to hide? When the framers met over 200 years ago, they went to great length to ensure future Presidents would be forced to answer to their constitutional responsibility. I stand today in support of the two articles of impeachment. The speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. At this time I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, a member of the judiciary . The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for two minutes Mr. Cline: Thank you, madam speaker. today is a sad day for this body, for the voters who sent me here last November, and for our nation. 145223 Benjamin Franklin cautioned when asked what he had given us, a republic, if you can keep it. Today we take a step further toward losing the republic that our founding fathers envisioned by engaging in activity that they specifically warned against. The misuse of the constitutional power of impeachment for one party's political gain. Our constitution is the very foundation of our republic. Its assurance of self-determination has been the shining beacon by which our nation has chartered its course over the last two centuries from a new democratic experiment, struggling to survive, to the greatest nation on Earth, America has been powered over the years not by government, but by the ingenuity, the bravery and the faith of its people. 145304 Confident in their place as one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And so it is we the people who determine our President, not we the judiciary committee. Nor we the congress. The constitution is clear, it's only when we see clear proof of the impeachable offenses outlined in article 2, section 4, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, that we are to challenge the decision of the voters, break the figurative glass and pull the emergency rip cord that is impeachment. We do not have that proof today. Thomas Jefferson said, I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them. But to inform their discretion by education. 145350 But rather than educate this majority has chosen today to obfuscate with speculation.And when history looks at this house, it will judge it for what it truly is. A blatantly political process designed to finally achieve what they could not achieve at the ballot box, the removal of a elected President. Compelled by my sworn duty to uphold this constitution and for the people, I vote no on impeachment today. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 145433 Mr. Huffman: Madam speaker, as we take the solemn, necessary step of impeaching President Trump, my Republican colleagues have made up their minds. We can't persuade them to do the right thing. So i'll address my remarks to the future. Today's vote will be judged by future generations, including my precious children, Abby and Nathan, maybe grandkids. Historians will study what members of this congress did when our democracy was tested like never before. By a President who put personal interests above country, who compromised national security to cheat his way to re-election, and when caught, not only lied and refused to admit wrongdoing, but flouted congress' authority. He even called the constitutional impeachment mechanism unconstitutional. 145815 Historians will marvel how some members of congress continued to stand by this man, how they put blind partisan loyalty or fear of Donald Trump above their duty to defend the constitution. How they made absurd partisan arguments and tried to obstruct these proceeding and how instead of pushing back when their party fell under the dark spell of authoritarianism, they embraced it as if the constitution, the rule of law, and our oath of office mean nothing. So, madam speaker, for our future generations, our children, the judgment of history, let me be clear -- I stand with our constitution, with the rule of law, and our democracy. I'll be voting yes to impeach Donald J. Trump. 145600 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. >> I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Today's vote to impeach the duly elected President of the United States is truly historical. However, its unique place in history is not for the reasons the democratic party and their mainstream media overlords are so desperately trying to convey. Today we will be remembered as the day that the Democrats, claiming a false moral supremacy, over the desire of the American people executed a deliberate and orchestrated plan to overturn a Presidential election. It will be the first time in history that a party paraded out their ivy league academics to explain to 31 states and almost 63 million people that their voice should not be heard and why their votes should be counted. 145653 I pray for our nation every day. But today I'm praying for my colleagues across the aisle. Who arrived at this partisan and self-directed fork in the road and chose the road never before traveled and one that has a dead end. Donald J. Trump is our President. Chosen by the American people. Fair and square. As we say in Texas, it's a done deal. Democrats' attempt to change history will never undo that. May God bless the greatest country in the world, the United States of America. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Mr. Collins: Reserve. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I would remind the gentleman that the impeachment clauses placed in the constitution to protect the American people and our form of government against a President who would subvert our constitutional liberties in between elections. I now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 145746 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Green: Still I rise, madam speaker. I rise because I love my country and, madam speaker, shall any man be beyond justice, this is the question posed in 1787 by George Mason at the constitutional convention. Shall any man be beyond justice? Madam speaker, if this President is allowed to thwart the efforts of congress with a legitimate impeachment inquiry, the President will not only be above the law, he will be beyond justice. 145831 We cannot allow any person to be beyond justice in this country. In the name of democracy, on behalf of the republic, and for the sake of the many who are suffering, I will vote to impeach and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well. No one is beyond justice in this country. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd also remind my chairman that the impeachment was not to be used in the -- between election cycles to defeat a President, sitting President, who you think will be re-elected. With that, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Buchanan. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for minute. Mr. Buchanan: Thank you, madam speaker. I will vote today against both articles of impeachment because we are without merit, setting a dangerous precedent for our country. This political vendetta is an abuse of the impeachment process and would subvert the votes of 63 million Americans. 145930 Just because the President's opponents are afraid that he'll win re-election is no excuse for weaponizing impeachment. No President in history has ever been impeached 10 months before an election. Elections are the heart of our democracy, our founding fathers devised a simple way to remove a President if you disagree with him. It's called an election. And we have one coming up in less than a year. Let's let the people December this next November. And I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from New York. 150005 Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> Ms. Tlaib: I rise today in support of impeachment. I learn so much from my residents at home. Their common sense and understanding what is right and what is wrong is why they oppose any person using the most powerful position in the world for personal gain. We serve the people of the United States and uphold the constitution, not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans. We should learn. Doing nothing here, madam speaker, is not an option. Looking away from these crimes against our country is not an option. This is about protecting the future of our nation and our democracy from corruption, abuse of power, criminal cover-up, and bribery. And this, madam speaker, this vote is also for my sons in the future. 150113 Of so many generations. So I urge my colleagues to please, vote yes on these articles of impeachment. With that, mad speaker, I yield. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Joyce: I rise on this dark day in the United States house of representatives to voice my opposition to the shameful impeachment process that has occurred in the people's house. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not like President Trump. We know this because they proudly boasted about their intention to impeach our President before he was even sworn into office. Out of disdain for the President and for those of us who elected him, the House of Representatives is considering two articles of impeachment that are so very weak that they even fail to include specific crimes. 150212 The people that I represent in south central and southwestern Pennsylvania know the truth. The American people know the truth. This impeachment circus has never been about the facts. This process has always been about seeking revenge for the President's election in 2016 and attempting to prevent him from winning again in 2020. Madam speaker, I wholeheartedly oppose this partisan and shameful effort to impeach our democratically and duly elected President. For the sake of our nation, I urge my colleagues to join with me and vote no on the articles of impeachment. Thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr:nadler: Madam speaker, all we keep hearing from the other side are attacks on the process and questions of our motives. We do not hear because we cannot hear because they cannot articulate a real defense of the President's actions. I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 150321 Ms. Pressley: Madam speaker, I rise today to protect our democracy. Today, we take a stand against corruption and abuses of power. What we are doing here today is not only patriotic, it is uniquely American. America is a story of ordinary people confronting abuses of power with the steadfast pursuit of justice. Throughout our history, the oppressed have been relegated to the margins by the powerful, and each time we have fought back. Deliberate in our approach, clear-. Each ghaation has fought for the preservation of our democracy, and that is what brings us to the house floor today. Efficient and effective in the pursuit of our truth. Congress Has done its due diligence. Today, we send a clear message, we are not tolerate abuses of power from the President of the United States of ame America. The future of this nation rests in our hands. It is with a heavy heart but a resolved one, and because I believe our democracy is worth fighting for, I vote to impeach Donald J. Trump, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. 150426 The speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. You know, again, my chairman, again, I think he hears us. He doesn't want to acknowledge it. When you have nothing but a process that was completely amuck, you talk about the process. Let's do it one more time. No pressure by either Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelenskiy. What horrifies me is the continuation to say that Mr. Zelenskiy, who is the supposed victim here, who said many times there was no pressure. The majority of Democrats are calling him a liar or weakening him in his own country. Has no conditionality in the transcript or after that. Five meetings prove that. All high level meetings. No conditionality. Two of those meetings were when the Ukrainian knew their aid was being held. After, there was nothing done to get the money, guess what they got the money. That's the fact. That's what they don't want to deal with. That's where we're at today. So let's continue to see how the sham was perpetrated. That's what many of our members are talking about. With that I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bergman. 150527 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Bergman: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in opposition to the articles of impeachment against President Trump. I believe all the American people need to be looked in the eye by all their representatives. Today is the culmination of the Democrats' three year-long quest to delegitimize the President. This was promised in 2016. It was all promised when the Democrats took majority. Sham process began without a formal vote in the house and continued over the last several months willfully trampling on decades of bipartisan precedent. No due process, closed door depositions even though nothing in the investigation was classified and leaking only details that fit their narrative. 150620 If this isn't partisan politics, I don't know what is. Holding our elected officials accountable is a job I take extremely seriously. But the impeachment votes today represent the worst of Washington, D.C. Yet, another reason my constituents are so disillusioned with the process and disappointed by the 116th congress. Michigan's first district sent me to Washington to get things done, to get government off their backs and help rural michiganners and others across the country keep more of their hard-earned currency. Not impeach our duly elected President. With that I urge my colues to support against the articles of impeachment. I yield back. The speaker Theo tempore: The GE gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 150715 Ms. Barragan: Madam speaker, it is with a solemn sense of duty that I rise today in support of impeachment. As this chamber debates two articles of impeachment against the President for his abuse of power and obstruction of congress, I want history to know that I stood up to say that I stand for the constitution and our democracy. When my immigrant mom became a United States citizen, she took an oath and allegiance to our country and constitution. When I stood on this floor as a new member of congress, I took an oath to uphold and defend our constitution. The President abused his power when he uses official office and power to ask foreign government to interfere in our elections. When he asked a foreign government for a personal favor to dig up dirt on his political opponent so he could cheat. The President got caught and then he tried to cover it up. Today, we say no more. Today, we say we will not allow this President to abuse his power and endanger our national security. I stand to say, no one is above the law. Not even this President. I yield back. 150816 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Perry: Since before inauguration the press and members of this congress have been for impeachment. Members refused to attend the inauguration. They called for impeachment. They voted for impeachment. Without any evidence, they voted for impeachment, creating and manufacturing evidence. Recall and votes of no confidence are not included in our constitution for a reason. Our system demands evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. If such evidence existed, there would be agreement in this chamber, but there is not. There is not an agreement because there is no evidence. Madison and Hamilton warned us this might happen, that impeachment would veer toward political factions and that's exactly what this is. This is bitterly and nakedly partisan. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made a mockery of this process and this government. 150911 They despise the President and are themselves abusing their power. Madam speaker, they hope if they repeat them over and over you will believe their charges. Repeating things that aren't true doesn't make them true. The call record between the two Presidents is clear. President Trump was interested in getting to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election. He asked the Ukrainians to work with our attorney general. The Ukrainians were already getting the military hardware and they got the aid they desired. These are not high crimes. These are disagreements over foreign aid. My colleagues are not driven by a quest of facts or truth. They are driven by their partisan, animus, and a timetable. These are the reckless and irresponsible act of elitists in the swamp and they underline the fabric of our republic. I urge a no vote I yield. 151011 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I would remind the gentleman that there is in fact extensive direct evidence, including the President's own words and actions, which is corroborated and supported by indirect and circumstantial evidence. The record leaves the following key facts indisputable. President Trump's own attorney, Rudy Giuliani, pushed Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 elections. President Trump directed U.S. Officials and President zelenskiy himself to work with Mr. Giuliani to fulfill his demands. President Trump withheld critical military aid for Ukraine. And President Trump stonewalled congress' investigation to cover-up his misconduct. I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten. 151100 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Casten: Madam speaker, this should not be a partisan vote. This is a vote about America. It's a vote about our democracy and our oath to the constitution. We all took an oath to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. We all know that it's wrong to withhold foreign aid for a political favor. We all know it's wrong to ignore congressional subpoenas. And we know it's wrong to default to silly partisan process arguments rather than to rise and defend this beautiful but all-too-fragile democracy. And when those abuse those powers for personal advantage, it's for us to uphold the responsibility the founders bestowed upon us. I remind you the great words of Lincoln. 151149 When one party would inflame partisanship rather than let the nation survive, I am proud to be the party to accept partisanship rather than accept the nation perish. This moment the message is clear, we must impeach. Don't vote your party, vote your character. That's how you're going to be judged and that's how we are all going to be judged. Thank you. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: I ask for a time check. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia has an hour and -- an hour and 44 1/2 minutes. The gentleman from New York has an hour and 47 1/2 minutes. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Tipton: Kem speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this partisan impeachment process. Make no mistake, this process does not begin with a whistleblower report. In fact, impeachment efforts began shortly after the President was elected. 151253 The theatrics, political posturing have ensured that this body is not actually pursuing to preserve checks and balances. Rather, this process echos the calls by somat refuse to accept the 2016 election results. Neither of the articles receiving a vote just by the removal of the President from office. The first articles suggests that the President pressured a foreign government to be able to assist in an upcoming election. Ukraine received its aid without a prearranged agreement. This is unsubstantiated. Second article is premised on the obstruction occurred when the White House ignored subpoenas issued by the house. Our federal courts are the ultimate arbiters of these decisions. In fact, the previous administrations Republican and Democrat both have dealt with these issues and claimed executive privilege. Mr. Speaker -- madam speaker, the articles that are before this house are unsubstantiated. I intend to vote no on these articles and I would encourage my colleagues to be able to do the same. The speaker thetempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gallego. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 151405 Mr Gallego: Madam speaker, today I will vote to impeach President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Those still defending the President's actions are desperately grasping at stause while living in an alternative universe where facts don't exist. To those still unwilling to search their souls ask yourselves -- would you support a democratic President using taxpayer dollars to pressure a foreign government to investigate a Republican political opponent based on false Russian conspiracy theories? Of course not. That's absurd. Any President who does that has abused the power of the presidency for personal gain and undermine our most sacred tradition, our elections. In a few hours, every member will make a choice. Will you fall into the age-old political trap of thinking blind partisanship is all that matters or will you vote to defend the constitution and our democracy so that President Trump and every future President will know they are not above the law and will be held accountable for their actions? 151503 I have made my choice. I hope every member puts the defense of our nation first and joins me. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlewoman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I need to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Smith. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Smith: Madam speaker, I rise today to speak out against this attempt to remove the duly elected President of the united States. Impeachment is importantly established in our constitution. The impeachment of a President has only happened twice in our country's 243 year history. Yet today for highly political purposes the house majority is trying to remove President Trump from office based on secondhand indirect accounts. 151545 The articles of impeachment we are voting on today offer no evidence of a crime, but instead are purposely broad to fit the majority's narrat less than one year until the next Presidential election, we are being asked to override the choice of the American people. This lopsided and hyper partisan biased impeachment process has had predetermined as an outcome from the very beginning. This is an unfortunate day in in history in our great country. Surely there will be disagreements between the President and congress for many years to come. Instead of unnecessarily dividing our country, as we are seeing today, we should be looking at ways to bring our country together. Thank you. I yield back. 151632 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, President Trump's actions are both impeachable and criminal. Although the violation of the federal criminal statute is neither necessary nor sufficient to justify impeachment, President Trump's conduct violated the federal anti-bribery statute very clearly. Madam speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. The speaker pro temp the gentleman is recognizer one minute. 151700 Mr. Beyer: I thank the chairman. Madam Speaker, today I will vote to impeach Donald Trump for abuse of power an obstruction of congress. I don't hate the President. But I love my country and I have no other choice. These articles of impeachment is the on lmoral course of action, the only way to honor our oath of office. I have no doubt the votes I cast today will stand the test of time this. Has nothing to do with the 2016 elections. I'm so disappointed in my Republican friends approve of the President's abuses of power and solicitation of foreign interference in our elections. This is the very definition of the willful suspension of disbelief. Know in their heart what the President has done is deeply wrong. They know they would vote without hesitation impeach a democratic President who had done these things. I remind all Americans the President did not rebut the facts, many facts, which led to articles of impeachment today. For the sake of our democracy, our constitution, and our country, we must do the right thing and vote to impeach President Trump. I yield back. 151800 The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I was amazed by what the Chairman said. If he violated the robbery statute, why didn't we add it as an article of impeachment, the reason why? He it didn't. The speaker pro Tempe: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Thank you, ma'am article 2, section 4 the United States constitution states that the President of the United States may be removed from office for treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. As a former prosecutor I am confident that no court would accept these articles of impeachment as having met the standards set forth by our founding fathers. The impeachment articles rely almost exclusively on hearsay and opinion testimony and they present no direct evidence of wrongdoing. As a former district attorney I am dismayed that the Democrats have submitted articles of impeachment against a sitting President using circumstantial evidence that fails to offer proof of an impeachable offense. 151904 Additionally, the charges levied against the President and arcticles of impeachment lack historical precedent and motivated by pure political reasons. If the House of Representatives passes the articles of impeachment, the Democrats will have set a dangerous precedent by undoing America's vote for President because a single party disagreed with the 2016 Presidential election results. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the articles of impeachment and I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: Gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: I now yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Thompson. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Thompson: Madam speaker, I find no pleasure coming to the floor today to consider impeachment. I ran for congress to represent my community and to serve the country I love. As a combat veteran and having served eight years on the intelligence committee, I understand the eat that foreignplayors can play in our elections. Every elected official must dedicate themselves to protecting our democracy. No one should invite a foreign country to interfere with our [3:20:24 PM] most sacred act of voting. It was abuse of power by the President ask a foreign nation to interfere in our election to benefit his personal and political interest and to condition bipartisan congressionally approved aid on that interference. Unchecked these actions could lead us down a path that will unravel the-the fabric of our nation. I am saddened we are here today. In the interest of defending our nation, I will vote for the articles of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, Madam Speaker. At this time I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Roy: I thank the gentleman from Georgia. . Speaker, our founders intentionally did not embrace recalls or votes of no confidence. We demand of congress high crimes and misdemeanors. While my colleagues are free to like the President E., and view the phone call as something less than perfect, they are not free to impeach something less than a high crime and misdemeanor. [3:21:24 PM] In just over 10 months the people are free to decide and we should let them. The eyes of the world are upon us, madam speaker. The press galleries are full. Our floor of members. When will we give the world -- give the world something better than this. My colleagues talk about the constitution they found under mothballs. Where's respect for the constitution when people's house daily refuse to do its actual job while shredding federalism. Today in Mexico a young girl will be abused while being trafficked toward our open borders. While some here yell kids in cages. Today New York a young mother will be coursed into abortion by taxpayer funded planned parenthood, while we allow the genocide of the unborn in the false name of choice. Today across America diabetics will afford to insulin due to our health care system ravaged by government and insurance bureaucrats empowered in the false name of coverage. Today our children inherit $100 million of debt an hour borrowed in the false name of what government can provide. In this conduct by congress, [3:22:25 PM] failing to do its jobs, that should be impeached. One might ask if America would be better off taking the first 435 names out of the phone book to represent us in the united States house than what is on display here today. Today is not a dark day because the American people know this. America is great. Washington is broken. And we are taking our country back. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I now yield one minute to the in distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui. The speaker pro tempore: The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. Ms. Matsui: Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I came to Congress to serve the great people of Sacramento and to build am Bert future for our children and grand, the children, including my grandkids. The facts before us are crystal clear we heard testimony from 17 brave patriots who value our democracy and the constitution. They testified thaesident ump threatened to withhold congressionally approved money [3:23:25 PM] in exchange for dirt on the political rival and worse. It continues to invite foreign powers to violate our sovereignty even today. On its face these are impeachable offenses that represent a clear and present danger Tory country. That's why the only answer is to act now. We need to stand together and stop President Trump immediately so that he cannot violate the next election. For the sake of our country and our democracy, I will vote yes to impeach the President. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Smucker. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Smucker: Thank you. Madam speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, how much is the trust of the American people worth? When the American people are dissatisfied with their government, the primary tool that the constitution gives them to make a change is their vote. And on November 8, 2016, [3:24:27 PM] Americans from every part of this nation packed the polls to elect Donald J. Trump to be the President of the uniteates. The country wanted a disrupter, a fire, a deal maker, a President that would put America first. But sadly on that very same day Democrats had no plan or interest in honoring the vote he American people. They were going to attempt from day one to delegitimize this President and ultimately remove him from office. Right after the President was sworn in, "The Washington Post" wrote, the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun. Before he took office a "Politico" article Headline read, could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office? So, House Democrats have been planning for this day since nu January, 2017. It's clear that facts have never mattered to the house Democrats. [3:25:28 PM] They never planned to work with the President. Instead they intended only to fulfill their Divis partisan agenda. Again I ask, how much is the trust of the American people worth? Because after the vote today, for what you think is a short-term partisanain, you can be sure that the American people will have lost their trust in our institution. They will have lost their trust in congress and most importantly lost trust their vote counts. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: I yield one minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Garamendi: Thank you, madam speaker. Impeaching a President is one of the most solemn and consequential decisions the United States congress can make. It's not an action that I or my fell house colleagues take lightly. -- Fellow house colleagues take lightly. Investigations and hearings [3:26:28 PM] conducted by the house proved overwhelming evidence that President Trump abused his power and endangered our national security. President Trump also issued a blanket order prohibiting all executive office personnel from testifying, responding to subpoenas, or turning over documents. Therefore he has obstructed the legitimate, constitutional obligation of congress. The President's actions leave me no choice. President Trump violated his oath of office. Now I will uphold my oath of office to preserve and protect our constitution. And my promise to my constituents to carefully analyze all issues before me. I will vote in favor of both articles of impeachment against President Donald John Trump. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: Thank you, madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a [3:27:29 PM] minute and a half. Mr. Dunn: I stand before you today a disappointed man. I am disappointed in a broken and partisan process that has consumed the house Democrats. We were told this investigation was going to be bipartisan and transparent. Instead the proceedings were hen secret behind closed doors with no attempt at a fair hearing. All this was done deliberately in an effort to undo the results of the 2016 election. Madam speaker, my constituents in Florida want to see us get to work. They want us, they are counting on us to actually fix the surprise medical billing, lower the cost of prescription drugs. Instead we are here a week before Christmas voting to impeach the legitimate President, Donald J. Trump, on the strength of nothing but rumors. We have wasted almost a year on this process while house Democrats chose political theater over serving the American people. This shameful vote to impeach our President will be a lasting stain on our house. And I urge all of my colleagues [3:29:33 PM] and he withheld that aid until the whistleblower report came out. Then the aid was released. It wasn't released for any good purpose. Congress voted for that aid, the President signed the bill that. Is another impeachable offense. And the judiciary committee has put together an extensive document which shows that there is evidence of numerous other federal crimes, including bribery and wire fraud. The President's actions threaten the continuation of our representative democracy. I'm proudly voting for impeachment today. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Collins: I am glad to know Mr. Trump was giving them lethal aid, something to fight back with not what was previously given to them. There was again from the President himself no pressure put on him. If your whole says if you are coercing somebody if there was no pressure. We don't seem to get that part on this floor debate today. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Montana. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. Mr. Gianforte: Today this [3:30:33 PM] chamber is pushing through the pose partisan baseless articles of impeachment in our history. It's been a sham since day one. Driven by those whose bitter range against President Trump blind their better judgment. . Earlier this year, speaker Pelosi said impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path. None of those standards have been met. None. The committee hearings were scripted, substance-free, made-for-tv show. They would be comedy if impeachment weren't so serious and grave. Witnesses denied awareness of an impeachable offense, and because the majority has failed to make the case for impeachment, there is no [3:31:35 PM] bipartisanship. Compelling, overwhelming, bipartisan, Speaker Pelosi has not met her own criteria for impeaching. The American people have rejected this. I will vote against this partisan impeachment sham. On this sad day of an impeachment charade, I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Gonzalez: Madam Speaker, I rise on a sad day for America, a sad day for Texas, and a very sad day for the people I represent. I am not gleeful today. I came to fight for [3:32:36 PM] prescription drugs, make sure everyone was ok. I did not come to congress to impeach a sitting President bus he's given us no choice. He used the office of the presidency for personal and political G our founding fathers feared one day the power of the presidency would stretch beyond its limits. Thus, they enshrined in the constitution a system of checks and balances. We cannot and will not lower the ethical standards of our presidency. We cannot afford to wither like a cheap flower in bad weather, watching our democracy crumbling and rot from within. That is not ACA the world knows and love, and this is not something we want our future generations to inherit. That's why today I must vote to impeach the President of the United States and fulfill my oath to the constitution, and I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Dakota. [3:33:38 PM] Mr. Armstrong: I yield to Mr. Hurd. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hurd: We have not heard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of bribery or extortion. Allegations of these two crimes aren't even mentioned in the articles of impeachment being debated today. But today, we have seen a rushed process divide our country. Today, accusations have been hurled at each other, questioning one another's integrity. Today, a dangerous precedent will be set. Impeachment becoming a weaponized political tool. We know how this partisan process will end this evening, but what happens tomorrow? Can this chamber put down our swords and get back to work for the American people? This institution has a fabled history of changing legislation that has not only changed our country but has inspired the world. Theat has been possible because this experiment we call [3:34:39 PM] America has one perpetual goal, make a more perfect union. We can contribute to this history if we recognize the simple fact that way more unites our country than divides us. Tomorrow, can we start focusing on that? The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I know now yield one minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Davis: Thank you, Madam speaker. This is indeed a sad day for our country. This is indeed a sad day for America. But it's a good day for our constitution. It is a sad day for our country because President Trump has defied our constitution, our rules, our requirements, and our expectations. It is clear that President Trump places himself above the law, above our constitution, and above the expectations of [3:35:40 PM] the American people. At my last town hall meeting, which was held Saturday, December 15, at Malcolm X College in Chicago, someone asked the question -- what is our position on impeachment? Madam speaker, every person there rose and said impeach. When I speak, I speak for the people of the seventh district of Illinois, and my vote will be impeach, impeach, impeach. And I yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Dakota. Mr. Armstrong: Madam Speaker, I yield two minutes to my friend from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for two Tes. Mr. Gohmert: Thank you. In 1998, senator Schumer said, and I quote, this impeachment will be used as a routine tool tonight political battles. We thought it was a prediction. [3:36:41 PM] It was a promise, and now it's playing out. It's exactly what's being done here. And for those that say we don't defend the fact, here you go. The impeachment serves two purposes. Number one, stop the investigation by the U.S. Department of justice and Ukraine into the corruption of Ukraine's interference into the U.S. Election in 2016. You said this was about -- oh, this terrible Russia collusion. Oh, that fell through. It was about emoluments. It was about bribery, it was about extortion. One thing that hasn't changed which is the intention to impeach this President. It's always been there. But let's be honest. The President, turning his back on Ukraine, that happened in 2009, because in 2008, Ukraine invaded Georgia. [3:37:41 PM] What happened? Bush put sanctions on Russia to teach them a lesson. What happened after that? Well in March, 2009, Hillary Clinton was sent over to Russia with a reset button to say, bush overreacted. We're ok that you invaded Georgia. It was a green light to Russia to invade Ukraine. And what do you do? Oh, yeah, you send blankets and m.r.e.'s. They can eat and be warm while the Russians are killing them. That is what the Obama administration did. This is a travesty, and we're in big trouble, because Schumer was right. Now it's lowered the bar. It will be used for political battles, and this country's end is now in sight. I hope I don't livesee it. This is an outrage. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker: I I am deeply con concerned that any member of the house would spout Russian propaganda on the floor [3:38:41 PM] of the house. I now yield one minute to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins. Mr. Gohmert: If the gentleman will yield? The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York is recognized. Mr. Ert: If the gentleman will yield the speaker pro tempore: The house will come toured. Mr. Gohmert: Russia propaganda -- the Speaker pro tempore: The house will come to order. The house will come to order. The gentleman from York is recognized for one minute. Mr. Nadler: -- Mr. Higgins: Thank you madam speaker. The United States constitution is explicit. Bribery is an impeachable offense. Bribery involves the abuse of power. And the President of the United States abused the power of his office by soliciting a bribe of a foreign leader to interfere in an election he was afraid he could not win honorably, fairly, or freely. You, President of Ukraine, opened -- President of the United States will release $391 million in military aid and [3:39:42 PM] give you the stature amplifying white house meeting that Yo need. This is a -- this is a this for that, something forething transaction. Soliciting a bribe from a foreign leader is an abuse of power and a federal crime. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from north Dakota. Mr. Armstrong: Madam speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Bilirakis: Thank you, madam speaker. I want to thank my Republican colleagues who H have toiled honorably in defense of the constitution, rule of L under difficult circumstances, madam speaker. You know, madam speaker, it's a darn shame that we have found ourselves in this position today. Every time I step into this chamber, I'm humbled to be serving in the greatest legislative body in the history of the world. However, it's deeply disappointing that the hyperpartisanship that has gripped this country has made [3:40:42 PM] its way into this chamber. I pride myself on being a consensus builder who works across the aisle who gets things done for the American people, but when it comes to the matter of impeachment, I have no doubt that the entire process has been politically motivated. There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable offense, which is why I will vote no. This whole process has been a ploy to circumvent the will of the people by removing a duly elected President of the united States. It's a national disgrace that sets a dangerous precedent. But we are a great nation. We will survive this indignity. Let's put this ugly chapter behind us, madam speaker, and to work. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from mississippi, Mr. Thompson. The speaker pro temp the gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Thompson: Thank you very [3:41:44 PM] much, madam speaker. Madam speaker, the question that will be answered today is, will members honor their oath to uphold the constitution? Democrats are not supporting impeachment based on a policy disagreement or the election results of 2016. No one is above the law. The President must be held accountable. A constitutional process is not a hoax or a witch-hunt.. President Trump just opposes it. No one is above the law. Not even President Donald J. Trump. The President abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to help his re-election campaign. Impeachment is a constitutional remedy for these actions. Trump betrayed his oath, betrayed the constitution, and undermined the integrity of our elections. Those who are against the [3:42:45 PM] impeachment inquiry are willing to turn a blind eye to co constitutional violations by the President. As a nn, we have no other alternative. We must protect our constitution and the United States of America. In his own words, no intelligent person believes what he is saying. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from North Dakota. Mr. Armstrong: Madam Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. Mr. Baird: Madam Speaker, the totality of this process is just another reminder that my colleagues across the aisle are more focused on politics than policy. The American people deserve better. Our republic deserves better. The brave member and women of our military -- the brave men [3:43:45 PM] and women of our military, myself included, have fought for freedom and democracy around the world. Yet, today, my colleagues are eroding those freedoms through a process that ignored facts, abused power, and was shrouded in secrecy. Those facts could not be more clear the President committed no crime, broke no laws, and there was no quid pro quo. I look forward to doing the right thing. Representing the hoosiers in my district and voting against th impeachment charade. I stand with President Trump and look forward to passing policies that continue to move our country forward. I'll yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler:: Madam Speaker, I now yield one minute to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Mr. Blumenauer: Thank you. Thanks to the hard work of our committees, the leadership of the speaker, we found overwhelming evidence Trump [3:44:47 PM ] invited foreign interests to interfere in our elections for his personal gain and he then unprecedented efforts to Ver it up, obstructing congress. I'm proud of the courage of new members to do their duty so that for the first time in his privileged life Donald Trump will finally be held accountable for his reckless personal behavior and business practices. I vote proudly for these two articles of impeachment, and then I hope the house retains control of the articles until the speaker and leader Schumer can negotiate agreement on process and witnesses from Mcconnell so that the next stage will be open and fair so that Donald Trump will ultimately be held accountable. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from North Dakota. >> Madam speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Hern. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 min minutes. Mr. Hern: Public hearings began November 13. [3:45:47 PM] Less than a month later, speaker Pelosi announced articles of impeachment on December 5, saying that the investigation had revealed enough information to move forward with impeachment. Let's think about that. 22-day investigation. Six of those days were weekends. Hearings weren't happening and the house was not in session. Seven of those days were when the house was in recess. Two were flying days where congress doesn't hold hearings. Out of the 22 days, just seven days, seven days were used to investigate, debate, and vote on the impeachment of the duel elected leader of our con-- duly elected leader of our country. Seven days to impeach the President of the United States. Not to mention that the seven day investigation uncovered zero facts in support of impeachment. I spent every minute I had in this as an observer and all I learned is if you hate someone so strongly and enough people agree with you, that's grounds enough to be impeached. We asked for 12 hours of debate. The same amount of time allotted to President Clinton's [3:46:48 PM] impeachment. 12 hours of debate for possibly the biggest vote I will cast in my tenure as representative. Isn't asking too much. But, no. They want to get out of here before Christmas. So it's ok to rush through the process. I'm ashamed to be part of this today even as I vote against the impeachment. My constituents are calling every day, mad as hell, saying we should be ashamed this historic chamber has fallen so low to allow something like this to happen. I yield back. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman from New York. Mr. Nadler: Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The speaker pro tempore: The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nadler: Madam speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, has a tag line about the clock on the calendar. Madam speaker, this is not about the clock and the calendar. It is about corruption and the constitution. It is about a President who abused his power to coerce an ally to intervene in our election and poses a continuing threat to the integrity of our next election. The President's defense is [3:47:48 PM] built on three pillars. When those three pillars fall, the entire defense of the President collapses. First, they claim there was no quid pro quo. Well, the evidence is undisputed. President Trump conditioned a white house visit and military aid on President zelenskiy's public announcement of the investigation. Ambassador William Taylor wrote at the time, quote, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign, close quote. A reporter asked white House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney if there had been a quid pro quo here. He replied, we do that all the time. Get over it. The President refused to help our ally until he got a personal political favor. So the first defense falls. Second, the minority claims that the Ukrainians didn't know about the hold. The evidence again is undisputed. Ukraine knew about the hold on the military assistance with hours of the President's July 25. [3:48:49 PM] -- 25 call. Laura cooper of the department of defense testified under oath and on July 25 the state department sent two emails to the department of defense notifying them that Ukrainian officials were asking where is the aid? Ukrainians understood exactly what President Trump was asking. He wanted a personal political favor before the aid was released. So the second defense falls. Third and finally, my Republican friend say the aid was released. But the aid was released only after the President got caught. This house launched its investigation on September 9. The hold on the aid was lifted on September 11. This is not evidence of incense. It is evidence of Culpability. The evidence is overwhelming. When he got caught, he did everything in his power to prevent the American people from learning the truth about his actions by defying the congressional investigation, by ordering that all requests and [3:49:50 PM] demands for information be denied. 154940 With our national security and the integrity of our election at risk, we must act. Not because of the clock and the calendar but to fight against corruption and for continued self-governance by the American people. I yield back. I reserve the balance of my time. DEGETTE>>The gentleman from North Dakota. 154958 ARMSTRONG>> Madam speaker, I would just point out that to believe everything that was just said you have to also believe that President zelenskiy is a pathological liar. With that I yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend from south Carolina, Mr. Duncan. DEGETTE>>The gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. DUNCAN>> Thank you, madam speaker. You know, we are not debating impeachment of an American President today. Your minds are already made up. The Democrat majority has had a verdict impeachment looking for a crime since the inauguration. "The Washington post" ran the headline, the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun just 19 minutes after President Trump took the oath of office. 19 minutes. Freshman congresswoman from Michigan told a group of supporters, we are going to impeach the mother blank shortly after she was sworn in. 155041 Even speaker Pelosi admitted last week that the impeachment effort has been going on for 2 1/2 years long before any phone call between two world leaders. In fact, 71% of the Democrats on the judiciary committee supported impeachment before the phone call. The impeachment sham is based on hearsay, conjecture, and opinion. You know what? You can't even get a speeding ticket in this country based on hearsay. 155104 But yet we are going to impeach an american President based on just that. Where are the crimes of teeson, high crimes, or misdemeanors committed here? Those are things that constitute impeachable offenses not hatred or policy disagreements. If memory serves me right, congress told the administration to withhold aid to Ukraine until they got their act together. Address corruption. Straightened out -- that was in multiple ndaa's voted on by both parties in this chamber. 155130 So in the simplest terms we are impeaching the President for something we told him to do? Give me a break. We have wasted precious time we are given to serve the American people. While you held secret hearings and depositions behind closed doors in chairman Schiff's chamber of secrets. But the American people have a great sense of fairness. I promise you. They see President Trump has not been treated fairly in this process. Impeachment based on hearsay and opinion not facts. It's a sad day in this chamber. The people's house. I yield back. 155201 DEGETTE>> Members are again reminded to address their remarks to the chair. The gentleman from New York. NADLER>> Madam speaker, I would now inform you that the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, the chair of the intelligence committee, will now serve as my designee and will control the remainder of the time on the majority side. DEGETTE>>Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from California? NADLER>> He's my designee. DEGETTE>> Does the gentleman from California yield to himself? SCHIFF>> Yes, Madam Speaker I yield to myself such time as I may consume. DEGETTE>>The gentleman is recognized. 155231 SCHIFF>> I thank my colleague, chairman Nadler. I thank him for the extraordinary job that he has done as chairman of the judiciary committee and throughout these difficult proceedings. Madam speaker, my colleagues, my fellow Americans, I rise to support the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits, despotic in his ordinary demeanor, 155305 known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty when, such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity to join in the cry of danger to liberty, to take every opportunity of embarrassing the government, the general government and bringing it under suspicion, to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day, it may justly be suspected his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ride the storm and direct the whirlwind. 155338 These are the words of Alexander Hamilton written in 1792. Could we find a more perfect description of the present danger emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania avenue? The framers crafted a constitution that contemplated free and fair elections for the highest office in the land. 155400 But also afforded the Congress with the power to remove a President who abused the powers of his office for personal gain. Who compromised the public trust by betraying our nation's security. Or who sought to undermine our democratic system by seeking foreign intervention in the conduct of our elections. I would say that the founders could have little imagined that a single President might have done all of these things except that the evidence has sadly proved this is exactly what this President has done. 155435 Hamilton, among others, seems to have predicted the rise of Donald Trump with a staggering prescience. Having won freedom from a king, the drafters of our constitution designed a government in which ambition was made to check ambition. In which no branch of government would predominate over another, and no man would be allowed to be above the law, including the President, especially the President, since with whom would the danger be greater than with the officer charged with being our commander in chief. 155510 Over the course of the last three months we have found incontrovertible evidence that President Trump abused his power by pressuring the newly elected President of Ukraine to announce an investigation into President Trump's political rival, Joe Biden. With the hopes of defeating Mr. Biden in the 2020 Presidential election and enhancing his own prospects for re-election. 155538 He didn't even need the investigation to be undertaken. Just simply announced to the public. The smear of his opponent, the smear of his opponent would be enough. To effectuate this scheme, President Trump withheld two official acts of vital importance to a nation at war with our adversary, Vladimir Putin's Russia. 155605 The President withheld a white House meeting that Ukraine desperately sought to bolster its standing on the world stage. And even more perniciously, President Trump suspended hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid approved by this congress to coerce Ukraine into doing his electoral dirty work. 155627 The President of the United States was willing to sacrifice our national security by withholding support for a critical strategic partner at war in order to improve his re-election prospects. But for the courage of someone willing to blow the whistle, he would have gotten away with it. Instead, he got caught. He tried to cheat and he got caught. 155702 Now this wasn't the first time. As a candidate in 2016 Donald Trump invited Russian interference in his Presidential campaign, saying at a campaign rally, Russia, if you are listening, I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. A clear invitation to hack Hillary Clinton's emails. Just five hours later, Russian government hackers tried to do exactly that. What followed was an immense Russian hacking and dumping operation and a social media disinformation campaign designed to help elect Donald Trump. 155739 Not only did candidate Trump welcome that effort, but he made full use of it. Building it into his campaign plan, his messaging strategy, and then he sought to cover it up. This Russian effort to interfere in our elections didn't deter Donald Trump. It empowered him. The day after special counsel Bob Mueller testified before congress about Russia's sweeping and systemic effort to influence the outcome of our last election, the day after President Trump believed that the investigation into his first electoral misconduct had come to an end, the President was back on the phone urging yet another country, this time Ukraine, to help him cheat in another election. 155829 Three consecutive days in July tells so much of the story. Three consecutive days in July of 2019. July 24, the day that special counsel Mueller testified before congress, and President Trump thought he was finally in the clear. July 25, the day that President Trump got on the phone with Ukrainian President and in the context of a discussion about military support for that embattled nation, that the President has recently frozen said, I would like you to do us a favor, though. 155909 And asked Ukraine to do two investigations to help his re-election efforts in 2020. That was July 25. And then we come to July 26. The day Gordon sondland, not some anonymous never Trumper, but a million dollar donor to the President's inauguration and his hand picked ambassador to the european union. What does President Trump ask Sondland? The day after this call? What does President Trump ask? 155948 What does the President want to know? Did he ask about Ukraine's efforts to battle corruption? Of course not. Did he ask how the war with Russia was going? Not a chance. On the phone, his voice loud enough for others to hear President Trump asked sondland, so he's going to do the investigation, and the answer was clear. Sondland assured Trump that the Ukrainian President was going to do it. And that he would do anything you asked him to. 160021 If that wasn't telling enough, my colleagues, in a conversation that followed, an American diplomat dining with sondland asked if it was true that President Trump didn't give a blank about Ukraine. Sondland agreed, saying, the President cared only about big stuff. The diplomat noted that there was big stuff in Ukraine like a war with Russia. And sondland replied that the President cared only about big stuff that benefits him personally. 160058 Like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. In that short conversation, we learned everything we need to know about the 45th President of the United States. He doesn't care about Ukraine, or the impact on our national security caused by withholding military aid to that country fighting for its democratic life. All that matters to this President is what affects him personally, an investigation into his political rival and a chance to cheat in the next election. 160139 As professor Garhart testified before the judiciary committee two weeks ago, if what we're talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable. Even as this body uncovered the facts of this Ukraine scheme, even as we opened an impeachment inquiry, even as we gathered evidence, President Trump continued his efforts to seek foreign help in the next election. Well I would think, he said from the white house lawn on October 3rd, that if they're being honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. 160218 It's a very simple answer he said. And he made it clear it's an open invitation to other nations as well, saying, China should start an investigation into the Bidens too. President Trump sent his chief of staff to the white house podium and he told the world that of course they had linked aid to investigations. And that we should just get over it. And even as these articles have made their way to this house floor, the President's personal attorney has continued pursuing these sham investigations on behalf of his client, the President. 160303 The President and his men plot on. The danger persists. The risk is real. Our democracy is at peril. But we are not without a remedy, prescribed by the founders for just these circumstances. Impeachment. The only question is, will we use it? Or have we fallen prey to another evil that the founders forewarned, the excess of factionalism, the elevation of party over country. 160337 Many of my cleagues appear to have made their choice to protect the President, to enable him to be above the law, to empower this President to cheat again, as long as it is in the service of their party and their power. They've made their choice. Despite this President and the white house stonewalling every subpoena, every request for witnesses, and testimony from this co-equal, co-equal branch of government. 160409 They have made their choice. Knowing that to allow this President to obstruct congress will empower him and any other President that follows to be as corrupt, as negligent, or as abusive of the power of the presidency as they choose. They have made their choice. And I believe they will rue the day that they did. When Donald J. Trump was sworn in on January 20, 2017, he repeated these words. 160444 I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the united States. And will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. Has he lived up to that sacred obligation? Has he honored his oath of office? Has he preserved, protected and defended the constitution of the United States, the uncontested evidence provides the simple yet tragic answer, he has not. 160519 In America, no one is above the law. Donald J. Trump sacrificed our national security in an effort to cheat in the next election. And for that, and his continued efforts to seek foreign interference in our elections, he must be impeached. I reserve the balance of my time. DEGETTE>>Gentleman from North Dakota. 160549 ARMSTRONG>> Madam chair. It's nice to see you here, Chairman Schiff. It would have been nice to have either you or the whistleblower present in either the judiciary or oversight hearings. And I think we're -- And I think we're -- continuing to neglect the four key facts of this. The transcript is out. Everybody can read it. The American people can read it. There's no conditionality or aid discussed on that call. 160609 The two -- the two -- yes ma'am. The two principals on that call, President Trump and President Zelenskiy have said there is no pressure. President Zelenskiy has basically screamed from the rooftops on numerous occasions that there was no pressure, no bribery, no quid pro quo. The Ukranian government got the money and didn't the the aid was being paused, and no investigation was announced, and a meeting with the President took place, and the aid was released. And with that I yield -- >> The gentleman is reminded to address remarks to the chair. 160639 ARMSTRONG>> And with that I yield a minute and a half of my time for my friend from Missouri, Mr. Smith. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized. 160645 JASON SMITH>> Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I come from a state that raises corn and cotton, cockleburrs and Democrats. Your frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I'm from the show-me state. You have to show me. The only thing that you all have shown so far is that you're about to impeach a duly elected President who has done nothing wrong. Democrats are not impeaching the President because they are scared of our republic or that he has committed a crime. They are impeaching him because they fear the President's policies and how well they are working for the American people. 160734 Most of all, they fear the election, because they know they can't beat them. In fact, one of my Democrat colleagues is quoted stating, "I'm concerned if we don't impeach him, he will get re-elected." This kind of rhetoric is disgusting. Impeachment is not a political weapon. And any member who votes for impeachment should be ashamed today. You cannot undo the results of the 2016 election simply because your flawed candidate did not win. And thank god she didn't. 160810 Over the last three years, unemployment has dropped to the lowest point in generations. We are seeing better trade agreements with our trading partners and record numbers of taxes and regulations that stifle economic growth have been rolled back, all thanks to President Trump's leadership and commitment. But we shouldn't be surprised. Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment -- ARMSTRONG>> Can I have on 30 seconds? >> We yield him 15 seconds. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized. 160840 SMITH>> This is very important. We shouldn't be surprised, Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment in five out of our last six Republican Presidents. They are the party of impeachment. The Democrats are the party of impeachment. DEGETTE>> The gentleman yields back. And once again, members are admonished to address their remarks to the chair. The gentleman from California. 160905 SCHIFF> Thank you Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield two minute those gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell. DEGETTE>> Mr. Swalwell is recognized for two minutes. 160913 ERIC SWALWELL>> Donald Trump is using the presidency to put his own personal gain above our national interests. He is using our taxpayer dollars and foreign interference to cheat the next election, and it jeopardizes our national security and integrity at the ballot box. And not a single fact in this case is seriously in dispute. I ask my colleagues, who sent his personal lawyer to Ukraine to investigate his political rival? Who fired an ambassador who stood in his way? 160944 Who conditioned a White House meeting on investigations that only personally benefited him and not the national interest? Who cut off military aid to an ally that desperately needed it? Who pressured President Zelenskiy to conduct those investigations? Who stood on the White hHouse and asked not only Ukraine to investigate his rival but also China? Who has buried evidence and blocked witnesses from testifying? And who is still, today, sending his personal lawyer to Ukraine to dig up dirt and rig an election? 16022 The answer to all of these questions is President Donald Trump. This is a crime spree in progress, but we know how to stop it. Courage. Yes, this investigation has shown us how corrupt President Trump is, but it's also shown us the courage of some of our fellow patriotic covo; servants who have used their courage to not only stand up around the world to extinguish corruption but also to extinguish it at the White House. How? Well my colleagues argue no harm, no foul, Ukraine got the aid. Wrong. 161058 Trump cheated. Patriots caught him. Then Ukraine got the aid. Standing up turns out works. Now is the time to summon the courage of those patriots and to summon the courage they showed against Donald Trump. If they can risk their careers, even their lives, to do the right thing, can my colleagues also do the same? After all, more is on the line than just military aid to an ally. Our national security is at stake. Stand up for that. Our election integrity is at stake. Stand up for that. And our constitution is at stake. Stand up for that. I yield back. DEGETTE The gentleman from North Dakota. ARMSTRONG>> Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side. DEGETTE>> The gentleman has one hour and 23 and a fourth minutes remaining. And the gentleman from California has one hour and 18 minutes remaining. ARMSTRONG>> I appreciate the details. And with that, I yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. 161203 BILL JOHNSON>> Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for America. This partisan impeachment sham seeks to disenfranchise 63 million American voters. So I want to use my time to call on this chamber for members to rise and observe a moment of silent reflection, to give every member here the chance to pause for a moment and remember the voices of the 63 million American voters the Democrats today are wanting to silence. [ moment of silence ] 161322 JOHNSON>> Madam speaker, disenfranchising 63 million voters gives me 63 million reasons to vote no. And I urge my colleagues to do the same. DEGETTE>> The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California. SCHIFF>> Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to Ms. Sewell, the gentlelady from Alabama. DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. 161346 TERRI SEWELL Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart and profound sense of the gravity of this moment that I rise today in support of the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. To be clear, I did not run for congress to impeach a President. I came to work every day on behalf of the hardworking people of Alabama's seventh congressional district. But the facts are uncontested. The truth is clear. And I have been left no other choice. 161415 As a member of the intelligence committee, I sat in shock, in awe, as witness after witness came forward, their stories painting a clear picture of the President's abuse of power. They testified that the President had directed orders to withhold vital military aid for Ukraine and a white house visit in exchange for investigation into the Bidens. To date, all the military aid has not been released and there still been no white house meeting. The bottom line is clear. President Trump endangered our national security and the very essence of our democracy for his own personal political gain. 161459 Then, President Trump sought to cover it up by subverting the oversight authority of congress. If Presidential abuse of power is left unchecked, we all become accomplices when he does it again. This cannot become the new normal. Not on our watch. While President Trump's indefensible action set in motion this event, my vote for impeachment today is not about the President. It is about my oath to defend and protect the constitution of this United States of America. 161535 And to make sure that I uphold and honor the sacred trust that my constituents gave me. President Trump has betrayed his oath of office. Let us not betray ours. I yield back the balance of my time. DEGETTE>>The gentleman from North Dakota. COLLINS>> I'm from -- DEGETTE>> Oh, You're back. From Georgia 161557 COLLINS>>Thank you, madam speaker. I'm back. Also noticed some changes around here since we left. And I notice I have a new manager on the other side who as I came back in from getting a quick bite, noticed gave an eloquent defense of his side of this story we are telling. I just wish we could have had that eloquent defense before the judiciary committee where he could have been asked questions instead of giving one side. With that I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller. DEGETTE>>The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. 161622 FRED KELLER Thank you. Madam speaker, today will forever be remembered as a stain on our republic. These impeachment proceedings are not based upon facts, evidence, reason, or any inappropriate or impeachable actions by our President. Instead, the actions being taken by those favoring impeachment are a product of their disdain for President Trump, his America first agenda, and particularly disdain by the other party for the 63 million Americans that elected him as President. 161655 Again, these articles of impeachment are not based on any facts but rather on hearsay, presumptions, innuendo, and feelings. Feelings by democrats and career bureaucrats who have wanted President Trump removed from office since the day he was elected. In defense of the constitution I urge all members to oppose both articles of Impeachment. 161722 It is unclear who will judge those voting for impeachment today more harshly, history or voters. So I want Democrats voting for impeachment today to know that I'll be praying for them. From the gospel of Luke, the 23rd chapter verse 34, and Jesus said, father, forgive them. For they know not what they do. Thank you. And I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The gentleman from California. 161749 ADAM SCHIFF Madam Speaker, my colleagues have referred to patriotic Americans who testified before the intelligence committee as career bureaucrats. I want to remind people just who those career bureaucrats are. They are people like Ambassador Bill Taylor who has served this country for decades, graduated top in his class at west point, served during Vietnam in combat, earned a bronze star. 161818 They are people like Col. Vindman, served in Iraq, earned a purple heart. They're people like Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch served in dangerous places all over the world. One of the most respected of all our foreign service officers. These are the people that my colleagues would pejoratively label as career bureaucrats. And why? Because they have the courage to do their lawful duty. To answer a subpoena, to come and testify. 161846 And for this they are called career bureaucrats. Well, we should have more career bureaucrats of that caliber. I'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa. DEGETTE>>The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 161901 JIM COSTA>>Madam speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. The two most difficult votes any member of congress ever has to cast is to vote to go to war or to impeach. Today I will vote for the articles of impeachment. Over the last few months I have listened carefully to my constituents. I've weighed all the available information and to determine whether or not the President committed any wrongdoing. There are disturbing facts from this administration that inform my decision, including the President's own words. 161928 His ambassador to the European union testified there was a quid pro quo to withhold aid to Ukraine for an investigation to former vice President Biden and that everyone was in the loop. His own national security advisor, John Bolton, said he wanted nothing to do with this drug deal, as he called it. And then the President openly acknowledged that China and Ukraine should investigate Mr. Biden. There is much more evidence pointing to the President violating his own oath of office. 161956 I have not made this decision lightly but I must uphold my own oath of office because I believe the President has failed to uphold his oath of office. The weight of history and my belief in the constitution of the United States and our own national security interests have led me to this vote. And I yield back the balance of my time. DEGETTE>>The gentleman from Georgia. 162018 DOUG COLLINS Thank you, madam speaker. It is interesting to say, and I appreciate anybody who would come and give testimony, but it is interesting to see that the same chairmen who spoke eloquently about those who testified would have to dismiss completely almost anything by Mr Volker or Mr Morrison. But again, I will say, at least they had the ability and the willingness to come in and testify. Unlike the chairman who wrote a report, sent it to judiciary, and didn't. With that, I yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms Granger. 162042 DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. KAY GRANGER>> Madam Speaker I rise today in strong opposition to the politically driven articles of impeachment that have been brought before the House of Representatives today. For the past three years, Democrats have been unable to accept the voters' choice to elect President Trump. They have used any and all undemocratic and unfair means necessary to try and remove him from office. My vote today is not only against illegitimate impeachment of our President, which began not with facts but with a foregone conclusion, it is against house Democrats making a mockery of due process and the rule of law. 162120 This will not go anywhere in the senate so all Democrats have accomplished is postponing the important work of the American people sent their elected officials to Washington to do. This endless crusade of Democrats to remove the duly President of the United States has put partisan politics above the issues that Americans face today. It's time Democrats stop playing partisan games that hurt hardworking taxpayers. It's time for the American people to be congres priority again. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. And I yield back the balance of my time. 162156 DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. SCHIFF>> Thank you, madam speaker. I am more than delighted to refer to the testimony Ambassador Volcker and Mr. Morrison. Ambassador Volker who acknowledged that in retrospect he should have recognized that when they were calling for investigations for Burisma, it really meant the Bidens and that to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival was wrong. Happy to refer to his testimony as well as Mr. Morrison who went to the national security council lawyer immediately after he listened to that telephone call. 162232 And who also testified that he was informed by ambassador sondland that the President wanted zelenskiy in a public box. That he wanted him to be forced to go to the mic and announce these sham investigations. Happy to refer to their testimony as well. And now happy to recognize the gentlewoman from california for two minutes, representative Speier. DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. 162256 JACKIE SPEIER >> Thank you, madam speaker. My father fled Nazi Germany for America. Because he saw what happened when a despot became untethered. He fled because he believed in democracy. In the rule of law. And the right to vote. Before he died, he asked to be buried in a simple pine box with an American flag to symbolize his love of this country. Today we are called upon to do our duty out of love of country. The President stands accused. We must judge him as we judge any of our fellow citizens. 162332 On the facts and on the law. The facts show that the President's north star is Russia. Not the constitution. There is no question that President Trump delayed military aid to Ukraine, our ally, as they were under attack by Russia, our adversary. There is no question the President withheld a meeting with President zelenskiy at the white house, giving Russia the upper hand in peace negotiations with Ukraine. There is no question that President Trump promoted the Russian hoax that Ukraine attacked our election in 2016. 162407 A canard that has been proven to be a lie, a Russian lie. The only question is his motive. The fact is his conduct and crimes are reprehensible and unquestionably impeachable. When I vote today my father's legacy is deep, very deep within me. My father loved America and I love America. And that is why I will vote to impeach the President of the United States. I yield back. 162436 DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. COLLINS >> Thank you Madam Speaker. I see how this is playing out. Instead of coming to testify for 7 or 8 hours, and answering all questions we're gonna do it in potshots as we go and take this. But again Let's talk about Mr. Volker again. He never testified that anyone wanted to investigate vice President Biden. What he did testify to which was left out they wanted to -- that if the Ukrainians doing bad things placed hunter Biden on the board of Burisma to avoid anything that needed to be investigated and found out. 162506 Let's at least tell the story. Again, had plenty of time to do this in an actual hearing, not here. This is what they want. This is what they have been wanting, the majority has played this the whole time. So we'll play this out as long as they want to. It would have been better though if they actually had a case to have made it in the proper setting instead of not coming and not testifying. With that I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from is recognized for a minute and a half. 162526 RANDY WEBER >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, It's very interesting to hear the socialistic left Democrats that have a newfound appreciation for the constitution and our founders' principles. Would that those same socialists, madam speaker, would afford unborn babies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as well. Madam speaker, history tells us the first three impeachments in this country crimes were involved. Johnson violated law that congress passed over his veto. Nixon was involved in a cover-up from Watergate. Clinton lied to a federal grand jury and instructed Monica Lewinsky to falsify an affidavit. 162558 Crimes. All instances of crimes. Now comes the socialistic leaning Dems(?) in my opinion, madam speaker, essentially reading the President's mind knowing what his intent was and dictating to us and the witnesses that were in the hearings what his mind set was. And that quite frankly they didn't believe he had the right to be in charge of foreign policy. We heard ambassadors, and yes, we heard career bureaucrats, career diplomats, whatever you want to call them. They get to ride the bus. They don't get to drive the bus. 162629 The President is in charge of foreign policy. We had -- they said that the President had the audacity to use his judgment on foreign policy instead of theirs. Opinions. Opinions. Suppositions, indeed. The very swamp he is draining is objecting. Who knew. Who knew. Today now during the earlier rule debate comes the floor manager from the other side from Massachusetts citing fact -- not facts, not facts witnesses but newspaper articles, CNN, usa opinions, editorials. 162700 Unbelievable, madam speaker. Americans are watching. The Dees are delusional, deleterious, and in deep yogurt. I yield back. DEGETTE>> Gentleman from California. 162714 SCHIFF >> I would just remind my colleagues that ambassador Volker said that the attacks on Joe Biden were meritless and he tried to persuade Mr. Giuliani that there was no factual support for them. Proud to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, for two minutes. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 162740 JOHN LEWIS >> Madam speaker I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to support this resolution. When we came to Washington in 1961 to go on the freedom rides, we chose that day. When we came here on August 28, 1963, for the March on Washington, it was joyful. We met with a young President, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. 162815 When we came here on August 6, 1965 for the signing of the voting rights act, we were excited, hopeful. We met President Lyndon Johnson. But today, this day, we didn't ask for this. This is a sad day. It is not a day of joy. Our nation is founded on the principle that we do not have kings. We have Presidents. And the constitution is our compasses. When you see something that is not right, not just, not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something, to do something. 162901 Our children and their children will ask us, what did you do? What did you say? For some this vote may be hard. But we have a mission and a mandate to be on the right side of history. I yield back the balance of my time. DEGETTE>> Gentleman from Georgia. 162926 COLLINS >> Thank you Madam Speaker. I always like to be polite and I do appreciate the gentleman from California confirming everything I just said in my statement a moment ago. With that I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wenstrup. DEGETTE>> Gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 162937 BRAD WENSTRUP>> Thank you Madam speaker. Since 2016 America has seen a pattern of failed and disproven attacks and allegations against President Trump. Today is the fourth impeachment related vote since President Trump took office. It's yet another attempt to reach their predetermined conclusion of impeachment, a conclusion build on political bias, accusations, and innuendo. WASH 6 HOUSE IMPEACHMENT FULL VOTE 191218 HOUSE FLOOR KEYED P5 These repetitive and false allegations reveal a political obsession disguised as some kind of righteous oversight. 163008 When they didn't win at the ballot box, they pursued a Russian collusion narrative, special counsel Robert Mueller had to waste time and taxpayer dollars to prove false. When the Russia collusion, malicious deception didn't work Madam speaker, Democrats sought a new path forward to impeach President Trump. They created a made for TV set of hearings, complete with witness auditions held in the basement of the capitol. Despite all their efforts, the charges the house considerations today lack evidence to support them. 163039 There wasn't one witness that said a crime or impeachable offense was committed. Madam speaker, I remind my colleagues, no crime, no impeachable offense. That's a pretty good defense, if you ask me. I will work diligently to further reveal the truth and further reveal the abuses of power, madam speaker that Democrats paid for and enacted during the last three years. Abuses of power from the other side of the aisle within this body and within our F.B.I. Americans deserve the truth. 163115 All in all, history will remember today as the political impeach that set the precedent for Presidents to be impeached every time there's a divided government. I oppose the articles before us today and I yield back to the other side and their superior imaginations. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. 163136 SCHIFF >> Proud to recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, for two minutes. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 163142 MIKE QUIGLEY>> Thank you, madam speaker. Indeed we are here today because the President of the United states abused his power and betrayed his oath of office. He laid siege to the foundation of our democracy: the electoral process. These actions opposed a direct threat to the freedom and fairness of the upcoming 2020 election. The very day after Robert Mueller testified that Russia had systematically and relentlessly attacked the 2016 election, the President picked up the phone and made his now-infamous July 25 call to Ukrainian President zelenskiy asking the President zelenskiy on that call, to quote do us a favor though, and announce investigations into his political rival Joe Biden. 163226 We have since learned from numerous national security council and state department officials the President did not even expect Ukraine to open these investigations, rather he just wanted them announced so he could smear his rival. Rather than trusting the voters to decide who should hold the white house he again sought the aid of the foreign country to tip the scales in favor again. After Russia's unprecedented interference, a dark cloud hung over the 2016 election and instead of leading the American people out from under the cloud, the President instead emboldened by perceived lack of consequence, attempted to pressure zelenskiy to interfere in the 2020 election. 163306 After a courageous whistleblower came forward and warned congress and the public about the President's scheme, the President stood on the white house lawn in front of TV cameras broadcasting around the world and called for China to interfere too. Some of my colleagues have asked why not wait? Why are we proceeding? That's very simple. Because nothing could be more urgent. We are on the precipice of the 2020 election and Congress has ultimate responsibility to protect the sacred equalizer, our right to vote. To defend the integrity of our elections and to fulfill our duty to the constitution, I will be voting in favor of impeachment today and I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. COLLINS>> Thank you Madam Speaker at this point I yield one minute to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lambon DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 163354 DOUG LAMBORN Madam speaker, Madam Speaker, anyone watching this impeachment sound and fury signifying nothing should look out for three misrepresentations the Democrats are making. One, Trump endangered national security. No. The 55-day delay did not stop Ukrainians from defending themselves, Trump actually gave them lethal aid which Obama never did. During Obama's negligence, Democrats said nothing. Two, Trump is not above the law, no one is. But why don't the Democrats tell us what law he broke? They can't, because he didn't break any. 163425 So Democrats have resorted to two vague and subjective articles, abuse of power and obstruction of justice. And three, the evidence is not in dispute. No, the evidence is very much in dispute. In fact, For every statement Democrats cherry pick to indict Trump, many more statements back up the President. In reality, this is nothing but a partisan ploy by Democrats to overturn an election. But this charade will fail and the senate will exonerate Trump and everyone knows it. DEGETTE>> The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California. 163501 SCHIFF >> Madam speaker, I'm proud to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, for two minutes. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 163508 JOAQUIN CASTRO>> Thank you. As my colleagues have said, the evidence of the President's abuse of power and obstruction of congress is uncontested. But let's outline a few key events involving the nearly 400 million dollar in military held that was held up by President Trump, and or President Trump, despite congressional mandate. The summer of 2019 was a summer of shame at the white house. On July 3rd, the white house first blocked security assistance money for Ukraine with no explanation. 163537 On July 10, Gordon Sondland states during a white house meeting with Ukrainian officials that they will get a white house meeting only after announcing an investigation into President Trump's political rival. On July 18, a white house staffer announces the freeze on Ukrainian aid per direct Presidential order. And just one day after Robert Mueller's testimony before congress, President Trump makes the now-infamous phone call with zelenskiy, asking him to investigate the Bidens. 163607 Then, things start to fall apart. See, the white house learns that a whistleblower has reported President Trump's phone call with President zelenskiy in a complaint. And on September 9, congress starts to investigate the President's actions. And then the jig is up. On September 11, the aid is suddenly released without explanation over two months later. When you read the call transcript and follow the timeline I've laid out, guilty is guilty. 163639 Nothing changed during that time regarding the President's supposed concerns over corruption. So let's be clear. The military aid was released because the President got caught. But getting caught doesn't get you off the hook. And I ask my colleagues, is attempted murder a crime? Is attempted robbery a crime? Is attempted extortion and bribery by a President a crime? Yes, it is. And the only question now is whether we will find the moral courage to stand up for our country and impeach the President of the United States. I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. 163719 COLLINS >> Thank you, madam speaker. At this time I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer. DEGETTE >> The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. 163726 GARY PALMER >> Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the impeachment of President Trump. Today is a day that diminishes the reputation and stature of the United States house of representatives, a day I never dreamed I'd see. Today my Democrat colleagues seek to overturn an election by forcing a vote that will forever be a stain on this congress. They are not just voting to impeach President Trump, my colleagues are voting to impeach the judgment of every person who voted for him and the process by which we elect the President and by which we will govern our nation. 163756 My Democrat colleagues claim the Russians influenced the outcome of the 2016 election but based on their corrupt impeachment proceedings, it appears my colleagues have been influenced by how Russia conducts political trials: no real evidence, no real crime, no due process, and no justice. The Democrats have failed to show any legitimate justification for the impeachment of President Trump. When they could not find evidence they made it up, called it a parody. They conducted most of the hearings in secret. They instructed witnesses not to answer Republican member's questions and they denied Republicans our right to call witnesses, making it absolutely clear their objective was from the beginning pathetically political. 163825 We all understand that elections have consequences. To all my colleagues, Democrat and Republicans alike, this day will surely have consequences as well. As we descend into more disrespect, distrust and even contempt that will eventually be destructive of this chamber and I fear eventually our republic. I urge all members to vote no on impeachment. I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. 163902 SCHIFF >> I thank the speaker. Very quickly, my colleagues have made repeated reference to some secret proceedings and some secret star chamber. This is apparently what they call depositions. I remind my colleagues when they were in the majority they conducted depositions but they were different in this respect. In the depositions we conducted in the intelligence committee over 100 members were able to participate. That's how secret they were. We revealed all of the transcripts of those depositions. The repetition of this falsehood does not make it true. It only makes the falsehood that much more deliberate. With that I'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Amash, for two minutes. DEGETTE >> The gentleman is recognized for two minutes. 163943 JUSTIN AMASH Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in support of these articles of impeachment. I come to this floor not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American. Who cares deeply about the constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of the people. Under our system of government, impeachment is not about policy disagreements or ineffective governance. Nor is it about criminality based on statutes that did not exist at the time our constitution was written. Impeachment is about maintaining the integrity of the office of the presidency. 164020 And ensuring that executive power is directed toward proper ends in accordance with the law. The constitution grants the house the sole power of impeachment and the senate the sole power to try all impeachments. We in the house are empowered to charge impeachable conduct. The constitution describes such conduct as high crimes and misdemeanors because it pertains to high office and relates to the misuse of that office. We need not rely on any other branch or body to endorse our determinations. We have the sole power of impeachment. 164056 In federalist number 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that high crimes and misdemeanors, quote are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They're of a nature which may, with peculiar propriety, be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. End quote. President Trump Donald J. Trump has abused and violated the public trust by using his high office to solicit the aid of a foreign power, not for the benefit of the United States of America, but instead for his personal and political gain. 164139 His actions reflect precisely the type of conduct the framers of the constitution intended to remedy through the power of impeachment and it is our duty to impeach him I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. 164154 COLLINS >> Thank you Madam Speaker. Undoubtedly the house resolution 660 doesn't matter to the majority in particular the manager of this bill because the inspector general I see, transcript has not been released. There's not been documents transferred, they were supposed to be transferred to the white house and we're not sure we got everything we were supposed to get in the judiciary committee. I guess when you want to be transparent and open you hold it in the scif and do whatever you want. With that, I yield two minutes to gentleman from Florida, Mr Stuebe. DEGETTE >>The gentleman is recognized. 164220 GREG STUEBE >>thank you, Madam Speaker. This impeachment charade did not start with the whistleblower complaint. The campaign to impeach a duly elected President and overturn the will of 63 million Americans started 19 minutes after the President took the oath of office. 19 minutes after the inauguration, the "Washington post" published a story headline "the campaign to impeach President Trump has begun" The first day of this congress, day one, a democratic member of my class called for the impeachment of the President long before the call to the Ukraine. 164244 Then it was the Russia Collusion hoax. Then obstruction of justice, then bribery, then quid pro quo. None of which are included in these articles before us today. The first article of impeachment crafted is a fiction is not an enumerated basis in the constitution for impeachment. The Democratic majority would have you believe that abuse of power is a high crime or misdemeanor. It's not. It's an opinion. It's not even a crime that can be charged in a court of law. Unlike Presidents Nixon and Clinton who were tried for actual crimes, this President is being impeached on vague phrases that appear nowhere in our constitution. 164315 The second article obstruction of congress again doesn't exist in the constitution as a basis for impeachment and is attempting to impeach a duly elected President for asserting constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by both administrations of both political parties throughout our nation's history. This house is impeaching a President over a phone call to another world leader. A few lines in a phone transcript that have been completely and utterly misrepresented by the majority. The process that ensued was anything but open, transparent, bipartisan or equitable, abandoning all past historical due process afforded the minority and the President. 164350 The Democrats ran a partisan investigation, refusing the rights of the minority, refusing the ability for the President's counsel to call witnesses, refusing to allow the President's counsel to cross examine fact witnesses, and refusing a minority hearing day just to name a few. The majority waves around a report drafted that the democratic staff concocted as a matter of fact. When they needed backup for their approach they paraded out liberal professors with animus against the professors who gave them license to impeach the President for any reason they wish. 164418 House Democrats are making themselves kings in a manner far worse and more obvious than what they're accusing the President of doing. The only abuse of power here is the democratic-led congress. I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. SCHIFF >> Madam speaker, I'm proud to yield one minute to Mr. Cisneros, the gentleman from California. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for one minute. 164439 GIL CISNEROS >> Thank you Madam Speaker. When I was 18 years old, I joined the United States Navy and took the oath to support and defend the Constitution for the first time. I took that oath again earlier this year as a member of Congress. And every day, I work hard to live by that oath and give the 39th district the representation it deserves. 164456 I have always maintained that impeachment is a serious undertaking and must be done with incredible care. When the unprecedented allegations against the President and his interactions with Ukraine first reported, I felt it was congress' duty to investigate and find out the truth. And now the facts are before congress and the American people. The President betrayed his oath to support and defend the constitution by attempting to undermine the integrity of our election for his own personal benefit. 164522 He asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival and endangered our national security by withholding military aid to an ally. For me, it's not about personal political party affiliation, it's about upholding my oath to put our country and our constitution first and protect our national security. This is why I will vote to move forward with the impeachment of the President. I hope all my colleagues will join me in recognizing this grave threat and stand up to this administration in defense of our country and our constitution. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. DEGETTE>> The Gentleman from Georgia. 164553 COLLINS >> Thank you Madam speaker. I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Kustoff. DAVID KUSTOFF>> Madam Speaker, going back almost three years to when the President was sworn into office, we have seen some members on the other side of the aisle pledging and promising to impeach President Trump. Prior to the start of this inquiry, Speaker Pelosi claimed that the impeachment must be compelling, overwhelming, and bipartisan. 164617 The impeachment inquiry was announced less than three months ago. And what we know is that the process has been fast, faulty, and flawed. What we have witnessed since September 24th when the inquiry was announced is that the evidence we've seen is not compelling, it's not overwhelming, and the process is undoubtedly and unquestionably not bipartisan. I'm viewing this through the lens of a former United States attorney. And as we take this vote, here's the bottom line for the American people. 164650 There was no bribery. There was no extortion. There was no quid pro quo. There were no high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President. And I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. SCHIFF>> Madam speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu, for one minute. DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 164712 JUDY CHU >> Madam Speaker, we know that President Trump withheld needed military aid to Ukraine. We know that he used it to demand Ukraine interfere in the 2020 election for his own benefit. And we know that Ukraine knew. None of these facts have been disputed. Instead, the White House has tried to hide the truth. But the President is not above the law. Nobody is. Corruption and obstruction. The President is guilty of both. The blatant abuse of power was made clear from over 100 hours of testimony before three committees and was clear in the call summary released by the White House. The obstruction has been made clear by the President's refusal to cooperate at every turn, even when ordered by a court. 164807 Setting a precedent that any President can abuse their power to interfere in our elections is an existential threat to our democracy. It's also a betrayal of the oath of office and the constitution. Therefore in fulfillment of my own oath of office, it's with solemn purpose today that I vote to impeach President Donald Trump. DEGETTE >> The gentleman from Georgia. COLLINS >> Thank you, madam speaker. At this time I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. 164842 BOB GIBBS >> Thank you. Madam speaker, Democrats started with quid pro quo, that didn't work so well. Then it was bribery, extortion. Then they brought their witnesses in and not one could answer if they saw any evidence of bribery, extortion, or any crime when questioned. It was just silence. Then the witnesses, they always testified they heard this, they heard this, from so and so and so. When the Democrats brought their star witness in, Ambassador Sondland, when asked, he said, I presumed the aid was held up. I presumed? 164312 Testimony was all hearsay, conjecture, and assumptions. So now it's abuse of power with no underlying crime, which is opinion. Abuse of power to the Democrats is they don't like his policies or he treated a reporter harshly. Obstruction of congress. You know, there are three co-equal branches of government. When the executive branch and the legislative branch have an impasse, that's when the judicial branch intervenes. 164937 They didn't do that. The Democrats didn't sought out that route. Every President, including George Washington, could have been impeached based on these fact-less articles. There is no crime. There is no victim, as Ukraine received their aid before September 30th deadline and no witnesses that witnessed anything. This isn't about the rule of law. It's politics at its worse. It's disgraceful. It's time to end this charade and scam on the American people. I urge everybody to vote no on these articles of impeachment. I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from California. 165009 SCHIFF Madam Speaker, I'm happy to remind my colleagues of Ambassador Sondland's testimony. He posed the question was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes. When he was asked about a quid pro quo involving the military aid, he said it was as clear two plus equals four. I'm pleased to yield one minute to Ms. Schakowsky, the gentlewoman from Illinois. DEGETTE>> The gentlelady is recognized for one minute. 165033 JAN SCHAKOWSKY >> It is my adult son, Ian Schakowsky whom I will always credit for my decision last June to support an impeachment inquiry. It had never been my goal to impeach a President, but Ian made such a compelling case. He reminded me of the oath I have taken 11 times now to support and defend the constitution of the United States. He said, mom, this is not about politics. This is not about party. 165105 And pushing back against my arguments he said, this has nothing to do with the final outcome. It's about doing the right thing even if others don't. He made me see that it was about my legacy, my modest place in history. I want to thank you, my son, for helping me do the right thing today, to vote to impeach the President of the United States, Donald Trump, because no American is above the law. And I yield back. DEGETTE>> The gentleman from Georgia. 165144 COLLINS >> Thank you, madam speaker. I also would like to remind the gentleman from California, Mr. Sondland also said he had no direct evidence. He presumed that that was going on. I guess we're back to presumption again. With that, I yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores. DEGETTE>> The gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. 165158 BILL FLORES >> Madam Speaker, on March 11th of this year, the speaker of the house the following said in an interview in "The Washington Post," quote, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there is something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think that we should go down that path, because it divides the country, unquote. I think most Americans would agree with that statement, because it sounds thoughtful and reasonable. 165220 So here we are today to vote on the articles of impeachment. How did the majority party do in meeting the objectives set forth by the speaker? Here are the answers. First, the only compelling attribute about this sham is the lengths the majority has gone to appease the radical socialist wing of their party. Second, the only overwhelming feature about this sham is the abuse of power by the majority and the reckless disregard for fairness by the majority throughout this entire circus. 165246 And finally, the only bipartisan activity related to this sham will be the votes against these flimsy articles impeachment. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing these deplorable articles of impeachment and to demand that the house get back to working on the...

Sgt. Mark Chesnut pulled behind the dark-colored Dodge Magnum, turned on the blue lights of his unmarked patrol car and slowed to a stop on the shoulder of Interstate 40 near Bellevue. The video camera on Chesnut's dashboard recorded his walk to the driver's side door and his talk with the driver, Courtney Logan. The 22-year police veteran had stopped Logan because he noticed the man was not wearing a seat belt. What Chesnut did not know was that he had stopped a getaway car, with a convicted robber at the wheel and a Mississippi prison escapee in the backseat, shielded by tinted windows. The camera kept rolling and would later bear witness to Chesnut's unexpected fight for survival. It all happened in about seven minutes. Logan, 25, of Louisville, Ky., produced a license but couldn't find the rental car's registration. Chesnut acknowledged and spoke to the passenger in the backseat, Joseph Jackson Jr., 30. Chesnut asked Logan to step out of the car. Logan stood between the front of the police car and the back of the Magnum while Chesnut went to his car and ran a computer check on the license plate, and turned down the audio on the dashboard camera. The camera, still filming, recorded Jackson getting out of the rental car and walking back to Chesnut's passenger side. Police say he talked with Chesnut through the open window but the conversation could not be heard. Jackson later admitted that he went to Chesnut's car the first time "to make sure he was alone," Metro detective Norris Tarkington said. Jackson walked back to the rental car, but seconds later he returned to Chesnut's passenger window, this time armed with a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun taken from a Mississippi prison guard earlier in the day, police say. Logan stood there as Jackson fired five shots at Chesnut. Two bullets lodged in the sergeant's body armor. Three others pierced his torso and right arm. Logan told investigators he only heard the shooting, but police say that's not true. "The video shows Logan looking at Jackson," Tarkington said. "After the shooting, Logan appears to be smiling, almost laughing.'' Jackson walked back to the rental car empty handed. Then, he hesitated, stopped and turned around to look at Chesnut.Backing up for cover Suddenly, the wounded officer threw his car into reverse and began backing up along the interstate's shoulder, stopping after rolling some 40 feet. Jackson sprinted to the rental car, and with Logan back in the driver's seat, the pair fled. Chesnut radioed for help, giving a description of his assailants. Less than an hour later they were arrested on Hermitage Avenue. Tarkington arrived at Chesnut's car about 15 minutes after the shooting. He saw the injured officer surrounded by paramedics. They rushed Chesnut to Vanderbilt University Medical Center, where trauma surgeons saved his life but cautioned that his road to recovery would be a long one. The 44-year-old officer is now in a rehabilitation center. After hearing Tarkington's testimony and his account of what the video shows, Davidson County General Sessions Judge Leon Ruben on Tuesday sent the case to the grand jury. The video was not shown in court. Both men are charged with attempting to murder Chesnut that day — June 25 — and remain jailed on bonds totaling more than $3 million each. Tarkington interviewed both men and Jackson expressed remorse for the shooting. "He told me, 'Nothing I can say or do can justify what I did. I didn't have to shoot that officer,' " Tarkington said. Jackson identified Logan, his cousin, as the person who helped him escape early on the morning of the shooting, when three prison guards took him to an optometrist's appointment at a Greenwood, Miss., clinic away from the Delta Correctional Facility. Jackson was serving a life sentence for armed robbery and aggravated assault. A prison guard told detectives last week that Logan was the person who took her gun during the prison break. Police said they found the gun on the front seat of Chesnut's police car. Police Chief Ronal Serpas doesn't believe a lifetime in prison is enough for the men. "I hope they go to prison for the rest of their natural lives here on earth,'' Serpas said. "Then after their natural lives here on earth, I hope they go to prison in hell.''

Man in leather jacket practicing target shooting

<p><b>Supers/Fonts: </b> Justin Smith </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Chief Deputy, DeSot0o County Sheriff's Office </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Location: </b> Hernando</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>State/Province: </b> Mississippi</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Shot Date: </b> 08/20/2024</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>URL: </b> https://www.actionnews5.com/2024/08/21/inmate-accused-walking-out-hernando-courthouse-found-currently-barricaded-inside-chicago-restaurant/</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Notes and Restrictions: </b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Newsource Notes: </b> Will "restaurant" fit in slug? Feel free to change it </p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>Story Description: </b></p>\n<p>Elements:</p>\n<p>RAW presser </p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Wire/StoryDescription:</p>\n<p>An escaped inmate out of DeSoto County has been located after months on the run.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The DeSoto County Sheriffs Office hosted a press conference confirming that U.S. Marshals tracked Joshua Zimmerman, 30, to a restaurant in Chicago on Tuesday.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>DCSO says he is currently barricaded inside and is the only one in the building.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Zimmerman, an attempted murder and robbery suspect, was able to walk out of the DeSoto County courthouse in Hernando on the morning of Friday, June 14, according to law enforcement officials.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>The reward for information on Zimmermans whereabouts was raised twice to a sum of $15,000.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Station Notes/Scripts:</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>

FS37 WH PRESS BRIEFING ROBO CUTS 1300 ABC UNI WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH PRESS SECRETARY JEN PSAKI 131344 PSAKI>> Hi, everyone. Okay! So I know some of you are gonna have to leave for the Pool call which is absolutely fine. We'll also keep you honest on when the President is getting ready to speak, so there are a couple mechanics. Chris is gonna be our special helper on this front today. Thank you. Okay! Couple of items at the top: as you may have seen, today, the FAA -- the Federal Aviation Administrator, Administration -- announced it will award $8 billion in airport rescue grants from the American Rescue Plan to keep airport workers employed, construction projects going, provide rent relief to in-terminal concession companies, and help US airports recover from the impacts of Covid-19. [13:14:29] Thanks to the President's successful vaccination program, America is on the move again. There are over 3 times more Americans travelling through airports now than at any time last year, and this funding will help airports ramp up operations, keep travelers safe, and workers employed. Hundreds of airports across the country will receive this funding, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, including airports in Philadelphia, Charleston, West Virginia, Anchorage, Alaska, Portland, Maine, Portland, on. [13:15:16] Last item at the top -- the first day ofmer and onset of peak wild fire season. We're seeing extreme heat in the west. Several wildfires. And tropical storm Claudette which led to the tragic loss of life in Alabama. Approximate was important -- it was important for P the president to meet with FEMA administration, including the homeland security security advisor to talk about response efforts as well as how FEMA supports communities in need. Josh, why don't you kick us off? Q&A Q>> Two subject areas. First, with regard to voting rights. President Biden described his 2020 campaign -- 131545 What does the administration think is more important for the soul: upholding the tradition of the filibuster or getting the voting rights agenda through? If you had to make a choice, what is that choice? 131557 PSAKI>> Well, we don't see it through that prism which won't surprise you. I will say that, first, the President believes that expanding access to voting, making it easier for people to vote should be a fundamental right for the American public across the country, and it will be a fight of his presidency, long past today. And I will also note, since you gave me the opportunity, that this has been a fight that he has been battling through the course of his career. 131622 When he was in the Senate, he fought for an extension of the Voting Rights Act. And it's something that he, of course, talked about on the campaign trail. And he will continue to use the bully pulpit but also every lever in government to continue to advocate for moving forward. [13:16:36] Q>> The president will meet with the FEMA administrator this afternoon. Researchers have an event at Columbia university this week moving people out of harm's way in order to mitigate the effects of extreme weather. Does this administration believe that people need to leave the areas that impacted by climate change in order to address the question? 131701 PSAKI>> Really interesting question, Josh. And I don't know if they'll be talkin about that during the President's briefing this afternoon. I will note that, while it's traditional for Presidents to get briefings on hurricanes and preparedness for hurricanes, it was important to him and to our team to also get a briefing on wildfires and the impacts, and also to take steps that are -- to prepare for that and the impacts on local communities. Whether that means moving people from their homes, it's a great question. I'll have to see what comes out of the briefing today. Go ahead. 131729 CECILIA VEGA Q>> Thanks, Jen. On Covid and missing the 70% deadline, as this White House sees it, what went wrong? What happened there? Was the goal too high, the number just not attainable? 131740 PSAKI>> Sure. Well, we don't see it like something went wrong. How we see it is we set a bold, ambitious goal, something the President has done from the very beginning. And we are expected to meet that goal just a couple weeks after July 4th. And in fact, at this point, as of today, we're going to be already at that point for people who are 30 years of age and older. What we also know, though, and we've learned this as we've been working to get the pandemic under control, take on this Herculean task where there is no playbook is that there are demographic groups and sometimes populations where it's more difficult to reach. 131817 We've seen that and we've talked about that, as it related to -- early on -- to hesitancy we were seeing in communities of color or some more conservative communities. And we've seen it's been a great deal more difficult to get -- to get young people, between the ages of 18 and 26, vaccinated than adults who are older than that. Hence, we are redoubling our efforts to ensure we are targeting, we are focusing on, we are making the vaccine more accessible for those age groups. 131845 But, again, we are already meeting the goal of vaccinating -- with one dose -- 70% of American 30 years of age and older, and we are working toward meeting it for all adults as soon as possible. 131858 CECILIA VEGA Q>> And just quickly, if I can follow up on voting rights here. Yesterday, you said that there's more work to be done, among that is including -- engaging state legislatures. But the problems, as Democrats at least see it, is not problems in blue-states legislatures. It's Republican controlled states where many of these decisions are already being made. So what leverage do you actually have? And what, realistically, do you think you can accomplish in some of these red states? 131920 PSAKI>> Well, first, I think the point we've been making is that it's part of a federal approach that's needed, and I think it's important to remember why we're at this point. State legislatures, as you referenced, across the country are passing a wave of anti-voters laws based on the same repeatedly disproven lies that led to an assault on our nation's Capitol. They are putting these laws in place because they did not like the outcome, and they've continued to perpetuate a lie about the outcome of the election. 131949 That's why we're here. What the president and what the Vice President will do is engage with voting rights groups, engage with legislatures who are supportive of expanding access to voting around the country. Yes, there are -- even in red states, there are many Democratic legislators or legislators who want to expand that access, empower them, work with them, support them in these efforts, and continue to fight to get legislation across the finish line on the federal level. 132016 So this fight is not over. No matter the outcome today, it going to continue. Go ahead. [13:20:22] Q>> The bully pulpit on the voting issue. Congressman said the president needs to be more vocal, more upfront on the issue. Do you think the president hassle voted this issue enough -- has elevated this issue enough? PSAKI>> I would suggest that is a fight -- those words were a fight against the wrong opponent. The president is passionate about this issue. He has been passionate through our the course of time in public office. You know, again, securing a 25-year extension of the voting rights act when I would note Strom thurmoned -- Thurmond chaired E committee. He's revolted by the way of anti-voter laws based on the same repeatedly disproven ls that led to an assault on our [13:21:26] nation's capitol. As I know theessm congressman and many others a as well, we share their passion. We share the desire to fight these efforts. We share thees desire to fight against efforts by many Republicans to suppress the vote around the country. It doesn't mean that that fight will always be easy, but he's going to stand by them in this effort.d and I would note it's not that he has, you know, is not just about private phone calls. He's certainly done a number of those and private meetings as he did with senator Manchin yesterday to convey to him the importance to him personally to hiving this to a debate on the floor about this imrtant piece of legislation the president has alsgave a speech in Tulsa, oahoma, where he gave a passionate -- me a passionate case for the importance of voting rights. He's also taken action, including empowering a nber of nominees at the department of justice who have been leading advocates for voting rights, pushing for their confirmat to get flew. The department of justice also [13:22:26] just announced a few weeks ago they are doubling their support and their financial support for enforcement of important voting laws around the country. D and he signed historic executive action just several weeks ago that puts in place ar of number of protections to ensure that people have the ability to vote. I wod say that's hardly being silent.th that's hardly sitting on the back bench. And he will be standing with advocates in this fight for the foreseeable future. Go ahead. 132240 Q>> Thanks, Jen. This White House is very good at setting ambitious but achievable goals. Did the White House believe that 70% was achievable when you set it? 132251 PSAKI>> Well, I would say first, there's no record -- there's no playbook for this. There's no record to look back and say "these were the -- these were the goals that were achieved 5 years ago or 10 years ago," because we're dealing with a historic pandemic. And the President's view is that we should set bold, ambitious goals, and do everything we possibly can to achieve them. And in our view, we have -- part of our objective was to return the country to normal, for people to enjoy backyard barbecues which people across the country, millions of people will be. 132322 And we'll have 1,000 people on the South Lawn here, at the White House -- frontline workers, men and women who are serving, also enjoying life back to normal. [13:23:30] But we're honest where we continue need to -- need to continue to redouble our efforts and that's 18 to 26. That's a sogll demographic of the countrone that S continued work. Q>> What's the game plan to get younger people vaccinated in greater numbers? 132348 PSAKI>> Let me give you a couple of examples of what we're working on. It's not just Dr. Fauci on TikTok, though that is happening, so...Dr. Fauci has done several Q&A's with TikTok and Instagram influencers to answer questions, to meet people where they are, including young people, give them information they need. 132409 CDC's Covid Vaccine Chat on WhatsApp is now live to help Spanish speaking young adults get vaccinated. We're working with the private sector as well, as you all know. Mcrosoft is giving away X-Boxes at Boys & Girls Clubs. The College Challenge is rallying university students across the country. [13:24:25] Walgreens is giving out $25 to anyone who gets vaccinated there before July 4. These are just a cou of the pl examplese're taking. We'll build on that from there. What we'll also note, 're seeing the same changes we've seen seen in other groups which is that access and making it easy as possible is the name of the game. Sonu continuing to support our pharmacy program, to support our mobile vaccination unit. They lead busy lives. We want this to be just a box they can check on their weekend to do list. Go ahead. Q>>You very ably went through the president's history on voting rights and related issues, and you laid out all the [13:25:29] times he has spoken about this. [Indiscernible] To him today, we have not heard him talk about it. He has the biggest -- PSAKI>> The speech just a few weeks ago. 132523 Q>> I'm talking about when the vote is happening -- PSAKI>> Mhm! Q>> -- using the President's time. PSAKI>> Mhm! Q>> And so, clearly, the President is choosing not to do that now. Why? Where is the President on this issue on a day when they're voting? 132534 PSAKI>> I would say, first, that the President has spoke -- spoken passionately about his commitment to expanding access to voting rights a number of times, and you will hear him speak about this again. You certainly will hear us -- We'll put out a statement from him at the conclusion of the vote today, and I expect you will hear more from him in the coming days as well. [13:25:52] Q>> On covid. The voices saying he's concerned children who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated could be drivers of the variant, especially with school coming back and camps and all of that. What, specifically, does the administration feel needs to be done to address that issue for those not eligible to be vaccinated? [13:26:30] PSAKI>> Well, as a parent of a couple kids myself who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated, I think we need to be vigilant and abide by the C.D.C. Guidelines. That's not always easy to do and we know that. That means being mindful of social distancing, being mindful of wearing a mask should be essential to keep your kids protected and keep other kids protected. Certainly, we can't expedite the work of E F.D.A. They're the gold standard on science we want to abide by their timeline. This is challenging. Abiding by the guidelines for children and those not yet eligible until we get to that point. Go ahead. Q>> You said yesterday the president feels a great deal of the crime as a result of gun violence. It's not just gun crimes. Why does the president think there has been a 30% increase in car theft in D.C., 47% in robbery in New York City, or a 98% increase in rapes in [13:27:30] Atlanta? 132715 PSAKI>> Well, first, I think if you look at a number of cities across the country, it is actually driven by gun violence. Take St. Louis: in 2021, 96% of homicides where the instrument is known were committed using a firearm. In New York City, from March 2020 to March 2021, shooting incidents have jumped 77%. This city recorded more than 1,500 shootings in 2020, 97% more than 777 in 2019. 132743 There are major cities across the country where gun violence is absolutely the driver, where it is absolutely increasing. And that will be a central part of what he'll talk about when he delivers his remarks tomorrow. [13:27:52] Q>> Given everything that's going on with guns, without guns, does the president think this is the best time to end cash -- PSAKI>> I don't think I have any new position on that. I'll check. Q>> So his stated position from his website which is basically ends cash bail, he wants to lead a national fort to end cash bail and reform the pretrial system, does that stand? PSAKI>> I don't have a new position for you but I'll check. Q>> For those watching that may be worried about a rise in crime. What does the president think is a deterrent to committing a crime if there is no cash bail in place? 132830 PSAKI>> Well -- well, let me give you just a sense, to the degree I can, because we're still finalizing the specifics. There has been, one, an increase in violent crime over the last 18 months. It's not just over the last few months. And actually, if you look statistically back, it's more over the last five years or so. So there is an initial set of actions the President has announced, to date, to address gun violence back in April: strengthening regulations on ghost guns, stabilizing braces that makes firearms more lethal, investing money in community violence intervention programs, an investment that he thinks can be quite effective. 132902 He's talked about, for decades -- and I think you'll hear him talk about more tomorrow -- supporting additional funding for community policing through his budget request, and helping state and local governments keep cops on the beat. So, yes, we believable that essential driver of violence is gun violence and is the use of guns. We're seeing that statistically in a lot of areas, but he also believes that we need to ensure that state and local governments keep cops on the beat, that we're supporting community policing. And that's a key part of it as well. [13:29:29] Q>> Are you said you want to keep cops on the beat but there are rerts big cities are very a very difficult -- having a very difficult time recruiting officers right now. There are many other reports that morale is at an all-time low in big police departments. Why does the president think there is low morale with police officers on the beat? PSAKI>> I don't think we're the right entity to give an assessment of that. I say go to the police departments to get that assessment. The president has never supported defunding the police. He's also supported community policing programs. He supports giving money, through the American rescue plan, because he believes there's an essential role to play for community policing. Go ahead. Q>> I want to ask you about infrastructure. [13:30:31] PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> There was -- meeting -- PSAKI>> Still going on. As far as when I came out here, yes. Q>> Do you think you'll invite those senators to the white house to meet with the president? PSAKI>>We will see. Democrac in action happening, we willss assess what the next step is. As I noted yesterday, the president is encouraged by the ongoing talks and discussions that are continuing with Democrats and Republicans. We sent some -- he asked some members of his senior team, as you noted, Steve, Lui, to go up to capitol hill and meet with a group of bipartisan suppo and once they conclude that meeting, I expect we'll assess what the next steps are. Q>> You're getting a lot of criticism already about the pairing down of the infrastructure proposal, things that are falling away are things that you said are top priority, whether it's climate, the economy. How do you -- how do you anticipate dealing with and following those priorities, [13:31:33] those issues, if you get to a compromise that is in fact a slim down version of what you initiallynn planned? PSAKI>> There is a budget reconciliation pss that is under way to move the president's bold ideas forward. Q>> Ask you about Amazon as well. The S.E.C. Will look at Amazon and M.G.M. Merger. There is growing criticism about the antitrust legislation that's being put forth on the hill. Are you -- what is your perspective about whether there is sort of fundamental reform need to ensure that large companies don't get too big? Do you see this is an inflection point? We've seen companies, including Amazon, really profit enormously from the pandemic and during the pandemic and there have been warnings, even from international financial institutions. Do you see there's something fundamentally needed to check the growth? [13:32:33] PSAKI>> It's a great question. I don't think I will be in position to speak to it from here. There are legal components of this. I can see if there is more to get back to you on. Q>> Just on the Amazon, S.E.C., can you confirm any dealdetails of that? PSAKI>> I can't talk about that specifically from here. Q>> The president's remarks tomorrow, just to follow up on policing and crime -- PSAKI>> Yes. Q>> Will that detail any effort from policing reform or is that focused on crime prevention and why or why not? PSAKI>> First, there are ongoing ne negotiations, as you know, on police reform. The president would love to have a bill on his desk that he can sign into law. We've seen progress being made. We heard progresse.eing made. Those discussions are ongoing. So -- 133303 I would expect that his -- his remarks tomorrow will build on a number of the announcements that I've already touched on, that he's made in the recent months: making guns -- putting in place safety measures to make our streets safer, preventing the use of guns in violent crime across the country, ensuring that we can have more cops on the beat to protect communities. 133326 He obviously is a big advocate for the benefit of community policing. So we'll build on that foundation, and lay out a comprehensive strategy to address violent crime and gun violence as the -- as we enter the summer months. [13:33:40] Q>> Some advocates have raised concerns potentially having the president raise alarm about, you know, a trend of rising crime, crime uptick could undercut police reform, especially since legislation is being discussed, you know, in congress. So is that a concern for the white house at all? The white house has said, you know, the administration wants to give members of congress space to negotiate police reform. Could that potentially raise alarm of the uptick hurt those efforts? PSAKI>> I would say the negotiations are happening between senator booker, senator Scott, key -- congresswoman bass. I don't think they've expressed that particular concern. If TRE is a named person [13:34:36] expressing that concern, I'm happy to speak to that. The negotiations are ongoing. We keep them abreast of our work. I think in communities across the country, who advocate and support police reform, they don't see it as a muually exclusive issue. Neithers does th president. -- Neither doee president. Police reform is outdated. We need to put in place gun safety measures, to use a lever he can as president to do exactly that and ensure there's appropriate funding and resources needed to ensure there's community policing in communities across the country. Q>> On the FEMA meeting. Given that meeting happened today, FEMA still involved in setting up shelters at the borders. Since we're going into hurricane season, as you said, is there a deadline oemwhen FEMA will be pulled out of that process of assisting at the border? PSAKI>> I don't have anything to assess for FEMA. Obviously, they'll make that as issment in coordination with the leadership at the department of humanitariafn but I don't -- department of homeland security but I don't have a timeline. [13:35:36] They've been a key resource. 133520 Q>> Thanks, Jen. Going back to the 70% goal. The CDC data says that there are 13 states that are falling way short of that 70%, they're less than 55%. Four states are below 50%. Should those states get more of a focus right now and not the nationwide number, as the administration plans their strategy to get vaccinations up? 133540 PSAKI>> Well, we are not not focusing on those states. I would say that, one, it's important to note that, when we give the statistics including 87% of all seniors, 75% of people aged 40 and over, 70% of those aged 30 and over, they're from red states and blue states and purple states or whatever color the state may be. Our focus, from the beginning, has been continuing to redouble our efforts among demographics and groups where we need extra assistance. 133606 That's why we have taken steps to put in place 24-hour pharmacies, walk-up sites, mobile clinics, free rides. We have vaccines at barber shops, baseball games, NASCAR races. Even over the last month of action, which we've been doing across the country, we have had 15,000 events. We've attempted 1.4 million contacts or reached about 500,000 people. And there are thousands of volunteers in 50 states across the country. 133633 Ultimately, it's going to be up to individuals to decide if they want to get vaccinated. Q>> Is there -- sorry. Is there something more, though, you went through all of those incentives and specifically tying those to that age group, that younger age group. But if there's something that's regional about this, if it's Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Wyoming that are those states below 50%, is there something the administration can do to get those numbers up? Or at this point, is this governors and states that should be doing this? 133657 PSAKI>> It's always been a partnership and it will continue to be a partnership, moving forward. And it's also up to individuals to make the decision to get vaccinated. And what we can do from the federal government, of course, is to make it accessible as possible, make sure we have the supply. We've done that long ago. Make sure there are thousands and thousands of sites, vaccinators, opportunities for people to get vaccinated, incentivize it across the country. That's exactly what we've done. 133722 I will note: we're not stop implementing these programs on July 5th. We'll continue to implement them as we work to get more people in the country vaccinated. Go ahead., April. [13:37:30] Q>> Jen, two topics. Voting rights as well as crime. You keep bringing up president George W. Bush when he -- PSAKI>> I keep bringing him up? Q>>The extension up. You B extught the extension up of voting rights. Jen: I think that happened long before. Reporter: Right. You brought it up -- extend it for 25 yea -- PSAKI>> I didn't bring up George W. Bush but, go ahead, you can bring him up. Q>> As someone that was here when he did it -- PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> One of his pieces that he likes to tout when he talks about efforts in the black community, what's different with Republicans then and Republicans now when it comes to voting right? PSAKI>> What's different? Q>> Yeah. PSAKI>>Well, I think, April, what should raise some questions for ericans across the country [13:38:37] is -- why would anyonwant to make it more difficult to vote? Why wouldn't we want to make it more accessible? What are they so afr D of? Maybe they're more afrd now what it would mean to have more people voting across the country than back then. I don't know. You have to ask them. Q>> On crime, what's different now as you're trying to push this effort on community policing as well as guns? What's different now? What do you think will have to change the tide that hasn't been changed before? PSAKI>> Different now -- do you mean different from a different period of time or from -- Q>> Community policing was in place during Clinton years. There was conversation about it. And now you're bringing it back again. So you bring it back again. Do you think -- do you believe that can become a reality again? I understand different police departments can do what they want, but you're trying to make a global overall sweeping push [13:39:40] across the nation. What's different now that will make this time change? 133929 PSAKI>> Well, I would say one difference now is that it's become a politically charged issue when it wasn't, historically. And if you look back, community oriented policing services, you know, historically had been supported by liberal Democrats, Democrats, civil rights groups including the NAACP, and over the course of time. And that has always been the case. I would say we're not suggesting -- the President isn't suggesting it's the silver bullet. A central part of his remarks and his -- his announcement tomorrow will be about addressing gun violence, which he thinks is a significant driver in violence in our communities and cities across the country. 134008 And as you know, April, there are laws that were in place -- the assault weapons ban, others -- that are no longer in place. There are also additional guns -- ghost guns and others -- that were not a reality just a few years ago. So there are some laws he'd like to go back to, and some that he'll look to update. [13:40:25] Q>> What's different now? You have the powerful N.R.A., you have Republicans anytime you touch anything about guns, they feel like you're taking their rights away? What's different now? When do you think the tide will turn on this? PSAKI>> Are you asking about the politics of now? Q>> Politics and this moment in time, why do you believe you have a chance to make a dent when Democrats didn't have it before? PSAKI>> I would say, here's how the president sees this. 134055 There has been rising crime in cities for the last 18 months, if not before that. Yes, there needs to be reforms of police systems across the country. The President is a firm believer in that, but there are also steps he can take as President of the United States to help address and, hopefully, reduce that crime. A big part of that, in his view, is putting in place gun safety measures, using -- even as Congress is not moving forward currently, using the bully pulpit, but also using levers at his disposal as President. Go ahead. [13:41:25] Q>> Joe Biden, 30 years ago he was chairman of the senate judicial committee. Wrote the crime bill. Addressed this issue. What has he learned since then what can we look tomorrow that will be the same or different? PSAKI>> I would say first on the campaign, the president said that some parts of the bill worked and some areas did not work. There are also steps he took as senator when he introduced or supported legislation, I should say, to address the disparities in drug sentencing laws. So he's taken some specific actions over time in areas where he doesn't think worked as well. There are some components of that legislation he supported at the time, including the 10-year ban on assault weapons, including the support for the violence against women act, including the support for community policing programs that he's been a long time advocate [13:42:43] for. I think he'll see continuity in terms of his support for those initiatives moving forward. Q>> You say he will build on the announcemented. Will we hear anything tomorrow? PSAKI>> Stayuned. You won't come tomorrow. Q>> The president meeting with the chairman of the federal reserve yesterday, did the president bring up interest rates or express his views on the direction of interest rates at all? PSAKI>> As you well know, that is the purview of the federal reserve. They put out their own projections, as you know, about what it looks like moving forward. The topic, the focus of the meeting was exactly as it was outlined. Q>> Interest rates -- PSAKI>> I have no more to read out to you. Q>> On the infrastructure fwhoeshgss -- negotiations, do you know if the white house has put anything for pay-fors? PSAKI>> I say we put a lot of different options on pay-fors on the table. Our view is there is a fundamental question right now. Our rmemblicans, members of [13:43:43] congress -- do Republicans, members of congress, do they believe the rich people should have to pay for the taxes they owe? Should we crease the cost for travelers trying to make it to work? We'll see if they can make progress on that exact point. Go ahead. Q>> Can you say who the stakeholders will be at the white house tomorrow for this crime meeting? Can you say who's coming? PSAKI>> The announcement tomorrow -- sure. I don't have it in front of me but we'll get it after the briefing. Q>> This is sort of a pullback question. Why now, exactly? Is it just because crime rates are up and the stats are out? Why is this the week of all weeks that the president decided to focus on crime? 134410 PSAKI>> First, I would say that he's made a number of announcements over the past several months on gun violence, on putting in place gun safety measures. He's made -- announced in his budget his support for community policing and providing funding. Maybe we haven't drawn that clear throughline for all of you, but this is a continuation of that, in his view. 134429 Q>> Labeling it -- a speech about crime is certainly different than a speech about gun safety or -- this is [inaud] PSAKI>> A central part of it will be on gun violence. Yeah, Go ahead. [13:44:38] Q>> Continue the crime spree, if you will. [Laughter] PSAKI>> A lot of anals here that might be threatening. Q>> My colleague had brought uhere are activists who are very concerned that the president's decision to highlight crime right now could undercut his negotiations on the hill for police reform. You were asked the names. The justice action network is one. Can you address how the president is going to sort of walk that line between expressing his concern about crime without uercutting these efforts, as you point out, that have been under way for a while? PSAKI>> Sure, what I was trying to get up B thanks for bringing [13:45:45] up the question again, there are negotiators that are continuing to make progress on the hill. The prandsident stands by a lot O these groups. Thorr support and advocacy for long overdue gun reform. He does not feel like they are conflicting. I don't think you heard from any of the negotiators on the hill they feel they are conflicting either. So that was the point I was trying to make. Communities across then country, where they areing seeing -- if you're living in St. Louis and 96% of homicides were done -- where we know the instrument that was used was using a firearm, you want to know what the president will do to address that. If -- if you live in new York City, want to hear more every town -- 3,900 additional firearm deaths and 9,278 additional firearm injuries in 2020 compared to 29. That's impacting people's lives, people's communities, ople's [13:46:47] families, people's neighbors. Of course, they want to hear more. He wants to share with the American public what he will do. Q>> Covid, the country did not reach this goal of 70% of adults getting a shot, is there anything the country cannot do? Is there a way -- a benchmark for getting back to normalcy, and since we didn't get there, are there things the country can't do because we haven't achieved that goal that we were supposed to do? PSAKI>> First, I would say it's a goal we here set in the white house. Q>> [Indiscernible] PSAKI>> Well, this was always going to be community-to-community, right? When the president set this goal back in March, it was always meant to be an incentive and driver for people to see what the benefit would be of getting vaccinated. At the time, what the president said, if you're vaccinated, your neighbors are vaccinated, you can all have a backyard barbecue. We're doing that times about 100 by hosting 1,000 people here at [13:47:47] the white house. Now if you're in a community where you're a 80% vaccination rate, you are pretty much back to normal. If yre in a community with a lower vaccination rate, obviously you'll make your own choices but you're not operating in a community where it should be back to normal. It's always going to be local. Was always going to be based on what the decisions are made community-to-community. But not nationwide, no. It's really dependent where you're living. Q>> Because the president is in Washington, D.C., and we have -- Washington, D.C., has gone beyond the 70% goal, it's ok to do those things? It's ok to have 1,000 people to be in Washington, D.C., because they have crossed the 70%? But where it's a 50% vaccination rate, perhaps -- PSAKI>> Communities will make their own decision. There is nothing magical about 70%. 70% was a bold, ambitious goal we set to continue to drive to get more people vaccinated [13:48:49] across the country. But it's not as if you're 67% in a community you're at a different level of safety than 71%. Communities are going to make their own decisions. I think at a fundamental fact is that if you're vaccinated, if your neighbors are vaccinated, then you're safe. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you, Jen. PSAKI>> Sorry. Go ahead. Q>> Oh, thanks. Can you respond to at least a couple Republican senators and one today and talked about signing onto this bipartisan talks right now on the -- [indiscernible] That would stop you guys from doing reconciliation, can you respond to that idea they're basically cooperating so you can't do the second half of your plan? PSAKI>> I don't think that's how the process works fundamentally. Q>> So it will not stop the white house from enacting? PSAKI>> If you go to our episode of [13:49:49] how a bill becomes a law, there is a budget reconciliation process led by the budget chairman. It needs a certain number of votes. That's different than the number of votes that are needed for other pieces of legislation. That piece of legislation -- the budget reconciliation process is proceeding. There will be discussions. There may be disagreements among people in the democratic party what should be included in there or not. There needs to be 50 votes to move that forward. But that process is continuing and proceeding. Q>> Stopping the momentum for it as well as taking the amount of time these talks are taking that it realistically it could -- PSAKI>> How would it gum up the works? Q>> I mean, this is their -- this is their plan, their hope. PSAKI>> Sounds like they have more explaining what they mean or maybe they need to go to how a bill becomes a law, how budget reconciliation works. Senator Sanders could go to the caucus and meet with them. I think the president is about to speak. Thanks, everyone. [13:50:50] Sorry it was a little short today. [END]

A squadron of police officers enter a home with a meth lab using a battering ram.

<p><pi><b>This package/segment contains third party material. Unless otherwise noted, this material may only be used within this package/segment.</b></pi></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Tuesday</p>\n<p>Mobile, AL</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>:59-1:12</p>\n<p>Tom Walsh</p>\n<p>Defense Attorney</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>1:58-End</p>\n<p>Barre Dumas </p>\n<p>Attorney for Quinton Olson</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p>THE MASTERMIND OF A SCHEME TO SET FIRES TO SOME WALMART STORES IN ALABAMA IS GOING TO PRISON.</p>\n<p>ON TUESDAY, A FEDERAL JUDGE SENTENCED JEFFERY SIKES TO DOUBLE THE RECOMMENDED TERM.</p>\n<p>BRENDAN KIRBY HAS THE DETAILS.</p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p>FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALLED FOR A NINE-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE FOR JEFFERY SIKES FOR HIS ROLE IN PLANNING ARSONS AT WALMARTS IN MOBILE AND MISSISSIPPI IN 2021.</p>\n<p>BUT THOSE GUIDELINES ARE ADVISORY, AND U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE TERRY MOORER ON TUESDAY SAID HE BELIEVES THIS CASE WAS MORE EGREGIOUS THAN WHAT THOSE GUIDELINES CONTEMPLATE. HE POINTED TO SIKES CONDUCT BEFORE AND AFTER THOSE FIRES. HE FLED NEBRASKA IN 20-18 TO AVOID SENTENCING IN A FRAUD CASE THERE. AFTER THE FIRES, ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, HE DUPED INVESTORS IN PENSACOLA TO PUT MONEY TOWARD A SUPPOSEDLY REVOLUTIONARY RECYCLING MACHINE THAT COULD CONVERT GARBAGE AND POLLUTION INTO WATER, PURE OXYGEN AND CRUDE OIL.</p>\n<p>MUCH OF WHAT THE JUDGE DREW ON CAME FROM TWO DAYS OF TESTIMONY LAST WEEK TO DETERMINE WHETHER CO-DEFENDANTS ALEXANDER AND QUINTON OLSON DESERVED LENIENCY. TOM WALSH, AN ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS SIKES, SAYS ITS UNFAIR FOR THE JUDGE TO USE THAT TESTIMONY AS A BASIS TO INCREASE HIS CLIENTS PUNISHMENT. </p>\n<p>Tom Walsh, Defense Attorney "I objected numerous times to my client being a part of those hearings, although I was overruled. And we just thank God that nobody was hurt in this case, in these fires."</p>\n<p>SIKES ADMITTED TO DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF A DOCUMENT CALLED DECLARATION OF WAR AND DEMANDS FOR THE PEOPLE. IT OUTLINED GRIEVANCES AGAINST WALMART RELATED TO PAY, BENEFITS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS AND THREATENED CONTINUED ARSONS IF THE DEMANDS WEREN'T MET.</p>\n<p>THE JUDGE SENTENCED ALEXANDER OLSON TO 15 YEARS IN PRISON. HE WENT INTO TWO OF THE WALMART STORES THAT A CO-DEFENDANT SET ON FIRE. THAT CO-DEFENDANT TESTIFIED LAST WEEK THAT HE HELPED STRAP HER TO A SUICIDE VEST IN AN ABORTED BANK ROBBERY ATTEMPT. </p>\n<p>THE JUDGE SENTENCED OLSONS BROTHER, QUINTON OLSON TO THREE YEARS. HE WAS A TEENAGER LIVING WITH SIKES IN LILLIAN AND ADMITTED TO HELPING DISTRIBUTE THE MANIFESTO. HE ALSO ATTENDED MEETINGS WHERE SIKES AND THE OTHERS HATCHED THEIR PLANS.</p>\n<p>ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH OLSON BROTHERS ARGUED SIKES MANIPULATED THEIR CLIENTS.</p>\n<p>Barre Dumas, Attorney for Quinton Olson "He was doing all this under compulsion and duress. I mean, this guy Sikes was a piece of work. He had threatened these young men with their lives and the lives of their family. He had them completely convinced that he was some kind of black ops operator."</p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p>THE JUDGE ALSO ORDER SIKES AND THE OTHERS TO PAY WALMART MORE THAN SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS IN COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGES.</p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p>ALABAMA WALMART FIRES PRISON CRIME </p>

FS23 WH PRESS BRIEFING HEAD ON POOL 3 1300.01 ABC POOL WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH PRESS SECRETARY JEN PSAKI 131344 PSAKI>> Hi, everyone. Okay! So I know some of you are gonna have to leave for the Pool call which is absolutely fine. We'll also keep you honest on when the President is getting ready to speak, so there are a couple mechanics. Chris is gonna be our special helper on this front today. Thank you. Okay! Couple of items at the top: as you may have seen, today, the FAA -- the Federal Aviation Administrator, Administration -- announced it will award $8 billion in airport rescue grants from the American Rescue Plan to keep airport workers employed, construction projects going, provide rent relief to in-terminal concession companies, and help US airports recover from the impacts of Covid-19. [13:14:29] Thanks to the President's successful vaccination program, America is on the move again. There are over 3 times more Americans travelling through airports now than at any time last year, and this funding will help airports ramp up operations, keep travelers safe, and workers employed. Hundreds of airports across the country will receive this funding, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, including airports in Philadelphia, Charleston, West Virginia, Anchorage, Alaska, Portland, Maine, Portland, on. [13:15:16] Last item at the top -- the first day ofmer and onset of peak wild fire season. We're seeing extreme heat in the west. Several wildfires. And tropical storm Claudette which led to the tragic loss of life in Alabama. Approximate was important -- it was important for P the president to meet with FEMA administration, including the homeland security security advisor to talk about response efforts as well as how FEMA supports communities in need. Josh, why don't you kick us off? Q&A Q>> Two subject areas. First, with regard to voting rights. President Biden described his 2020 campaign -- 131545 What does the administration think is more important for the soul: upholding the tradition of the filibuster or getting the voting rights agenda through? If you had to make a choice, what is that choice? 131557 PSAKI>> Well, we don't see it through that prism which won't surprise you. I will say that, first, the President believes that expanding access to voting, making it easier for people to vote should be a fundamental right for the American public across the country, and it will be a fight of his presidency, long past today. And I will also note, since you gave me the opportunity, that this has been a fight that he has been battling through the course of his career. 131622 When he was in the Senate, he fought for an extension of the Voting Rights Act. And it's something that he, of course, talked about on the campaign trail. And he will continue to use the bully pulpit but also every lever in government to continue to advocate for moving forward. [13:16:36] Q>> The president will meet with the FEMA administrator this afternoon. Researchers have an event at Columbia university this week moving people out of harm's way in order to mitigate the effects of extreme weather. Does this administration believe that people need to leave the areas that impacted by climate change in order to address the question? 131701 PSAKI>> Really interesting question, Josh. And I don't know if they'll be talkin about that during the President's briefing this afternoon. I will note that, while it's traditional for Presidents to get briefings on hurricanes and preparedness for hurricanes, it was important to him and to our team to also get a briefing on wildfires and the impacts, and also to take steps that are -- to prepare for that and the impacts on local communities. Whether that means moving people from their homes, it's a great question. I'll have to see what comes out of the briefing today. Go ahead. 131729 CECILIA VEGA Q>> Thanks, Jen. On Covid and missing the 70% deadline, as this White House sees it, what went wrong? What happened there? Was the goal too high, the number just not attainable? 131740 PSAKI>> Sure. Well, we don't see it like something went wrong. How we see it is we set a bold, ambitious goal, something the President has done from the very beginning. And we are expected to meet that goal just a couple weeks after July 4th. And in fact, at this point, as of today, we're going to be already at that point for people who are 30 years of age and older. What we also know, though, and we've learned this as we've been working to get the pandemic under control, take on this Herculean task where there is no playbook is that there are demographic groups and sometimes populations where it's more difficult to reach. 131817 We've seen that and we've talked about that, as it related to -- early on -- to hesitancy we were seeing in communities of color or some more conservative communities. And we've seen it's been a great deal more difficult to get -- to get young people, between the ages of 18 and 26, vaccinated than adults who are older than that. Hence, we are redoubling our efforts to ensure we are targeting, we are focusing on, we are making the vaccine more accessible for those age groups. 131845 But, again, we are already meeting the goal of vaccinating -- with one dose -- 70% of American 30 years of age and older, and we are working toward meeting it for all adults as soon as possible. 131858 CECILIA VEGA Q>> And just quickly, if I can follow up on voting rights here. Yesterday, you said that there's more work to be done, among that is including -- engaging state legislatures. But the problems, as Democrats at least see it, is not problems in blue-states legislatures. It's Republican controlled states where many of these decisions are already being made. So what leverage do you actually have? And what, realistically, do you think you can accomplish in some of these red states? 131920 PSAKI>> Well, first, I think the point we've been making is that it's part of a federal approach that's needed, and I think it's important to remember why we're at this point. State legislatures, as you referenced, across the country are passing a wave of anti-voters laws based on the same repeatedly disproven lies that led to an assault on our nation's Capitol. They are putting these laws in place because they did not like the outcome, and they've continued to perpetuate a lie about the outcome of the election. 131949 That's why we're here. What the president and what the Vice President will do is engage with voting rights groups, engage with legislatures who are supportive of expanding access to voting around the country. Yes, there are -- even in red states, there are many Democratic legislators or legislators who want to expand that access, empower them, work with them, support them in these efforts, and continue to fight to get legislation across the finish line on the federal level. 132016 So this fight is not over. No matter the outcome today, it going to continue. Go ahead. [13:20:22] Q>> The bully pulpit on the voting issue. Congressman said the president needs to be more vocal, more upfront on the issue. Do you think the president hassle voted this issue enough -- has elevated this issue enough? PSAKI>> I would suggest that is a fight -- those words were a fight against the wrong opponent. The president is passionate about this issue. He has been passionate through our the course of time in public office. You know, again, securing a 25-year extension of the voting rights act when I would note Strom thurmoned -- Thurmond chaired E committee. He's revolted by the way of anti-voter laws based on the same repeatedly disproven ls that led to an assault on our [13:21:26] nation's capitol. As I know theessm congressman and many others a as well, we share their passion. We share the desire to fight these efforts. We share thees desire to fight against efforts by many Republicans to suppress the vote around the country. It doesn't mean that that fight will always be easy, but he's going to stand by them in this effort.d and I would note it's not that he has, you know, is not just about private phone calls. He's certainly done a number of those and private meetings as he did with senator Manchin yesterday to convey to him the importance to him personally to hiving this to a debate on the floor about this imrtant piece of legislation the president has alsgave a speech in Tulsa, oahoma, where he gave a passionate -- me a passionate case for the importance of voting rights. He's also taken action, including empowering a nber of nominees at the department of justice who have been leading advocates for voting rights, pushing for their confirmat to get flew. The department of justice also [13:22:26] just announced a few weeks ago they are doubling their support and their financial support for enforcement of important voting laws around the country. D and he signed historic executive action just several weeks ago that puts in place ar of number of protections to ensure that people have the ability to vote. I wod say that's hardly being silent.th that's hardly sitting on the back bench. And he will be standing with advocates in this fight for the foreseeable future. Go ahead. 132240 Q>> Thanks, Jen. This White House is very good at setting ambitious but achievable goals. Did the White House believe that 70% was achievable when you set it? 132251 PSAKI>> Well, I would say first, there's no record -- there's no playbook for this. There's no record to look back and say "these were the -- these were the goals that were achieved 5 years ago or 10 years ago," because we're dealing with a historic pandemic. And the President's view is that we should set bold, ambitious goals, and do everything we possibly can to achieve them. And in our view, we have -- part of our objective was to return the country to normal, for people to enjoy backyard barbecues which people across the country, millions of people will be. 132322 And we'll have 1,000 people on the South Lawn here, at the White House -- frontline workers, men and women who are serving, also enjoying life back to normal. [13:23:30] But we're honest where we continue need to -- need to continue to redouble our efforts and that's 18 to 26. That's a sogll demographic of the countrone that S continued work. Q>> What's the game plan to get younger people vaccinated in greater numbers? 132348 PSAKI>> Let me give you a couple of examples of what we're working on. It's not just Dr. Fauci on TikTok, though that is happening, so...Dr. Fauci has done several Q&A's with TikTok and Instagram influencers to answer questions, to meet people where they are, including young people, give them information they need. 132409 CDC's Covid Vaccine Chat on WhatsApp is now live to help Spanish speaking young adults get vaccinated. We're working with the private sector as well, as you all know. Mcrosoft is giving away X-Boxes at Boys & Girls Clubs. The College Challenge is rallying university students across the country. [13:24:25] Walgreens is giving out $25 to anyone who gets vaccinated there before July 4. These are just a cou of the pl examplese're taking. We'll build on that from there. What we'll also note, 're seeing the same changes we've seen seen in other groups which is that access and making it easy as possible is the name of the game. Sonu continuing to support our pharmacy program, to support our mobile vaccination unit. They lead busy lives. We want this to be just a box they can check on their weekend to do list. Go ahead. Q>>You very ably went through the president's history on voting rights and related issues, and you laid out all the [13:25:29] times he has spoken about this. [Indiscernible] To him today, we have not heard him talk about it. He has the biggest -- PSAKI>> The speech just a few weeks ago. 132523 Q>> I'm talking about when the vote is happening -- PSAKI>> Mhm! Q>> -- using the President's time. PSAKI>> Mhm! Q>> And so, clearly, the President is choosing not to do that now. Why? Where is the President on this issue on a day when they're voting? 132534 PSAKI>> I would say, first, that the President has spoke -- spoken passionately about his commitment to expanding access to voting rights a number of times, and you will hear him speak about this again. You certainly will hear us -- We'll put out a statement from him at the conclusion of the vote today, and I expect you will hear more from him in the coming days as well. [13:25:52] Q>> On covid. The voices saying he's concerned children who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated could be drivers of the variant, especially with school coming back and camps and all of that. What, specifically, does the administration feel needs to be done to address that issue for those not eligible to be vaccinated? [13:26:30] PSAKI>> Well, as a parent of a couple kids myself who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated, I think we need to be vigilant and abide by the C.D.C. Guidelines. That's not always easy to do and we know that. That means being mindful of social distancing, being mindful of wearing a mask should be essential to keep your kids protected and keep other kids protected. Certainly, we can't expedite the work of E F.D.A. They're the gold standard on science we want to abide by their timeline. This is challenging. Abiding by the guidelines for children and those not yet eligible until we get to that point. Go ahead. Q>> You said yesterday the president feels a great deal of the crime as a result of gun violence. It's not just gun crimes. Why does the president think there has been a 30% increase in car theft in D.C., 47% in robbery in New York City, or a 98% increase in rapes in [13:27:30] Atlanta? 132715 PSAKI>> Well, first, I think if you look at a number of cities across the country, it is actually driven by gun violence. Take St. Louis: in 2021, 96% of homicides where the instrument is known were committed using a firearm. In New York City, from March 2020 to March 2021, shooting incidents have jumped 77%. This city recorded more than 1,500 shootings in 2020, 97% more than 777 in 2019. 132743 There are major cities across the country where gun violence is absolutely the driver, where it is absolutely increasing. And that will be a central part of what he'll talk about when he delivers his remarks tomorrow. [13:27:52] Q>> Given everything that's going on with guns, without guns, does the president think this is the best time to end cash -- PSAKI>> I don't think I have any new position on that. I'll check. Q>> So his stated position from his website which is basically ends cash bail, he wants to lead a national fort to end cash bail and reform the pretrial system, does that stand? PSAKI>> I don't have a new position for you but I'll check. Q>> For those watching that may be worried about a rise in crime. What does the president think is a deterrent to committing a crime if there is no cash bail in place? 132830 PSAKI>> Well -- well, let me give you just a sense, to the degree I can, because we're still finalizing the specifics. There has been, one, an increase in violent crime over the last 18 months. It's not just over the last few months. And actually, if you look statistically back, it's more over the last five years or so. So there is an initial set of actions the President has announced, to date, to address gun violence back in April: strengthening regulations on ghost guns, stabilizing braces that makes firearms more lethal, investing money in community violence intervention programs, an investment that he thinks can be quite effective. 132902 He's talked about, for decades -- and I think you'll hear him talk about more tomorrow -- supporting additional funding for community policing through his budget request, and helping state and local governments keep cops on the beat. So, yes, we believable that essential driver of violence is gun violence and is the use of guns. We're seeing that statistically in a lot of areas, but he also believes that we need to ensure that state and local governments keep cops on the beat, that we're supporting community policing. And that's a key part of it as well. [13:29:29] Q>> Are you said you want to keep cops on the beat but there are rerts big cities are very a very difficult -- having a very difficult time recruiting officers right now. There are many other reports that morale is at an all-time low in big police departments. Why does the president think there is low morale with police officers on the beat? PSAKI>> I don't think we're the right entity to give an assessment of that. I say go to the police departments to get that assessment. The president has never supported defunding the police. He's also supported community policing programs. He supports giving money, through the American rescue plan, because he believes there's an essential role to play for community policing. Go ahead. Q>> I want to ask you about infrastructure. [13:30:31] PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> There was -- meeting -- PSAKI>> Still going on. As far as when I came out here, yes. Q>> Do you think you'll invite those senators to the white house to meet with the president? PSAKI>>We will see. Democrac in action happening, we willss assess what the next step is. As I noted yesterday, the president is encouraged by the ongoing talks and discussions that are continuing with Democrats and Republicans. We sent some -- he asked some members of his senior team, as you noted, Steve, Lui, to go up to capitol hill and meet with a group of bipartisan suppo and once they conclude that meeting, I expect we'll assess what the next steps are. Q>> You're getting a lot of criticism already about the pairing down of the infrastructure proposal, things that are falling away are things that you said are top priority, whether it's climate, the economy. How do you -- how do you anticipate dealing with and following those priorities, [13:31:33] those issues, if you get to a compromise that is in fact a slim down version of what you initiallynn planned? PSAKI>> There is a budget reconciliation pss that is under way to move the president's bold ideas forward. Q>> Ask you about Amazon as well. The S.E.C. Will look at Amazon and M.G.M. Merger. There is growing criticism about the antitrust legislation that's being put forth on the hill. Are you -- what is your perspective about whether there is sort of fundamental reform need to ensure that large companies don't get too big? Do you see this is an inflection point? We've seen companies, including Amazon, really profit enormously from the pandemic and during the pandemic and there have been warnings, even from international financial institutions. Do you see there's something fundamentally needed to check the growth? [13:32:33] PSAKI>> It's a great question. I don't think I will be in position to speak to it from here. There are legal components of this. I can see if there is more to get back to you on. Q>> Just on the Amazon, S.E.C., can you confirm any dealdetails of that? PSAKI>> I can't talk about that specifically from here. Q>> The president's remarks tomorrow, just to follow up on policing and crime -- PSAKI>> Yes. Q>> Will that detail any effort from policing reform or is that focused on crime prevention and why or why not? PSAKI>> First, there are ongoing ne negotiations, as you know, on police reform. The president would love to have a bill on his desk that he can sign into law. We've seen progress being made. We heard progresse.eing made. Those discussions are ongoing. So -- 133303 I would expect that his -- his remarks tomorrow will build on a number of the announcements that I've already touched on, that he's made in the recent months: making guns -- putting in place safety measures to make our streets safer, preventing the use of guns in violent crime across the country, ensuring that we can have more cops on the beat to protect communities. 133326 He obviously is a big advocate for the benefit of community policing. So we'll build on that foundation, and lay out a comprehensive strategy to address violent crime and gun violence as the -- as we enter the summer months. [13:33:40] Q>> Some advocates have raised concerns potentially having the president raise alarm about, you know, a trend of rising crime, crime uptick could undercut police reform, especially since legislation is being discussed, you know, in congress. So is that a concern for the white house at all? The white house has said, you know, the administration wants to give members of congress space to negotiate police reform. Could that potentially raise alarm of the uptick hurt those efforts? PSAKI>> I would say the negotiations are happening between senator booker, senator Scott, key -- congresswoman bass. I don't think they've expressed that particular concern. If TRE is a named person [13:34:36] expressing that concern, I'm happy to speak to that. The negotiations are ongoing. We keep them abreast of our work. I think in communities across the country, who advocate and support police reform, they don't see it as a muually exclusive issue. Neithers does th president. -- Neither doee president. Police reform is outdated. We need to put in place gun safety measures, to use a lever he can as president to do exactly that and ensure there's appropriate funding and resources needed to ensure there's community policing in communities across the country. Q>> On the FEMA meeting. Given that meeting happened today, FEMA still involved in setting up shelters at the borders. Since we're going into hurricane season, as you said, is there a deadline oemwhen FEMA will be pulled out of that process of assisting at the border? PSAKI>> I don't have anything to assess for FEMA. Obviously, they'll make that as issment in coordination with the leadership at the department of humanitariafn but I don't -- department of homeland security but I don't have a timeline. [13:35:36] They've been a key resource. 133520 Q>> Thanks, Jen. Going back to the 70% goal. The CDC data says that there are 13 states that are falling way short of that 70%, they're less than 55%. Four states are below 50%. Should those states get more of a focus right now and not the nationwide number, as the administration plans their strategy to get vaccinations up? 133540 PSAKI>> Well, we are not not focusing on those states. I would say that, one, it's important to note that, when we give the statistics including 87% of all seniors, 75% of people aged 40 and over, 70% of those aged 30 and over, they're from red states and blue states and purple states or whatever color the state may be. Our focus, from the beginning, has been continuing to redouble our efforts among demographics and groups where we need extra assistance. 133606 That's why we have taken steps to put in place 24-hour pharmacies, walk-up sites, mobile clinics, free rides. We have vaccines at barber shops, baseball games, NASCAR races. Even over the last month of action, which we've been doing across the country, we have had 15,000 events. We've attempted 1.4 million contacts or reached about 500,000 people. And there are thousands of volunteers in 50 states across the country. 133633 Ultimately, it's going to be up to individuals to decide if they want to get vaccinated. Q>> Is there -- sorry. Is there something more, though, you went through all of those incentives and specifically tying those to that age group, that younger age group. But if there's something that's regional about this, if it's Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Wyoming that are those states below 50%, is there something the administration can do to get those numbers up? Or at this point, is this governors and states that should be doing this? 133657 PSAKI>> It's always been a partnership and it will continue to be a partnership, moving forward. And it's also up to individuals to make the decision to get vaccinated. And what we can do from the federal government, of course, is to make it accessible as possible, make sure we have the supply. We've done that long ago. Make sure there are thousands and thousands of sites, vaccinators, opportunities for people to get vaccinated, incentivize it across the country. That's exactly what we've done. 133722 I will note: we're not stop implementing these programs on July 5th. We'll continue to implement them as we work to get more people in the country vaccinated. Go ahead., April. [13:37:30] Q>> Jen, two topics. Voting rights as well as crime. You keep bringing up president George W. Bush when he -- PSAKI>> I keep bringing him up? Q>>The extension up. You B extught the extension up of voting rights. Jen: I think that happened long before. Reporter: Right. You brought it up -- extend it for 25 yea -- PSAKI>> I didn't bring up George W. Bush but, go ahead, you can bring him up. Q>> As someone that was here when he did it -- PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> One of his pieces that he likes to tout when he talks about efforts in the black community, what's different with Republicans then and Republicans now when it comes to voting right? PSAKI>> What's different? Q>> Yeah. PSAKI>>Well, I think, April, what should raise some questions for ericans across the country [13:38:37] is -- why would anyonwant to make it more difficult to vote? Why wouldn't we want to make it more accessible? What are they so afr D of? Maybe they're more afrd now what it would mean to have more people voting across the country than back then. I don't know. You have to ask them. Q>> On crime, what's different now as you're trying to push this effort on community policing as well as guns? What's different now? What do you think will have to change the tide that hasn't been changed before? PSAKI>> Different now -- do you mean different from a different period of time or from -- Q>> Community policing was in place during Clinton years. There was conversation about it. And now you're bringing it back again. So you bring it back again. Do you think -- do you believe that can become a reality again? I understand different police departments can do what they want, but you're trying to make a global overall sweeping push [13:39:40] across the nation. What's different now that will make this time change? 133929 PSAKI>> Well, I would say one difference now is that it's become a politically charged issue when it wasn't, historically. And if you look back, community oriented policing services, you know, historically had been supported by liberal Democrats, Democrats, civil rights groups including the NAACP, and over the course of time. And that has always been the case. I would say we're not suggesting -- the President isn't suggesting it's the silver bullet. A central part of his remarks and his -- his announcement tomorrow will be about addressing gun violence, which he thinks is a significant driver in violence in our communities and cities across the country. 134008 And as you know, April, there are laws that were in place -- the assault weapons ban, others -- that are no longer in place. There are also additional guns -- ghost guns and others -- that were not a reality just a few years ago. So there are some laws he'd like to go back to, and some that he'll look to update. [13:40:25] Q>> What's different now? You have the powerful N.R.A., you have Republicans anytime you touch anything about guns, they feel like you're taking their rights away? What's different now? When do you think the tide will turn on this? PSAKI>> Are you asking about the politics of now? Q>> Politics and this moment in time, why do you believe you have a chance to make a dent when Democrats didn't have it before? PSAKI>> I would say, here's how the president sees this. 134055 There has been rising crime in cities for the last 18 months, if not before that. Yes, there needs to be reforms of police systems across the country. The President is a firm believer in that, but there are also steps he can take as President of the United States to help address and, hopefully, reduce that crime. A big part of that, in his view, is putting in place gun safety measures, using -- even as Congress is not moving forward currently, using the bully pulpit, but also using levers at his disposal as President. Go ahead. [13:41:25] Q>> Joe Biden, 30 years ago he was chairman of the senate judicial committee. Wrote the crime bill. Addressed this issue. What has he learned since then what can we look tomorrow that will be the same or different? PSAKI>> I would say first on the campaign, the president said that some parts of the bill worked and some areas did not work. There are also steps he took as senator when he introduced or supported legislation, I should say, to address the disparities in drug sentencing laws. So he's taken some specific actions over time in areas where he doesn't think worked as well. There are some components of that legislation he supported at the time, including the 10-year ban on assault weapons, including the support for the violence against women act, including the support for community policing programs that he's been a long time advocate [13:42:43] for. I think he'll see continuity in terms of his support for those initiatives moving forward. Q>> You say he will build on the announcemented. Will we hear anything tomorrow? PSAKI>> Stayuned. You won't come tomorrow. Q>> The president meeting with the chairman of the federal reserve yesterday, did the president bring up interest rates or express his views on the direction of interest rates at all? PSAKI>> As you well know, that is the purview of the federal reserve. They put out their own projections, as you know, about what it looks like moving forward. The topic, the focus of the meeting was exactly as it was outlined. Q>> Interest rates -- PSAKI>> I have no more to read out to you. Q>> On the infrastructure fwhoeshgss -- negotiations, do you know if the white house has put anything for pay-fors? PSAKI>> I say we put a lot of different options on pay-fors on the table. Our view is there is a fundamental question right now. Our rmemblicans, members of [13:43:43] congress -- do Republicans, members of congress, do they believe the rich people should have to pay for the taxes they owe? Should we crease the cost for travelers trying to make it to work? We'll see if they can make progress on that exact point. Go ahead. Q>> Can you say who the stakeholders will be at the white house tomorrow for this crime meeting? Can you say who's coming? PSAKI>> The announcement tomorrow -- sure. I don't have it in front of me but we'll get it after the briefing. Q>> This is sort of a pullback question. Why now, exactly? Is it just because crime rates are up and the stats are out? Why is this the week of all weeks that the president decided to focus on crime? 134410 PSAKI>> First, I would say that he's made a number of announcements over the past several months on gun violence, on putting in place gun safety measures. He's made -- announced in his budget his support for community policing and providing funding. Maybe we haven't drawn that clear throughline for all of you, but this is a continuation of that, in his view. 134429 Q>> Labeling it -- a speech about crime is certainly different than a speech about gun safety or -- this is [inaud] PSAKI>> A central part of it will be on gun violence. Yeah, Go ahead. [13:44:38] Q>> Continue the crime spree, if you will. [Laughter] PSAKI>> A lot of anals here that might be threatening. Q>> My colleague had brought uhere are activists who are very concerned that the president's decision to highlight crime right now could undercut his negotiations on the hill for police reform. You were asked the names. The justice action network is one. Can you address how the president is going to sort of walk that line between expressing his concern about crime without uercutting these efforts, as you point out, that have been under way for a while? PSAKI>> Sure, what I was trying to get up B thanks for bringing [13:45:45] up the question again, there are negotiators that are continuing to make progress on the hill. The prandsident stands by a lot O these groups. Thorr support and advocacy for long overdue gun reform. He does not feel like they are conflicting. I don't think you heard from any of the negotiators on the hill they feel they are conflicting either. So that was the point I was trying to make. Communities across then country, where they areing seeing -- if you're living in St. Louis and 96% of homicides were done -- where we know the instrument that was used was using a firearm, you want to know what the president will do to address that. If -- if you live in new York City, want to hear more every town -- 3,900 additional firearm deaths and 9,278 additional firearm injuries in 2020 compared to 29. That's impacting people's lives, people's communities, ople's [13:46:47] families, people's neighbors. Of course, they want to hear more. He wants to share with the American public what he will do. Q>> Covid, the country did not reach this goal of 70% of adults getting a shot, is there anything the country cannot do? Is there a way -- a benchmark for getting back to normalcy, and since we didn't get there, are there things the country can't do because we haven't achieved that goal that we were supposed to do? PSAKI>> First, I would say it's a goal we here set in the white house. Q>> [Indiscernible] PSAKI>> Well, this was always going to be community-to-community, right? When the president set this goal back in March, it was always meant to be an incentive and driver for people to see what the benefit would be of getting vaccinated. At the time, what the president said, if you're vaccinated, your neighbors are vaccinated, you can all have a backyard barbecue. We're doing that times about 100 by hosting 1,000 people here at [13:47:47] the white house. Now if you're in a community where you're a 80% vaccination rate, you are pretty much back to normal. If yre in a community with a lower vaccination rate, obviously you'll make your own choices but you're not operating in a community where it should be back to normal. It's always going to be local. Was always going to be based on what the decisions are made community-to-community. But not nationwide, no. It's really dependent where you're living. Q>> Because the president is in Washington, D.C., and we have -- Washington, D.C., has gone beyond the 70% goal, it's ok to do those things? It's ok to have 1,000 people to be in Washington, D.C., because they have crossed the 70%? But where it's a 50% vaccination rate, perhaps -- PSAKI>> Communities will make their own decision. There is nothing magical about 70%. 70% was a bold, ambitious goal we set to continue to drive to get more people vaccinated [13:48:49] across the country. But it's not as if you're 67% in a community you're at a different level of safety than 71%. Communities are going to make their own decisions. I think at a fundamental fact is that if you're vaccinated, if your neighbors are vaccinated, then you're safe. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you, Jen. PSAKI>> Sorry. Go ahead. Q>> Oh, thanks. Can you respond to at least a couple Republican senators and one today and talked about signing onto this bipartisan talks right now on the -- [indiscernible] That would stop you guys from doing reconciliation, can you respond to that idea they're basically cooperating so you can't do the second half of your plan? PSAKI>> I don't think that's how the process works fundamentally. Q>> So it will not stop the white house from enacting? PSAKI>> If you go to our episode of [13:49:49] how a bill becomes a law, there is a budget reconciliation process led by the budget chairman. It needs a certain number of votes. That's different than the number of votes that are needed for other pieces of legislation. That piece of legislation -- the budget reconciliation process is proceeding. There will be discussions. There may be disagreements among people in the democratic party what should be included in there or not. There needs to be 50 votes to move that forward. But that process is continuing and proceeding. Q>> Stopping the momentum for it as well as taking the amount of time these talks are taking that it realistically it could -- PSAKI>> How would it gum up the works? Q>> I mean, this is their -- this is their plan, their hope. PSAKI>> Sounds like they have more explaining what they mean or maybe they need to go to how a bill becomes a law, how budget reconciliation works. Senator Sanders could go to the caucus and meet with them. I think the president is about to speak. Thanks, everyone. [13:50:50] Sorry it was a little short today. [END]

FS24 WH PRESS BRIEFING CUTS POOL 4 1300.01 ABC POOL WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH PRESS SECRETARY JEN PSAKI 131344 PSAKI>> Hi, everyone. Okay! So I know some of you are gonna have to leave for the Pool call which is absolutely fine. We'll also keep you honest on when the President is getting ready to speak, so there are a couple mechanics. Chris is gonna be our special helper on this front today. Thank you. Okay! Couple of items at the top: as you may have seen, today, the FAA -- the Federal Aviation Administrator, Administration -- announced it will award $8 billion in airport rescue grants from the American Rescue Plan to keep airport workers employed, construction projects going, provide rent relief to in-terminal concession companies, and help US airports recover from the impacts of Covid-19. [13:14:29] Thanks to the President's successful vaccination program, America is on the move again. There are over 3 times more Americans travelling through airports now than at any time last year, and this funding will help airports ramp up operations, keep travelers safe, and workers employed. Hundreds of airports across the country will receive this funding, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, including airports in Philadelphia, Charleston, West Virginia, Anchorage, Alaska, Portland, Maine, Portland, on. [13:15:16] Last item at the top -- the first day ofmer and onset of peak wild fire season. We're seeing extreme heat in the west. Several wildfires. And tropical storm Claudette which led to the tragic loss of life in Alabama. Approximate was important -- it was important for P the president to meet with FEMA administration, including the homeland security security advisor to talk about response efforts as well as how FEMA supports communities in need. Josh, why don't you kick us off? Q&A Q>> Two subject areas. First, with regard to voting rights. President Biden described his 2020 campaign -- 131545 What does the administration think is more important for the soul: upholding the tradition of the filibuster or getting the voting rights agenda through? If you had to make a choice, what is that choice? 131557 PSAKI>> Well, we don't see it through that prism which won't surprise you. I will say that, first, the President believes that expanding access to voting, making it easier for people to vote should be a fundamental right for the American public across the country, and it will be a fight of his presidency, long past today. And I will also note, since you gave me the opportunity, that this has been a fight that he has been battling through the course of his career. 131622 When he was in the Senate, he fought for an extension of the Voting Rights Act. And it's something that he, of course, talked about on the campaign trail. And he will continue to use the bully pulpit but also every lever in government to continue to advocate for moving forward. [13:16:36] Q>> The president will meet with the FEMA administrator this afternoon. Researchers have an event at Columbia university this week moving people out of harm's way in order to mitigate the effects of extreme weather. Does this administration believe that people need to leave the areas that impacted by climate change in order to address the question? 131701 PSAKI>> Really interesting question, Josh. And I don't know if they'll be talkin about that during the President's briefing this afternoon. I will note that, while it's traditional for Presidents to get briefings on hurricanes and preparedness for hurricanes, it was important to him and to our team to also get a briefing on wildfires and the impacts, and also to take steps that are -- to prepare for that and the impacts on local communities. Whether that means moving people from their homes, it's a great question. I'll have to see what comes out of the briefing today. Go ahead. 131729 CECILIA VEGA Q>> Thanks, Jen. On Covid and missing the 70% deadline, as this White House sees it, what went wrong? What happened there? Was the goal too high, the number just not attainable? 131740 PSAKI>> Sure. Well, we don't see it like something went wrong. How we see it is we set a bold, ambitious goal, something the President has done from the very beginning. And we are expected to meet that goal just a couple weeks after July 4th. And in fact, at this point, as of today, we're going to be already at that point for people who are 30 years of age and older. What we also know, though, and we've learned this as we've been working to get the pandemic under control, take on this Herculean task where there is no playbook is that there are demographic groups and sometimes populations where it's more difficult to reach. 131817 We've seen that and we've talked about that, as it related to -- early on -- to hesitancy we were seeing in communities of color or some more conservative communities. And we've seen it's been a great deal more difficult to get -- to get young people, between the ages of 18 and 26, vaccinated than adults who are older than that. Hence, we are redoubling our efforts to ensure we are targeting, we are focusing on, we are making the vaccine more accessible for those age groups. 131845 But, again, we are already meeting the goal of vaccinating -- with one dose -- 70% of American 30 years of age and older, and we are working toward meeting it for all adults as soon as possible. 131858 CECILIA VEGA Q>> And just quickly, if I can follow up on voting rights here. Yesterday, you said that there's more work to be done, among that is including -- engaging state legislatures. But the problems, as Democrats at least see it, is not problems in blue-states legislatures. It's Republican controlled states where many of these decisions are already being made. So what leverage do you actually have? And what, realistically, do you think you can accomplish in some of these red states? 131920 PSAKI>> Well, first, I think the point we've been making is that it's part of a federal approach that's needed, and I think it's important to remember why we're at this point. State legislatures, as you referenced, across the country are passing a wave of anti-voters laws based on the same repeatedly disproven lies that led to an assault on our nation's Capitol. They are putting these laws in place because they did not like the outcome, and they've continued to perpetuate a lie about the outcome of the election. 131949 That's why we're here. What the president and what the Vice President will do is engage with voting rights groups, engage with legislatures who are supportive of expanding access to voting around the country. Yes, there are -- even in red states, there are many Democratic legislators or legislators who want to expand that access, empower them, work with them, support them in these efforts, and continue to fight to get legislation across the finish line on the federal level. 132016 So this fight is not over. No matter the outcome today, it going to continue. Go ahead. [13:20:22] Q>> The bully pulpit on the voting issue. Congressman said the president needs to be more vocal, more upfront on the issue. Do you think the president hassle voted this issue enough -- has elevated this issue enough? PSAKI>> I would suggest that is a fight -- those words were a fight against the wrong opponent. The president is passionate about this issue. He has been passionate through our the course of time in public office. You know, again, securing a 25-year extension of the voting rights act when I would note Strom thurmoned -- Thurmond chaired E committee. He's revolted by the way of anti-voter laws based on the same repeatedly disproven ls that led to an assault on our [13:21:26] nation's capitol. As I know theessm congressman and many others a as well, we share their passion. We share the desire to fight these efforts. We share thees desire to fight against efforts by many Republicans to suppress the vote around the country. It doesn't mean that that fight will always be easy, but he's going to stand by them in this effort.d and I would note it's not that he has, you know, is not just about private phone calls. He's certainly done a number of those and private meetings as he did with senator Manchin yesterday to convey to him the importance to him personally to hiving this to a debate on the floor about this imrtant piece of legislation the president has alsgave a speech in Tulsa, oahoma, where he gave a passionate -- me a passionate case for the importance of voting rights. He's also taken action, including empowering a nber of nominees at the department of justice who have been leading advocates for voting rights, pushing for their confirmat to get flew. The department of justice also [13:22:26] just announced a few weeks ago they are doubling their support and their financial support for enforcement of important voting laws around the country. D and he signed historic executive action just several weeks ago that puts in place ar of number of protections to ensure that people have the ability to vote. I wod say that's hardly being silent.th that's hardly sitting on the back bench. And he will be standing with advocates in this fight for the foreseeable future. Go ahead. 132240 Q>> Thanks, Jen. This White House is very good at setting ambitious but achievable goals. Did the White House believe that 70% was achievable when you set it? 132251 PSAKI>> Well, I would say first, there's no record -- there's no playbook for this. There's no record to look back and say "these were the -- these were the goals that were achieved 5 years ago or 10 years ago," because we're dealing with a historic pandemic. And the President's view is that we should set bold, ambitious goals, and do everything we possibly can to achieve them. And in our view, we have -- part of our objective was to return the country to normal, for people to enjoy backyard barbecues which people across the country, millions of people will be. 132322 And we'll have 1,000 people on the South Lawn here, at the White House -- frontline workers, men and women who are serving, also enjoying life back to normal. [13:23:30] But we're honest where we continue need to -- need to continue to redouble our efforts and that's 18 to 26. That's a sogll demographic of the countrone that S continued work. Q>> What's the game plan to get younger people vaccinated in greater numbers? 132348 PSAKI>> Let me give you a couple of examples of what we're working on. It's not just Dr. Fauci on TikTok, though that is happening, so...Dr. Fauci has done several Q&A's with TikTok and Instagram influencers to answer questions, to meet people where they are, including young people, give them information they need. 132409 CDC's Covid Vaccine Chat on WhatsApp is now live to help Spanish speaking young adults get vaccinated. We're working with the private sector as well, as you all know. Mcrosoft is giving away X-Boxes at Boys & Girls Clubs. The College Challenge is rallying university students across the country. [13:24:25] Walgreens is giving out $25 to anyone who gets vaccinated there before July 4. These are just a cou of the pl examplese're taking. We'll build on that from there. What we'll also note, 're seeing the same changes we've seen seen in other groups which is that access and making it easy as possible is the name of the game. Sonu continuing to support our pharmacy program, to support our mobile vaccination unit. They lead busy lives. We want this to be just a box they can check on their weekend to do list. Go ahead. Q>>You very ably went through the president's history on voting rights and related issues, and you laid out all the [13:25:29] times he has spoken about this. [Indiscernible] To him today, we have not heard him talk about it. He has the biggest -- PSAKI>> The speech just a few weeks ago. 132523 Q>> I'm talking about when the vote is happening -- PSAKI>> Mhm! Q>> -- using the President's time. PSAKI>> Mhm! Q>> And so, clearly, the President is choosing not to do that now. Why? Where is the President on this issue on a day when they're voting? 132534 PSAKI>> I would say, first, that the President has spoke -- spoken passionately about his commitment to expanding access to voting rights a number of times, and you will hear him speak about this again. You certainly will hear us -- We'll put out a statement from him at the conclusion of the vote today, and I expect you will hear more from him in the coming days as well. [13:25:52] Q>> On covid. The voices saying he's concerned children who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated could be drivers of the variant, especially with school coming back and camps and all of that. What, specifically, does the administration feel needs to be done to address that issue for those not eligible to be vaccinated? [13:26:30] PSAKI>> Well, as a parent of a couple kids myself who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated, I think we need to be vigilant and abide by the C.D.C. Guidelines. That's not always easy to do and we know that. That means being mindful of social distancing, being mindful of wearing a mask should be essential to keep your kids protected and keep other kids protected. Certainly, we can't expedite the work of E F.D.A. They're the gold standard on science we want to abide by their timeline. This is challenging. Abiding by the guidelines for children and those not yet eligible until we get to that point. Go ahead. Q>> You said yesterday the president feels a great deal of the crime as a result of gun violence. It's not just gun crimes. Why does the president think there has been a 30% increase in car theft in D.C., 47% in robbery in New York City, or a 98% increase in rapes in [13:27:30] Atlanta? 132715 PSAKI>> Well, first, I think if you look at a number of cities across the country, it is actually driven by gun violence. Take St. Louis: in 2021, 96% of homicides where the instrument is known were committed using a firearm. In New York City, from March 2020 to March 2021, shooting incidents have jumped 77%. This city recorded more than 1,500 shootings in 2020, 97% more than 777 in 2019. 132743 There are major cities across the country where gun violence is absolutely the driver, where it is absolutely increasing. And that will be a central part of what he'll talk about when he delivers his remarks tomorrow. [13:27:52] Q>> Given everything that's going on with guns, without guns, does the president think this is the best time to end cash -- PSAKI>> I don't think I have any new position on that. I'll check. Q>> So his stated position from his website which is basically ends cash bail, he wants to lead a national fort to end cash bail and reform the pretrial system, does that stand? PSAKI>> I don't have a new position for you but I'll check. Q>> For those watching that may be worried about a rise in crime. What does the president think is a deterrent to committing a crime if there is no cash bail in place? 132830 PSAKI>> Well -- well, let me give you just a sense, to the degree I can, because we're still finalizing the specifics. There has been, one, an increase in violent crime over the last 18 months. It's not just over the last few months. And actually, if you look statistically back, it's more over the last five years or so. So there is an initial set of actions the President has announced, to date, to address gun violence back in April: strengthening regulations on ghost guns, stabilizing braces that makes firearms more lethal, investing money in community violence intervention programs, an investment that he thinks can be quite effective. 132902 He's talked about, for decades -- and I think you'll hear him talk about more tomorrow -- supporting additional funding for community policing through his budget request, and helping state and local governments keep cops on the beat. So, yes, we believable that essential driver of violence is gun violence and is the use of guns. We're seeing that statistically in a lot of areas, but he also believes that we need to ensure that state and local governments keep cops on the beat, that we're supporting community policing. And that's a key part of it as well. [13:29:29] Q>> Are you said you want to keep cops on the beat but there are rerts big cities are very a very difficult -- having a very difficult time recruiting officers right now. There are many other reports that morale is at an all-time low in big police departments. Why does the president think there is low morale with police officers on the beat? PSAKI>> I don't think we're the right entity to give an assessment of that. I say go to the police departments to get that assessment. The president has never supported defunding the police. He's also supported community policing programs. He supports giving money, through the American rescue plan, because he believes there's an essential role to play for community policing. Go ahead. Q>> I want to ask you about infrastructure. [13:30:31] PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> There was -- meeting -- PSAKI>> Still going on. As far as when I came out here, yes. Q>> Do you think you'll invite those senators to the white house to meet with the president? PSAKI>>We will see. Democrac in action happening, we willss assess what the next step is. As I noted yesterday, the president is encouraged by the ongoing talks and discussions that are continuing with Democrats and Republicans. We sent some -- he asked some members of his senior team, as you noted, Steve, Lui, to go up to capitol hill and meet with a group of bipartisan suppo and once they conclude that meeting, I expect we'll assess what the next steps are. Q>> You're getting a lot of criticism already about the pairing down of the infrastructure proposal, things that are falling away are things that you said are top priority, whether it's climate, the economy. How do you -- how do you anticipate dealing with and following those priorities, [13:31:33] those issues, if you get to a compromise that is in fact a slim down version of what you initiallynn planned? PSAKI>> There is a budget reconciliation pss that is under way to move the president's bold ideas forward. Q>> Ask you about Amazon as well. The S.E.C. Will look at Amazon and M.G.M. Merger. There is growing criticism about the antitrust legislation that's being put forth on the hill. Are you -- what is your perspective about whether there is sort of fundamental reform need to ensure that large companies don't get too big? Do you see this is an inflection point? We've seen companies, including Amazon, really profit enormously from the pandemic and during the pandemic and there have been warnings, even from international financial institutions. Do you see there's something fundamentally needed to check the growth? [13:32:33] PSAKI>> It's a great question. I don't think I will be in position to speak to it from here. There are legal components of this. I can see if there is more to get back to you on. Q>> Just on the Amazon, S.E.C., can you confirm any dealdetails of that? PSAKI>> I can't talk about that specifically from here. Q>> The president's remarks tomorrow, just to follow up on policing and crime -- PSAKI>> Yes. Q>> Will that detail any effort from policing reform or is that focused on crime prevention and why or why not? PSAKI>> First, there are ongoing ne negotiations, as you know, on police reform. The president would love to have a bill on his desk that he can sign into law. We've seen progress being made. We heard progresse.eing made. Those discussions are ongoing. So -- 133303 I would expect that his -- his remarks tomorrow will build on a number of the announcements that I've already touched on, that he's made in the recent months: making guns -- putting in place safety measures to make our streets safer, preventing the use of guns in violent crime across the country, ensuring that we can have more cops on the beat to protect communities. 133326 He obviously is a big advocate for the benefit of community policing. So we'll build on that foundation, and lay out a comprehensive strategy to address violent crime and gun violence as the -- as we enter the summer months. [13:33:40] Q>> Some advocates have raised concerns potentially having the president raise alarm about, you know, a trend of rising crime, crime uptick could undercut police reform, especially since legislation is being discussed, you know, in congress. So is that a concern for the white house at all? The white house has said, you know, the administration wants to give members of congress space to negotiate police reform. Could that potentially raise alarm of the uptick hurt those efforts? PSAKI>> I would say the negotiations are happening between senator booker, senator Scott, key -- congresswoman bass. I don't think they've expressed that particular concern. If TRE is a named person [13:34:36] expressing that concern, I'm happy to speak to that. The negotiations are ongoing. We keep them abreast of our work. I think in communities across the country, who advocate and support police reform, they don't see it as a muually exclusive issue. Neithers does th president. -- Neither doee president. Police reform is outdated. We need to put in place gun safety measures, to use a lever he can as president to do exactly that and ensure there's appropriate funding and resources needed to ensure there's community policing in communities across the country. Q>> On the FEMA meeting. Given that meeting happened today, FEMA still involved in setting up shelters at the borders. Since we're going into hurricane season, as you said, is there a deadline oemwhen FEMA will be pulled out of that process of assisting at the border? PSAKI>> I don't have anything to assess for FEMA. Obviously, they'll make that as issment in coordination with the leadership at the department of humanitariafn but I don't -- department of homeland security but I don't have a timeline. [13:35:36] They've been a key resource. 133520 Q>> Thanks, Jen. Going back to the 70% goal. The CDC data says that there are 13 states that are falling way short of that 70%, they're less than 55%. Four states are below 50%. Should those states get more of a focus right now and not the nationwide number, as the administration plans their strategy to get vaccinations up? 133540 PSAKI>> Well, we are not not focusing on those states. I would say that, one, it's important to note that, when we give the statistics including 87% of all seniors, 75% of people aged 40 and over, 70% of those aged 30 and over, they're from red states and blue states and purple states or whatever color the state may be. Our focus, from the beginning, has been continuing to redouble our efforts among demographics and groups where we need extra assistance. 133606 That's why we have taken steps to put in place 24-hour pharmacies, walk-up sites, mobile clinics, free rides. We have vaccines at barber shops, baseball games, NASCAR races. Even over the last month of action, which we've been doing across the country, we have had 15,000 events. We've attempted 1.4 million contacts or reached about 500,000 people. And there are thousands of volunteers in 50 states across the country. 133633 Ultimately, it's going to be up to individuals to decide if they want to get vaccinated. Q>> Is there -- sorry. Is there something more, though, you went through all of those incentives and specifically tying those to that age group, that younger age group. But if there's something that's regional about this, if it's Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Wyoming that are those states below 50%, is there something the administration can do to get those numbers up? Or at this point, is this governors and states that should be doing this? 133657 PSAKI>> It's always been a partnership and it will continue to be a partnership, moving forward. And it's also up to individuals to make the decision to get vaccinated. And what we can do from the federal government, of course, is to make it accessible as possible, make sure we have the supply. We've done that long ago. Make sure there are thousands and thousands of sites, vaccinators, opportunities for people to get vaccinated, incentivize it across the country. That's exactly what we've done. 133722 I will note: we're not stop implementing these programs on July 5th. We'll continue to implement them as we work to get more people in the country vaccinated. Go ahead., April. [13:37:30] Q>> Jen, two topics. Voting rights as well as crime. You keep bringing up president George W. Bush when he -- PSAKI>> I keep bringing him up? Q>>The extension up. You B extught the extension up of voting rights. Jen: I think that happened long before. Reporter: Right. You brought it up -- extend it for 25 yea -- PSAKI>> I didn't bring up George W. Bush but, go ahead, you can bring him up. Q>> As someone that was here when he did it -- PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> One of his pieces that he likes to tout when he talks about efforts in the black community, what's different with Republicans then and Republicans now when it comes to voting right? PSAKI>> What's different? Q>> Yeah. PSAKI>>Well, I think, April, what should raise some questions for ericans across the country [13:38:37] is -- why would anyonwant to make it more difficult to vote? Why wouldn't we want to make it more accessible? What are they so afr D of? Maybe they're more afrd now what it would mean to have more people voting across the country than back then. I don't know. You have to ask them. Q>> On crime, what's different now as you're trying to push this effort on community policing as well as guns? What's different now? What do you think will have to change the tide that hasn't been changed before? PSAKI>> Different now -- do you mean different from a different period of time or from -- Q>> Community policing was in place during Clinton years. There was conversation about it. And now you're bringing it back again. So you bring it back again. Do you think -- do you believe that can become a reality again? I understand different police departments can do what they want, but you're trying to make a global overall sweeping push [13:39:40] across the nation. What's different now that will make this time change? 133929 PSAKI>> Well, I would say one difference now is that it's become a politically charged issue when it wasn't, historically. And if you look back, community oriented policing services, you know, historically had been supported by liberal Democrats, Democrats, civil rights groups including the NAACP, and over the course of time. And that has always been the case. I would say we're not suggesting -- the President isn't suggesting it's the silver bullet. A central part of his remarks and his -- his announcement tomorrow will be about addressing gun violence, which he thinks is a significant driver in violence in our communities and cities across the country. 134008 And as you know, April, there are laws that were in place -- the assault weapons ban, others -- that are no longer in place. There are also additional guns -- ghost guns and others -- that were not a reality just a few years ago. So there are some laws he'd like to go back to, and some that he'll look to update. [13:40:25] Q>> What's different now? You have the powerful N.R.A., you have Republicans anytime you touch anything about guns, they feel like you're taking their rights away? What's different now? When do you think the tide will turn on this? PSAKI>> Are you asking about the politics of now? Q>> Politics and this moment in time, why do you believe you have a chance to make a dent when Democrats didn't have it before? PSAKI>> I would say, here's how the president sees this. 134055 There has been rising crime in cities for the last 18 months, if not before that. Yes, there needs to be reforms of police systems across the country. The President is a firm believer in that, but there are also steps he can take as President of the United States to help address and, hopefully, reduce that crime. A big part of that, in his view, is putting in place gun safety measures, using -- even as Congress is not moving forward currently, using the bully pulpit, but also using levers at his disposal as President. Go ahead. [13:41:25] Q>> Joe Biden, 30 years ago he was chairman of the senate judicial committee. Wrote the crime bill. Addressed this issue. What has he learned since then what can we look tomorrow that will be the same or different? PSAKI>> I would say first on the campaign, the president said that some parts of the bill worked and some areas did not work. There are also steps he took as senator when he introduced or supported legislation, I should say, to address the disparities in drug sentencing laws. So he's taken some specific actions over time in areas where he doesn't think worked as well. There are some components of that legislation he supported at the time, including the 10-year ban on assault weapons, including the support for the violence against women act, including the support for community policing programs that he's been a long time advocate [13:42:43] for. I think he'll see continuity in terms of his support for those initiatives moving forward. Q>> You say he will build on the announcemented. Will we hear anything tomorrow? PSAKI>> Stayuned. You won't come tomorrow. Q>> The president meeting with the chairman of the federal reserve yesterday, did the president bring up interest rates or express his views on the direction of interest rates at all? PSAKI>> As you well know, that is the purview of the federal reserve. They put out their own projections, as you know, about what it looks like moving forward. The topic, the focus of the meeting was exactly as it was outlined. Q>> Interest rates -- PSAKI>> I have no more to read out to you. Q>> On the infrastructure fwhoeshgss -- negotiations, do you know if the white house has put anything for pay-fors? PSAKI>> I say we put a lot of different options on pay-fors on the table. Our view is there is a fundamental question right now. Our rmemblicans, members of [13:43:43] congress -- do Republicans, members of congress, do they believe the rich people should have to pay for the taxes they owe? Should we crease the cost for travelers trying to make it to work? We'll see if they can make progress on that exact point. Go ahead. Q>> Can you say who the stakeholders will be at the white house tomorrow for this crime meeting? Can you say who's coming? PSAKI>> The announcement tomorrow -- sure. I don't have it in front of me but we'll get it after the briefing. Q>> This is sort of a pullback question. Why now, exactly? Is it just because crime rates are up and the stats are out? Why is this the week of all weeks that the president decided to focus on crime? 134410 PSAKI>> First, I would say that he's made a number of announcements over the past several months on gun violence, on putting in place gun safety measures. He's made -- announced in his budget his support for community policing and providing funding. Maybe we haven't drawn that clear throughline for all of you, but this is a continuation of that, in his view. 134429 Q>> Labeling it -- a speech about crime is certainly different than a speech about gun safety or -- this is [inaud] PSAKI>> A central part of it will be on gun violence. Yeah, Go ahead. [13:44:38] Q>> Continue the crime spree, if you will. [Laughter] PSAKI>> A lot of anals here that might be threatening. Q>> My colleague had brought uhere are activists who are very concerned that the president's decision to highlight crime right now could undercut his negotiations on the hill for police reform. You were asked the names. The justice action network is one. Can you address how the president is going to sort of walk that line between expressing his concern about crime without uercutting these efforts, as you point out, that have been under way for a while? PSAKI>> Sure, what I was trying to get up B thanks for bringing [13:45:45] up the question again, there are negotiators that are continuing to make progress on the hill. The prandsident stands by a lot O these groups. Thorr support and advocacy for long overdue gun reform. He does not feel like they are conflicting. I don't think you heard from any of the negotiators on the hill they feel they are conflicting either. So that was the point I was trying to make. Communities across then country, where they areing seeing -- if you're living in St. Louis and 96% of homicides were done -- where we know the instrument that was used was using a firearm, you want to know what the president will do to address that. If -- if you live in new York City, want to hear more every town -- 3,900 additional firearm deaths and 9,278 additional firearm injuries in 2020 compared to 29. That's impacting people's lives, people's communities, ople's [13:46:47] families, people's neighbors. Of course, they want to hear more. He wants to share with the American public what he will do. Q>> Covid, the country did not reach this goal of 70% of adults getting a shot, is there anything the country cannot do? Is there a way -- a benchmark for getting back to normalcy, and since we didn't get there, are there things the country can't do because we haven't achieved that goal that we were supposed to do? PSAKI>> First, I would say it's a goal we here set in the white house. Q>> [Indiscernible] PSAKI>> Well, this was always going to be community-to-community, right? When the president set this goal back in March, it was always meant to be an incentive and driver for people to see what the benefit would be of getting vaccinated. At the time, what the president said, if you're vaccinated, your neighbors are vaccinated, you can all have a backyard barbecue. We're doing that times about 100 by hosting 1,000 people here at [13:47:47] the white house. Now if you're in a community where you're a 80% vaccination rate, you are pretty much back to normal. If yre in a community with a lower vaccination rate, obviously you'll make your own choices but you're not operating in a community where it should be back to normal. It's always going to be local. Was always going to be based on what the decisions are made community-to-community. But not nationwide, no. It's really dependent where you're living. Q>> Because the president is in Washington, D.C., and we have -- Washington, D.C., has gone beyond the 70% goal, it's ok to do those things? It's ok to have 1,000 people to be in Washington, D.C., because they have crossed the 70%? But where it's a 50% vaccination rate, perhaps -- PSAKI>> Communities will make their own decision. There is nothing magical about 70%. 70% was a bold, ambitious goal we set to continue to drive to get more people vaccinated [13:48:49] across the country. But it's not as if you're 67% in a community you're at a different level of safety than 71%. Communities are going to make their own decisions. I think at a fundamental fact is that if you're vaccinated, if your neighbors are vaccinated, then you're safe. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you, Jen. PSAKI>> Sorry. Go ahead. Q>> Oh, thanks. Can you respond to at least a couple Republican senators and one today and talked about signing onto this bipartisan talks right now on the -- [indiscernible] That would stop you guys from doing reconciliation, can you respond to that idea they're basically cooperating so you can't do the second half of your plan? PSAKI>> I don't think that's how the process works fundamentally. Q>> So it will not stop the white house from enacting? PSAKI>> If you go to our episode of [13:49:49] how a bill becomes a law, there is a budget reconciliation process led by the budget chairman. It needs a certain number of votes. That's different than the number of votes that are needed for other pieces of legislation. That piece of legislation -- the budget reconciliation process is proceeding. There will be discussions. There may be disagreements among people in the democratic party what should be included in there or not. There needs to be 50 votes to move that forward. But that process is continuing and proceeding. Q>> Stopping the momentum for it as well as taking the amount of time these talks are taking that it realistically it could -- PSAKI>> How would it gum up the works? Q>> I mean, this is their -- this is their plan, their hope. PSAKI>> Sounds like they have more explaining what they mean or maybe they need to go to how a bill becomes a law, how budget reconciliation works. Senator Sanders could go to the caucus and meet with them. I think the president is about to speak. Thanks, everyone. [13:50:50] Sorry it was a little short today. [END]

HIGH ANGLE DOWN OF MOTORCYCLE ON NARROW CITY STREET (SET) WITH BLUE PICKUP TRUCK DRIVING BY OLD CONDEMNED BUILDING THAT EXPLODES AND CATCHES FIRE. FLAMES FROM WINDOW. DESERTED. SIGN ON APARTMENT SAYS 'CONDEMNED'. EXPLOSIONS.

FS36 WH PRESS BRIEFING ROBO HEAD ON 1300 ABC UNI WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH PRESS SECRETARY JEN PSAKI 131344 PSAKI>> Hi, everyone. Okay! So I know some of you are gonna have to leave for the Pool call which is absolutely fine. We'll also keep you honest on when the President is getting ready to speak, so there are a couple mechanics. Chris is gonna be our special helper on this front today. Thank you. Okay! Couple of items at the top: as you may have seen, today, the FAA -- the Federal Aviation Administrator, Administration -- announced it will award $8 billion in airport rescue grants from the American Rescue Plan to keep airport workers employed, construction projects going, provide rent relief to in-terminal concession companies, and help US airports recover from the impacts of Covid-19. [13:14:29] Thanks to the President's successful vaccination program, America is on the move again. There are over 3 times more Americans travelling through airports now than at any time last year, and this funding will help airports ramp up operations, keep travelers safe, and workers employed. Hundreds of airports across the country will receive this funding, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, including airports in Philadelphia, Charleston, West Virginia, Anchorage, Alaska, Portland, Maine, Portland, on. [13:15:16] Last item at the top -- the first day ofmer and onset of peak wild fire season. We're seeing extreme heat in the west. Several wildfires. And tropical storm Claudette which led to the tragic loss of life in Alabama. Approximate was important -- it was important for P the president to meet with FEMA administration, including the homeland security security advisor to talk about response efforts as well as how FEMA supports communities in need. Josh, why don't you kick us off? Q&A Q>> Two subject areas. First, with regard to voting rights. President Biden described his 2020 campaign -- 131545 What does the administration think is more important for the soul: upholding the tradition of the filibuster or getting the voting rights agenda through? If you had to make a choice, what is that choice? 131557 PSAKI>> Well, we don't see it through that prism which won't surprise you. I will say that, first, the President believes that expanding access to voting, making it easier for people to vote should be a fundamental right for the American public across the country, and it will be a fight of his presidency, long past today. And I will also note, since you gave me the opportunity, that this has been a fight that he has been battling through the course of his career. 131622 When he was in the Senate, he fought for an extension of the Voting Rights Act. And it's something that he, of course, talked about on the campaign trail. And he will continue to use the bully pulpit but also every lever in government to continue to advocate for moving forward. [13:16:36] Q>> The president will meet with the FEMA administrator this afternoon. Researchers have an event at Columbia university this week moving people out of harm's way in order to mitigate the effects of extreme weather. Does this administration believe that people need to leave the areas that impacted by climate change in order to address the question? 131701 PSAKI>> Really interesting question, Josh. And I don't know if they'll be talkin about that during the President's briefing this afternoon. I will note that, while it's traditional for Presidents to get briefings on hurricanes and preparedness for hurricanes, it was important to him and to our team to also get a briefing on wildfires and the impacts, and also to take steps that are -- to prepare for that and the impacts on local communities. Whether that means moving people from their homes, it's a great question. I'll have to see what comes out of the briefing today. Go ahead. 131729 CECILIA VEGA Q>> Thanks, Jen. On Covid and missing the 70% deadline, as this White House sees it, what went wrong? What happened there? Was the goal too high, the number just not attainable? 131740 PSAKI>> Sure. Well, we don't see it like something went wrong. How we see it is we set a bold, ambitious goal, something the President has done from the very beginning. And we are expected to meet that goal just a couple weeks after July 4th. And in fact, at this point, as of today, we're going to be already at that point for people who are 30 years of age and older. What we also know, though, and we've learned this as we've been working to get the pandemic under control, take on this Herculean task where there is no playbook is that there are demographic groups and sometimes populations where it's more difficult to reach. 131817 We've seen that and we've talked about that, as it related to -- early on -- to hesitancy we were seeing in communities of color or some more conservative communities. And we've seen it's been a great deal more difficult to get -- to get young people, between the ages of 18 and 26, vaccinated than adults who are older than that. Hence, we are redoubling our efforts to ensure we are targeting, we are focusing on, we are making the vaccine more accessible for those age groups. 131845 But, again, we are already meeting the goal of vaccinating -- with one dose -- 70% of American 30 years of age and older, and we are working toward meeting it for all adults as soon as possible. 131858 CECILIA VEGA Q>> And just quickly, if I can follow up on voting rights here. Yesterday, you said that there's more work to be done, among that is including -- engaging state legislatures. But the problems, as Democrats at least see it, is not problems in blue-states legislatures. It's Republican controlled states where many of these decisions are already being made. So what leverage do you actually have? And what, realistically, do you think you can accomplish in some of these red states? 131920 PSAKI>> Well, first, I think the point we've been making is that it's part of a federal approach that's needed, and I think it's important to remember why we're at this point. State legislatures, as you referenced, across the country are passing a wave of anti-voters laws based on the same repeatedly disproven lies that led to an assault on our nation's Capitol. They are putting these laws in place because they did not like the outcome, and they've continued to perpetuate a lie about the outcome of the election. 131949 That's why we're here. What the president and what the Vice President will do is engage with voting rights groups, engage with legislatures who are supportive of expanding access to voting around the country. Yes, there are -- even in red states, there are many Democratic legislators or legislators who want to expand that access, empower them, work with them, support them in these efforts, and continue to fight to get legislation across the finish line on the federal level. 132016 So this fight is not over. No matter the outcome today, it going to continue. Go ahead. [13:20:22] Q>> The bully pulpit on the voting issue. Congressman said the president needs to be more vocal, more upfront on the issue. Do you think the president hassle voted this issue enough -- has elevated this issue enough? PSAKI>> I would suggest that is a fight -- those words were a fight against the wrong opponent. The president is passionate about this issue. He has been passionate through our the course of time in public office. You know, again, securing a 25-year extension of the voting rights act when I would note Strom thurmoned -- Thurmond chaired E committee. He's revolted by the way of anti-voter laws based on the same repeatedly disproven ls that led to an assault on our [13:21:26] nation's capitol. As I know theessm congressman and many others a as well, we share their passion. We share the desire to fight these efforts. We share thees desire to fight against efforts by many Republicans to suppress the vote around the country. It doesn't mean that that fight will always be easy, but he's going to stand by them in this effort.d and I would note it's not that he has, you know, is not just about private phone calls. He's certainly done a number of those and private meetings as he did with senator Manchin yesterday to convey to him the importance to him personally to hiving this to a debate on the floor about this imrtant piece of legislation the president has alsgave a speech in Tulsa, oahoma, where he gave a passionate -- me a passionate case for the importance of voting rights. He's also taken action, including empowering a nber of nominees at the department of justice who have been leading advocates for voting rights, pushing for their confirmat to get flew. The department of justice also [13:22:26] just announced a few weeks ago they are doubling their support and their financial support for enforcement of important voting laws around the country. D and he signed historic executive action just several weeks ago that puts in place ar of number of protections to ensure that people have the ability to vote. I wod say that's hardly being silent.th that's hardly sitting on the back bench. And he will be standing with advocates in this fight for the foreseeable future. Go ahead. 132240 Q>> Thanks, Jen. This White House is very good at setting ambitious but achievable goals. Did the White House believe that 70% was achievable when you set it? 132251 PSAKI>> Well, I would say first, there's no record -- there's no playbook for this. There's no record to look back and say "these were the -- these were the goals that were achieved 5 years ago or 10 years ago," because we're dealing with a historic pandemic. And the President's view is that we should set bold, ambitious goals, and do everything we possibly can to achieve them. And in our view, we have -- part of our objective was to return the country to normal, for people to enjoy backyard barbecues which people across the country, millions of people will be. 132322 And we'll have 1,000 people on the South Lawn here, at the White House -- frontline workers, men and women who are serving, also enjoying life back to normal. [13:23:30] But we're honest where we continue need to -- need to continue to redouble our efforts and that's 18 to 26. That's a sogll demographic of the countrone that S continued work. Q>> What's the game plan to get younger people vaccinated in greater numbers? 132348 PSAKI>> Let me give you a couple of examples of what we're working on. It's not just Dr. Fauci on TikTok, though that is happening, so...Dr. Fauci has done several Q&A's with TikTok and Instagram influencers to answer questions, to meet people where they are, including young people, give them information they need. 132409 CDC's Covid Vaccine Chat on WhatsApp is now live to help Spanish speaking young adults get vaccinated. We're working with the private sector as well, as you all know. Mcrosoft is giving away X-Boxes at Boys & Girls Clubs. The College Challenge is rallying university students across the country. [13:24:25] Walgreens is giving out $25 to anyone who gets vaccinated there before July 4. These are just a cou of the pl examplese're taking. We'll build on that from there. What we'll also note, 're seeing the same changes we've seen seen in other groups which is that access and making it easy as possible is the name of the game. Sonu continuing to support our pharmacy program, to support our mobile vaccination unit. They lead busy lives. We want this to be just a box they can check on their weekend to do list. Go ahead. Q>>You very ably went through the president's history on voting rights and related issues, and you laid out all the [13:25:29] times he has spoken about this. [Indiscernible] To him today, we have not heard him talk about it. He has the biggest -- PSAKI>> The speech just a few weeks ago. 132523 Q>> I'm talking about when the vote is happening -- PSAKI>> Mhm! Q>> -- using the President's time. PSAKI>> Mhm! Q>> And so, clearly, the President is choosing not to do that now. Why? Where is the President on this issue on a day when they're voting? 132534 PSAKI>> I would say, first, that the President has spoke -- spoken passionately about his commitment to expanding access to voting rights a number of times, and you will hear him speak about this again. You certainly will hear us -- We'll put out a statement from him at the conclusion of the vote today, and I expect you will hear more from him in the coming days as well. [13:25:52] Q>> On covid. The voices saying he's concerned children who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated could be drivers of the variant, especially with school coming back and camps and all of that. What, specifically, does the administration feel needs to be done to address that issue for those not eligible to be vaccinated? [13:26:30] PSAKI>> Well, as a parent of a couple kids myself who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated, I think we need to be vigilant and abide by the C.D.C. Guidelines. That's not always easy to do and we know that. That means being mindful of social distancing, being mindful of wearing a mask should be essential to keep your kids protected and keep other kids protected. Certainly, we can't expedite the work of E F.D.A. They're the gold standard on science we want to abide by their timeline. This is challenging. Abiding by the guidelines for children and those not yet eligible until we get to that point. Go ahead. Q>> You said yesterday the president feels a great deal of the crime as a result of gun violence. It's not just gun crimes. Why does the president think there has been a 30% increase in car theft in D.C., 47% in robbery in New York City, or a 98% increase in rapes in [13:27:30] Atlanta? 132715 PSAKI>> Well, first, I think if you look at a number of cities across the country, it is actually driven by gun violence. Take St. Louis: in 2021, 96% of homicides where the instrument is known were committed using a firearm. In New York City, from March 2020 to March 2021, shooting incidents have jumped 77%. This city recorded more than 1,500 shootings in 2020, 97% more than 777 in 2019. 132743 There are major cities across the country where gun violence is absolutely the driver, where it is absolutely increasing. And that will be a central part of what he'll talk about when he delivers his remarks tomorrow. [13:27:52] Q>> Given everything that's going on with guns, without guns, does the president think this is the best time to end cash -- PSAKI>> I don't think I have any new position on that. I'll check. Q>> So his stated position from his website which is basically ends cash bail, he wants to lead a national fort to end cash bail and reform the pretrial system, does that stand? PSAKI>> I don't have a new position for you but I'll check. Q>> For those watching that may be worried about a rise in crime. What does the president think is a deterrent to committing a crime if there is no cash bail in place? 132830 PSAKI>> Well -- well, let me give you just a sense, to the degree I can, because we're still finalizing the specifics. There has been, one, an increase in violent crime over the last 18 months. It's not just over the last few months. And actually, if you look statistically back, it's more over the last five years or so. So there is an initial set of actions the President has announced, to date, to address gun violence back in April: strengthening regulations on ghost guns, stabilizing braces that makes firearms more lethal, investing money in community violence intervention programs, an investment that he thinks can be quite effective. 132902 He's talked about, for decades -- and I think you'll hear him talk about more tomorrow -- supporting additional funding for community policing through his budget request, and helping state and local governments keep cops on the beat. So, yes, we believable that essential driver of violence is gun violence and is the use of guns. We're seeing that statistically in a lot of areas, but he also believes that we need to ensure that state and local governments keep cops on the beat, that we're supporting community policing. And that's a key part of it as well. [13:29:29] Q>> Are you said you want to keep cops on the beat but there are rerts big cities are very a very difficult -- having a very difficult time recruiting officers right now. There are many other reports that morale is at an all-time low in big police departments. Why does the president think there is low morale with police officers on the beat? PSAKI>> I don't think we're the right entity to give an assessment of that. I say go to the police departments to get that assessment. The president has never supported defunding the police. He's also supported community policing programs. He supports giving money, through the American rescue plan, because he believes there's an essential role to play for community policing. Go ahead. Q>> I want to ask you about infrastructure. [13:30:31] PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> There was -- meeting -- PSAKI>> Still going on. As far as when I came out here, yes. Q>> Do you think you'll invite those senators to the white house to meet with the president? PSAKI>>We will see. Democrac in action happening, we willss assess what the next step is. As I noted yesterday, the president is encouraged by the ongoing talks and discussions that are continuing with Democrats and Republicans. We sent some -- he asked some members of his senior team, as you noted, Steve, Lui, to go up to capitol hill and meet with a group of bipartisan suppo and once they conclude that meeting, I expect we'll assess what the next steps are. Q>> You're getting a lot of criticism already about the pairing down of the infrastructure proposal, things that are falling away are things that you said are top priority, whether it's climate, the economy. How do you -- how do you anticipate dealing with and following those priorities, [13:31:33] those issues, if you get to a compromise that is in fact a slim down version of what you initiallynn planned? PSAKI>> There is a budget reconciliation pss that is under way to move the president's bold ideas forward. Q>> Ask you about Amazon as well. The S.E.C. Will look at Amazon and M.G.M. Merger. There is growing criticism about the antitrust legislation that's being put forth on the hill. Are you -- what is your perspective about whether there is sort of fundamental reform need to ensure that large companies don't get too big? Do you see this is an inflection point? We've seen companies, including Amazon, really profit enormously from the pandemic and during the pandemic and there have been warnings, even from international financial institutions. Do you see there's something fundamentally needed to check the growth? [13:32:33] PSAKI>> It's a great question. I don't think I will be in position to speak to it from here. There are legal components of this. I can see if there is more to get back to you on. Q>> Just on the Amazon, S.E.C., can you confirm any dealdetails of that? PSAKI>> I can't talk about that specifically from here. Q>> The president's remarks tomorrow, just to follow up on policing and crime -- PSAKI>> Yes. Q>> Will that detail any effort from policing reform or is that focused on crime prevention and why or why not? PSAKI>> First, there are ongoing ne negotiations, as you know, on police reform. The president would love to have a bill on his desk that he can sign into law. We've seen progress being made. We heard progresse.eing made. Those discussions are ongoing. So -- 133303 I would expect that his -- his remarks tomorrow will build on a number of the announcements that I've already touched on, that he's made in the recent months: making guns -- putting in place safety measures to make our streets safer, preventing the use of guns in violent crime across the country, ensuring that we can have more cops on the beat to protect communities. 133326 He obviously is a big advocate for the benefit of community policing. So we'll build on that foundation, and lay out a comprehensive strategy to address violent crime and gun violence as the -- as we enter the summer months. [13:33:40] Q>> Some advocates have raised concerns potentially having the president raise alarm about, you know, a trend of rising crime, crime uptick could undercut police reform, especially since legislation is being discussed, you know, in congress. So is that a concern for the white house at all? The white house has said, you know, the administration wants to give members of congress space to negotiate police reform. Could that potentially raise alarm of the uptick hurt those efforts? PSAKI>> I would say the negotiations are happening between senator booker, senator Scott, key -- congresswoman bass. I don't think they've expressed that particular concern. If TRE is a named person [13:34:36] expressing that concern, I'm happy to speak to that. The negotiations are ongoing. We keep them abreast of our work. I think in communities across the country, who advocate and support police reform, they don't see it as a muually exclusive issue. Neithers does th president. -- Neither doee president. Police reform is outdated. We need to put in place gun safety measures, to use a lever he can as president to do exactly that and ensure there's appropriate funding and resources needed to ensure there's community policing in communities across the country. Q>> On the FEMA meeting. Given that meeting happened today, FEMA still involved in setting up shelters at the borders. Since we're going into hurricane season, as you said, is there a deadline oemwhen FEMA will be pulled out of that process of assisting at the border? PSAKI>> I don't have anything to assess for FEMA. Obviously, they'll make that as issment in coordination with the leadership at the department of humanitariafn but I don't -- department of homeland security but I don't have a timeline. [13:35:36] They've been a key resource. 133520 Q>> Thanks, Jen. Going back to the 70% goal. The CDC data says that there are 13 states that are falling way short of that 70%, they're less than 55%. Four states are below 50%. Should those states get more of a focus right now and not the nationwide number, as the administration plans their strategy to get vaccinations up? 133540 PSAKI>> Well, we are not not focusing on those states. I would say that, one, it's important to note that, when we give the statistics including 87% of all seniors, 75% of people aged 40 and over, 70% of those aged 30 and over, they're from red states and blue states and purple states or whatever color the state may be. Our focus, from the beginning, has been continuing to redouble our efforts among demographics and groups where we need extra assistance. 133606 That's why we have taken steps to put in place 24-hour pharmacies, walk-up sites, mobile clinics, free rides. We have vaccines at barber shops, baseball games, NASCAR races. Even over the last month of action, which we've been doing across the country, we have had 15,000 events. We've attempted 1.4 million contacts or reached about 500,000 people. And there are thousands of volunteers in 50 states across the country. 133633 Ultimately, it's going to be up to individuals to decide if they want to get vaccinated. Q>> Is there -- sorry. Is there something more, though, you went through all of those incentives and specifically tying those to that age group, that younger age group. But if there's something that's regional about this, if it's Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Wyoming that are those states below 50%, is there something the administration can do to get those numbers up? Or at this point, is this governors and states that should be doing this? 133657 PSAKI>> It's always been a partnership and it will continue to be a partnership, moving forward. And it's also up to individuals to make the decision to get vaccinated. And what we can do from the federal government, of course, is to make it accessible as possible, make sure we have the supply. We've done that long ago. Make sure there are thousands and thousands of sites, vaccinators, opportunities for people to get vaccinated, incentivize it across the country. That's exactly what we've done. 133722 I will note: we're not stop implementing these programs on July 5th. We'll continue to implement them as we work to get more people in the country vaccinated. Go ahead., April. [13:37:30] Q>> Jen, two topics. Voting rights as well as crime. You keep bringing up president George W. Bush when he -- PSAKI>> I keep bringing him up? Q>>The extension up. You B extught the extension up of voting rights. Jen: I think that happened long before. Reporter: Right. You brought it up -- extend it for 25 yea -- PSAKI>> I didn't bring up George W. Bush but, go ahead, you can bring him up. Q>> As someone that was here when he did it -- PSAKI>> Sure. Q>> One of his pieces that he likes to tout when he talks about efforts in the black community, what's different with Republicans then and Republicans now when it comes to voting right? PSAKI>> What's different? Q>> Yeah. PSAKI>>Well, I think, April, what should raise some questions for ericans across the country [13:38:37] is -- why would anyonwant to make it more difficult to vote? Why wouldn't we want to make it more accessible? What are they so afr D of? Maybe they're more afrd now what it would mean to have more people voting across the country than back then. I don't know. You have to ask them. Q>> On crime, what's different now as you're trying to push this effort on community policing as well as guns? What's different now? What do you think will have to change the tide that hasn't been changed before? PSAKI>> Different now -- do you mean different from a different period of time or from -- Q>> Community policing was in place during Clinton years. There was conversation about it. And now you're bringing it back again. So you bring it back again. Do you think -- do you believe that can become a reality again? I understand different police departments can do what they want, but you're trying to make a global overall sweeping push [13:39:40] across the nation. What's different now that will make this time change? 133929 PSAKI>> Well, I would say one difference now is that it's become a politically charged issue when it wasn't, historically. And if you look back, community oriented policing services, you know, historically had been supported by liberal Democrats, Democrats, civil rights groups including the NAACP, and over the course of time. And that has always been the case. I would say we're not suggesting -- the President isn't suggesting it's the silver bullet. A central part of his remarks and his -- his announcement tomorrow will be about addressing gun violence, which he thinks is a significant driver in violence in our communities and cities across the country. 134008 And as you know, April, there are laws that were in place -- the assault weapons ban, others -- that are no longer in place. There are also additional guns -- ghost guns and others -- that were not a reality just a few years ago. So there are some laws he'd like to go back to, and some that he'll look to update. [13:40:25] Q>> What's different now? You have the powerful N.R.A., you have Republicans anytime you touch anything about guns, they feel like you're taking their rights away? What's different now? When do you think the tide will turn on this? PSAKI>> Are you asking about the politics of now? Q>> Politics and this moment in time, why do you believe you have a chance to make a dent when Democrats didn't have it before? PSAKI>> I would say, here's how the president sees this. 134055 There has been rising crime in cities for the last 18 months, if not before that. Yes, there needs to be reforms of police systems across the country. The President is a firm believer in that, but there are also steps he can take as President of the United States to help address and, hopefully, reduce that crime. A big part of that, in his view, is putting in place gun safety measures, using -- even as Congress is not moving forward currently, using the bully pulpit, but also using levers at his disposal as President. Go ahead. [13:41:25] Q>> Joe Biden, 30 years ago he was chairman of the senate judicial committee. Wrote the crime bill. Addressed this issue. What has he learned since then what can we look tomorrow that will be the same or different? PSAKI>> I would say first on the campaign, the president said that some parts of the bill worked and some areas did not work. There are also steps he took as senator when he introduced or supported legislation, I should say, to address the disparities in drug sentencing laws. So he's taken some specific actions over time in areas where he doesn't think worked as well. There are some components of that legislation he supported at the time, including the 10-year ban on assault weapons, including the support for the violence against women act, including the support for community policing programs that he's been a long time advocate [13:42:43] for. I think he'll see continuity in terms of his support for those initiatives moving forward. Q>> You say he will build on the announcemented. Will we hear anything tomorrow? PSAKI>> Stayuned. You won't come tomorrow. Q>> The president meeting with the chairman of the federal reserve yesterday, did the president bring up interest rates or express his views on the direction of interest rates at all? PSAKI>> As you well know, that is the purview of the federal reserve. They put out their own projections, as you know, about what it looks like moving forward. The topic, the focus of the meeting was exactly as it was outlined. Q>> Interest rates -- PSAKI>> I have no more to read out to you. Q>> On the infrastructure fwhoeshgss -- negotiations, do you know if the white house has put anything for pay-fors? PSAKI>> I say we put a lot of different options on pay-fors on the table. Our view is there is a fundamental question right now. Our rmemblicans, members of [13:43:43] congress -- do Republicans, members of congress, do they believe the rich people should have to pay for the taxes they owe? Should we crease the cost for travelers trying to make it to work? We'll see if they can make progress on that exact point. Go ahead. Q>> Can you say who the stakeholders will be at the white house tomorrow for this crime meeting? Can you say who's coming? PSAKI>> The announcement tomorrow -- sure. I don't have it in front of me but we'll get it after the briefing. Q>> This is sort of a pullback question. Why now, exactly? Is it just because crime rates are up and the stats are out? Why is this the week of all weeks that the president decided to focus on crime? 134410 PSAKI>> First, I would say that he's made a number of announcements over the past several months on gun violence, on putting in place gun safety measures. He's made -- announced in his budget his support for community policing and providing funding. Maybe we haven't drawn that clear throughline for all of you, but this is a continuation of that, in his view. 134429 Q>> Labeling it -- a speech about crime is certainly different than a speech about gun safety or -- this is [inaud] PSAKI>> A central part of it will be on gun violence. Yeah, Go ahead. [13:44:38] Q>> Continue the crime spree, if you will. [Laughter] PSAKI>> A lot of anals here that might be threatening. Q>> My colleague had brought uhere are activists who are very concerned that the president's decision to highlight crime right now could undercut his negotiations on the hill for police reform. You were asked the names. The justice action network is one. Can you address how the president is going to sort of walk that line between expressing his concern about crime without uercutting these efforts, as you point out, that have been under way for a while? PSAKI>> Sure, what I was trying to get up B thanks for bringing [13:45:45] up the question again, there are negotiators that are continuing to make progress on the hill. The prandsident stands by a lot O these groups. Thorr support and advocacy for long overdue gun reform. He does not feel like they are conflicting. I don't think you heard from any of the negotiators on the hill they feel they are conflicting either. So that was the point I was trying to make. Communities across then country, where they areing seeing -- if you're living in St. Louis and 96% of homicides were done -- where we know the instrument that was used was using a firearm, you want to know what the president will do to address that. If -- if you live in new York City, want to hear more every town -- 3,900 additional firearm deaths and 9,278 additional firearm injuries in 2020 compared to 29. That's impacting people's lives, people's communities, ople's [13:46:47] families, people's neighbors. Of course, they want to hear more. He wants to share with the American public what he will do. Q>> Covid, the country did not reach this goal of 70% of adults getting a shot, is there anything the country cannot do? Is there a way -- a benchmark for getting back to normalcy, and since we didn't get there, are there things the country can't do because we haven't achieved that goal that we were supposed to do? PSAKI>> First, I would say it's a goal we here set in the white house. Q>> [Indiscernible] PSAKI>> Well, this was always going to be community-to-community, right? When the president set this goal back in March, it was always meant to be an incentive and driver for people to see what the benefit would be of getting vaccinated. At the time, what the president said, if you're vaccinated, your neighbors are vaccinated, you can all have a backyard barbecue. We're doing that times about 100 by hosting 1,000 people here at [13:47:47] the white house. Now if you're in a community where you're a 80% vaccination rate, you are pretty much back to normal. If yre in a community with a lower vaccination rate, obviously you'll make your own choices but you're not operating in a community where it should be back to normal. It's always going to be local. Was always going to be based on what the decisions are made community-to-community. But not nationwide, no. It's really dependent where you're living. Q>> Because the president is in Washington, D.C., and we have -- Washington, D.C., has gone beyond the 70% goal, it's ok to do those things? It's ok to have 1,000 people to be in Washington, D.C., because they have crossed the 70%? But where it's a 50% vaccination rate, perhaps -- PSAKI>> Communities will make their own decision. There is nothing magical about 70%. 70% was a bold, ambitious goal we set to continue to drive to get more people vaccinated [13:48:49] across the country. But it's not as if you're 67% in a community you're at a different level of safety than 71%. Communities are going to make their own decisions. I think at a fundamental fact is that if you're vaccinated, if your neighbors are vaccinated, then you're safe. Go ahead. Q>> Thank you, Jen. PSAKI>> Sorry. Go ahead. Q>> Oh, thanks. Can you respond to at least a couple Republican senators and one today and talked about signing onto this bipartisan talks right now on the -- [indiscernible] That would stop you guys from doing reconciliation, can you respond to that idea they're basically cooperating so you can't do the second half of your plan? PSAKI>> I don't think that's how the process works fundamentally. Q>> So it will not stop the white house from enacting? PSAKI>> If you go to our episode of [13:49:49] how a bill becomes a law, there is a budget reconciliation process led by the budget chairman. It needs a certain number of votes. That's different than the number of votes that are needed for other pieces of legislation. That piece of legislation -- the budget reconciliation process is proceeding. There will be discussions. There may be disagreements among people in the democratic party what should be included in there or not. There needs to be 50 votes to move that forward. But that process is continuing and proceeding. Q>> Stopping the momentum for it as well as taking the amount of time these talks are taking that it realistically it could -- PSAKI>> How would it gum up the works? Q>> I mean, this is their -- this is their plan, their hope. PSAKI>> Sounds like they have more explaining what they mean or maybe they need to go to how a bill becomes a law, how budget reconciliation works. Senator Sanders could go to the caucus and meet with them. I think the president is about to speak. Thanks, everyone. [13:50:50] Sorry it was a little short today. [END]

HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE: The House meets at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. One Minutes // H.R. 2647 - Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, Rules Committee Print (Structured Rule) (Rep. Westerman / Agriculture / Natural Resources) // The Rule provides for one hour of general debate and makes in order the following amendments: Polis Amendment (10 minutes); Tipton Amendment (10 minutes); Lujan Grisham Amendment (10 minutes); Kilmer Amendment (10 minutes) // Complete Consideration of H.R. 2822 - Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (Modified Open Rule) (Rep. Calvert / Appropriations) // Postponed Amendment Votes: Zinke Amendment; Garamendi Amendment #2; Newhouse Amendment; Rouzer Amendment; Hudson Amendment; Goodlatte Amendment; Westmoreland Amendment; LaMalfa Amendment; Ellison Amendment; Buck Amendment; Grothman Amendment; Sanford Amendment; Palmer Amendment #1; Palmer Amendment #2; Calvert Amendment // Begin Consideration of H.R. 6 - 21st Century Cures Act, Rules Committee Print (Structured Rule) (Rep. Upton / Energy and Commerce) // The Rule provides for one hour of general debate and makes in order eight amendments to be considered later. 10:00:11THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. THE CLERK:the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 9, 2015. 10:00:30i hereby appoint the honorable david g. valadao to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by 10:00:45the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes, but in 10:01:01no event shall debate continue beyond 11 50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. BLUMENAUER (D-OR):thank you, mr. speaker. one of the most difficult and 10:01:17challenging situation any family faces is dealing with circumstances surrounding the end of life. earlier this week, n.p.r. ran a fascinating story on a little known fact that physicians die differently than the rest of 10:01:32us. they are more comfortable, they're more likely to spend their final days surrounded by loved ones. they seldom die in an i.c.u. or in a hospital setting. that's because doctors understand what works and what 10:01:48doesn't. doctors are very clear about their wishes, and they choose quality of life and concern for their families as well as their own well-being. i've been working in this area of end of life for more than six years. the ways and means committee 10:02:04unanimously approved my legislation and amended it as part of the affordable care act, to provide greater support for families with that decisionmaking process. it did pass the committee unanimously. part of the affordable care 10:02:21act, even despite the 2009 lie of the year about death panels, on the strength of some of the most compelling testimony that were delivered, not by expert witnesses but by members of the committee. one of our republican members 10:02:37discussed how his mother didn't get the care that she needed at the end of life. another physician member of the committee explained how he had these conversations repeatedly, but unfortunately they were often much later than they should have been. 10:02:52there wasn't adequate time for the family to prepare. well, there's been a sea change on this issue, in part because of rising public awareness. support for our bipartisan legislation, the personalize 10:03:07your care act, which i worked on for years now with dr. phil roe, has made great strides forward. we've had advocates like dr. bill frist, former republican leader of the senate, who spoke eloquently and forcefully about the helping families under 10:03:24these trying conditions. the reverend billy graham has written how it's christian responsibility to take this on for ourselves and spare our loved ones' uncertainty. a doctor published a brilliant 10:03:45book "being mortal," which quickly climbed to the best-seller list for "the new york times" and a 500-page report about dying in america that talked about the problems and opportunities to provide more choices and protect people's wishes. yesterday was another important 10:04:01landmark when the administration published a proposed fee schedule for next year in which they've assigned an activity code with payment for advanced care planning. now, of course, this is merely a proposal and they're still 10:04:18seeking comment but it's a historic step forward for a decision that will be finalized this fall. it's another indication that we can and will do a better job of meeting the needs of american families under the most difficult of circumstances. we will make sure americans 10:04:33have all the information they need to make the right decisions for themselves and their family and to assure those decisions, whatever they may be, are honored and enforced. medicare will pay for thousands of expensive medical procedures 10:04:50and now for the first time the government is placing a value on this important conversation between a patient and their chosen medical professional. now, it's the job of the rest of us to do our part. 10:05:06who will speak for us if it we're unable to speak fo 10:05:11ourselves, and what will they say? THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. jolly, for five minutes. JOLLY (R-FL):thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, most economists and financial advisors have recognized that families across 10:05:26the united states are headed towards a major retirement crisis. studies have shown that a majority of households headed by someone age 59 or younger are in danger of suffering from falling living standards in their retirement years and so the administration and this 10:05:41congress should be advancing policies to make retirement counseling, savings advice and investment services more accessible, not less. retirement planning, savings counseling and investment advice can improve the quality of life and economic stability of every american. yet, recent actions by this 10:05:57administration, however well-intended, will make these financial services less accessible and less affordable to those who are in most need of them. by forever changing the rules regarding financial advising related to retirement accounts. 10:06:12mr. speaker, for years the community of financial advisors, including those throughout pinellas county and those i represent, has been governed by the suitability standard. that is financial advisors are required to provide financial counseling and investment 10:06:29recommendationes that are suitable for a client based upon that client's financial position and financial goals. the suitability standards requires advisors to act fairly in dealing with clients. this suitability standard has served individual investors well for many years, creating a 10:06:44market for financial services for new and low-dollar investors seeking basic investment services and thoughtful financial and retirement planning. but the administration is now in the process of replacing that standard with a new standard called the fiduciary standard. 10:06:59this new standard under the guise of protecting investors will actually have the opposite effect. the administration's proposed rule will ultimately reduce or in some cases eliminate financial counseling, products and services to new and low-dollar investors. the rule will result in the 10:07:14elimination of financial products that adequately compensate advisors for their services, and it will increase the cost of compliance on advisors who ultimately will need to pass on those costs to clients through a higher fee structure and it will cost some 10:07:34advisors. but worst, mr. speaker, the department of labor's new rule reflects the approach that we see from regulators throughout this administration, an arrogant and demeaning suggestion that industry throughout america is necessarily comprised of all bad actors, and unless these 10:07:50actors are forced to do so by this administration, they will no longer do right or do good but for the heavy hand of government and the heavy hand of this administration making them to do so. it is a washington knows best approach that communities 10:08:05across the country continue to reject. the administration can do better. do not issue the new proposed fiduciary standard rule. members of congress from both 10:08:21sides of the aisle have sent letters to the department of labor expressing the negative impacts this proposal will have on their communities and we have begged the department of labor to revisit this rule and simply do better on behalf of the american people. congress has also taken action on its own and will continue to 10:08:36do so. recently the appropriations committee included provisions within their respective bills in the house and senate to halt the administration from moving forward on this perhaps well-intended but completely wrong proposed rule. it was right that we did so. the administration simply must 10:08:51do better. it starts with recognizing that the financial advisor industry is comprised of men and women across this country who provide a valuable contribution to individuals and couples seeking retirement guidance. and let's realize that 10:09:08transparenty and sunlight can -- transparency and sunlight can help. it results in needless and expensive litigation and ever more trial attorney fees and will ultimately eliminate financial counseling to thousands of families who need it the most. well, mr. speaker, that is the 10:09:24wrong answer. let's keep the suitability standard. let's trust financial advisors for the good service they provide. let's strictly enforce the current law against the very small number of individuals who seek to take advantage of individual investors. let's protect financial services for those who need 10:09:39them most and let's revisit a rulemaking process that focuses only on transparency. ultimately providing consumers and clients with the information they need to make responsible investment decisions and to responsibly select a financial advisor that 10:09:54is right for them. it is time that this administration begins trusting the american people. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. 10:10:12GUTIERREZ (D-IL):for the record, i'm not mexican, i'm not an immigrant. given the rhetoric of one of the 10:10:22leading republican candidates for president, it's important to point that out at the start before i'm accused of being a criminal, a drug dealer or a rapist. to be fair, donald trump didn't say all latinos or mexicans are 10:10:39rapists. just the vast majority of mexicans immigrants are drug dealers or rapist. mexican immigrants working in the united states, it should be 10:10:55the owner of hotels. but he is not basing this on personal knowledge. trump says that most of the women coming from central america to the u.s. through mexico and other countries report being sexually 10:11:12assaulted. on this point, he and i have some agreement. women and children at the lowest wrung of our economic and social ladder are incredibly vulnerable to sexual assault and rape, but from saying most undocumented women are vulnerable to assault and saying most undocumented men are rapists is, as he might say 10:11:29himself, huge. the documentary on pbs "front line," "rape in the fields" was a powerful expose on how immigrant women are regularly victims of rape, abuse because perpetrators recognize how vulnerable immigrant women are. they are afraid to talk to the police, afraid they will be 10:11:45deported and afraid they will lose their children and this fear to report crimes makes us all less safe. yes, the rape and abuse is sometimes perpetrated by other latino immigrants. perhaps even mexicans. but these crimes are also committed by men of all colors, 10:12:01including red, white and blue americans. so when donald trump says on cnn, well, someone is doing the raping, is further evidence we should be building a big wall so he can laster his name on it and keep im-- laster his name on it and keep immigrants ons its clear donald misses the 10:12:18point. the question is how do we create an immigration system that allows people come with visas and not smugglers so their work is honored, safe, protected by oir labor laws? how do we make sure that the work remembers not afraid to 10:12:33dial 911 and report assault when someone, anyone is threatening them or their families? now, the anti-immigration wing of the republican party in this body and on the air is saying that trump may have a point. after all, a beautiful, innocent woman was shot in cold 10:12:50blood by a mexican immigrant in san francisco just last week. why wasn't he deported? why wasn't he held in jail the last time? why is -- and you will actually hear this on fox news. why is president obama letting mexicans kill beautiful young 10:13:05american women? as the father of two daughters, about the age of kate, the young woman who was shot and killed, i pray every night that no one of any racial ethnic background ever does my daughters harm and i can only 10:13:20imagine the grief that her family is feeling. when we have felons in federal custody or state or local custodies with warrants for drug crimes who get deported and come back, we are not doing our job. they cope with decades of 10:13:36inaction on immigration criminal justice and a range of other issues. i have no sympathy for the man accusing this crime. murderers should rot in hail. so what if -- rot in hell. so what if we have a system, 10:13:51people that contributed productively and they have children and other deep roots in the united states, what if we allowed them to come forward? what if we made them pay for their only criminal background check, fingerprinted them, made them prove their identity and 10:14:07check on them ever so often to make sure they're not gaming the system or committing crime? what if we had a system where people came here legally in the first place if they could prove their identity and they had no criminal background? i argue that such a system would allow us to reduce significantly the number of people who are in this 10:14:23country without legal status. it would shrink the size of communities where many people are undocumented, where people are afraid to call the police so that criminals find it easy to blend in and not stick out. such a system would allow us to concentrate our enforcement and 10:14:38deportation resources on real criminals who should be jailed and then thrown out and kept out. such a system would make it easier, make it harder for criminals to hide and easier for honest, hardworking folks to contribute to their communities without fear. 10:14:55unfortunately, that is exactly the system that some republicans have been fighting against. so when a hotel and casino owner gets on his high horse about mexican immigrants, about crime and rape and murder, let's think about who is standing between the united 10:15:11states, this country, the one 10:15:12states, this country, the one we love and that we've sworn to protect and a modern immigration system based on common sense, compassion and, yes, the rule of law. . 10:15:27THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for five minutes. FOXX (R-NC):thank you, mr. speaker. for the past two years my email in box, mailbox and phone lines have been flooded with reports of canceled health insurance 10:15:42plans, soaring premiums, increased deductibles, and exasperated constituents trying to navigate the confusing washington bureaucracy that is obamacare. members of congress have to buy 10:15:57their health insurance on the exchanges along with millions of other americans. i experience many of the same frustrations, including the nightmare of navigating a confusing, unfinished website. despite its central promise, the affordable care act it has 10:16:13proved to be anything but affordable for many north carolinians, and the supreme court's recent decision in king v. burwell doesn't change that fact. house republicans are continuing our efforts to minimize the damage caused by obamacare. 10:16:29we have passed legislation that would permanently repeal obamacare's 2.3% excise tax on medical devices which has hindered innovation as well as restricted growth and job creation in an industry that has 10:16:45improved the quality of life for millions around the world. we voted to repeal the independent payment advisory board which was created under the president's health care law and gives a panel of 15 10:17:01un-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats sweeping authority to slash medicare payment to providers or eliminate payments for certain treatments and procedures all together. the house has passed legislation that would change obamacare's 30-hour definition of full-time employment and restore the 10:17:16traditional 40-hour workweek. from adjunct professors to hourly workers i have heard from constituents across north carolina's fifth district who have one thing in common. their hours are being reduced. obamacare has placed an undo 10:17:33burden on employers and their employees by undermining the 40-hour workweek, which has long been the standard for full-time work. we voted to make it easier to hire veterans by exempting those who already have health insurance from being counted as 10:17:48full-time employees under the president's health care law. no employer shd be penal eased for hiring a veteran, and no veteran should be unemployed because of obamacare. whoever, the best approach to solving the multitude of 10:18:04problems resulting from obamacare is to unite behind a complete repeal of the law and replace it with solutions that lower costs and empoer patients 10:18:19to choose the care that's -- empoer patients to choose the care that's right for them. i recently signed o on to h.r. 2653, the american health care reform act. this bill would repeal obamacare completely and allow a standard deduction for health ensures that treats individually purchased plans and employer 10:18:36sponsored plans the same. making sure that all americans receive the same tax benefits for health care. h.r. 2653 would return decisions about health care and insurance coverage to patients. it is people not government who 10:18:52can best determine the coverage and services that meet their needs. a government takeover of health care is not what americans asked for and certainly not what we can afford. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentleman 10:19:08from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. QUIGLEY (D-IL):thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, ronald reagan once said, where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. when president reagan made those 10:19:25remarks in 1980 he recognized then what many can't seem to understand now. efforts to undermine unions are an attack on workers' rights. unions have long been the foundation of our middle class and helped create the most competitive work force in the world. the 40-hour workweek, minimum 10:19:41wage, six leave, workers comp, overtime pay, child labor laws. those are just a few of the basic labor rights that unions have championed over the years that many now take for granted. after all the good that unions have done to empower all workers 10:20:01across this country, there's been a recent revival in the war against them and the weapon of choice has been the right to work laws. don't be fooled by the name. the only thing right to work laws do is unfairly allow free riding workers to benefit from 10:20:13union negotiated contracts without having to contribute their fair share in the fight. the laws do not as many supporters proclaim protect workers from being forced to become union members. in fact, federal law already restricts this. in union states workers covered 10:20:29by union negotiated contracts can only be required to pay for the cost of bargaining and not for any other union activities. however, over the last few years there has been an alarming increase in anti-union sentiment. currently half of our states 10:20:44have right to work laws with indiana, michigan, and wisconsin recently passing their own version. in my own home state of illinois, the governor has made passing right to work a top priority. in fact, he's making this a cornerstone of his first term 10:21:01legislative agenda. the idea behind his right to work law is that by increasing the number of free riding workers, unions will be forced to drastically reduce their budgets, weakening their ability to negotiate stronger contracts and defend the rights of american workers. 10:21:16but the evidence clearly shows how misguided this stance is and attacks on organized labor truly are. research shows that seven of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates are right to work states. 10:21:31on top of that, you know that even if half the counties in illinois adopt right to work laws, we would see the state's annual economic output shrink by $1.5 billion, labor income fall by $1.3 billion. 10:21:46and increase in both racial and gender income equality. so if right to work laws are not actually good for the economy, what are they good for? right to work laws do a great job at 10:22:04harming hardworking middle class families, and weakening unions. right to work states have seen an almost a 10% decline in unionization, which has undermined growth in wages and led to the deterioration in workplace safety n right to work states, wages for all workers, not just unionized workers, are over 3% lower than wages in 10:22:20nonright to work states. that's about $1,500 less per year in the pockets of teachers, firefighters, nurses, and other hardworking americans. furthermore, unions and injuries and deaths in right to work states are much higher than 10:22:38nonright to work states. in the high-risk environment of construction where unions have played a fundamental role in demanding adequate safety standards, deaths are 34% higher in right to work states than nonright to work states. you can see right to work is not right for our country, not right 10:22:54for our states, and not right for our workers. you can right to worker as a strategy to lower wages and attract more businesses is not a suitable and sustainable strategy. instead of focusing on attacking unions and middle class workers, 10:23:10governors should focus on fixing broken budgets and investing in our schools, public safety programs, and transportation systems. that's the real recipe for economic success. so let's stand up against right to work laws and stand up for the right to organize, the right 10:23:25to a safe job, and the right to a fair wage. thank you. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs, for five minutes. GIBBS, B. (R-OH):thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor dr. peter 10:23:42schramm at asher university in ashland, ohio. the center support 8 supporters and friends gathered to recognize him for his years of service and name the library in his honor. he's been teaching political 10:23:58science, mentoring sthuents, and shapings the minds of few turn teachers and lawyers. he was a young boy living under the soviet regime. when he was 10, peter's father 10:24:14decided it was time to leave hungary and come to america. peter asked his father why he chose america and he was told we were born americans but in the wrong place. after leaving hungary, the family found their way to california thanks to an american 10:24:29dentist his father met shortly after world war ii. just a few american dollars, his family started a new life. his parents found work and peter and his sister went to school. peter did not know english and had to learn along the way with the help of his classmates. eventually, they saved enough 10:24:45money to open a restaurant. the whole family worked there. peter tened his stuties -- studies and worked through college. he was he was unaware you had to graduate. he was content to learn for the 10:25:00sake of lerk. years later he once said i think it is true that human beings by nature desire to know. his economic veracity led him to claire month for his masters and doctorate doctorate degrees. 10:25:14it was there he studied the classics. when he began teaching, he insisted on open discussion, encouraging and directing debates among his students. he once said, a good education is a conversation. he didn't want to lecture his 10:25:29students and he believes a classic liberal arts education should teach students how to read, analyze, and explain and defend their beliefs. the ash brook center where he served as the executive director and senior fellow of the scholar program states their mission is to restore and strengthen the 10:25:45capacities of the american people for constitutional self-government. having witnessed the corruption horror of soviet rule, he was able to impress on his students how important the mission and values are. one of the most recent students 10:26:00interned in my office told me that dr. schramm has dedicated his life to preserving and perpetuating american greatness by teaching us what it means to be an american. that many of us he has taught will continue his work and honor his legacy by educating future 10:26:15generations of what makes america great. dr. schramm, who is battling an aggressive illness, can be assured the principles of self-government of free men with free minds and values of our founding fathers are alive and well in the 10:26:31generations of students he talked. on monday evening he said despite his medical condition no man has been happier than he has been. thank you for adopting america as your home and teaching so many young minds to keep the flame of freedom burning. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the 10:26:47chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. BUTTERFIELD (D-NC):mr. speaker, i rise to express the utter outrage of the congressional black caucus regarding the calvert amendment which is scheduled for later this 10:27:02afternoon which is an amendment to the interior appropriations bill. that amendment would allow confederate imagery to remain on graves on federal land. don't republicans understand that the confederate battle flag is an insult to 40 million african-americans and to many 10:27:19other fair-minded americans? the confederate battle flag, mr. speaker, is intended to defend a dark period of american history. a period when four million blacks were held as slaves. held as property, as chattel not 10:27:35as human beings. the slaves were bought and sold and mortgaged and gifted as chattel, and this period, mr. speaker, this period of inslavement continued for more than 200 years and did not legally end until december 6, 10:27:531865. here's the history, mr. speaker. following president lincoln's election in november of 1860, 12 southern states ceded from the union in response to their belief that president lincoln would free the four million 10:28:10slaves. south carolina was the first state to cede from the union on december 20, right after lincoln's election. these southern states formed the confederate states of america. they empowered a military, 10:28:27elected a president, adopted a constitution, adopted a currency. they engaged in a brutal, brutal civil war with the union. thousands of lives were lost on both sides of the battle, and this flag, mr. speaker, this confederate battle flag, was 10:28:43their symbol. it was their flag. the southern states lost the war. the states then rejoined the union. president lincoln then proposed a 13th amendment legally ending slavery. that amendment, mr. speaker, 10:28:58passed this congress on january 31, 1865. finally, it was ratified by georgia on december 6, 1865. and during the period of ratification, president lincoln was assassinated. 10:29:13for the next 50 years, 50-plus years, every black person living in the south faced the possibility of lynching. more than 4,000 blacks were 10:29:29lynched between 1890 and 1950. 136 black people were lynched in south carolina. but there are some now who want to continue to honor slavery and hon your bigotry -- honor bigtry. 10:29:44this house must not be complicit. the shooting in south carolina was an example of a 21st century lynching. the man festo left by the charleston killer stated, quote, i have no choice. i am not in the position to go to alone, go into the ghetto and 10:30:01fight. i chose charleston because it is the most historic city in my state and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to whites in the country. he was right. 57%. . 10:30:14we have no skinheads, no k.k.k., no one doing but talking on the internet. well, someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and i guess that has to be me. end of quote. 10:30:30mr. speaker, bigotry continues to exist in this country. this congress should not pass any legislation today or any other day that would embolden those who continue to hold racist beliefs. the calvert amendment, the 10:30:49calvert amendment is misguided and it emboldens bigotry. i ask my colleagues, democrat and republican, respectfully, let's defeat the calvert amendment this afternoon and even if the gentleman would consider to withdraw his amendment and not put this house through this turmoil 10:31:05today. thank you. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, for five minutes. MURPHY, T. (R-PA):thank you, mr. speaker. 10:31:21yesterday in the terrible attack over 200 people were killed across these united states. this headline should lead every tv news show, hit the front pages and generate outrage from across the country, but it did 10:31:37not appear. now, this is not make-believe, the news is real, but no one reported it. we lose more than 80,000 people a year now to suicide and drug addiction overdose. that's over 200 people a day. 10:31:53where is the news? now, these are the sudden and tragic deaths. then, there are the slow-motion deaths which can he can't even count. those who have a mental -- which can't even count. those who have a mental illness 10:32:08or a chronic illness such as diabetes or heart disease and face that slow-motion death sentence. in fact, people with serious mental illness tend to die 25 years earlier than their cohorts and then there are the 10:32:23mentally ill who are victims of attacks. last week the "washington post" revealed how in the first six months of this year a person who was in mental health crisis was shot and killed every 36 hours by police. 10:32:39the vast majority were armed but in most cases the police officers who shot them were not responding to reports of a crime. more often they were called by relatives, neighbors or other bystanders worried that a mentally fragile person was 10:32:55behaving erratically. the crisis built and it ended in death. further, the mentally ill are more likely to be the victims of violence, robberies, beatings and rape and other crimes. these individuals are also 10 times more likely to be in jail than in a hospital. 10:33:11if you're a minority, chances are your mental health treatment comes in a prison, not in a mental health center. have we become so numb we no longer notice? are we so numb we no longer care? 10:33:26tragically government tries to help but frankly it's a mess. the chaotic patchwork of current government programs and federal laws make it impossible for those with severe psychosis, schizophrenia and 10:33:42serious mental illness to get care. for example, when someone is haunted by deleer yum and hallucinations and doesn't know they're ill they frequently stop taking their needed medication. they don't follow up on appointments and their health declines. our federal laws prevent a caregiver from getting their loved one to the next appointment or to follow up on 10:33:58their care. we need to provide treatment before tragedy and get these individuals help before their loved ones dial 911. the helping families and mental health crisis act, h.r. 2646, provides millions of families 10:34:15the tools needed for effective care. h.r. 2646 empowers parents and caregivers to access care before the mental illness reaches the most severe stage. it fixes the shortage of in-patient beds so patients in mental health crisis can get proper care, not be sent to a jail, not tied to an emergency 10:34:35room gurney and not sent home. it helps reach underserved and rural populations. it expands the mental health work force. it drives evidence-based care. it provides alternatives to institutionalization. it integrates primary and behavioral care. it increases physician volunteerism. it advances critical medical research, brings accountability 10:34:50to mental health and substance abuse parody and it also provides crisis intervention grants for police officers and first responders. this training helps law enforcement officials recognize individuals who have a serious mental illness and learn how to properly intervene. my bill eliminates wasteful and 10:35:08ineffective programs and directs money where it is needed first. it focuses on serious serious me mental illness 10:35:15mental illness rather than behavioral goodness that have no good results. my bill helps communities adopt programs to stop the revolving door of mental health crisis, 10:35:30violence, incarcerations, e.r. visits and abanned on thement. this bipartisan legislation, now with more than 50 co-sponsors, marks a new dawn for mental health in america. i urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by co-sponsoring the helping families of mental health crisis act, h.r. 2646. 10:35:46let's no longer turn a blind eye and instead help those that need it the most. whether on the fast road or the slow road, the 200 -- the 200-plus deaths per day, the 80,000 deaths per year, an 10:36:02unknown number of victims is far, far too often. compassion calls us to act and act now. the cost of delay is deadly. for those families who are suffering, how can we look them in the eye and defend our 10:36:17delays to act? i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. HOYER (D-MD):thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to 10:36:32revise and extend my remarks. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:without objection. HOYER (D-MD):mr. speaker, there are days in this house when morality and the values of our country as articulated in the declaration of independence and in the constitution of our 10:36:48country summons us to vote as americans. as moral representatives and representatives of the values 10:37:04of our country. today is such a day, my colleagues. three democratic amendments were adopted earlier in the consideration of the interior bill that would end the practice of displaying our selling confederate battle 10:37:23flags and flag merchandise in national parks and national park service cemeteries. those amendments were adopted by voice vote. they reflect the strong 10:37:39consensus in this country and hopefully in this congress that a symbol of slavery, is a digs, segregation -- sedition, 10:37:57segregation has no place in our national parks and cemeteries whose grounds have been hallowed by the veterans who rest there after having served and given their lives in defense of freedom and justice 10:38:13and the values of our country. unbelievablely, however, mr. speaker, several hours ago in the dark of night, the chairman 10:38:34of the subcommittee offered an amendment on this floor that would effectively strike those amendments which surely reflect the values to which all of us have risen our hand and sworn to protect. 10:38:51today on the anniversary of the ratification of the 14th amendment to our constitution, how ironic that we would meet this vote on this day which enshrined the principle of equality for all americans. 10:39:07we have this shameful confederate battle flag amendment on our floor. this amendment would keep in place the policy that allows confederate battle flags in our national parks and national park service sem fares. 10:39:24-- cemeteries. a symbol, as my colleague, jim clyburn, the assistant leader, and the chairman of the congressional black caucus, and an extraordinarily representative in south carolina said yesterday was so 10:39:46offensive and hurtful to so many millions of our fellow citizens and our fellow colleagues in this body. even in south carolina today 10:40:03where the confederacy was born, that flag is being taken down from are the state capitol grounds after both republican controlled houses of that state's assembly 10:40:16state's assembly voted to remove it. certainly, certainly on this day we ought not to see a republican-led congress move in 10:40:30the opposite direction. my colleagues, together, not as republicans and democrats, but as americans deeply committed to the values of equality and justice and opportunity for all , we ought to remove that flag 10:40:47from our national parks, the cemeteries where our veterans rest, and i would say further, all public places. that includes the united states capitol, and i support my friend, representative 10:41:02thompson's resolution that sits now in the house administration committee that would remove the flag of mississippi, which contains the confederate battle flag until such time as mississippiians, as south 10:41:18carolinians did yesterday make a statement and remove that from their flag. i urge my colleagues, my fellow americans, the 434 of my 10:41:39colleagues that have raised their hand and sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the united states of america, i urge my colleagues, let us do the right thing and reject this 10:41:55amendment and send a powerful message about what america truly represents, equality, justice, respect for one another, freedom for all. 10:42:13let us make america, every american proud of us this day and reject the amendment adopted in the dead of night. i yield back the balance of my time. 10:42:29THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. roby, for five minutes. ROBY (R-AL):thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about the negotiations taking place right now in switzerland over iran's nuclear capability. 10:42:45with all that's been going on lately, i fear not enough attention is being paid to what i believe is one of the most important issues facing our country right now. last week the obama administration quietly announced yet another deadline 10:43:00extension to the multilateral negotiations over iran's nuclear capability. and this week, negotiators blew past that deadline once again. of course, the goal for the united states and our allies must be to prevent iran from 10:43:17obtaining a nuclear weapon. however, recent reports out of switzerland have raised concerns that our negotiators have already conceded too much on major points like uranium enrichment, economic sanctions relief and inspection access. 10:43:33mr. speaker, the very fact that we keep extending the deadline tells you all you need to know about the priorities at play in this administration. it seems like president obama and secretary kerry are so concerned about striking a 10:43:49deal, any deal that they are unwilling to walk away from a bad one as deadlines keep passing. "the boston globe" reported that negotiators have spent their downtime speculating which movie stars would play 10:44:04them in a hollywood movie about the iran deal. if this is true, americans should be outraged. is this is an extraordinarily important issue that will have an extraordinarily far-reaching 10:44:21effect on this country and the world for many years to come. the fact is we've had extension after extension and concession after concession to the point that i'm not sure a good deal is even possible at this point. a few months ago i traveled to 10:44:36the middle east with the speaker as part of his delegation to the region and we visited countries that would be directly affected by dealing with a nuclear iran -- israel, jordan, iraq, saudi arabia. 10:44:54our allies in the region are rightfully concerned that what is being brokered isn't good at all. we cannot forget how high the stakes are here. if a bad deal is ratified, we aren't just talking about a nuclear armed iran. 10:45:09we are talking about setting in motion a nuclear race, a chain of events that could allow 10:45:16multiple countries in in very volatile part of the world wanting to become nuclear as well. and after seeing the international community reward iran's hostility and city nens with a nuclear deal, who would 10:45:31blame them? mr. speaker, i appreciate the leadership of my colleagues in this chamber and in the senate, and i agree with senator corker that the -- who is the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee who wrote a letter to the president quoting -- and i quote him now. 10:45:46walking away from a bad deal at this point would take courage, but it would be the best thing for the united states, the region and the world. . we may not be able to control the outcome in switzerland, but we can control how we respond if 10:46:03a bad deal is put forward. this congress can have the final say whether or not to lift sanctions in iran. it can have the final say on the deal itself by way of a resolution of disapproval. i believe members of congress must prepare to stand up and 10:46:19have the courage that it would take to stop a bad iranian deal from happening. for some, this will take a lot of courage, but it is necessary. we cannot allow president obama and secretary kerry to put their desire for a legacy achievement 10:46:40above the best interests of this nation and our allies. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. jefferies, for five minutes. JEFFRIES (D-NY):mr. speaker, had 10:47:06this federal battle flag prevailed in war 150 years ago, i would not be standing here today as a member of the united states congress. i would be here as a slave. over the last 150 years we made 10:47:28tremendous progress in this country, but we sell have a long way to go. at the tragic events in charleston, south carolina, illustrated, when nine god fearing, church going 10:47:44african-american citizens were killed by a white supremacist, there is much work that needs to be done to eradicate the cancer of racial hatred. 10:48:02when dylan roof committed this act of domestic terror, his emblem was the confederate battle flak. later today we'll have a vote on the legitimacy of this flag. on tuesday, it appeared that 10:48:19house republicans were prepared to do the right thing in support of three amendments to prohibit the use of federal funds for the purchase, sale, or display of the confederate battle flag on national park service land. but less than 24 hours later, 10:48:37house republicans reversed course. in the dead of night, under cover of darkness to introduce an amendment supporting the 10:48:52confederate battle flag. which is nothing more than a symbol of racial hatred and oppression. there are some in this who is 10:49:08who have made the argument that the confederate battle flag is about heritage and tradition. i'm perplexed. what exactly is the tradition of the confederate battle flag that 10:49:25we are supporting? is it slavery? race treason? genocide? 10:49:40or all of the above. the confederate battle flag is nothing more than a symbol of racial hatred and oppression. as i stand here with chills next to it, because of the red in 10:49:59this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by africans who were killed when attempted to be kidnapped. and thrown into the institution 10:50:15of slavery. 10:50:17the red on this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by millions of africans who died during the middle passage while being 10:50:37transported from africa to america. the red on this flag is a painful reminder of the blood that was shed by african-american slaves who were beaten, raped, lynched, and 10:50:52killed here in america as a result of the institution of slavery. what exactly is the tradition the confederate battle flag represents? 10:51:08we were sent here as leaders. to make decisions on the morality of america. 10:51:25where we are notwithstanding our painful history and the legacy of slavery, we have an opportunity today to make a definitive statement, to be leaders p not individuals who cowher in fear -- cour -- cower 10:51:46in fear who are unaware that the south lost the war 150 years ago. let's choose racial progress over racial poison. let's choose harmony over historic amnesia. let's choose togetherness over 10:52:03treason. let's come together not as democrats or republicans, not as whites or blacks, not as northerners or southerners, let's come together as americans and vote down the calvert 10:52:19amendment and relegate the confederate battle flag to the dust bin of history which is where it belongs. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins, for five minutes. JENKINS, E. (R-WV):thank you, mr. 10:52:35speaker. i rise today to honor the wyoming county west virginia chapter of students against destructive decisions, also known as sadd. the wyoming county chapter has been named the 2015 sadd 10:52:52national chapter of the year. consisting of 300 members from six different schools, these byo message county students work hard to encourage yng people to avoid underaged drinking, drurks 10:53:07and other destructive activities. wyoming county and the sr. rounding area, like many -- surrounding area like many parts of our state and country are limited in the number of youth programs and social services leading to temptations for many 10:53:26teenagers. sadd helps fill the void and is a positive force in helping students make positive life choices and avoid destructive decisions. these students represent our state's values and demonstrate 10:53:43compassion, commitment, and courage through their work. i know they will take the skills they have learned in sadd and become the next generation of leaders in west virginia. i congratulate these students and teachers and thank them for 10:53:59making wyoming county a better place to live. i yield back, mr. speaker. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum, for five minutes. 10:54:15MCCOLLUM, BETTY (D-MN):you pointed out i'm from minnesota. minnesota governor ramsay was in washington, d.c., shortly after the attack at fort sumter. and he was the first to offer up 10:54:30our support, 1,000 minnesotans to keep our union together. minnesota at the battle of gettysburg. a regiment that suffered 82% in 10:54:46casualties. the greatest loss of any unit at gettysburg on a single day. last night when republican leadership put forward a last-minute amendment that would allow for the display and sale 10:55:03of the confederate flag in our national parks, an amendment which we'll vote on today, that would allow this hateful symbol which invokes memories of racism and a 10:55:18and a painful period in our countries past to be displayed on public lands, i found myself shocked, outraged and 10:55:31disappointed because the people of minnesota sent me here to strive for what they strive for every day. to build a better, stronger america. an america in which we strive to give everyone hope and opportunity that they, too, can 10:55:47pursue life, liberty, happiness, and justice. to the flag that we are taking about is a symbol of a time when african-americans were enslaved, sold as human commodity. 10:56:02it had been used as a rallying cry throughout our history to those who wished to keep or country seggre getted. we a again last month in charleston this flag being used 10:56:18as a symbol for many who carry hatred in their hearts. a man who carried so much hatred he took the lives of nine parishioners because he viewed this flag as a symbol of his belief. this flag should be no point of 10:56:35pride for any american. and we should take this flag down. just two days ago without opposition, as i had the honor of being ranking member as we were doing the interior bill, this body voted to adopt 10:56:52amendments which would prevent the sale or display of confederate flags in national parks. those amendments were simple, commonsense efforts to place into law standards that the national park service had put forward last month. it was a moment of great pride 10:57:08for me. all those new standards will do is bring the federal government in line with desessions made by many private sector retailers. amazon, wal-mart, sears, disney, and other national retailers have all made the decision to 10:57:24take down this flag because of its racist history. private businesses are rallying behind a commonsense tea significance to stop -- to stop -- decision to stop peddling 10:57:42these symbols. how the republican cax would work to ensure that the federal government alos them to be sold? for who is republicans it appears, perhaps, the cost of getting the votes to pass the entiror, environment appropriations bill, which 10:57:57panders to polluters, is to wrap themselves in a banner of racism. i think that's wrong and i urge my colleagues to stand with people of great courage and great passion to say no to hate, 10:58:13no to racism, and yes to america. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the calvert amendment. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the 10:58:30chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee, ms. blackburn, for five minutes. BLACKBURN (R-TN):thank you, mr. chairman. i come to the floor today to discuss h.r. 2964, the clear law 10:58:48enforcement for criminal alien removal act. this is a bill that i have had and have introduced every congress since 2007. we have many members of the body, mr. chairman, who have 10:59:03joined as co-sponsors of this legislation. what it would do specifically is this. it would ensure that state and local law enforcement officials have the tools necessary to help the federal government deport 10:59:19criminal illegal aliens from the united states. my legislation would require the department of homeland security when a state or local law enforcement agency arrests an alien and requests d.h.s. to take custody of that alien to do 10:59:38a few specific things. number one, they have to take the alien into federal custody and incarceration within 48 hours. and request that the state or municipality temporarily incarcerate the alien or transport the alien to federal 10:59:54custody. this would allow them to remove this individual from the country and bar them from coming back. . 11:00:17to 11:00:18to reimburse, the federal government to reimburse local and state government and to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. now, we have heard a lot about these issues in the last few 11:00:32days, and one of the problems that we have is the sanctuary cities, and mr. chairman, i have for my colleagues a map that was prepared by the center for immigration studies. we now have in this country 200 11:00:51sanctuary cities, and i'm reading from this map, more than 200 cities, counties and states across the u.s. are considered sanctuary cities. now, what happens in these cities is they choose to work 11:01:10around and to circumvent or not to abide by federal law when it comes to immigration policy. that's one of the reasons passing the clear act is so important. holding them accountable. 11:01:25also reading from the map, i find it so interesting that the department of justice has never sued or taken any measure, including denying federal funds against a jurisdiction that is 11:01:40a sanctuary city. on the other hand, we know that d.o.j. actually sued the state of arizona for trying to strengthen its immigration laws. so i would come to the floor today as we talk about dealing with the criminal illegal alien 11:01:56population and highlighting h.r. 2964. i would ask my colleagues, what does your vote record say about your action? are you strengthening federal law and abiding by federal law, 11:02:12or do those actions strengthen sanctuary cities? do they provide more accountability? is that what you're providing through your vote actions, or is it something that allows a violation of federal law to continue? 11:02:27i think it is imperative that we address the issue of criminal illegal aliens, we address the issue of sanctuary cities and, mr. chairman, i think that it is imperative that we move forward with 11:02:46passage of the clear act by this body. it's a simple bill. i encourage my colleagues to read it. it's 21 pages, and you will find in there that it addresses these issues that are front and fort most in our minds today -- front and foremost in our minds 11:03:03today and i yield back the balance of my time. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes mr. clyburn for five minutes. CLYBURN (D-SC):thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i would like first of all to thank the speaker of this house and the other 11:03:18members who came to charleston last month to help us with the 11:03:35ceremonies for the senator. i'd also like to thank especially my colleagues, senator tim scott, senator lindsey graham, congressman 11:03:54sanford for joining with us as we stood with the governor of south carolina and called for removing the confederate battle 11:04:10flag from the grounds of the state house. this afternoon at 4 00, as a result of a very definitive vote early this morning of 11:04:2894-20, the governor's going to sign the bill, and tomorrow morning at 10 00, the flag will be removed from the state house . 11:04:43i regret that i'm not going to be able to accept the governor's invitation and be there this afternoon because around 4 00 this afternoon we're going to be voting here on this floor. 11:04:58i understand there will be around 25 votes, and 24 of them i might feel all that bad, but one of them i cannot afford to 11:05:16miss 11:05:19but one of them i cannot afford to miss because that one, the calvert amendment, votes taken 11:05:32by this body to join with south carolina, alabama and activities going on in mississippi, to get rid of any 11:05:51official application to this flag, the confederate battle flag. now, i think it's important for us to point out that this is 11:06:07not the confederate flag. the confederacy had three flags. this was never one of them. this flag is a flag, the 11:06:23confederate battle flag of the army of northern virginia. robert e. lee's army. and when robert e. lee surrendered he asked all of his 11:06:40followers to if you recall this flag. stow it away, he said. put it in your attics. he refused to be buried in his confederate uniform. his family refused to allow 11:06:55anyone dressed in the confederate uniform to attend his funeral. why? because robert e. lee said he considered this emblem to be a symbol of treason. 11:07:18yet, calvert puts up an amendment that we're going to vote on this afternoon to ask us to allow this flag to be sold and displayed in our national parks. 11:07:34i was so proud when the decision was made by the national park service. fort sumpter, a national park where the civil war started off 11:07:50the coast of charleston, south carolina, they decided to take away all of these symbols. but the calvert amendment is saying, no, don't take them away. put them back. and we are going to ratify the 11:08:07action to do so. i'm calling upon all of my colleagues to come to this floor this afternoon to remember that it is on this date in 1868 that south 11:08:26carolina, where it all started, south carolina was the state that gave the votes necessary to ratify the 14th amendment. to me, a very, very important 11:08:42amendment. full of due process and equal protection of the laws. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis, for five minutes. BILIRAKIS, G. (R-FL):thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it very much. 11:08:58mr. speaker, in march, before a joint meeting of congress, the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu, warned history has placed us at a 11:09:15fateful crossroads. as a world leader at the forefront of this crossroad, i believe america has a responsibility to prevent a nuclear iran. an iran with nuclear weapons capabilities would further exacerbate and destabilize the region and would certainly 11:09:31inspire an arms race among other nonnuclear nations. the obama administration's foreign policy missteps does not inspire confidence that the current negotiations will conclude any differently. 11:09:48after numerous delays, negotiations are veering further away from any type of reasonable agreement that would contain iran's nuclear ambitions. i do not trust this administration as it approaches the reversal of a half century 11:10:05of nuclear nonproliferation policy. as chairman royce stated over the weekend, the obama administration's fundamental mystery of the iranian regime is part of what makes this potential 11:10:19potential agreement so dangerous to our national security. the sanctions relief numbers that are being reported now are staggering and will directly undercut years of democratic 11:10:34success. sanctions are a vital tool when working to keep our citizens and allies out of harm's way. in dealing with an aggressive state sponsor of terror, there should be no daylight between the position of republicans and 11:10:52democrats in congress nor congress, with the president or the united states, with our allies. civilized nations must stand united against the destructive output from rogue regimes like iran. as it stands now, the reported 11:11:08details of the deal will not dismantle the nuclear ambitions of the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. if the past is any indication of the future, we can expect that iran will continue to employ its stonewalling 11:11:26tactics, blocking any real transparency or inspections of its nuclear facilities. why isn't iran answering questions asked four years ago by the international atomic energy agency about their past 11:11:41activities? how can we trust a country that won't answer simple questions or allow scientists to be interviewed? how can we set up a sanctions relief system that is based on trust and verification if the 11:11:56country has proven objectively incapable of trust and transparency? we certainly cannot continue to overlook iranian compliance failures, as reported this week in "the washington post," nor 11:12:11come anywhere close to lifting a successfully firmed arms embargo. these negotiations will have long-term implications on every country on this planet. i believe the united states has a responsibility to stand with 11:12:27israel and other allies across the globe now more than ever. we must ensure our allies know they do not stand alone. with the current negotiations extended once again, it appears that the administration simply 11:12:43wants to get any agreement. this administration, i believe it's a legacy item for the president, mr. speaker. this administration's willingness to ignore iran's 11:12:58troublesome behavior throughout negotiations does not inspire confidence. president obama promised seven years ago that he would not allow iran to develop a nuclear weapon. he is failing to keep that promise to the american people 11:13:13and the rest of the world, in my opinion. the stakes are too high. negotiations are reaching a critical moment as we speak here today. this administration needs to understand one indisputable 11:13:29truth, a bad deal is worse than no deal. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez, for five minutes. 11:13:44SANCHEZ, LORETTA (D-CA):thank you, mr. speaker. this year marks the 40th anniversary since the end of the vietnam war and 20 years of normalized relations between the u.s. and vietnam. and this week our president hosted the general secretary of the vietnamese communist party, 11:14:03tron, a political leader but not an official leader. and during that meeting, i know that the two leaders discussed more normalization of economic and military issues and i know 11:14:18that president obama brought up the issue of human rights, but i'm going to say this after 19 years in this congress of fighting for human rights around the world that the vietnamese communist government always promises when economic 11:14:34issues are on the table to do something better with respect to their human rights record but they never follow through. in fact, it gets worse. and so today, as the co-chair of the congressional caucus on vietnam, i don't want to focus 11:14:51on what the economic implications are and the trade implications are that are going on with respect to vietnam, but i want to remind my colleagues about what is happening with respect to human rights in vietnam. . 11:15:15win men is currently serving a known-year prison term after being charged with attempting to overthrow the government under article 59 of the stoogs 11:15:20contry. her crime? she was arrested he while taking photographs during a protest against chinese encroachment of the stratly island. 11:15:35a community organizer and contributing journalist for vietnam redemocraticorist news is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence for defending 11:15:51human rights and promoting democracy. he has been charged with attempting to overthrow the government. he is currently suffering from harsh treatment in prison including torture and dekneel to medical care, watt -- denial to medical care, water, and food. deng, another activist currently 11:16:08serving a 13-year sentence under article 79 in response to advocating for education. imagine this, for education for children living in poverty. for aid to people with disabilities. and for religious freedom in vietnam. 11:16:26he's also a victim of mistreatment and torture in the prison system. tran, a you human rights activist and proor, was alsoared for writing blogs that calendar 11:16:41for political reform and and improved human rights in vietnam. he only peace fle exercised his rights of freedom of expression, yet he was charged with attempting to overthrow the governmentnd article 79. 11:16:57he has been sentenced to 16 years in prison and five years of house arrest. these are just four of the so many people in prison in vietnam. the government of vietnam continues to deny its citizens 11:17:12the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. and although vietnam strives to further its relations with the u.s., it does not grant human 11:17:29rights to its people. so, i understand that president obama has agreed to visit vietnam in the near future, and i strongly urge that not only 11:17:45the president and the administration work on the issues of human rights with respect to the vietnamese people, about that we in the congress continue to patients' bill of rights because as we know, as americans, people around the world look to us as 11:18:01the shining light of upholding democrat is he and whoman rights and freedom and liberty, freedom of the press, and freedom of asemble. i yield back. thank, mr. speaker. soap the gentlewoman yields back. 11:18:16the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, for five meant. FRELINGHUYSEN (R-NJ):mr. speaker, we are quickly approaching one of the most important deadlines in the recent history of the national security of the united states. the often postponed end of 11:18:34negotiations to halt iran's nuclear weapons program. i support the goal of stopping iran's nuclear weapons ambition forever. and i have grave fears that the united states is headed down a very dangerous path of concession and surrender to a terrorist regime that has had american blood on its hands since 1979, military and 11:18:52civilian. each and every day we read new reports that iranian leaders are systematically moving the goal posts on these important negotiations. let me cite a few examples. first, any prudent agreement 11:19:07would allow no notice enspecials of suspected, not just declared, iranian nuclear weapon sites. yet the iranian plarlment has passed legislation banning inspections of their military installations. senior iranian officials have also taken it further declaring, 11:19:25i quote, not only will we not grant foreigners permission to inspect our military sites, we'll not even give them permission to think about such a subject, end of quotation. this attitude would make any agreement totally unverifiable. secondly, any worthwhile agreement would phase in 11:19:41sanctions relief as the regime proves over time it has complied with all provisions. yet president a hani has declared, i quote, we will not sign any deal unless sanctions are lifted on the same day. end of quotations. 11:19:59why would we allow iran to boost its staggering economy by providing an immediate capital infusion with which to support their relentless military intelligence and political efforts across the globe? president obama's explanations have been nothing short of 11:20:14baffling. he told national public radio, i quote, who if at all can you prevent aran from using its new wealth over the next 11:20:21wealth over the next several years to support assad of certificatea, to support hezbollah, van hollen toors in yemen or elsewhere? i mean, there's been no lessening of they are support 11:20:35for hezbollah or assad during the course of the last four or five years at a time when their economy has been doing terribly. end of quotation. if that's the point, mr. president. the united states should not throw up its hands and actually allow the iranian economy to be stimulated or have even more money to solidify their place as 11:20:51the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. immediate sanctions relief will only provide more resources for them to use and their proxy militias in iraq dominate that country, and advance their goals 11:21:07in syria, yemen, and elsewhere. of course they'll have more motivation to do so. the tentative agreement announced in april and everything we have heard and read since then seems to reinforce the lesson that this administration is willing to give away much more in return 11:21:25for nothing in the way of changing their behavior. once again we must never forget that iran has american blood on its hands since 1979. iran has cheated before and is likely to cheat again. yet the administration makes 11:21:41concession after concession to iran, even as iran has violence in syria and iraq and threatens our safety in the middle east and develops new icbms. 11:21:56my colleagues, iran's nuclear program weapons quest must be blocked indefinitely, including verifiable dismantlement of its weapons infrastructure. they cannot be allowed to remain a threshold nuclear weapon state only to join the nuclear club 11:22:12the moment the agreement lapses. from where i stand and what we know today, we must oppose this agreement. in fact, no deal is better than no deal. mr. chairman, i'd like to yield to the gentlewoman from texas. 11:22:29my remaining time. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentlewoman is recognized for one meant. JACKSON LEE, S. (D-TX):i rise to 11:22:45follow up, to ask america to be unified and to be able to have a debate on the floor of the house on a resolution that i offered, 342, and to the gentleman from 11:23:02new jersey, it says enhancement of unity in america. what it speaks to is for this body to go on record for saying that divisive emblems and symbols, swastikas, a rebel flag, a fighting flag, does not even represent the flag most people think it is, the 11:23:19confederate flag, this is a rebel flag. to put those away. to educate our children about the excitement of how diverse we are. to be reminded of history of reconstruction. african-americans who are senators and congresspersons. to look at schools who now carry names of people who really might 11:23:36be considered treasonous. to be able to stand on the floor today or next week as those in south carolina did in a civil way so that our children will know that these symbols that divide are not history. and to be able to stand together 11:23:53in supporting the diversity of america. that is what i stand for. and i stand with houston who is reconsidering many school names at this time. i yield back. i thank the gentleman for his kindness. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the 11:24:09gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. for five minutes. KILDEE (D-MI):thank you, mr. speaker. overnight house republicans have 11:24:27dramatically and inexplicably reversed their position on taking down terribly divisive symbol, the confederate battle flag. while they initially allowed house democratic amendments to remove this symbol from our 11:24:42national parks, late last night they allowed an amendment on voice which was challenged and now will be on the floor for roll call later today to keep, believe it or not, keep the confederate flag as a symbol for 11:24:57sale and for dess play in america's national parks. of course this morning's headlines, scathing headlines tell it all. house g.o.p. takes step back on confederate flag. unbelievable. 11:25:12it's a shame, it's really a shame that house republicans last night, very late last ni night, withou 11:25:21night, without warning, attempted to turn back important progress on taking down this terrible and divisive symbol. this of course happens just weeks, days literally, after 11:25:36nine americans were sleighed in an historic black church in charlton, -- charleston, south carolina, a terrible and tragic massacre committed by an evil individual who wrapped hem self 11:25:52in that very symbol. and celebrated the hate it stood for. i attended the funeral of reverend pinkney. with other members of congress grieved with that community in they are pain. and saw that community asking themselves a question, why? 11:26:07why does that hateful symbol, that flag, continue to fly over they are state capitol? so on the same day that the south carolina legislature expressed the will of its people 11:26:24and the american people and voted overwhelmingly to take down this horrible symbol, on the same day that south carolina voted to take down that hateful symbol, a member of this house 11:26:39of representatives came to this floor and offered an amendment to preserve that symbol in america's national parks. what a shame. it amazon, wal-mart, sears, all 11:26:55have taken that symbol out of their stores. no longer sell it. but the republican leadership allowed and would have allowed on voice vote an amendment to stand that would preserve the right to have that symbol sold in our national parks. what a shame. 11:27:11i hope the american people are watching and paying attention to this because it's a moment of truth, i think, for this congress. and i hope and i pray the democrats and republicans, i know the feelings of the 11:27:26democratic caucus we spoke about it this morning, but i hope we'll be joined by republicans on the other side in turning back this awful amendment that would say horrible things about the progress that we hoped that 11:27:42we had made just in the last few weeks. i ask americans to join us. use social media, hash tag take it down. express yourself. join with us in rejecting this horrible symbol of hate. 11:27:57let's take it down. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for five minutes. KING, S. (R-IA):thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to address you here on the floor of 11:28:12the house of representatives and being recognized. i have been listening to this debate over the last week or so and it's troubled me considerably to watch divisions being driven between the american people over symbolism 11:28:27that has now been redefined by a lot of members of the opposite party. i regret like all of us do in this country the tragic and brutal and evil murders of the nine people in charleston, south carolina. i pray for them and their 11:28:42families and they stood up and showed us an example of faith that i think surpasses any that i have seen in my lifetime by forgiving the killer. i'm not to that point in my faith, mr. speaker, at least that i can tell. but that was very moving. 11:28:58and they didn't want to see a division created. they wanted to heal. and they wanted to have -- they wanted to see christ's love come out of charleston. charleston is a wonderful and beautiful city, and i don't know where i'd go to find nicer 11:29:15people if i couldn't go home. i can't say enough good about that. but i have listened to this rhetoric that has poured for the over these days. -- forth over these days. it appears knee it is being turned into something that is division rather than unifying. we unified in our grief with the 11:29:30people of south carolina, the people of charleston, and now we are seeing the confederate battle flag be put up as a symbol to be redefined as something different than it's understood by the majority of 11:29:45the american people. i grew up in the north, mr. speaker, and the confederate flag always was a symbol of the pride of the south from where i grew up, my family, my predecessors, my ancestors, were abolitionists. they went to war to put an end 11:30:02to slavery. mr. speaker, i have in my -- now in my hand this is a leather bound new testament bible that was carried in the shirt pocket of my great uncle, john richardson, and it's written in side here, presented to him on the eve of his departure for the 11:30:18war in july of 1862. . 11:30:22and he walked home three years to the day with this bible in his shoirt pocket, having protected him. it has verses that are written in it. 11:30:36i found his picture, his muss can he tell, his bayonet, his belt buckle and his ink file. that's what's left of this man who committed himself to putting an end to slavery but his cousin, my five times great grandfather, was killed in that 11:30:51effort. many gave their lives to put an end to slavery. as i was standing before lincoln's memorial reading his second inaugural address, and i'll read this into the speaker. lincoln's second inaugural 11:31:07address, march 4,1865. fondly do we hope and pray, yet if god wills does it -- by the 11:31:22bondsman 250 years of unrecognize witted toil shall be sunk and every drop of blood shall be paid by another drawn by the sword as was said 3,000 years ago and so still must be said, the judgments of the lord 11:31:38are true and righteous altogether. mr. speaker, these are not disputed numbers. the numbers of americans that were killed putting an end to slavery and saving the union 11:31:55600,000. another number not disputed, the number of black africans who was brought to now the united states to be slaves, 600,000. i take you back to the words. every drop of blood drawn by the last shall be paid by another drawn by the sword. 11:32:11the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether. a huge price has been paid. it's paid primarily by caucasian christians. there are many who stepped up because they profoundly believed that me needed to put 11:32:26an end to slavery. this country has put this behind us. we bend through this brutal and bloody battle. we've gone back together through the reconstruction and we've healed this countries together, and i regret deeply that in a -- that we're 11:32:41watching this country be divided again over a symbol of free country. when i go to germany and they outlawed the swaths can, i say, we have the first amendment. we're open enough. we have to tolerate the 11:32:58desecration of old glory, the american flag. yet we have people saying they're offended by a symbol. they're the ones putting it up for all to say and they're saying we should outlaw that so the american people don't have a chance to see our heritage. everything about america's 11:33:14history is not glorious. everything about our history is not right in our judgment looking back in hindsight, but none of us know what it was like for those that lived during that time and that era. we can accept our history. we can be proud of our history. when unify our history. 11:33:29we can grieve for those who were murdered and we can preserve our first amendment rights. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. GREEN, A. (D-TX):thank you, mr. 11:33:46speaker. mr. speaker, there are seminole moments in time. the bombing of pearl hashon was 11:34:02a moment in time that will live in infamy. the crossing of the edmund pettis bridge was a similar knoll -- similar knoll moment in time. it was a turning point in the 11:34:18civil rights, human rights movement. there are moments in time. the house of representatives confronts a seminal moment in time. 11:34:33will we allow the healing to continue or will we try to roll back the clock? there are seminal moments in time. if we take this vote, and i hope that we will not -- 11:34:50there's indication we may not -- but if we take this vote, the taking of the vote itself can be a seminal moment in time. a vote to legitimize the confederate flag, the battle 11:35:06flag would be a seminal moment in time for the united states house of representatives. a flag that represents slavery, a flag that represents division 11:35:22we have come 11:35:23we have come together in this country under a flag that represents unity, one that stands for liberty and justice for all. the flag of the united states of america. this is not that flag. 11:35:39we confront seminal moments in time. in south carolina, the south carolina senate and house of representatives stood tall when confronting a seminal moment in time and the confederate battle 11:35:54flag will be removed. i was so proud to hear a relative, a descendent of jefferson davis, take to the floor of the house of representatives in south carolina and proclaim that the 11:36:10flag must come down. seminal moments in time. we have our opportunity to do that which is right, to do what dr. king talked about when he 11:36:25said, the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. we can bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice or we can turn back the clock, 11:36:42understanding that this is a symbol that cause loose of pain for a lot of people. this symbol would have 11:36:58prevented my having an opportunity to stand here if it had prevailed. i call upon all people of good will to please do the righteous thing, not just the right thing, do the righteous thing. how can you possibly vote for 11:37:17this after you saw the relatives of the nine who were killed stand in court before a judge and before the person who was the assailant, the person who actually killed people and 11:37:32say, i forgive you? we have forgiven those who have fought to enslave us. we have forgiven. i forgive you. how could you possibly now 11:37:50decide that you will legitimize this symbol of hatred, of slavery, of a bygone era, of a time when people were not even proclaimed to be human beings 11:38:05in the minds of many? so this is a great opportunity for this house of representatives to answer the clairian call of justice to do as dr. king indicated, to bend 11:38:21the arc of the moral universe toward justice, but it's also something else. it's an opportunity to see where we are. there will be a moment in time beyond this time when someone 11:38:38will look back upon these moments and they will look to see where we stood. where did you stand when you had the chance to stand for righteousness? where were you when you had an 11:38:54opportunity to vote to recognize justice as opposed to the injustice associated with this symbol? and i leave you with these words. harder yet may be the fight. right may often yield to might. 11:39:09wickedness may seem to rain and satan's calls may seem to gain. but there is a god that rules above to the hand of power and when we are right he will help us fight. i stand against this symbol. i stand for the american flag. i stand for justice. 11:39:24THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. POE (R-TX):thank you, mr. speaker. today the terrorist army of isis is stronger than ever. 11:39:42it mames, rapes, pillages, burns and beheads in its zeal to commit religious genocide against anyone who disagrees with them. isis controls and manipulates 11:39:57the minds of thousands of foreign fighters, including those that come from the united states. this is done arrogantly through american social media companies. the u.s.' answer to the isis threat -- well, let's see what 11:40:14it is. part of the current u.s. strategy is to train foreign mercenaries to fight against isis. it's had a year-long american 11:40:23it's had a year-long american budget of about $500 million. the program is to equally fund equipment and to train these so-called moderates from syria to fight isis. i call them mercenaries. 11:40:38however, the secretary of defense of the united states carter admitted that even after this one year of training the united states has only trained 60 -- 6-0 -- of these moderate 11:40:56syrian rebels. if i do my math correctly, mr. speaker, we are spending about $4 million apiece on these 60 fighters to go and fight 11:41:13supposedly isis. this is embarrassingly pathetic. the greatest nation that has ever existed sees isis as such a threat that we're going to send 60 folks to do -- to try to take care of them. 11:41:30ironically, there are more americans fighting with isis than we have rebels that have been trained to fight against isis. the united states obviously is not taking isis seriously. 11:41:45isis even mocks the united states and its 60 fighters on once again american social media. there is more. the president has recently 11:42:00admitted that the united states didn't have a complete strategy against isis. now, isn't that lovely? the question is mr. speaker, is isis a national security threat to the united states? that is the question. that is the question that has 11:42:16to be answered by the administration and by congress. and a decision needs to be made by the administration. it's time for the administration to pick a horse and ride it. if isis is a threat, then we 11:42:31must have a plan to defeat them. then actively implement the plan and defeat isis. mr. speaker, the commander in chief needs to lead. he needs to command or isis 11:42:48will continue its reign of terror in the middle east and other parts of the world and that's just the way it is. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, for five minutes. ELLISON (D-MN):thank you, mr. speaker. 11:43:04if there's any doubt in the mind of any person what this confederate battle flag stands for, i urge people not to listen to me. i urge you to listen to the successionists themselves. 11:43:20here's a quote from the declaration of the immediate causes which induce and justify the succession of south carolina from the federal union. it says, this sectional combination for the submergeon of the constitution has been aided in some of the states by 11:43:36elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy hostile to the south and destruction of its beliefs and safety. 11:43:52those persons from black people. that -- those persons were black people. that policy was ending the enslavement of millions of people based on their race. here's a quote from the vice president of the confederacy. 11:44:09i think he can speak authoritatively of what the symbol means. mr. vice president alexander stevens said, our new government is founded upon the exactly opposite of the 11:44:25american idea. its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. that is what the vice president 11:44:41of the confederate states said under banners like this one as they were fighting and offering the lives of their own children to maintain slavery. this is what the flag 11:44:57represents. and i hereby yield the remainder of my time to mr. cicilline. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman venged. -- is recognized. CICILLINE (D-RI):thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. last night the south carolina 11:45:13house of representatives finally approved legislation to take down the symbol of hatred and bigotry in the darkest time in our nation's history. it's shameful that less than 24 hours a hours after the 11:45:24hours after the state of south carolina took this important step for progress and equality, the united states house of representatives would consider an amendment that would allow the confederate flag to be placed in national park service 11:45:38cemeteries. let's be clear. this amendment is a symbol of hate and anyone who supports its being in a place of honor is imposing an insult on anyone who has experienced racism in their lives or believes in america's 11:45:54founding principles that equality, justice, and freedom. 150 years ago, hundreds of thousands of brave soldiers died to save our union and to defeat all the ugly beliefs that the confederate battle flag represents. dr. martin luther king was fond 11:46:11of saying that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. our country has come far since the end of the civil war, but returning this flag to a place of honor would undermine that progress. it's time to relegate this symbol of hate to the duft bin 11:46:29-- dust bin of history. take it down. with that i yield back the balance of my time. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:to mr. swalwell. the gentleman is recognized. 11:46:45SWALWELL (D-CA):i thank the gentleman from minnesota for leading on this issue. it must be throwback thursday because just yesterday the south carolina statehouse finally voted to take down the confederate flag. however, today our house 11:47:03republican colleagues, they want a bill, they want an amendment that will put that flag back up. and have -- allow people to salute that same flag across our country and national parks. it is time to finally once and for all take down an ugly flag 11:47:20that is nothing more than a tribute to an ugly past. mr. speaker, let's throw down this flag. let's not throw back to an ugly part of our history. i yield back. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman from minnesota. 11:47:36ELLISON (D-MN):i yield the balance of my time. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

2220 SENATE FS102 89 Trump Impeachment Trial, Day 1: The Senate recesses subject to the call of the Chair, sitting at 1:00 p.m. as a Court of Impeachment for the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, President of the United States, to consider S.Res 483, Organizing Resolution, considering House managers' and defense counsels' arguments for and against Schumer amendment #1284 (to subpoena certain White House documents), Schumer amendment #1285,(to subpoena certain Department of State documents and records), Schumer amendment #1286 (to subpoena certain documents and records from the Office of Management and Budget), Schumer amendment #1287 (to subpoena John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney), Schumer amendment #1288 (to subpoena certain Department of Defense documents and records), Schumer amendment #1289 (to subpoena Robert B. Blair and Michael P. Duffey), Schumer amendment #1290 (to prevent the selective admission of evidence and to provide for appropriate handling of classified and confidential materials), Schumer amendment #1291 (to subpoena John Robert Bolton), Schumer amendment #1292 (to provide that motions to subpoena witnesses or documents shall be in order after the question period), Schumer amendment #1293 (to allow additional time to file responses to motions), Schumer amendment #1294 (to help ensure impartial justice by requiring the Chief Justice of the United States to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents, voting on motions to table the amendments and adoption of the resolution. [12:19:58 AM] JERRY NADLER key junctures according to call records obtained by the house Mr. Giuliani connected with Ambassador Bolton's Office three times for brief calls between April 23rd and May 10th [ VIDEO STARTS HERE ]2019 a time period that corresponds with the recall of Ambassador Yovanovich and acceleration of Mr. Giuliani's efforts on behalf of President Trump to pressure Ukrainian to opening investigations that would benefit his re-election campaign for instance on April 23rd the day before the state department recalled in Basseterre Advantage from Ukraine missing Giuliani had an 8-minute 28 II quote from the White House 30 minutes later he had a 48 second call th the phone number associated with Ambassador Bolton it called to testify we can ask him back to the boat and directly what transpired in that call and whether that phone call informed his assessment that Mr. Giuliani was quoted hand grenade it was [12:21:00 AM] going to blow everyone up and we can ask Mr. Bolton why when there are approximately 1.8 million companies in Ukraine several hundred thousand of which I've been accused of corruption the president was was focused on only one hidden carbonating else he cared only about the company on which the former vice president's son have been a board member can you believe that he was concerned with corruption and only knew about one company when the hundreds of thousands are accused of corruption Noel go Ambassador Bolton did not listen in on the July 25th call between President Trump and president selenski in which President Trump asked the Ukrainian president a favor a favorite to [12:22:01 AM] investigate one company and Joe Biden son we have learned from witness testimony that Ambassador Bolton was supposed to schedule an equal in the first place why because he accurately predicted in the words of Ambassador Taylor that quote there could be some talk of Investigations or Worse on the call in fact he did not want the quote to happen at all because he quote thought it was going to be a disaster how did Ambassador Bolton know that President Trump would bring this up what made him so cceed that a quote would be a disaster I think we know but only Ambassador Bolton can answer these questions we also ow based on extensive witness testimony that throughout this period multiple people on the National Security Council staff report it concerns to Ambassador Bolton about tying Amican foreign policy to President Trump's quote domestic political errand as Doctor Hill so aptly put it [12:23:03 AM] after he abruptly end of the July 10th meeting the meeting in which Ambassador Sunland abruptly told the Ukrainians little white house meeting could be scheduled in exchange for the announce investigations Ambassador Bolton spoke to Dr. Hill and directed her to report it concerns the National Security Council is legal advisor John Eisenberg at the end of August Ambassador Bolton advised Ambassador Taylor to send the first person cable to secretary Pompeo to relay concerns about the hold on the military aid Ambassador Bolton also advised Mr Morrison talk to his successor as the top Russia and Ukraine official and the National Security Council at least two different occasions to report. Heard to thnaonal Security council's lawyers it sounding so suspicious on September 1st to report to the National Security Council of lawyers in explicit [12:24:03 AM] proposal from Ambassador Sunland to a senior Ukrainian official that quote what could help them move the aid was it the prosecutor-general would go to the bike and announced that he was opening the Charisma investigation close quote on September 7th Ambassador Bolton instructed Mr Morrison to report to the lawyers another conversation Mr Morrison had with Ambassador Sunland this time Ambassador something to convey the administration would not release the military aid unless president is Olinsky announcing investigations demanded by President Trump investigations of one company because the president was so concerned about the corruption in Ukraine one company that had had a Vice President Biden son on the board and the president just happened to pick that company from hundre of thousands to be concerned about corruption and the President also opposed [12:25:07 AM] funding for corruption in a to Ukraine why did Ambassador Bolton tell the subordinates to report these issues to the National Security Council lawyers what does he know about how the lawyers responded to the concerns of Dr. Hill or Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin and Mr Morrison these questions and we must go to the heart E president's misconduiv give me E esent's attempt to block his testimony why would the president impose the testimony of his own a appointee as a National Security Council and advisor National Security advisor the United States unless he knew that that testimony would be damning to him and those are other reasons the present fears Ambassador Bolton testimony I'd like to turn out to Ambassador bolt has knowledge of and concerns about President Trump's illegal [12:26:07 AM] withholding of the military aid to Ukraine and we all know of course then under the anti impoundment Act of 1974 past to prevent President Nixon from refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress withholding money appropriated by Congress is it illegal nonetheless the president did it for obviously correct notice by July of last year basketball was well aware that President Trump was illegally withholding security assistance to you Craig and he D S bordinates try to convince the president to pursue America's national security interests and release the egg instead of continuing to withhold vital military assistance to the present instead of holding that vital military assistance Hostage to the president's personal political agenda throughout the rest of July over the [12:27:09 AM] course of several interagency meetings National Security Council repeatedly discussed the freeze on Ukraine security assistance is National Security advisor Ambassador Bolton supervise that process these meetings work their way up to the level of cabinet deputies and every agency involved except for the Office of Management and budget supported releasing the egg omb meanwhile set its position was based on President Trump's Express orders we know that a number of individuals that omb and the Department of Defense raised serious concerns about the legality for using the funds which we know is illegal and we are now have explicit ruling from thgornnt accountability office which we didn't need because we knew it that's why the law was passed in 1974 that the freeze ordered by President Trump was illegal and he was obviously told this and violated the impoundment Control Act we also know that after the meeting of cabinet [12:28:11 AM] deputies on July 26th Tim Morrison talk to Ambassador Bolton and according to Mr Morrison Ambassador Bolton said that the entire cabinet supported releasing the fries and wanted to get the issue to President Trump as soon as possible when did Ambassador Bolton first become aware that President Trump was withholding military aid to Ukraine and conditioning the release of that 8 on Ukraine announcing political investigations what was he told was the reason what else did he learn about the president's actions of these meetings again only Ambassador Bolton can answer these questions and again we must presume that President Trump is desperate for us not to hear those answers I hope not too many of the members of this body are desperate to make sure that the American people don't hear the same answers we know that Ambassador Bolton tried [12:29:11 AM] without success throughout of August to persuade the president that the 80 Ukraine have to be released because that was an America's best interest and necessary for a National Security in mid-august we know Lieutenant Colonel Benjamin or the presidential decision memorandum recommending that the freeze be lifted based on the consensus views of the entire cabin the memo was given to prove to Ambassador Bolton who subsequently had a direct one-on-one conversation with the president in which he tried but failed to convince him to release the whole he said Ambassador Bolton had a one-on-one meeting with President Trump in late August 2019 but the president was not yet ready to approve the release of the assistants do yorember that there was this is 226 + 268 did I happen or did it not so I just want to be I want to be clear [12:30:19 AM] okay gesture I see Pastor Bolton inform you of any reason for the ongoing hold that stem from this meeting Ambassador Bolton is efforts failed omb informed. That there was quote clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold what rationale did President Trump give the Ambassador Bolton and other senior officials for refusing to release the egg Woody's reasons convincing to Ambassador Bolton and did they reflect the best interest of our national security or the president's personal political interest only Ambassador Bolton can tell us the answers a fair trial in this body would ensure that he testifies the president does not want you to hear Ambassador Bolton testimony why is that [12:31:19 AM] for all the obvious reasons I've stated the president claims that he throws a to Ukraine in the interest of our national security if that is true why would he oppose testimony from his own former National Security advisor and make no mistake President Trump and no legal grounds to block Ambassador Bolton's testimony in this trial and that executive privilege is not expelled the president can cash the cover of evidence of his own misconduct it is a qualified privilege that protects senior advisors performing official functions executive privilege is a shield and a sword that cannot be used to block wne W is willing to testify as Ambassador Bolton says he is and as we know from the Nixon case and what are the privileged also does not prevent us from obtaining specific evidence of wrongdoing the Supreme Court unanimously rejected President Nixon attempt to use executive privilege to conceal incriminating tape recordings all the similar efforts by [12:32:21 AM] President Trump must also fail depression sometimes realizing a theory of absolute immunity that says that he can order anybody in the executive branch not to testify to the house or the senate or to a quart obviously this is ridiculous and flatly rejected by every play every federal court to consider the idea it's embarrassing the president's council's will talk about this today and again even if President Trump to search the Ambassador Bolton is absolutely immune from compel testimony the president has no authority to block Ambassador Bolton from appearing here is one quart recently explained quote residents are not Kings and they do not have subjects who's Destiny they are entitled to control this body should not act as if the president is a king we will see with the next vote on this question whether the members of his body [12:33:22 AM] want to protect the president against all investigation against all suspicion against any crimes or not the framers of our constitution were most concerned about abuse of power where it affects National Security President Trump has been impeached for placing his political interests ahead of our national security it is imperative there for that we here for the National Security advisor who witnessed the president's game from start to finish to be clear the record as it stands fully supports both articles of impeachment it is beyond argument that President Trump mountain is sustained pressure campaign to get Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically and then tried to cover it up the president does not seriously deny any of these facts the only question left is this why is the president so intent on concealing the evidence and blocking all documents and [12:34:22 AM] testimony here today oy guilty people try to hide the evidence of course all of this is relevant only if this year today is a fair trial only a few the Senate sitting as an impartial jury do not work with the accused to conceal the evidence from the American people we cannot be surprised at the present of Jack's the calling Witnesses who would prove his guilt that is who he is he does not want you to see evidence to hear testimony that details how he betrayed his office and ask to find government to intervene in our election but we should be surprised that here in the United States Senate the greatest deliberative body in the world where we are expected to put our oath of office ahead of political expediency where we expected to be honest where we are expected to protect the interests of the American people we should be surprised shocked that any Senator would vote to block this witness or any relevant witness who might [12:35:22 AM] shed additional light on the president's obvious misconduct the president is on trial in the Senate but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people will you vote to allow all of the relevant evidence to be presented here or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror will you bring him back to the boat in here will you permit us to present you with the entire record of the presents misconduct or will you instead choose to be complicit in the president's cover up so far I'm sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a cover-up voting to deny Witnesses and absolutely indefensible. Obviously a treacherous vote a Trevor I vote against an honest consideration of the evidence against the president vote against an honest trial I vote against the United States real trial we know has Witnesses we [12:36:22 AM] argue to do to do to do your duty for me to Fair trial all the witnesses must be permitted that's Elementary in American Justice I do you want the truth where you and you must permit the witnesses or you want a shameful cover up history will judge and so will the electric abalone thank you mister chief justice members of the Senate we came here today to address the false case brought to you by the house managers sorry we've been respectful NADLER [12:37:23 AM] of the Senate we've made our arguments to you and you don't deserve and we don't deserve what just happened Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team he made false allegations against all of you he accused you of a cover-up he's been making false allegations against the president the only one who should be embarrassed Mr. Nadler is you for the way you've address this body this is the United States Senate you're not in charge here now let me address the issue of Mr. Bolton have [12:38:24 AM] addressed it before they don't tell you that they didn't bother to call Mr. Bolton themselves they didn't subpoena him Mr. Cooper wrote them a letter he said very clearly if the house chooses not to pursue through subpoena the testimony of Dr. Kuperman and Ambassador Bolton let the record be clear that is the houses decision and they didn't pursue Ambassador Bolton then they withdrew The subpoena to mister cup kupperman so for them to come here now and demand that before we even start the arguments that they ask you to do something that they refuse to do for themselves and then accuse you of a cover-up when you don't do it it's [12:39:27 AM] ridiculous talk about out-of-control government let me read you a quote from Mr. Nadler not so long ago the effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters there must never be an hour early voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other such an impeachment would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political political institutions what you've just seen it for yourself what happened Mr. Nadler what happened the American people pay their [12:40:28 AM] salaries and they're here to take away their vote they're here to take away their voice they've come here and they've attacked every institution of our government they have attacked the president the executive branch they have attacked the judicial branch they say they don't have time for courts they have attacked the United States Senate repeatedly it's about time we bring this powertrip in for a landing President Trump is a man of his word he made promises to the American people and he [12:41:32 AM] delivered over and over and over again and they come here and say with no evidence spending the day complaining that they can't make their case attacking a resolution that had 100% support in this body and some of the people here supported it at the time it's a farce and it should end Mr. Nadler you owe an apology to the president of the United States and his family you want an apology to the Senate but most of all you owe an apology to the American people I yield the remainder of my time to mister Sekulow [12:42:34 AM] Mister chief justice members of the Senate German Adler talk about treacherous at about 12:10 A.M. January 22nd the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at this party on the floor of the Senate said executive privilege and other nonsense now think about that for a moment executive privilege and other nonsense Mr. Lord is not nonsense Peter privileges recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States I just read the Constitution on the floor of the Senate to serve what purpose the Senate is not on trial the Constitution doesn't allow [12:43:36 AM] witches took place look what we've dealt with for the last now 13 hours and we hopefully are closing the proceedings but not on a very high note only guilty people try to hide evidence so I guess when President Obama instructed his attorney general do not give information he was guilty of a crime that's the way it works Mr. Nadler is that the way you were United States Constitution because that's not the way it was written that is not the way that you interpreted and there's not the way the American people should have to live I'll tell you what's treacherous come for the floor of the Senate and say executive privilege and other nonsense we hold the rest of our time managers have 27 minutes remaining [12:44:44 AM] is the Chief Justice members of the Senate president's Council has no standing to talk about lying he told his body today the presents told his body and to T American people repeatedly for example that the House of Representatives refused too loud the president due process I told you it's available public document November 26th letter from me as chairman of Judiciary Committee to the president or if we can do a process or offering Witnesses offering cross-examination few days later we received a letter from the on White House stationery they said no we have no interest no interest in appearing one hand they're lying because the house is condemned by the president for not giving him due process [12:45:45 AM] after they rejected do you offer due process that letter rejecting it was December 1st the president's Council says that the house should have issued subpoenas we did Issue subpoenas the present you may recall you should recall said he would oppose all subpoenas and he did so many of those subpoenas is still being fought in court subpoenas issued last April so that's also untrue and it's a heck of a nerve to criticize the house for not issuing subpoenas when the president said he would oppose all subpoenas and we've issued a lot of subpoena City opposes all of them and they're tied up in court the president claims and most [12:46:45 AM] members this body know better executive privilege which is a limited privilege which exists but not as a shield not as a shield against wrongdoing as a suemcourt specifically said in the Nixon case in 1973-74 the president claims absolute immunity Mississippi alone wrote some of those letters saying that the president not only saying that the president that nobody that he doesn't want to testify and then they have the nerve and that is a violation of the constitutional rights of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the American people is represented through them soon as an article print provocative only the president only the president has rights of the people is represented in Congress cannot get information from the executive [12:47:45 AM] branch at all this body has committees it has a 200-year record of issuing subpoenas of having the administration of the day testify I've sometimes having subpoena fights no president has ever claimed the right to Stonewall Congress and everything . Congress has no right to get information American people have no right to get information that in fact is Article 2 of the impeachment that we voted it is beyond belief if the president claims Monarca Go Powers I can do whatever I want under article to Sissy and then acts on that defies everything defies the law to withhold aid from [12:48:47 AM] Ukraine defies the law and a dozen different directions all the time and lies about it all the time and says he misses slip along here till I about it these facts are undeniable undeniable I reserved I reserved Mr. Cipolloni once again complain that we did not request John Bolton to testify in a spot of course we did we did request his testimony and he was a no-show when we talked to his counsel about subpoena his testimony the answer was you give us a subpoena and we will sue you and indeed that's what Mr. Bolton's attorney did with the subpoena for Dr. Kupperman so there was no willingness by Mr bolt to testify before the [12:49:48 AM] house he said he would sue us now what's the problem with his suing us well there justice department under Bill bars in court arguing actually in that very case involving Dr. Kuperman that they can't sue doctor government can't sue the administration and the Congress that's the same position that Congress has taken the same position the ministration is taking but apparently not the same position these lawyers are taken but here's the bigger problem with that we subpoenaed Don mcgahn as I told you earlier you should know we subpoenaed Don mcgahn in April of 2019 it's January of 2020 we still don't have a decision from a final decision from the court require him to testify in a couple months it will be one year since we should get subpoenaed out the present would like nothing more than for us to have to go through [12:50:49 AM] one year or 2-year or three years of litigation to get in a witness to come before the house the problem is the president is trying to cheat in this election we don't have the luxury of waiting one year or two years or three years when the very object of the scheme was to cheat in the next election it's not like that threats gone away lst last month the president's lawyer was in Ukraine still trying to smear Zappone still trying to get Ukraine to interfere in our election the person said even while the impeachment investigation was going on when he was asked what did you want in that call was Olinsky in his answer was well if we're being honest about it Zelinsky's to do that investigation to Biden's he hasn't stopped asking them to interfere you think the Ukrainians have any doubt about what he wants and one of the witnesses David Holmes testified about the [12:51:49 AM] pressure that Ukraine feels he made a very important point it isn't over it's not like they don't want anything else from the United States this effort to press Ukraine goes on to this day with the president's lawyer continuing the scheme as we speak with the present biting even other nations to also involve themselves in our election China he wants now to investigate the Biden's this is no intangible threat to our elections within the last couple weeks it's been reported that the Russians have tried to hack burisma why Y tnk they're happy burisma because Terminator says that everybody seems to be interested in this one company out of hundreds of thousands Ukrainian companies is a coincidence that the same company that the president has been trying to smear Joe Biden over happens to be the [12:52:50 AM] company of the Russians are hacking now why would the Russians do that well if you look back to the last election the Russians hacked the DNC and they started to leak campaign documents in a drip drip drip and the president was only too happy over a hundred times in the last couple months of the campaign to cite those Russian Hack documents so now the Russians are at it again this is no illusory threat to the Independence of our elections the Russians are at it as we speak and what is the present do is he saying back off Russia I'm not interested in your help I don't want for it to French now he's saying hey come on in China and he's got his guy in Ukraine continuing the scheme we can't wait a year or two years or 3 years like we've had to wait with Don mcgahn to get John Bolton in to testify to let you know that this threat is ongoing Council also says well this is [12:53:52 AM] just like Obama write this is just like Obama exciting I suppose The Fast and Furious case they don't mention to you that in that investigation to go by ministration turned over tens of thousands of documents I don't want you know about that they say it's just like Obama well when you find video of Barack Obama saying that under Article II he can do anything then you can compare Barack Obama to Donald Trump when you find a video of Barack Obama saying I'm going to fight all subpoenas and you can compare Barack Obama to Donald Trump and finally Mr. Cipolloni says President Trump is a man of his word well it's too late in the evening for me to go into that one except to say this President Trump gave his word he would drain the swamp he said he would drain the [12:54:55 AM] swamp and what are we seeing we've seen his personal or go to jail his campaign chairman go to jail his Deputy campaign chairman convicted of a different crime his associates associate lamp harness under indictment the list goes on and on that's I guess how you drain the swamp as you have all your people go to jail I don't think that's really what was meant by that expression but for the purposes oy why we're here today how does someone who promises to drain the swamp course an ally of ours it's doing a political investigations into that is the swamp that's not draining the swamp that's exporting the swamp are you back 005536 ROBERTS>> I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse. 005603 In the 1905 Swain trial, a senator objected when one of the managers use the word pettifogging. And the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used. I don't think we need to aspire to that high a standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are. [12:57:09 AM] Majority Leader is recognized surprised no one that I move to table the amendment and ask for the Asian nose the clerk will call the roll straw Alexander the small one Mr. Barroso Stu Bennett this is Blackburn Blumenthal blunt Mr. Booker Bozeman Strahan Mr. Brown disturber is Cantwell this is cappuccino Garden carper Casey Mister Cassidy Miss Collins [12:58:13 AM] Mr. Coons Mr. Cornyn Miss Cortez masto cotton Mr. Kramer Crapo Vista Cruise mystery games Miss Duckworth Mr. Durbin strategy Ernst Mrs. Feinstein is this picture nerdner this is Gillibrand Instagram Mr. Grassley is Harris is Hassan Mr. Holly Mr Heinrich [12:59:13 AM] Disaronno stroven Mrs. Hyde Smith Stratton Hall Steve Johnson Mr. Jones Mista Cain Mr. Kennedy stir King is Klobuchar Langford Mr. Lahey easterly this is Loeffler Worcester mansion Marquis Mr. Mcconnell Miss mcsally Sturman in Des Berkeley Mr. Moran is murkowski Mister [1:00:13 AM] Murphy this is Marie Mr. Paul stripper do district theaters Portland Esther Reed stretch Roberts Mr. Romney Miss Rosen. Mr. Rounds. Rubio. Mr. Sanders. Mr Sasse. Mr. Shots, Mr. Schumer. Mr. Scott of Florida. Mr. Scott of South Carolina. [01:00:51] Mr. Shaheen. Mr. Shelby. Cinema. Miss Smith. Stabenow. [01:01:08] Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chester. Down. Mr. tell us. [01:01:19] Mr. Toomey. Mr. Udon? Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Warner. There's Warren. Mr. Whitehouse. Mr. Wicker. Mr. Widen. Mr. Young. [01:02:43] The chamber who would like to change his or her vote. [01:02:47] If not, the yays are 53 and the nays are 47. The amendment is tabled. [01:02:52] We have agreed. The Democratic leader is recognized. Thank you, Mr.. Mr. Chief Justice. [01:03:01] I send an amendment to the desk to provide for a vote of the Senate on any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. [01:03:07] After the question period and I waive its reading warrant, objection to the waiving of the reading object. Read it. [01:03:21] There is I withdraw my waiver request for a waiver. [01:03:30] Is does any senator have an objection to the waiving of the reading? There is an objection. Yes. The clerk will read the amendment. [01:03:41] The senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment number 12. [01:03:45] Ninety two on page three. Line eight. Strike four hours and insert two hours on page three. Line 10. Strike. The question of and all that follows through rules on line 12. On page three. Line 14. Insert any such motion after decide on page 3. Line 15. Strike weather and all that follows through documents on line 17. [01:04:16] On Page 3. Line 18 strike that question and insert any such motion on page 3, line twenty through and 24 strike and the Senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify and insert and then shall testify in the Senate. [01:04:43] The amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. Mr. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent or opponent? [01:04:53] Mr Scipione A proponent or opponent like Mr Schiff. [01:04:57] You may proceed and may reserve time for rebuttal. [01:05:13] Senators, this amendment makes two important changes to the McConnell resolution. [01:05:19] The first is the McConnell resolution does not actually provide for an immediate vote even later on the witnesses that we have requested. Whether McConnell resolution says is that at some point after essentially the trial is over, after you've had the arguments of both sides, you had the 60 hours of questioning, then there will be a debate as to whether to have a vote and a debate on a particular witness. So there's no even guarantee you're going to get a chance to vote on specific witnesses. All. The resolution provides as you're going to get an opportunity to vote, to have a debate on whether to ultimately have a vote on a particular witness. This would strip that middle layer. It would strip the debate on whether to have a debate on a particular witness. If my counsel, my colleagues for the president's team are making the point, well, you're going to get that opportunity later. [01:06:23] The reality is, under the McConnell resolution, we may never get to have a debate about particular witnesses. Now, you've heard the discussion of four witnesses tonight. There may be others that come to the attention of this body if we're able to get documents that we should also call. But will you ever get to hear a debate about why a particular witness is necessary? Well, you may only get a debate over the debate. And so this amendment would remove that debate over a debate regarding a particular witness. The other thing that this resolution would provide is that you should hear from these witnesses directly. McConnell resolution says they'll be deposed. [01:07:06] And that's it doesn't say you're ever actually going to ever hear these witnesses for yourself. Which means that you, as the trials of fact, may not get to see and witness the credibility of these witnesses. You may only get to see a deposition or a deposition transcript or maybe a video of a deposition. I don't know. But if there is any contesting of facts, wouldn't you like to hear from the witnesses yourself and very directly now, the reason why it was done this way in the Clinton case, why there were depositions and again, in the Clinton case, all these people had been interviewed and deposed or testified before. [01:07:49] But the reason why it was done that way in Clinton is because of the salacious nature of the testimony. Nobody wanted witnesses on the Senate floor talking about sex. Well, as I said earlier, I can assure you that will not be the issue here. And so to whatever degree there was a reluctance in the Clinton case to have live testimony because of its salacious character, that is not an issue here. That is not a reason here not to hear from those witnesses for yourself. So this resolution makes those two important changes. And I would urge your support of it. [01:08:24] And I yield reserve. Mr Scipione. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. Mr.. Chief Justice. [01:08:52] Members of the Senate. Good morning. [01:08:58] I will be very brief on this. We strongly oppose the amendment. We support the resolution as written. We believe that the resolution as to the two areas that Manager Schiff discussed, the resolution appropriately considers those questions and strikes the appropriate balance in the Senate's discretion as the sole trier of impeachments. The rules in place here in the resolution are similar to the Clinton proceeding in that regard, in the sense that this body has the discretion as to whether to hear from the witness live, if there are witnesses at some point or not. But more fundamentally, there is a front. [01:09:45] The preliminary question has to be overcome, which is they will have two hours, four hours, total two hours for them to try to convince you after the parties have made their presentation, which they will have 24 hours to do, as to whether or not the preliminary question of whether it shall be in order to consider and debate any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. That was precisely the Clinton rules. That was it's actually stronger than the Clinton rules. I'm sorry. And those rules, as I've indicated before, passed 100 to 0. We think that the resolution strikes the appropriate balance and we urge that the amendment be rejected. [01:10:39] I yield my time. [01:10:42] Thank you, counsel. Mr. Schiff, you have 57 minutes. [01:10:50] Don't worry, I won't use it. [01:10:53] I would say only if there was any veneer left, any veneer left to camouflage where the president's counsel was really coming from. The veneer is completely gone now. After saying we're going to have that opportunity to have a vote on these witnesses later, now they're saying, no, no, no, you're just going to have a vote on whether to debate having a vote on the witnesses. The camouflage was pretty thin to begin with. [01:11:22] What? It's completely gone now? No. What they really want is they want to get to that debate, that generic debate about whether have a debate on witnesses and have you voted down. So you never actually have to vote to refuse these witnesses, although you've had to do that tonight. I don't see what that purpose serves, except, I suppose, to put one more layer in the layer in the way of accountability. But the veneer is gone. [01:11:53] All this promise about you're going to get that opportunity. Just a question of when. No, no, no, no. The whole goal is for your never get a chance to take that vote. And what's more, the vote on this resolution is a vote that says you don't want to hear from these witnesses yourself. You don't want to evaluate the credibility of these witnesses yourself. Maybe, just maybe, you'll let them be deposed, but you don't want to hear them yourself. You don't want to see these witnesses come in and put up their hand and take an oath. Now, I don't know what the rules of these depositions are gonna be. [01:12:36] Maybe the public isn't going to ever get to see what happens in those depositions. We released all the deposition transcripts from our depositions. Those secret hundred person depositions. But we have no idea what rule they'll adopt for these depositions. Maybe the public will see them. Maybe they won't. Maybe you'll get to see them. I assume you'll get to see them. But at the end of the day, this is also a vote that you're going to have to cast that says, no, I don't want to hear them for myself. [01:13:07] No, I don't want to evaluate their credibility for myself. This is, after all, only a vote. Only a case. Only at trial about the Peach Minute of the president of the United States. You have a bank robbery trial. You have a trial over somebody stealing a piece of mail. You're going to get live witnesses. But in impeachment, the president states. Now, we don't need to see their credibility. Is that really where we are here tonight? Is that what the American people expect of a fair trial? I don't think it is. [01:13:42] Are you back? [01:13:46] As justice majority leader is recognized. Move to table the amendment and ask for the agent. [01:13:52] Is there a sufficient second? There is. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Alexander. [01:14:01] Ms. Baldwin. Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Bennett. Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blunt. Mr. Booker. Mr. Bozeman, Mr. Braun. Mr. Brown. Mr. Burr. Ms. Cantwell. Mrs. Capital. Mr. Carden. Mr. Carper. [01:14:35] Mr. Casey. Mr. CASSIDY. Ms. Collins. Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn. Ms. Cortez, M.O., Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer. Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Danes. Ms. Duckworth, Mr Durbin, Mr Enzi, Ms. Ernst. Mrs Feinstein. Mrs. Fisher. Mr. Gardner. Mrs. Gellibrand. Mr. Graham. Mr. Grassley. Ms. Harris. Ms. Hasson, Mr Holly, Mr Heinrich. Ms. Hirono. Mr. Hoven, Mrs. Hyde Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jones. [01:15:56] Mr. Kane. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King. Ms. Klobuchar. Mr. Lankford. Mr. Leahy. [01:16:11] Mr. Lee. Mrs. Leffler. Mr. Mansion. Mr. Markey. Mr. McConnell. Ms. McSorley. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Merkley. Mr. Moran. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Murphy. Mrs. Murray. Mr. Paul, Mr. Purdue. Mr. Peters. [01:16:49] Mr. Reid. Mr. Rish. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Romney. Ms. Rosen. Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Shots. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Scott of Florida. [01:17:21] Mr. Scott of South Carolina. Mrs Shaheen. Mr. Shelby. [01:17:30] Ms. Cinema. Miss Smith. Ms. Stabenow. [01:17:37] Mr. Sullivan. Mr Tester. Mr Thune. Mr tell us, Mr Timmy. Mr Udall. Mr Van Hollen. Mr. Warner. Ms. Warren. Mr. Whitehouse. Mr. Wicker, Mr. Widen. [01:18:09] Mr. Young. [01:18:39] Is there any senator in the chamber who would like to change his or her vote? [01:18:44] If not, the yays are 53, the nays are 47. The amendment is tabled. [01:18:56] Democratic leaders recognize I send in an amendment to the desk to allow adequate time for written responses to any motions by the parties, and I ask that it be read. [01:19:06] The clerk will report. [01:19:09] Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer proposes an amendment number 12 93 on page 2, beginning on line 10 strike. 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 2020 and insert 9 a.m. on Thursday, January 23, 2020. On page two, line 15 Strike Wednesday, January 22, 2020. And Insert Thursday, January 23, 2020. [01:19:37] The amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent of this amendment? [01:19:50] Are you a proponent of this amendment? I am a proponent of chief justice. It's a simple owning. Mr. Chief Justice, I'm an opponent. OK. Mr. Schiff, you may proceed and reserve time for rebuttal if you wish. [01:20:10] Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. This amendment is quite simple under the McConnell resolution. [01:20:17] The parties file motions tomorrow at 9 a.m.. Written motions, that is, and the responding party has to file their reply two hours later. [01:20:32] That really doesn't give anybody enough time to respond to a written motion when the president's team filed, for example, their trial brief. It was over a hundred pages. We at least had 24 hours to file our reply, and that's all we would ask for in the Clinton trial again, if we are interested in the Clinton case. They had 41 hours to respond to written Moses. We're not asking for 41 hours, but we are asking for enough time to write a decent response to a motion. [01:21:04] That's essentially it. And I would hope that we can agree at least on this. I reserve the balance my time. [01:21:13] Mr. Secular. [01:21:17] Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate, so it seems like tomorrow is a day off according to your procedure, that correct decision today is tomorrow. Tomorrow's today. The answer is we're ready to proceed. We will respond to any motions. We would ask the chamber to reject this amendment. [01:21:39] Fifty nine minutes remaining. Mr. Schiff. [01:21:49] Thank you. [01:21:51] The majority leader is recognized as chief justice. Some move to table the amendment. [01:21:56] Is there a sufficient second? Yes, there is. The clerk will call the roll call Mr. Alexander. [01:22:07] Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Bennett. Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blunt, Mr. Booker, Mr. Bozeman. Mr. Braun. Mr. Brown. Mr. Burr. Ms. Cantwell. Mrs Capital. Mr Carden. Mr Carper. [01:22:44] Mr Casey. Mr. CASSIDY, Ms. Collins. Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cortez, Mastro. Mr. Cotton, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz. Mr. Danes, Ms. Duckworth. Mr. Durbin, Mr. Enzi, Ms. Ernst. Mrs Feinstein. Mrs. Fisher. Mr. Gardner. Mrs. Gillibrand. Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Ms. [01:23:40] Harris. Ms. Hasson, Mr HAWLEY, Mr Heinrich, Ms. Hirano. Mr. Hoven, Mrs. Hyde Smith, Mr. Inhofe. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Jones. Mr. Kane. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King. Ms. Club Cha. Mr. Lankford. Mr. Leahy. Mr. Lee. Mrs. Leffler. Mr. Mansion. Mr. Markey. Mr. McConnell. [01:24:31] Ms. Mixed Sally. Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley. Mr. Moran. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Murphy. Mrs. Murray. Mr. Paul. Mr. Purdue. [01:24:52] Mr. Peters. Mr. Portman. Mr. Reid. [01:24:59] Mr. Rish. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Romney. Ms. Rosen. Mr. Rounds. Mr. Rubio. Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sasse. [01:25:17] Mr. Shots. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Scott of Florida. Mr. Scott of South Carolina. Mrs. Shaheen. Mr. Shelby. [01:25:32] Ms. Cinema. Ms. Smith. Ms. Stabenow. Mr Sullivan. Mr Tester. [01:25:43] Mr Foon. Mr Tillis. Mr to me. Mr Udall. Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Warner. Ms. Warren. Mr. Whitehouse. Mr. Wicker. Mr. Widen. [01:26:07] Mr. Young. Ms. Duckworth. [01:26:44] Is there any senator in the chamber who wishes to change his or her vote? [01:26:50] If not, the yays are 52, the nays are 48. The amendment is tabled. [01:27:01] The Democratic leader is Mr. Chief Justice. On behalf of Senator Van Hollen, d send an amendment to the desk to help ensure impartial justice by requiring the chief justice of the United States to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents. I ask that this be it be read. This is our last amendment of the evening. The clerk will report. [01:27:25] The senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for Mr. Van Hollen, proposes an amendment number 12 94 on page 3, line 20, insert the presiding officer show rule to authorize the subpoena of any witness or any document that a senator or a party moves to subpoena. [01:27:42] If the presiding officer determines that the witness or document is likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment before the Senate after order. [01:27:55] The amendment is arguable by the parties for two hours equally divided. Manager Schiff, are you a proponent or opponent of the motion? [01:28:04] Mr Scipione Are you a proponent or opponent? [01:28:08] Mr Schiff You may proceed and reserve time for rebuttal. [01:28:21] Senators, this amendment would provide that the presiding officer shall rule to authorize the subpoena of any witness or any document excluding. The presiding officer shall rule to authorize the subpoena of any witness or any document that a senator or a party moves to subpoena, if the presiding officer determines that that witness is likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment. [01:28:57] It's quite simple. It would allow the chief justice, it would allow senators, the House managers, the president's counsel, to make use of the experience of the chief justice of the Supreme Court to decide the questions of the relevance of witnesses. And either party can call the witnesses if we can't come to agreement on witnesses ourselves. It would pick a neutral arbiter. That being the chief justice of the Supreme Court. And if the chief justice finds that a witness would be proactive, that witness would be allowed to testify. Chief Justice finds their testimony would be immaterial. That would this would not be permitted to testify now. It still maintains the Senate tradition that if you don't agree with the chief justice, you can overrule him. You have the votes. You can overrule the chief justice and say you disagree with what the chief justice has decided. But it would give this decision to a neutral party. That right is extended to both parties. It will be done in line with the schedule that the majority leader has set out. It's not the schedule we want. [01:30:13] We still don't think makes any sense to have the trial and then decide on witnesses. But if we're going to have to do it that way, it looks like we are at least let's have a neutral arbiter decide much as he may load the task, whether a witness is relevant or a witness is not. And. [01:30:36] We would hope that if there's nothing else we can agree on tonight, that we could agree to allow the chief justice to give us the benefit of his experience in deciding which witnesses are relevant to this inquiry and which witnesses are not. And without a reserve, the bounce my time, Mr. Secular. [01:30:59] Mr. Chief Justice, members of the Senate. And with no disrespect to the chief justice. This is not an appellate court. This is the United States Senate. There is not an arbitration clause in the United States Constitution. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. We oppose the motion. [01:31:16] The amendment, Mr. Schiff, you have fifty seven minutes remaining. [01:31:26] Well, this is a good note to conclude on because don't let it be said we haven't made progress today. The president's council has just acknowledged for the first time that this is not an appellate court. I'm glad we have established that this is the trial, not the appeal. And the trial ought to have witnesses and the trial should be based on the cold record from the court below, because there is no court below, because as the council has just admitted, you are not the appellate court. [01:31:54] But I think what we've also seen here tonight is they not only don't want you to hear these witnesses. They don't want to hear them live. They don't want you really to hear him deposed. They don't want a neutral justice to weigh in, because if the neutral justice weighs in and says, you know, pretty hard to argue that John Bolton is not relevant here. Pretty hard to argue that Mick Mulvaney is not relevant here. I just watched that videotape where he said he discussed this with the president. [01:32:27] They're contesting it pretty relevant. And what about Hunter Biden? Hunter Biden is probably the real reason. They don't want the chief justice to have to rule on the materiality of a witness. Right. What can Hunter Biden tell us about why the president withheld hundreds of millions of dollars from Ukraine? I can tell you what. He could tell us nothing. What is Hunter Biden know about why the president wouldn't meet with Presidents Alinsky? [01:32:59] He can't tell us anything about that. [01:33:02] Well, can you tell us about these Defense Department documents or OMB documents? What can you tell us about the violation of the law in withholding this money? Of course. He can't tell us anything about that because his testimony is immaterial and irrelevant. The only purpose in calling him. [01:33:20] Is to succeed in what they failed to do earlier in this whole scheme, and that is to smear Joe Biden by going after his son. [01:33:31] We trust the chief justice, the Supreme Court, to make that decision that he is not a material witness. This is this isn't like fantasy football here. We're not making trades or we shouldn't be. We'll trade you one completely irrelevant material witness that allows us to smear the president's opponent in exchange for ones that are really relevant that you should hear. Is that a fair trial? If you can't trust the chief justice. Appointed by a Republican president to make a fair decision about materiality, I think it betrays the weakness of your case. I'll be honest. There's been some apprehension on our side about this idea, but we have confidence that Chief Justice would make a fair and impartial decision, that he would do impartial justice. [01:34:34] And it's something that my colleagues representing the president don't. [01:34:42] They don't they don't want a fair judicial ruling about this. [01:34:49] You don't even want one that you could overturn. Because they don't want a fair trial, and so we we end where we started with one party wanting a fair trial and one party that doesn't. One party that doesn't fear a fair trial and one party that is terrified of a fair trial. [01:35:13] I yield back. [01:35:17] Majority leader is recognized as chief justice. Make a motion to table the amendment and ask, what is it? [01:35:24] Is there a sufficient second? The clerk will call the roll. [01:35:28] Mr. Alexander. [01:35:31] Ms. Baldwin. Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Bennett. Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blunt. Mr. Booker. Mr. Bozeman. Mr. Braun. Mr. Brown. Mr. Burr. Ms. Cantwell. Mrs. Capital. Mr. Carden. Mr. Carper. [01:36:07] Mr. Casey. [01:36:10] Mr. CASSIDY. Ms. Collins. Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn. Ms. Cortez, M.O.. Mr. Cotton. Mr. Kramer. Mr. Craig Poe. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Danes. Ms. Duckworth. Mr. Durbin. Mr. Enzi. Ms. Ernst. Mrs Feinstein. Mrs. Fisher. Mr. Gardner. Mrs. Gellibrand. Mr. Graham. Mr. Grassley. Ms. Harris. Ms. Hasson. Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. Heinrich. Miss Hirono, Mr. Hoven. Mrs. Hyde Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Jones. [01:37:25] Mr. Kane. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King. [01:37:33] Ms. Clover, Char, Mr Langford. Mr Leahy. Mr Lee, Mrs Leffler. Mr. Mansion. [01:37:47] Mr. Markey. Mr. McConnell, Ms. [01:37:53] McSally. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Merkley. Mr. Moran. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Murphy. [01:38:06] Mrs. Murray. [01:38:09] Mr. Paul. Mr. Purdue. Mr. Peters. Mr. Portman. Mr. Reed. [01:38:22] Mr. Rish. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Romney. [01:38:29] Ms. Rosen. [01:38:33] Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Shots. [01:38:47] Mr. Schumer. [01:38:52] Mr. Scott of Florida. Mr. Scott of South Carolina. Mrs Shaheen. [01:39:01] Mr. Shelby. Ms. Cinema. Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow. [01:39:12] Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Tester. [01:39:17] Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Udall, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren. Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Widen. [01:39:43] Mr. Young. [01:40:07] Is there any senator in the chamber who would like to change his or her vote? [01:40:11] If not, the yays are 53, the nays are 47. The amendment is tabled as chief justice. The majority leader is recognized. [01:40:22] I'd like to say, on behalf of all of us, we want to thank you for your patience. [01:40:26] That comes with the job. Please. [01:40:33] On scheduling, assuming there are no more amendments, the next vote will be on adoption of the resolution. [01:40:42] And then all senators should stay in their seats until the trial is adjourned for the evening. [01:40:51] Hers on Senate resolution for eighty three. [01:40:59] There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. [01:41:04] Mr. Alexander. [01:41:08] Ms. Baldwin. [01:41:12] Mr. Barrasso. Mr. Bennett. Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Blunt. Mr. Booker. Mr. Bozeman, Mr. Braun. Mr. Brown. Mr. Burr. Ms. Cantwell. Mrs. Capital. Mr. Carden. Mr. Carper. [01:41:43] Mr. Casey. Mr. CASSIDY. Ms. Collins. Mr. Coons. Mr. Cornyn. Ms. Cortez. M.O.. Mr. Cotton. Mr. Kramer. Mr. Crapo. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Danes. Ms. Duckworth. Mr. Durbin. Mr. Enzi. Ms. Ernst. Mrs Feinstein. Mr. Mrs. Fisher. Mr. Gardner. Mrs. Gellibrand. Mr. Graham. Mr. Grassley. Miss Harris. Ms. Hasson. Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Heinrich. Miss Hirono. Mr. Hoven, Mrs. Hyde Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jones. [01:42:55] Mr. Kane. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King. Miss Clover, Char. [01:43:04] Mr. Lankford. Mr. Leahy. Mr. Lee. Mrs. Leffler, Mr. Mansion. Mr. Murky, Mr. McConnell. Ms. McSorley, Mr Menendez. Mr. Merkley. Mr. Moran. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Murphy. [01:43:35] Mrs. Murray, Mr. Paul. Mr. Purdue. Mr. Peters. Mr. Portman. [01:43:45] Mr. Reid. Mr. Rish. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Romney. Ms. Rosen. Mr. Rounds. Mr. Rubio. [01:44:00] Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sasse. Mr. Shots. [01:44:08] Mr. Schumer, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina. Mrs Shaheen. Mr. Shelby. Ms. Cinema. [01:44:26] Miss Smith. Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sullivan. Mr Tester. [01:44:36] Mr. Thin, Mr. Tell us, Mr. Toomey. [01:44:42] Mr. Udall. Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Warner. Ms. Warren. Mr. Whitehouse. Mr. Wicker. Mr. Widen. [01:44:58] Mr. Young. [01:49:54] Mr Heinrich? No. [01:50:07] Is there a senator in the chamber who would like to change his or her vote? [01:50:11] If not, the eyes are 53, the nays are 47. The resolution is agreed to. The majority leader is recognized. [01:50:21] I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourned until 1:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 22nd, and that this order also constituted the adjournment of the Senate. Without objection, so ordered. 015035 The Senate is adjourned.

1630 HOUSE OVERSIGHT SOUTHER BORDER CHILDREN HRD FS2 82 HOUSE OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING HEARING IN RECESS FROM 1630 TO 1713 DUE TO VOTES Kids in Cages: Inhumane Treatment at the Border Subcommittees: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (116th Congress) Chairman Jamie Raskin The hearing will examine the impact of the Trump Administration's deterrence policies on the humanitarian crisis at the border, recent reports of dangerous conditions and medical neglect, and the lack of accountability for abuse and misconduct at detention facilities. BACKGROUND One of the hearing witnesses is Yazmin Juárez, who fled from Guatemala with her 19- month old daughter Mariee to seek asylum in the United States. They were held in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility for nearly three weeks, where the toddler became increasingly ill. Ms. Juárez repeatedly requested medical care, and her daughter was prescribed medication, but her condition did not improve. Mariee was immediately hospitalized after ICE discharged them, but died six weeks later. Ms. Juárez has filed a wrongful death claim against the U.S. government. REP. RASKIN'S OPENING STATEMENT WITNESSES Panel 1 Yazmin Juárez Asylum Seeker Panel 2 Michael Breen President and Chief Executive Officer Human Rights First Clara Long Deputy Washington Director Human Rights Watch Hope Frye Executive Director Project Lifeline Dr. Carlos Gutierrez, M.D. F.A.A.P. Pediatrics Private Practice Ronald D. Vitiello (Minority Witness) Former Chief, US Border Patrol Former Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement THE COMMITTEE RETURNS FROM RECESS 01:07:10 Jamie Raskin GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COMMITTEE WILL RECONVENE. I WANT TO THANK ALL OF OUR EXTRAORDINARY WITNESSES THAT HAVE COME TO BE WITH US TODAY. THE CEO OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST, THANK YOU FOR COMING. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALONG THE DEPUTY FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH. DOCTOR CARLOS GUTIERREZ, WHO IS A PEDIATRICIAN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND FROM OLD WHO IS THE FORMER CHIEF OF U.S. BORDER PATROL AND FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF I.C.E. I WILL BEGIN BY SWEARING ALL OF YOU IN. PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE US THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? BUT THE 01:08:18 Michael Breen RECORD SHOW ALL OF THE WITNESSES INJURED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD. WITHOUT OBJECTION, AND WITH THAT, YOU ARE NOW RECOGNIZED TO GIVE AN ORAL PRESENTATION OF YOUR TESTIMONY. THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS IMPORTANT HEARING AND FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY. FOR OVER 40 YEARS, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST HAS BEEN REPRESENTING ASYLUM SEEKERS AND THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM. WE HELP DRAFT THE REFUGEE ACT OF 1980. TODAY WE HAVE CLIENTS IN NEEDLESS DETENTION HAVE BEEN FORCED BACK TO MEXICO UNDER THE POLICY, WHO ARE STRUGGLING WITH ACCESS TO COUNSEL, WHO ARE DELIBERATELY DEPRIVED OF THEIR MEDICATIONS AND WHO HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF NO CRIME. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A BURGEONING HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS AT THE BORDER OR THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS WE ARE SEEING EVERY DAY. THIS IS A PREDICTABLE RESULT OF THE LIBERAL POLICY AND THE GROSS INCOMPETENCE BY THE ADMINISTRATION. THERE ARE BETTER ANSWERS. THERE ARE A TON OF BETTER ANSWERS. MY WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMITTEE ALONG WITH NUMEROUS REPORTS FROM ORGANIZATIONS BY HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST AND OTHERS LAY OUT A CLEAR PATH FORWARD THAT RESPECTS HUMAN RIGHTS AND SAFEGUARDS THAT NATION AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS. BUT RIGHT NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND KEEP THE PROMISE I MADE YESTERDAY IN JUAREZ AND EL PASO BEFORE I CAME BACK TO MY OTHER DAUGHTER AND PARENTS IN OVERCROWDED ROOMS BUT FEEL FAR AWAY FROM THIS ONE, INCLUDING A CHURCH SANCTUARY CONVERTED INTO THE SHELTER I PROMISED PARENTS TRYING TO GET BACK TO THEIR KIDS, PARENTS WHO LIKE MS. JUAREZ SPOKE OF THEIR CONTINUED BELIEF IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE ABIDING FAITH IN GOD. I PROMISED THEM THAT I WOULD DO MY BEST TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD TODAY. THE 18 OR 19-YEAR-OLD GIRL THAT STOOD UP IN A CROWDED IMMIGRATION COURT LOOKED AT THE JUDGE IN THE EYE WITH ALL OF THE COURAGE SHE COULD MUSTER AND ASKED THEM TO GET HER BACK TO HER DAUGHTER. SHE SURVIVED A RAID AT AGE 13 AND WHEN SHE REACHED THE BORDER TO SEEK ASYLUM SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE PROPER PAPERWORK. SHE WAS SEPARATED FROM HER 5-YEAR-OLD CHILD AND THEN SHE WAS SENT TO THE CBP DETENTION, THE SO-CALLED I.C.E. BOXES FOR 50 DAYS. THEN DROPPED OFF AND FORTH TO FEND FOR HERSELF UNTIL AFTER HER HEARING. THE JUDGE WAS POWERLESS TO DO ANYTHING BUT ASK THE THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES AND ATTORNEY FROM DHS TO MAKE A NOTE OF IT. SINCE THERE IS STILL NO SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR KEEPING TRACK OF SEPARATED FAMILIES AND MAKING SURE THEY GET BACK TOGETHER, WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOOD THAT FOLKS WILL DO. THE MANY REFUGEE FAMILIES I MET WITH HIM FOR AS INCLUDING A WOMAN WHO HAS REQUESTED ASYLUM WITH HER PARTNER AND TWO CHILDREN, THEY WERE TAKEN INTO THAT NOW INFAMOUS MAKESHIFT CAMP UNDER THE BRIDGE. AFTER ABOUT THREE DAYS IN TERRIBLE CONDITIONS, OR 5-YEAR-OLD WAS TOO WEAK TO STAND. SHE TOLD ME SHE BEGGED AN OFFICER FOR HEALTH. HELP ME, SHE SAID. MY CHILD IS DYING. AND SHE TOLD ME THE OFFICER REPLIED, AND I QUOTE, ARE THEY DEAD YET? THEM SHUT UP AND STOP CRYING. SHE SAID SHE AND OTHERS CALLED TELEVISION CREWS OUTSIDE FOR HELP AND WERE SENT TO A CAMP IN THE DESERT SHE DESCRIBED AS EVEN WORSE. THEY ARE, THEY WERE TOLD CONDITIONS WERE PUNISHMENT FOR TRYING TO TALK TO THE MEDIA AND THAT IF THEY TRIED IT AGAIN, THINGS WOULD GET EVEN WORSE. FINALLY HER DAUGHTER COLLAPSED AND LOST CONSCIOUSNESS. AT THAT POINT THEY WERE TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL AND TREATED FOR SEVERE DEHYDRATION. WHEN THEY GOT BACK TO THE CAMP, HER PARTNER AND HER OTHER CHILD HAD BEEN MOVED TO ANOTHER FACILITY. THAT IS THE LAST TIME SHE SAW THEM AND THEN SHE ALSO WAS LEFT IN MEXICO TO FEND FOR HERSELF AND HER CHILD WHERE I MET HER IN A PLACE WHERE KIDNAPPING, ASSAULT AND RAPE OF ASYLUM SEEKERS IS AN EVERYDAY OCCURRENCE. I COULD GO ON AND ON. THIS IS NO LONGER JUST ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE BORDERS. IT'S ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATION. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER THING. I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO WEAR THE AMERICAN FLAG ON MY SHOULDER WHEN I GO TO WORK EVERYDAY. I'M A PROUD MEMBERI AM A PROUD MEMBER OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT FAMILY. I SERVED AS AN ARMY OFFICER MYSELF. AND THROUGH MY YEARS OF TRAINING AND OF SERVICE, IT WAS DRILLED INTO ME AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT WHEN YOU WEAR THAT FLAG, YOU CARRY WITH YOU THE HONOR AND THE VALUES OF THE ENTIRE NATION. THAT YOUR CONDUCT DEFINES THE IDEALS AND MEANING IN THE EYES OF THE WORLD. INI SAW MEN AND WOMEN ALONGSIDE SCENIC SACRIFICES TO UPHOLD THOSE VALUES AND IDEAS. THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF US FILLED WITH WINE AND THOUSANDS CONTINUE TO TRY TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW. IT'S ALSO THAT THE CONGRESS THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES WILL STAND BY WHILE AMERICAN OFFICIALS ARE ORDERED TO CONDUCT A POLICY OF DELIBERATE CRUELTY AGAINST CHILDREN. STAND BY WHILE MEN AND WOMEN WEARING THAT FLAG ARE ORDERED TO PULL CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN MY OWN DAUGHTER OUT OF THEIR PARENT'S ARMS AND KNOWINGLY DELIVERED DEFENSELESS FAMILIES INTO THE ARMS OF CRIMINAL GANG TO SUFFER KIDNAPPING AND ASSAULT AND RAPE. THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA THAT IT WAS THE HONOR OF MY LIFE TO SERVE. I CANNOT BELIEVE IT'S THE AMERICA THAT THIS CONGRESS WISHES TO LEAVE AND I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE LEGACY ANY OF YOU WANT FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE. UNLESS YOU ACT, IT 01:14:13 Clara Long WILL BE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. ON BEHALF OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, I WANT TO THANK THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY IT INVESTIGATES ALLEGATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN MORE THAN 90 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD INCLUDING IN THE UNITED STATES. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE SENIOR RESEARCH ON IMMIGRATION HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND A DECADE OF EXPERIENCE COVERING BORDER AND IMMIGRATION ISSUES. SINCE 2016 I SERVED AS A DETENTION MONITOR AND CONSULTED WITH THE SETTLEMENTS LEGAL TEAM VISITING CHILDREN IN BROWNSVILLE TEXAS THAT IS NOW CLOSED FACILITIES AND IN HOMESTEAD FLORIDA THOSE HELD IN BORDER PATROL STATIONS AND MOST RECENTLY IN TEXAS. FROM JUNE 17 TO JUNE 19 OF THIS YEAR I WAS PART OF A MONITORING TEAM THAT INTERVIEWED CHILDREN IN BORDER PATROL STATIONS IN THE EL PASO AREA OF OTHER PROTECTIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT JUST A DECADES-OLD OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT OBLIGATING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO RELEASE MY CHILDREN EXPEDITIOUSLY AND TO ADHERE TO CERTAIN DETENTION STANDARDS. WHAT WE FOUND WAS OUTRAGEOUS. OUR INTERVIEWS WITH NEARLY 70 CHILDREN IN THE EL PASO SECTOR REVEALED THE U.S. BORDER PATROL IS HOLDING MANY CHILDREN INCLUDING SOME WHO ARE MUCH TOO JOHN TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES IN OVERCROWDED JAILS FOR WEEKS AT A TIME WITHOUT CONTACT WITH FAMILY MEMBERS CAN ACCESS TO SHOWERS, CLEAN CLOTHES OR TOOTHBRUSHES. MANY WERE SLEEPING ON HARD FLOORS AND MANY WERE SICK INCLUDING CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS TWO OR THREE WERE SEPARATED FROM ADULT CARETAKERS WITHOUT ANY PROVISION FOR THEIR CARE IF I'D HAD PROVIDED BY UNRELATED CHILDREN BEING HELD. I SPOKE WITH AN 11-YEAR-OLD BOY DURING FOR HIS 3-YEAR-OLD BROTHER. THEY HAD BEEN FENDING FOR THEMSELVES IN A CINDERBLOCK CELL WITH OTHER CHILDREN FOR THREE WEEKS. WHEN I MET THEM, THE LITTLE ONE WAS QUIET AND HAVE MATTED HAIR, A HACKING COUGH, MUDDY PANTS AND EYES THAT WERE FLUTTERING CLOSED. AS HE SPOKE HE FELL ASLEEP. I'M THE ONE WHO TAKES CARE OF HIM HERE. NO ONE HELPS ME TAKE CARE OF HIM. MY SON IS ALMOST THREE AND SOMETIMES WHEN I'M WITH HIM THESE DAYS I FIND IT DIFFICULT NOT TO THINK OF THE EXCRUCIATING MOMENT WHEN I HAD TO SEND THOSE TWO ALONE BACK TO THEIR CELLS. LIKE THESE BOYS NEARLY ALL THE CHILDREN I MET IN THE BORDER DETENTION WERE VISIBLY DIRTY, MUCUS OR MUD STAINED, THEY WERE NEARLY ALL WEARING THE SAME CLOTHES THAT THEY HAD WORN WHEN THEY CROSSED THE BORDER. THEY TOLD US THEY WERE NOT GIVEN REGULAR ACCESS TO SOAP OR TOOTHBRUSHES. THEY WERE GIVEN ACCESS TO SHOWERS ONLY ONCE OR TWICE IN A PERIOD OF WEEKS IF AT ALL AND UNSURPRISINGLY, INFECTIOUS DISEASE APPEARED WIDESPREAD. I WENT INTO THE SOUTH FOR SEVEN DAYS, I HAD A FEVER AND I WAS SHAKING. THE OTHER KIDS WERE VOMITING. THEY ALL HAD FEVERS. NO ONE WAS TAKING CARE OF THE KIDS WITH THE FLU. WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE SOUTH EVER BECOME A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL TOLD ME. WE AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN RAISING THE ALARM ABOUT THE DEPLORABLE HYGIENE, ABUSE AND MISTREATMENT OF THE BORDER PATROL DETENTION FOR SOME TIME BUT WHAT WAS UNPRECEDENTED IN THESE VISITS IS THAT THE AGENCY IS NOW NEEDLESSLY SUBJECTING CHILDREN TO CROWDED AND HUMANE CONDITIONS FOR LENGTHY PERIODS FAR BEYOND THE 72 HOUR LIMIT REQUIRED BY U.S. LAW COMPOUNDING POTENTIAL HARM. SOMETIMES WHEN WE ASKED WE ARE TOLD WE WILL BE HERE FOR MONTHS AT 114-YEAR-OLD GIRL WHO SAID SHE HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE FOR THREE WEEKS. DESPITE THIS, WE FOUND NO EVIDENCE ANYONE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO REUNITE CHILDREN WITH THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE UNITED STATES AND INDEED, MANY OF THE CHILDREN HAVE BEEN SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND WERE DEEPLY TRAUMATIZED AS A RESULT. THE OFFICERS TOOK MY GRANDMOTHER AWAY. WE HAVEN'T SEEN HER SINCE THAT MOMENT THREE OF THINKING ABOUT THIS MAKES ME CRY SOMETIMES. THE WORDS OF A 12-YEAR-OLD GIRL DETAINED ALONG WITH HER 8-YEAR-OLD AND 4-YEAR-OLD SISTERS. THESE ABUSES ARE NOT HAPPENING IN A VACUUM, BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THIS ADMINISTRATION TO PUNISH AND DETER ASYLUM-SEEKERS, INCLUDING BY RETURNING THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES TO MEXICO WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS. NO ONE SHOULD SUPPORT CHILD ABUSERS AND IMMIGRATION POLICY. CONGRESS SHOULD EXERCISE STRENUOUS OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE CHILDREN ARE QUICKLY RELEASED FROM DETENTION AND GUARANTEED SAFETY AND WELL-BEING WHILE DETAINED. TO BELONG TOGETHER FREE. TO BE PROMPTLY RELEASED WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORT IS THAT THEY APPEAR. ISSUING A BLANK CHECK TO EXPAND THE SYSTEM FOR THE CHILDREN WILL ONLY INCREASE THE 01:19:26 Hope Frye PERMANENT HARM ALREADY BEING SUFFERED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIR MAN, MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY BEFORE YOU. I AM AN ATTORNEY WITH MORE THAN 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE PRACTICING IMMIGRATION LAW. PLEASE TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON. I COORDINATE AND LEAD MONITORING VISITS TO THE CDP AND I.C.E. FACILITIES ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL. I SELECTED THE ATTORNEYS THAT WAS THE TEAM LEAD ON A MONITORING VISIT TO THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY BORDER PATROL STATION FROM JUNE 10 TO 14TH. WHILE PUBLIC ATTENTION IS FOCUSED ON HIDEOUS CONDITIONS THAT THE STATION IN EL PASO, THE SITUATION AT THE BORDER FOR SOMEBODY'S ELSEWHERE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE CENTER IS THE 2,017TH OF AUGUST SESSION BUT FOUND THEM IN VIOLATION FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FOOD, ADEQUATE ACCESS TO DRINKING WATER, ADEQUATE HYGIENEFOR ADEQUATE SLEEPING CONDITIONS AND BY KEEPING THE TEMPERATURE IS TOO COLD. THEY HAVE HAD TWO YEARS TO REMEDY THESE FAILURES AND WHAT HAVE THEY DONE? NOTHING. CHILDREN ARE STILL GOING HUNGRY, GIVING NON- NUTRITIOUS FOOD AND NOT ENOUGH. FOOD NECESSARY FOR INFANTS SIX TO 12 MONTHS IS COMPLETELY MISSING. WHEN THERE ARE BOTTLES AND FORMULA THERE IS NO WAY TO WASH THEM SO THEY BECOME CONTAMINATED. SOME OF THE BABIES WERE BREAST-FED. THEIR MOMS COMPLAINED COMPLAINED ABOUT INADEQUATE WATER TO ENSURE ENOUGH PRODUCTION. THE CHILDREN WE SAW WERE FILTHY, WEARING THE SAME WET AND MUDDY CLOTHING IN WHICH THEY TRAVELED. MANY WERE COVERED IN MUCUS AND VOMIT. THETHE BEES HAD SOILED DIAPERS, THE CHILDREN SMELLED FOUL. NO CHILD HAS WARM CLOTHES DESPITE THE EXTREME COLD IN THE HOLDING AREAS. BABIES WEARING ONESIES WITH NO SWEATER JACKET OR SOCKS. SOME CHILDREN SHOWERED WITH MANY HAVE NOT, BUT A 17-YEAR-OLD MOTHER WITH A SON HAD BEEN HELD MORE THAN 20 DAYS WITHOUT SHOWERING. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS THAT THESE CONDITIONS STILL EXIST. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ONLY ON THE RULE OF LAW AND IT IS TERRORIZING THE CHILDREN. INFLUENZA KILLED A BOY THREE WEEKS BEFORE OUR ARRIVAL AND WE FOUND NEARLY EVERY ONE OF THE CHILDREN WE MET SICK WITH THE FLU DIFFERING ONLY IN THE SEVERITY OF THEIR SYMPTOMS. I KNIT A 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL AND HER EIGHT -MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER. THE BABY WAS EXTREMELY ILL, LETHARGIC WITH A RASPY COUGH. SHE HAD A MILD COLD WHEN THEY ARRIVED BUT THEY TOOK THE BABIES MEDICINE AND CLOTHING. DESPITE THE FLU FOR WHICH THE ENTIRE FACILITY HAD BEEN UNDER RECENT QUARANTINE, THE BABY HADN'T RECEIVED ANY MEDICAL ATTENTION. AFTER RIGOROUS ADVOCACY BY THE COUNCIL, WE WERE ALLOWED TO BRING A PEDIATRICIAN INTO THE FACILITY. AFTER THE PEDIATRICIAN'S VISIT WAS ANNOUNCED, FIVE AND FIVE INFANTS AND WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE WERE TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL TO THE NATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT. WE BEGAN OUR VISIT ON MONDAY. WEDNESDAY NIGHT I GOT SICK. I HAD A FEVER OF 102.5, VOMITING, DIARRHEA, DEVELOPED A CONTINUOUS COUGH, THE SAME MANY OF THE CHILDREN HAD. I CALLED 911 AND THEY ORDERED ME ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL. I HAD INFLUENZA A. I CAUGHT IT FROM THE CHILDREN. I WAS PUT IN ISOLATION AND WAS GIVEN MEDICINE. THEY BEGAN RESPIRATORY THERAPY. I HAD A FIVE DAY COURSE OF TEN THE FLU. WE HAD THE SAME DISEASE THAT THEY HAD TO PLEAD FOR MEDICAL ATTENTION. IF THEY GOT IT HE WERE PROBABLY GIVEN SOMETHING FOR THEIR FEVER BUT NOT ALL OR MAYBE WERE GIVEN A FEW DOSES OF TEN THE -- TAMIFLU. THEY WOULD THEN TRANSMIT THE FLU TO OTHER CHILDREN. IT'S CHILD ABUSE, PURE AND SIMPLE LIKE THE CASE OF THE NEWBORN BABY AFTER TRAVELING FROM GUATEMALA HER MOM JUST 17 HAVE BEEN INJURED C-SECTION IN MEXICO. THE BABY WAS BORN A MONTH PREMATURE. AS IS THE CASE WITH EVERY MIGRANT WE SPOKE, MOM WAS FORCED TO THROW AWAY HER THINGS, THIS INCLUDED HER BACKPACK WITH THE BABY'S CLOTHING. THEY'D BEEN IN DETENTION SEVEN DAYS WHEN WE MET BACK, KEPT IN A FREEZING COLD CAGE WITHOUT SOAP, TOOTHBRUSH AND A SHOWER OR CLEAN CLOTHES. THE BABY WAS NOT RESPONSIVE AND AND LOOKED AT THE RISK OF DYING. IMMEDIATELY AFTER ENCOUNTERING THEM EITHER OF THE SENIORMOST ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SEE THEM. SHE WAS OBVIOUSLY DISTURBED AND TOOK THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO GAIN RELEASE TO A SHELTER. DESPITE THIS ADVANCE OF OTHER INTERVENTION, IT TOOK THE GOVERNMENT OVER TWO DAYS TO TRANSFER THE BABY AND MOM TO CUSTODY. THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT THE NUMBER OF ARRIVING CHILDREN IS DELAYING RELEASE FROM CBP AND CREATING THE SUBSEQUENT NEED FOR WAREHOUSE CHILDREN IN UNREGULATED INFLUX FACILITIES LIKE HOMESTEAD, BUT THE REAL COMFORT OR THE POLICY THAT SLOW THE RATE OF RELEASE FROM THE SHOULDERS BY IMPOSING RESTRICTIVE AND UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENTS THAT FAMILY SPONSORS. RATHER THAN PROVIDING FUNDS TO DETAIN ADDITIONAL CHILDREN, CONGRESS SHOULD BE WORKING TO ENSURE THEIR EXPEDITIOUS RELEASE TO THEIR FAMILIES WHO ARE FAR BETTER SUITED TO CARE FOR THESE CHILDREN THAN A GOVERNMENT THAT IS CAUSING THEM 01:24:57 Carlos Gutierrez M.D. SO MUCH HARM. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. DOCTOR GUTIERREZ. THINK YOU VERY MUCH CHAIRMAN RASKIN AND RANKING MEMBER MR. ROY. THANK YOU, SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS, CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU CONCERNING THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF WHAT I AM FACED WITH IS A PRIVATE PEDIATRICIAN IN EL PASO, TEXAS. IM AS YOU MIGHT SAY IN THE FRONT LINES OF TAKING CARE OF THESE MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN. AS A PEDIATRICIAN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY AGE LIMITS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF ADULTS AS WELL. LET ME TELL YOU HOW I GOT INVOLVED WITH DOING THIS IN THE YEAR 2014 WHEN WE HAVE A LOT HAD A LOT OF THE CENTRAL AMERICAN REFUGEES ARRIVE ON OUR BORDERS, AND AT THAT TIME THE BORDER PATROL WAS KIND ENOUGH TO ASK FOR OUR HELP IN THE COMMUNITY INTO THE COMMUNITY PHYSICIANS. THEY ASKED US IF WE WOULD BE PRESENT ON ARRIVAL WHEN THE REFUGEES WOULD BE ARRIVING AT THE BORDER DETENTION FACILITIES LAST OCTOBER WE HAD THE SAME INFORMATION WHEN WE BEGAN HAVING A LOT OF REFUGEES ARRIVING AT THE BORDER CITY, AND BEING NAIVE, I THOUGHT WELL OKAY LET'S DO IT THE WAY WE DID LAST TIME. WE DID A GREAT JOB TAKING CARE OF THE MEDICAL NEEDS OF THE REFUGEES. I APPROACHED INDIVIDUALS WHO I THOUGHT WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE US PERMISSION AND TOLD THEM WE HAD BETWEEN 50 AND 100 PHYSICIANS, PEDIATRICIANS, ADULT DOCTORS, OB/GYN, PHARMACIST, DENTISTS. WE WERE READY TO STEP IN AND DO WHATEVER WE COULD TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR NEEDS. WE WERE TOLD THANKS BUT NO THANKS. WE DO NOT NEED YOUR HELP, AND I WAS FLABBERGASTED. I SAID HOW THE HECK CAN THEY SAY THAT? I TRIED. I TRIED. I WENT TO THE CONGRESSMAN, LATER ON TO THE CONGRESSWOMAN TO NO AVAIL. WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE BORDER PATROL DETENTION FACILITIES. OUR FEELING IS A DOCTOR COME AS A PEDIATRICIAN A SPECIAL BECOME IF WE COULD GET THERE RIGHT AS SOON AS THEY GET THERE, THAT THEY WOULD ARRIVE TO THE CENTERS, WE COULD REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND PREVENT A LOT OF CATASTROPHES LIKE WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY IN SOME OF THE PAST DEATHS. WE PEDIATRICIANS HAVE TRAINED IN TAKING CARE OF KIDS FOR THREE TO FIVE YEARS JUST IN KIDS. WE KNOW HOW TO PICK UP SUBTLE SIGNS THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THIS KID IS GOING TO GET PRETTY SICK. BECAUSE A CHILD IS NOT A SMALL ADULT. A CHILD IS A CHILD. A PEDIATRIC PATIENT WHO CAN BE RUNNING AROUND AND PLAYING WITH A FEVER AND WITHIN A HALF AN HOUR CAN JUST CRASH ON YOU. IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO PICK UP THOSE SUBTLE SIGN, YOU ARE IN FOR A BAD OUTCOME. I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU THIS IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE BORDER PATROL, BECAUSE BORDER PATROL OR I.C.E. , THEY ARE NOT TRAINED TO TAKE CARE OF THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY MAY BE ABLE TO HAVE INDIVIDUALS LIKE EMTS COME INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN MAYBE TAKE A BLOOD PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE, BUT YOU NEED A DOCTOR RIGHT THERE, ESPECIALLY A PEDIATRICIAN TO PREVENT SOME OF THE CATASTROPHES THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. LET ME TELL YOU I HAD A CHILD THAT WAS -- THEY CALLED ME ON THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM THE SHELTER. A 2-YEAR-OLD, 105 FEVER, RESTLESS LIKE A RAG DOLL. I LOOKED AT HER AND IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE AMBULANCE FROM THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL TO PICK HER UP. SHE ENDED UP HAVING BILATERAL PNEUMONIA. I TALKED TO MOM AND SHE SAID SHE ASKED FOR HELP, BUT NO MEDICAL HELP WAS AVAILABLE. DAY IN AND DAY OUT I SEE THESE PATIENTS AND I ASK THAT DID YOU GET ANY MEDICAL HELP? IN MY EXPERIENCE, THEY EITHER RECEIVE LITTLE OR NO MEDICAL CARE AT ALL. AND WHAT REALLY PEEVES ME OFF IS THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GET INTO THOSE REFUGEE CENTERS TO TAKE CARE OF THINGS RIGHT ON, AT LEAST LET WHOEVER IS TAKING CARE OF THOSE PATIENTS COMMUNICATE WITH US ON THE OUTSIDE. I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD FOR YOU TO FATHOM, BUT WHOEVER IS TAKING CARE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS IN THE BORDER PATROL FACILITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMMUNICATE WITH US. WHAT'S THEIR EXCUSE? WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE PRIVACY OF THE REFUGEE. THAT'S A CROCK. THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT. THAT'S NOT THE WAY REAL MEDICINE IS PRACTICED. REAL MEDICINE IS WHERE A DOCTOR, IF THEY HAVE TO REFER SOMEBODY TO ANOTHER SPECIALIST, THEY CAN COMMUNICATE. IF THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED. IF THERE IS EVEN ANYBODY AT THOSE DETENTION CENTERS TAKING CARE OF THE MEDICAL NEEDS, NOT ONLY THAT, THE MEDICINES WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM WHETHER THEY HAVE A HISTORY OF SEIZURES, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, AS, DIABETES, THEY ARE TAKEN AWAY AND THEY ARE NOT GIVEN BACK TO THEM SO WHEN THEY ARRIVED TO OUR FACILITIES AT THE SHOULDERS OF THE SHOULDERS THAT WE WERE ATTACKED, THEY, THE PARENTS TELL US MY SON WAS ON BY SOME US ON THIS, THIS, WE HAVE TO GUESS WHAT KIND OF MEDICINE THEY ARE ON AND START ALL OVER AND AT LEAST GET THEM THROUGH UNTIL THEY GO TO THEIR FINAL DESTINATION. THIS IS NOT RIGHT. AT THE VERY LEAST I HOPE YOU WHO HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS CAN MAKE AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE. FIRST OF ALL, IDEALLY I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO ALLOW US IN THE COMMUNITY ACCESS TO THE SHELTERS. WE CAN MAKE A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE AND IT IS PRO BONO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH ANYBODY. THIS IS PRO BONO. SECOND, IF YOU WON'T ALLOW US INTO THE FACILITIES, THEN LET WHOEVER IS IN THEIR TAKE, GIVE US -- YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO GIVE US INFORMATION. WE HAVE SOMEBODY WITH CHICKENPOX, MEASLES OR WHATEVER SO THAT WE CAN BE AWARE OF WHAT WE ARE EXPECTING. THAT WOULD BE SO, SO BEAUTIFUL. THIS ISN'T A RIGHT-WING OR LEFT-WING ISSUE, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN. THIS IS A HUMAN BEING ISSUE AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS SO BASIC TO OUR COUNTRY, TO OUR HUMAN BEINGS. WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS THE WAY WE WOULD TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN CHILDREN. THEY DESERVE THE LOVE AND RESPECT THAT EVERY ONE 01:32:00 Ronald Vitiello OF YOU RECEIVED THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY REGARDING THE CURRENT CRISIS AT THE SOUTHWEST BORDER. LET ME START BY OFFERING MY CONDOLENCES TO NEWS JUAREZ. MS. JUAREZ. WE MUST CHANGE CONDITIONS THAT ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO TO THE BORDER. AS A BORDER PATROL AGENT IN LAREDO TEXAS A DIFFERENT TIME AND A DIFFERENT ORDER. LAW ENFORCEMENT KNEW THE THREATS OF DRUG AND ALIEN SMUGGLING, THE BORDERS WELCOMED ME AND AGENTS WERE THE ONES MOST CONCERNED ABOUT BORDER SECURITY. SECURITY. LET ME DESCRIBE THE SCENARIO I PARTICIPATED IN OCCURRING AT THE BORDER TODAY. IN MOST OF MY CAREER OF THE ILLEGAL TRAFFIC IN SMUGGLING WERE PEOPLE FROM MEXICO. WHEN ARRESTED, THOSE WITHOUT A HISTORY ARE VOLUNTARILY RETURNED WHICH IN MOST CASES OCCURS WITHIN HOURS OF THEIR ARREST. AFTER THE ARREST THE PERSON IS TAKEN TO A BORDER PATROL STATION THEM INTERVIEWED ON THEIR BIOGRAPHIC DEMOGRAPHICS AND SAFELY RETURNED TO MEXICO. WHEN SOMEONE FROM OTHER THAN MEXICO OR CANADA IS ARRESTED, THEY ARE SIMILARLY DETAINED THEM INTERVIEWED, BIOMETRICS AND RECORDS WERE TAKEN. TO CREATE A FINAL THAT IS USED FILE THAT IS USED TO PLACE THEM IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. THEY WERE THEN TRANSFERRED INTO I.C.E. CUSTODY AND PLACED ON THE COURT DOCKET. IN A FEW WEEKS THE CASE IS HEARD ALONGSIDE AN ASYLUM CLAIM AND THE COURT REFUSED THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND RENDERS A DECISION. THOSE ORDERED DEPORTED ARE HELD IN COLLABORATION IN THEIR HOME COUNTRY. WHEN AN UNACCOMPANIED CHILD COMES TO THE BORDER, THE PROCESS IS THE SAME AT CBP, INTERVIEW BUT INSTEAD OF CUSTODY, REFERRED TO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HHS. HHS. THE OVERSEA GUARANTEED TO OPERATE SHELTERS FOR THESE CHILDREN. THE SHELTERS THEY ARE CARED FOR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY CAN BE PLACED WITH FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE U.S.. WHEN FAMILIES ARE ENCOUNTERED AT THETHE BORDER THEY FACE A SIMILAR PROCESS. INTERVIEWED, FILE CREATED AND EVENTUALLY RELEASED. SO FAR THIS YEAR, CBP APPREHENDED 500,000 FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, MOST OF THEM RELEASED INTO THE UNITED STATES. AN AVERAGE OF 2,000 PEOPLE CAUGHT AND RELEASED EVERY DAY THIS YEAR. THE CATCH AND RELEASE SCENARIO IS ADDING THE EQUIVALENT POPULATION OF ATLANTA GEORGIA TO THE UNITED STATES SO FAR THIS YEAR. THE CATCH AND RELEASE PROBLEM IS INCENTIVIZING MORE TO LEAVE HOME FOR A TREACHEROUS JOURNEY THAT SUBJECTS THEM TO UNSCRUPULOUS SMUGGLERS, CRIMINAL CARTELS AND FOREIGN CORRUPT OFFICIALS. ONCE RELEASED IN THE U.S. , SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE MARGINS OF OUR SOCIETY. IN 2016 AND 2017 TO 20 MURDERS TOOK PLACE ON LONG ISLAND NEW YORK. THIS CRISIS WAS TO STATE, LOCAL AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS INCLUDING I.C.E. TO FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM COMPREHENSIVELY. AFTER MOVING AND ARRESTING THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL GANG MEMBERS, THE MURDER RATE DROPPED TO 90%. ONE THIRD OF THE FELONY ARREST EIGHT IN THE CRACKDOWN WERE GANGSTERS THAT ENTERED THE U.S. ILLEGALLY AS CHILDREN. THE BORDER SECURITY CRISIS AND CONDITIONS OF THE BORDER WILL ONLY IMPROVE IF THE FLOW IS REDUCED. I KNOW THIS IS THE CASE BECAUSE IN 2014 AND UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S LEADERSHIP, WE FACED A SIMILAR SURGE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF THE BORDER. THE PRESIDENT DECLARED AN EMERGENCY AND DIRECTED AGENCIES TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ADDRESS IT. CONDITIONS WERE BAD AND THE SYSTEM OVERWHELMED. THE 2014 SURGE WAS LESS THAN ONE FOURTH AS BIG AS TODAY'S. BORDER PATROL AND I.C.E. WERE GIVEN ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND USE THEM TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS. EFFECTIVELY, THOSE RESOURCES INTO THE CATCH AND RELEASE FOR FAMILIES. AS OF 2015 THE SEARCH OF THE BORDER ENDED. BECAUSE DHS BEGAN REPATRIATING THE FAMILIES THAT DIDN'T QUALIFY. WITHOUT THE REALLY SENSITIVE, OTHER WOULD-BE ILLEGAL CROSSERS ELECTED TO STAY HOME. WE CAN FIX IT TO THE TROUBLED BORDER OF THREE FOURTHS OF THOSE ARRESTED ARE RELEASED. WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS THERE ISN'T ONE THING THAT CAN FIX WHAT IS OCCURRING NOW. I URGE CONGRESS TO GIVE DHS AND COMPONENTS AUTHORITY, ABILITY TO END THE CRISIS. FIRST PASS LEGISLATION THAT FIXES THIS. THE WAY TO REDUCE THE FLOW IS TO CHANGE THE INCENTIVES. ALLOW DHS TO FAMILIES IN CUSTODY DURING THE IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS IF THEY ARE HELD IN CUSTODY FOR DUE PROCESS AND REMOVED AFTER THE DEPORTATION ORDER AND OTHERS WILL STAY HOME. SECOND I'M A FULLY FUND THE REQUIRED RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE HISTORIC MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOL. COURTS AND FACILITIES FOR MIGRANTS WAITING IN MEXICO TO QUICKLY HAVE A HEARING AND ADJUDICATE THEIR CASES. THIRD, PASS LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS FOR THEM TO BE TREATED UNDER THE LAW IN THE SAME WAY WE TREAT MEXICAN AND CANADIAN. FOURTH, REDUCED THE RHETORIC THAT BLAMES U.S. OFFICIALS FOR FATALLY ENFORCING THE LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS. AGENTS AND OFFICERS OF DHS TOOK AN OATH TO FOLLOW THE LAW. UEC MUST BE PROCESSED AND TURNED OVER TO HHS TO BE PLACED IN SHELTERED CARE. FAMILIES MUST BE PLACED IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RELEASE. THIS, FULLY FUNDFIFTH, FULLY FUND THE BORDER SECURITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PERSONNEL, TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSTANTIALLY MEET THE EXPECTATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR A SECURE BORDER. SIX, PASS LEGISLATION THAT SANCTIONS THE JURISDICTIONS FOR FAILING TO COOPERATE WITH IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT. SEVEN, FULLY STAFFED AND FUNDED THE IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT I.C.E. AGENCY. IF WE BELIEVE IMMIGRATION IS A BENEFIT TO THE COUNTRY, ENFORCEMENT IS REFUNDED. EACH OF THESE ITEMS ARE REQUIRED TO FULLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS AND UNCONTROLLED BORDER AND RESTORE INTEGRITY TO THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM THE CONGRESS AND STAND READY TO ASSIST WITH EXPERTISE AS NEEDED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I APPRECIATE IT. DOCTOR GUTIERREZ, LET ME START WITH 01:37:42 Carlos Gutierrez M.D. YOU. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ACCESS TO THE DOCTORS AND PHYSICIANS OUTSIDE OF THE SYSTEM HAVE TWO KIDS AND FAMILIES THAT ARE PRESENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF CENTERS? SINCE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED INTO THE DETENTION FACILITIES, OUR GROUP OF PHYSICIANS, THERE'S A CORE GROUP OF US HAVE SIX OR SEVEN OF US WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY-TO-DAY CARE OF THE REFUGEES. AND SO, ONCE THEY ARE RELEASED FOR THE BORDER PATROL FACILITIES, THEY ARE SENT TO SHELTERS AROUND THE CITY. THERE'S ABOUT 25 TO 30 SHELTERS IN EL PASO AND WE ARE CALLED, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THE SHELTERS. WHEN THEY ARRIVE AT THE SHELTERS, WE PHYSICIANS ARE CALLED. WE GO OVER THERE AND MAKE YOUR DAILY ROUNDS AND CHECK ON THE PATIENT'S. THE SICKEST ONES WE TAKE CARE OF THEIR NEEDS RIGHT AWAY. WE -- THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE CAN SEE ALL OF THEM, BUT AT LEAST WE PICK UP THE SICKEST ONES AND ACT ON THEM AS BEST WE CAN. AND IN OUR EXPERIENCE, THE SICK ONES FRANKLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PICKED UP WAY BEFORE THEY WERE HOUSED. THANK YOU. MR. 01:39:06 Michael Breen BREEN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF YOU COULD GALVANIZE PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL ATTENTION TO FOCUS ON IT IF WE COULD GET ONE THING DONE AT THIS POINT TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? I WANT TO ASK THAT OF ALL THE WITNESSES HERE. SURE. WE KNOW WHEN FAMILIES ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TO SEEK ASYLUM, THE APPEARANCE READ IN COURT IS 99%. WE SHOULD AND THE NECESSARY DETENTION. WE SHOULD MOVE TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WHICH DHS ITSELF PROTOTYPED AND IT ENDED IN 2017 VERY SUCCESSFULLY. AND WE SHOULD AND MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOL. IF YOU ALLOW ME I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOMETHING BRIEFLY. VIOLENT CRIMES SUCH AS MURDER, ARMED ROBBERY, CARJACKING, KIDNAPPING, EXTORTION AND SEXUAL ASSAULT IS COMMON ACTIVITY INCLUDING GUN BATTLES IN THE BLOCKADES WIDESPREAD. ARMED CRIMINAL GROUPS TARGET PRIVATE AND PASSENGER BUSES AND OFTEN TAKING PASSENGERS HOSTAGE AND DEMANDING RANSOM. RANSOM. FEDERAL AND STATE SECURITY FORCES HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY TO RESPOND TO VIOLENCE IN MANY PARTS OF THE STATE. THAT IS THE STATE DEPARTMENT ASSESSMENT OF THE SECTION OF MEXICO NEAR LAREDO WHERE DHS IS CURRENTLY DROPPING OFF ASYLUM-SEEKERS TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES ON A DAILY BASIS. IT'S 01:40:29 Clara Long A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION THAT NEEDS TO END IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. LONG, SAME QUESTION TO YOU. IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO IMMEDIATELY TO TRY TO RESTORE SOME ORDER AND SAFETY TO THE SITUATION, WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE US TO DO? OUR ENDORSEMENTS TO CALL TO END THE PROTECTION PROTOCOLS, BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE EASIEST WAY TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN DO NOT SUFFER HARM, MORE CHILDREN DO NOT DIE IN CUSTODY IS TO INVEST IN A RELEASE AND UNIFICATION CAN INVEST IN KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER, ENSURING THAT ADULT FAMILY MEMBERS STAY WITH CHILDREN WHEN IT IS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST, WHICH IT IS IN MOST CASES, TO ENSURE THE PERSON MAKING THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST IS NOT A BORDER PATROL AGENT WHO IS NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THAT DECISION BUT IS INSTEAD SOMEONE WHO HAS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN CHILD WELFARE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SUPPLEMENT 01:41:36 Hope Frye IS THERE IS AN AN OVERINVESTMENT IN INCREASING THE DETENTION SPACE, BUT AN UNDERINVESTMENT IN INCREASING RESOURCES DEDICATED TO THE RELEASE AND REUNIFICATION REUNIFICATION. SAME QUESTION TO YOU. .. I DON'T THINK THAT IS A MONEY ISSUE. I THINK THAT IS A RELATIONSHIP. WHAT WE NEED TO TURN ORR FROM A DETENTION AGENCY TO A RELEASE PROTOCOL AGENCY. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE SYSTEM OF CONTRACTORS THAT WE EMPLOY PUBLICLY TO HOUSE FOR LONG PERIODS -- MIGRANT CHILDREN TO SEE DO THEY HAVE ROBUST PROGRAMS FOR RELEASE OR ARE THEY THE INCENTIVIZED TO DO THAT BY THE PER NIGHT PER BED BUDDY THAT THEY GET. I 01:42:54 Carlos Gutierrez M.D. THINK FOCUSING ON RELEASE IN THE MANY WAYS THERE ARE AFFIRMATIVELY IS WHERE TO START. I WANTED TO GIVE THE TWO OTHER WITNESSES A CHANCE TO RESPOND. THERE'S TWO ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE SUBMITTED THE RECOMMENDATION AND BASICALLY WHAT I WOULD BE TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, THE PEDIATRICS AND THE NATIONAL HISPANIC ASSOCIATION STATED THERE IS NO ABUNDANCE OF PEDIATRICIANS, DOCTORS THAT ARE WILLING TO STEP IN, STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND PROVIDE CARE RIGHT IN THE FACILITIES BUT WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE, IN A DREAM WORLD I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU ALL TO TAKE ACTION TO ALLOW US ENTRANCE INTO THE FACILITIES SO WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THE MEDICAL ISSUES RIGHT AWAY AND SECONDLY, IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW US IN PLEASE HAVE WHOEVER IS TAKING CARE OF THE INDIVIDUALS, PLEASE LET THEM COMMUNICATE WITH US WITH WHAT IS GOING ON SO WE KNOW WHEN TO EXPECT A VERY SICK INDIVIDUAL SO WE KNOW HOW TO BE BEST PREPARED TO CARE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. THE OTHER THING, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THEIR MEDICINES AT THE VERY LEAST GIVE US A LIST AND WE RECEIVE THEM OF THE MEDICATIONS THEY HAVE BEEN ON SO WERE 01:44:21 Ronald Vitiello NOT GUESSING AND FOR ALL WE KNOW WE MIGHT GIVE THEM THE WRONG MEDICINE AND DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU CAN ACT AND ACT SOON. FIGURES MUCH. AS I SAID IN MY TESTIMONY THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE IN THE WAY THE LAW IS OPERATIONALIZE. WE DO NOT REDUCE THE FLOW THE CONDITIONS WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST AS THEY ARE NOW. WHEN YOU CAPACITY FOR SHORT-TERM DETENTION WHICH IS ONLY DESIGNED FOR 12 HOURS DAY, LEAVING LOTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE LOCATIONS. IF YOU DON'T REDUCE THE FLOW YOU CONTINUE TO GET THE SAME THING THAT WE'VE SEEN FOR THE LAST SEVEN OR EIGHT MONTHS. AS BAD AND GETTING WORSE. 01:45:08 Mark Meadows THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING WILL EXIST IN SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT TODAY BUT NEXT SPRING WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE WE ARE NOW IF THE LAW DOES NOT CHANGE. THANK YOU. HE RECKONED US FOR FIVE MINUTES. I THINK WILL GO FIRST. TO MR. MATOS. MR. MEADOWS HERE RECOGNIZE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I MISS YOU AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPERTISE BECAUSE FROM MY STANDPOINT YOU HAVE ALWAYS SHOT STRAIGHT WITH ME AND TOLD ME THE THINGS I DID NOT WANT TO HEAR AND PERHAPS THE THINGS I NEEDED TO HEAR SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPERTISE. I AM REALLY INTRIGUED AND WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO, ONE OF THE THINGS I THOUGHT ABOUT, SOMETIMES ACCESS WITH PRIVACY, THE POSITION SO THAT ANYBODY ELSE IN TERMS OF A PATIENT IN THE RIGHT PRIVACY. MAYBE WHAT WE CAN DO, I'M LOOKING FOR SOME OF MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SHORT-TERM, 12 HOURS OR LESS WORKING ON THAT, IF YOU GET WITH THE COMMITTEE AND WILLING TO WORK WITH SOME OF THE DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES TO HOPEFULLY MAKE SURE THE PEDIATRICIANS ARE ADDRESSING HEALTH CONCERNS AND WITH THAT ALL YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE RANKING MEMBER. CAN ANSWER. TELEMEDICINE IS GOOD BUT THIS IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT FOR WHAT WE ARE ASKING. TELEMEDICINE, YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE A PICTURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL -- 01:46:37 Chip Roy I LIVE IN THE MOUNTAINS, WE ARE HOURS FROM HEALTHCARE IN THE LINE OF TIME. I GET THAT, WHAT I'M SAYING SOME OF THE OBSTACLES AND WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU, LET'S HAVE SOME OF THAT AND WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. I GO BACK. THANK YOU THANK YOU TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA. THANK YOU DOCTOR FOR THAT. LET ME JUST ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. CAN YOU PAY A PICTURE A LITTLE BIT OF THE SCALE OF THE NUMBERS WE'RE 01:47:02 Ronald Vitiello TALKING ABOUT. COMPARE WHAT FACILITIES ARE DESIGNED FOR BY CBP, ALONG THE BORDER, WHERE WE WANT IN TERMS OF BY SECTOR. WHAT ARE THE CBP FACILITIES DESIGNED TO DO, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO HOUSE AND WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE? THEY SPOKE ABOUT THE FACILITY AND IT IS COMPLETELY OVERWHELMED. IT'S ONE OF THE NEWEST FACILITIES ONLINE AND DESIGNED FOR TAKING PEOPLE INTO CUSTODY FOR A SHORT TIME. MOST OF THE TRAFFIC BACK IN THE DAY WAS ADULT MALES FROM MEXICO. THEY WERE WITH US FOR THE SHORT TIME. IT'S DESIGNED FOR THE BOOKING PROCEDURE. TO TAKE THE METRICS AND BIO GRAPHICS AND MOVE PEOPLE DOWN THE LINE. BUT BECAUSE OF THE CRISIS IN 2014 WE WERE FORCED TO ADAPT THE FACILITY. URSULA WAS STOOD UP FOR THE FLOW IN 2014 WHICH IS A FRACTION OF WHAT IT IS TODAY. EVEN IN THE BEST OF TIMES WHEN YOUR 400% OVER CAPACITY YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE CONDITIONS AND HAVE PEOPLE SAFE AND THAT SCENARIO IN ANY WAY. THESE FACILITIES WERE DESIGNED FOR THE BOOKING PROCEDURE, THE NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD LARGE NUMBERS OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN. WITH THIS KIND OF FLOW THERE OVERWHELMED. REALLY QUICKLY, THE PICTURE WE ARE PUTTING IN WHICH WAS FROM 2014 WHICH I WOULD AGAIN REMIND MY COLLEAGUES IT WAS USED AS A PICTURE TO TALK ABOUT KIDS IN CAGES FOR MARKETING THIS HEARING WITH RESPECT TO CURRENT CONDITIONS. THIS IS WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN 2014 IN RESPONSE TO THE UNACCOMPANIED CRISIS. CHILDREN RIDING ON TOPIC TRAIN CARS, AND THE RESPONSE BY SECRETARY JOHNSON AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON WHAT WE DO. WE DON'T HAVE ANY FACILITIES. THERE UNACCOMPANIED. WHAT DO WE DO THEM. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FACILITIES AND THE PROBLEM OF DEALING WITH CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT WITH PARENTS IN ENSURING THEY ARE SAFE AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF WHO WE GIVE THEM TO KATIE TALK ABOUT THE. BY LAW UNDER THE LAW TREATS UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN TO MUST BE PLACED OVER THE HHS TO FAMILIES IN THE UNITED 01:49:25 Chip Roy STATES. WE HAVE ADAPTED FOR THE CRISIS OCCURRING IN 2014. IT WAS MUCH SMALLER THAN WHAT WE FACE TODAY. THE OTHER THING THEY DID UNDER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THE ICE HELP THEM WITH WAS ESTABLISHED THE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CENTERS. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO DO IMMIGRATION DETENTION, WHEN THEY DID THAT FIRST IN ARTESIA AND NOW HERE, THE TRAFFIC DRIED UP, PEOPLE STOP COMING WITH THEIR CHILDREN. ARE YOU AWARE, I'VE BEEN TOLD AND I WANT TO SEE IF THIS MEETS YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE 700,000 INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN APPREHENDED, COMING BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY OR DEALT WITH AT THE POINT OF ENTRY. THAT 700,000 ROUGHLY HALF OF FAMILY UNITS AND FOR THE MOST PART THOSE FAMILY UNITS ARE BEING CAUGHT IN RELEASE. IN RELATIVELY QUICKLY TODAY BECAUSE OF THE NUMBERS WE'RE 01:50:11 Ronald Vitiello DEALING WITH AN ROUGHLY 60000 OR SO UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN IN THE REST ARE SINGLE ADULT IN ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS KEEPING SINGLE ADULT FROM THE CHILDREN ESPECIALLY THE SINGLE ADULT FALSELY CLAIMING TO BE THE PARENTS. CAN YOU TALK WITH YOU THAT I AM NOT A DIME TIME. THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THE SINGLE ADULT POPULATION. THEY ARE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AT CBP PROCESS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. PRIORITIZE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FIRST AND EVENTUALLY WE GET TO THE PROCESSING OF SINGLE ADULTS, HANDED OVER TO ICE FOR DETENTION AND WATER IN THEIR EAR DETAIN DOCKET AND THEY GET TO IMMIGRATION HEARING 01:50:52 Robin Kelly QUICKLY AND WHEN THEY GET RELEASED WE WELCOME THEM TO THE UNITED STATES AND WHEN THEY'RE NOT RELEASED THE COOPERATION OF THE COUNTRIES THEREFROM. THANK YOU VERY 01:51:04 Ronald Vitiello Ronald Vitiello MUCH. MS. KELLY YOU ARE RECKLESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WHEN I LISTED BACK TO GUTIERREZ, WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL TO YOU IF PEDIATRICIANS IN THE COMMUNITY COULD COME IN AND IF THERE WAS SOME WAY WE CAN WORK THAT OUT. DO YOU THINK THAT IS A GOOD IDEA? IN THIS ROLE I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OR CBP, BUT IT'S WHAT 14 IT WAS HELPFUL IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST THAT JUST AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS UNDER THE PRESIDENT, THERE IS MONEY FOR CBP TO PUT ON MORE CONTRACT MEDICAL STAFF IN IN THE BEGINNING OF THE CRISIS WE STARTED WITH USING SUPPORT FROM THE COAST GUARD IN THE OWN ABILITY TO CONTRACT. IT SOUNDS LIKE A COMMONSENSE 01:51:50 Robin Kelly IDEA. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE IDEA. THERE IS RESTRICTION ABOUT PEOPLE PRIVACY. WITHIN THE CUSTODY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND TO THE PRIVACY SCENARIO THEREIN, THE MEDICAL CARE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT. I THINK IT'S A COMMONSENSE IDEA WORTH PURSUING. I'M SURE WITH THE WITNESS WE JUST HAD SHE WOULD APPRECIATED THAT. ALSO THE OTHER THING, SINCE YOU HAVE AN INCREASE OF CHILDREN AND WHAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT ARE THE OFFICERS GETTING ANYWHERE 2:10:41 Ronald Vitiello TRAINING OR HOW ARE THEY DOING? THEY ARE PARENTS AND UNCLES AND AUNTS AND THEY HAVE KIDS AND THAT KIND OF THING. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEIR OVERWORKED. THERE ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMED. THE BOARD WILL AGENT THAT I CARE ABOUT ARE PASSIONATE PEOPLE THERE IN A SITUATION THEY DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE IN. THERE OVERWHELMED BY THE PARTICULAR MISSION ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY 40% OF THE WORKFORCE ARE ASSIGNED TO THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN AND PEOPLE IN CUSTODY. THAT MEANS 40% LESS DEPLOYED AGENTS ALONG THE BORDER. THEY DID NOT SIGN UP TO DO THIS MISSION AND YOU HEARD TODAY THEY ARE PARTICULARLY TRYING AS HARD AS THEY CAN, THE BEST THEY CAN UNDER THE SITUATION. YOU HAVE TO BE DEMORALIZED. THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN IN A WHILE, WHAT I RECOGNIZE THERE IS NO HELP COMING, IF WE DON'T CHANGE THE LAW THIS FLOW WILL CONTINUE AND CONTINUE UNTIL SOMETHING CHANGES. I'M ASSUMING YOU WOULD SAY THE NEGATIVE THINGS WE ARE HEARING THAT IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE OFFICERS. THE NEGATIVE THINGS AS IT RELATES TO THE BEHAVIOR AND MISCONDUCT, THAT'S NOT MY EXPERIENCE, THESE ARE HARD WOMEN AND 01:53:40 Carlos Gutierrez M.D. MEN. THEY ARE PUT UPON A SITUATION THAT IS EXTRAORDINARY IN THE HISTORY OF THE BORDER. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY CHOOSE TO BE PART OF. I JUST WANT TO ADD THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS HAS OFFERED AT LEAST TWO TO THREE TIMES THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE TRAINING TO THE BORDER PATROL INDIVIDUALS, WORKERS ON PEDIATRICS, BASIC PEDIATRIC ILLNESSES AND TO THIS DAY IT HAS NOT 01:54:10 Michael Breen HAPPENED. THEY HAVE NOT ACCEPTED ANY OF THE HELP. I AM LOOKING AT YOU, IT SEEMED LIKE HE WANTED TO SAY A FEW MORE THINGS, I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, I SERVED IN IRAQ AND I DID REFUGEE WORK IN SYRIA, LEBANON, JORDAN. WHEN YOU ASK A LONGFORM ENFORCEMENT OR MILITARY AGENT WHO IS NOT TRAINED OR EQUIPPED AND CUTS AGAINST THE PERSONAL COLLECTIVE INTEGRITY OF THE ORGANIZATION HE GET DISASTROUS IMPACTS ON THE CULTURE. YOU ARE STARTING TO SEE THE THINGS WERE SEEN WITH CBP. THAT IS A PREDICTABLE RESULT. WE ASKED ORGANIZATION TO HANDLE LONG-TERM DETENTION OF CHILDREN TO FORCIBLY SEPARATE CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS THAT THEY HUMANIZE THE AGENT IN THE HUMANIZE OTHER PEOPLE. I AM PROUD TO SERVE THE U.S. ARMY OFFICER, THAT HAPPENED TO PARTS OF THE U.S. ARMY WHEN THEY WERE ASKED TO DO THINGS NOT TRAINED TO DO. THIS IS A PREDICTABLE RESULT IN TERRIBLE 01:55:23 Clara Long POLICY DECISIONS AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT BE PLACING THESE MEN WOMEN AND OPPOSITION. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. THANK YOU. I AGREE. IN MY UNDERSTANDING YOUR INTERACTIVE WITH DETAINEES IN A SET OF 11-YEAR-OLD TWINS WITH EPILEPSY CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT. ONE OF THE CHILDREN THAT I SPOKE WITH WAS A PAIR OF 11-YEAR-OLD TWINS WHO WERE STOIC AND EXTREMELY UPSET THAT THEY HAD BEEN SEPARATED FROM A 19-YEAR-OLD SISTER WHO HAD ALL THE PARENTS INFORMATION AND THEY TOLD ME I'M WORRIED I'LL NEVER CONNECT WITH MY PARENTS AGAIN. WE GOT ON FACEBOOK, WE SENT MESSAGES TO VARIOUS PEOPLE AND SOMEONE FINALLY RESPONDED AND WE CONNECTED THEM WITH THEIR FATHER AND WHEN THEY STARTED TALKING WITH HER FATHER TARIFFS WERE RUNNING DOWN THEIR FACES BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN HELD FOR 13 DAYS ALONE IN A CELL THAT EPILEPSY AND WHAT WAS HAVING A SEVERE REACTION OVER HIS BODY. SOMETHING THAT CAN BE A RESULT OF REACTION TO THE WRONG EPILEPSY MEDICATION. 01:56:32 Robin Kelly THEY ARE STILL DETAINED. NOW IN OR ARC CUSTODY. I AM THINKING OF THEM EVERYTHING THEY, THEY ARE STILL IN THE SYSTEM. I KNOW I'M OUT OF TIME. THIS IS SUCH A DARK THING. ON THE HISTORY AND EVERY DAY AS WE ARE PUTTING PEOPLE THROUGH THIS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING PEOPLE FEEL OVERWORKED BUT THIS IS A HUMAN CRISIS 01:57:06 Michael Cloud IN PEOPLE LOSING THEIR LIVES THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE STATUE OF LIBERTY AND WHAT THAT SAYS WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT FOLLOWING THAT. THANK YOU MS. KELLY. RECOGNIZE FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY. 01:57:23 Ronald Vitiello MR. BOTELHO, YOU MENTIONED THE SITUATION AT THE BORDER HAS CHANGED. THE RESOURCES AT THE BORDER WERE SET UP WE HAD SINGLE ADULT MALES COME FROM MEXICO. CAN YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT HAS CHANGED, WHY ARE WE SEATED RESULT? I THINK CONDITIONS AND ECONOMIC PICTURE IN MEXICO CHANGED IN 2010 TIMEFRAME AND WE STARTED SEEING WHERE PEOPLE FROM THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE COMING UP TO THE BORDER. THE DEMOGRAPHICS IN THOSE THREE COUNTRIES IS MUCH YOUNGER THAN MEXICO. THEY ARE UNSTABLE, THERE IS LACK OF OPPORTUNITY. IN THE POLICY AND THE WAY THE LAW IS OPERATIONALIZED AND INCENTIVIZES PEOPLE TO COME HERE. IF THEY COME HERE, WE TALK ABOUT CONDITIONS, THEY ARE BEING RELEASED BY U.S. AUTHORITIES. AND THEY ARE SENT TO ALL THE CITIES AND TOWNS IN THE UNITED STATES. THAT IS A MUCH BETTER LIFE FOR THEM, MOST OF THEM NOT ALL OF THEM. THAT IS THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE. IT'S A CATCH AND RELEASE POLICY. EVERY TIME IN MY CAREER WE SUSPENDED THE ACTIVITY OF CATCH AND RELEASE WE DID IN 2007, WE DID IN 2014, FOR SECRETARY JOHNSON. WE ARE NOT DOING IT NOW SO GETTING THE SAME MISERY AND CHAOS WE ARE SEEING ON THE BORDER. A LOT OF THE MISERY IS THE BANK THAT WE CREATED? 01:58:48 Michael Cloud BOTH FACTORS. THE WAY THAT THE LAW IS OPERATIONALIZED PEOPLE ARE GETTING RELEASED AND SET UP FOR HEARING AND THE DATE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, MANY OF THEM WILL NOT HAVE AN ASYLUM OPPORTUNITY OR IMMIGRATION. WHAT WE SEE TODAY IS ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE RESULT AND I AGREE. THERE ARE MANY OF US MONTHS OR EVEN A YEAR AGO CALLING FOR ACTION ON THE HUMAN INTERN CRISIS WHILE FOR MONTHS THE OPPOSITION CALLED A MANUFACTURED CRISIS. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'M FROM SOUTH TEXAS AND WE'VE KNOWN THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR YEARS IN 2006 A TRACTOR-TRAILER WITH 19 MIGRANTS WAS DISCOVERED TEN MINUTES FROM VICTORIA. WHEN THEY OPENED IT UP ALL 19 MIGRANTS INCLUDING A FIVE EURO BOY WERE DEAD. IN THE BACK OF A PICKUP TRUCK. IN THE SWELTERING HEAT OF TEXAS. SO WE KNOW -- I LIVE AT THE PEDICLE POINT OF WHAT IS CALLED THE FETAL TUNNEL WERE CARTELS USE THE MAJOR TWO HIGHWAYS TO TRAFFIC HUMANS, DRUGS, ILLICIT ACTIVITY TO GET INTO THE STATE AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE. WHAT IS DISHEARTENING ABOUT THE SITUATION, WE HAVE SAT HERE FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS AND WATCHED THIS METASTASIZE INTO THE TRAGEDY IT IS TODAY WHILE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT. I APPRECIATE THE TARIFFS, I APPRECIATE THE CONCERN FOR CHILDREN BUT I THINK IT IS A FAR GREATER COMPASSION TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE WISDOM AND FORESIGHT TO LOOK INTO THE SITUATION AND PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST BASE. I WAS SWORN IN A YEAR AGO TODAY AND THE FRUSTRATING THING ABOUT THIS, HOW MUCH POLITICAL THEATER THEATER, SO LITTLE ACTION, SO MUCH TIME AND SO LITTLE TIME IS SPENT ON FINDING SOLUTIONS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS AND SO MUCH TIME IS SPENT ON POLITICAL THEATER ' TO THE NEXT ELECTION BECAUSE WE'D RATHER RUN ON AN ISSUE THEN SOLVE A PROBLEM. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THIS CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACTING ON FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION. BUT INSTEAD WE ARE PUTTING OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO AID AND ABET CARTELS AND PROFITING OFF THE SITUATION AND PROVIDING LITTLE RESULTS. ANYWAY THAT LEADS ME TOO THIS POINT. I WAS DOWN THERE ABOUT A MONTH AGO. WE WENT THERE WITH A COUPLE OF THE MEMBERS FROM THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. WE DID A COUPLE OF THINGS, WE VISITED AN UNACCOMPANIED MINOR FACILITY WITH A COUPLE HUNDRED LADIES. ABOUT 40% OF THEM HAD BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED ALONG THE JOURNEY ACCORDING TO THE STAFFERS WHO WORK THERE. ONE STORY WHICH IS KIND OF HUMOROUS BUT POINT TO THE SITUATION, THERE WAS A FAMILY THAT SHOWED UP THAT HAD A CHILD WITH THEM AND THE CHILD NEEDED TO GO TO THE RESTROOM SO THEY ASKED THE CHILD UPON ARRIVING AT THE FACILITY WOULD YOU LIKE ME TOO SHOW YOU WHERE THE RESTROOM IS PRAYING HE SAID ALREADY KNOW BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN THERE SEVERAL TIMES. THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH RECYCLING CHILDREN AND WE HAVE CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL WHO BY THE WAY, 30% OF THEM 02:02:14 Ronald Vitiello ARE VETERANS DOING THE BEST THEY CAN TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF RECYCLE CHILDREN IN OUR NEEDS TO PROTECT CHILDREN AS THEY COME ACROSS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO. THIS IS PART OF THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE CENTER. IF YOU BRING A CHILD TO THE BORDER AND YOU MAKE OFFICIALS BELIEVE THAT YOUR CHILD THEN THEY WILL TAKE INTO CUSTODY, THEY WILL PROSECUTE IN RELATION WITH THE CHILD. THAT IS THE SITUATION WE'RE IN. WHEN ICE IN CBP DEDICATED RESOURCES TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON THEY RECOGNIZED AS A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WHO PRETENDED TO BE RELATED WHEN THEY ARE NOT. AT LEAST ONE CASE WHILE WAS THERE WERE THEN COVERED GUATEMALA RESIDENCY DOCUMENTS AND BIRTH CERTIFICATES OF THE COUNTRY THAT FABRICATED THE FAMILY RELATIONSHIP THAT EACH FAMILY HAD. IT'S A BIG PROBLEM, THE WORD IS OUT. PEOPLE KNOW IF THEY SEND OR BRING THEIR 02:03:12 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez CHILD THE END RESULT IS TO BE RELEASED IN THE U.S. I BELIEVE 4800 FAMILY UNITS. MOSTLY PRESENTED THE CHURCH. THAT SOUNDS RIGHT. I'LL BACK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OCASIO-CORTEZ WHO ARE RECOGNIZED. THINKING RESEARCHER AND BEFORE I START I THINK THERE IS AN IMPORTANT CULTURAL CONTEXT THAT MAY BE MISSED IN THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN. ONE IS THAT, IN LATINO FAMILIES AND LATINO COMMUNITIES, NOT JUST LATINO COMMUNITIES, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S MANY OTHER CONTENTS AS WELL. BUT WHAT IS DEFINED AS FAMILY IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT USUALLY ORCHARDS LIKE IT'S DEFINED AS FAMILY IN THE UNITED STATES. WHEN I WAS A CHILD MY PARENTS WOULD OFTEN SEND ME TOO PUERTO RICO DURING THE SUMMERS AND I WOULD LIVE WITH MY INTO MY UNCLES AND COUSINS. MY COUSINS WERE RAISED WITH ME AS MY SIBLINGS. I WOULD CALL THEM BROTHER, SISTER. MY INTO MY UNCLES WERE RAISED AS SECONDARY PARENTS IN FACT, THE ACTUAL WORD, THE COMICAL PARENT. THIS IS THE CULTURAL CONTEXT WHICH CHILDREN ARE COMING TO THE BORDER WITH THEIR LOVED ONES. THEY ARE BEING TAKEN, THEY ARRIVED IN THE BEING CALLED UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN. WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE ACCOMPANIED THEY ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR GRANDMOTHERS, OLDER SIBLINGS, THERE ACCOMPANIED BY COUSINS, AND JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE PERSON THAT IS COMING WITH THEM IS NOT THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER OR FATHER THEN THEY ARE BEING ACCUSED OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND BEING 02:04:58 Clara Long ACCUSED UNACCOMPANIED CHILD. THEY ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME TRAUMA THAT ANY CHILD WOULD BE EXPERIENCING IF THEY WERE RIPPED FROM THEIR OWN FATHER AND MOTHER PRAYED TO FIND THAT'S AN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR EXPENSE? I'M IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT. THEY ALSO WANT TO ADD, CBP IS CURRENTLY MAINTAINING NO RECORD TO TRACE THE FAMILIES. SO WHEN SOMEONE 02:05:21 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez IS SEPARATED FOR EIGHT THAT IS REASON THEIR WHOLE LIFE. THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE AGENCY TO TRACE THE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND PUT THE FAMILIES BACK TOGETHER. I MYSELF AM IN A SIMILAR SITUATION, I HAVE NIECES AND NEPHEWS AND THERE IS AN ALREADY UNSPOKEN UNDERSTANDING THAT IF ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN, I CALLED MY NIECES AND NEPHEWS BUT THERE TECHNICALLY SECOND OR THIRD COUSINS OR WHATEVER HOWEVER, FOLKS RECALL THAT. BUT IF SOMETHING GOD FORBID WITH EVERY TAP INTO MY COUSINS I WOULD TAKE THOSE CHILDREN AS MY CHILDREN. QUICKLY MOVING FORWARD UNDER THE TRAUMA MINISTRATION AT LEAST SIX CHILDREN HAVE DIED IN U.S. CUSTODY. I HAVE THEIR NAMES APPEAR ON AGE EIGHT, JUAN GUTIERREZ AGE 18, AGE TWO, AGE 16 THOSE ARE JUST THE ONES THAT WE KNOW OF. WE DID NOT EVEN HEAR OF THAT DEATH UNTIL EIGHT MONTHS AFTER SHE DIED. THIS IS NOT INCLUDING THE CHILDREN LIKE MARIA THAT WE HEARD ABOUT EARLIER WHO FELT GRAVELY ILL TO THE LACK OF SANITATION INSIDE DHS CUSTODY BUT THEY DIED ONLY AFTER BEING RELEASED FROM DETENTION FACILITIES SO HER DEATH DOES NOT COUNT. IN THE TEN YEARS PRIOR TO THAT THERE WERE NO SIMILAR 02:07:07 Hope Frye DEATHS, 0. OF MIGRANT CHILDREN IN U.S. CUSTODY. IT'S A NEW PHENOMENON UNDER THE TRAUMA MINISTRATION. HOW MANY MIGRANT CHILDREN ARE FALLING ILL AND DYING BUT NOT BEING COUNTED AS A DEATH IN CBP CUSTODY? I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER. YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THE GOVERNMENT. BUT I CAN VERIFY THE REASONS WHY THIS IS HAPPENING NOW SO MUCH AS A GREATER INCIDENCE. THAT GOES BACK TO THE QUESTION OF RELEASE. WHEN YOU DON'T PROPERLY RELEASE CHILDREN TO GO TO WAR AND HELD THERE. THEY ARE NOT RELEASED, THE MECHANISM IS NOT WORKING. THE REQUIREMENTS ARE IGNORED. THEN YOU GET A BACKUP IN THE UNSANITARY PLACES WHERE YOU PACK KIDS IN THE CONGREGATE CARE, THE WHO SAYS TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF DISEASE WASHER HINTS. THERE IS NO SOAP AND WATER. WE MAKE 02:08:11 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez THE SITUATION BY THE WAY WE DETAIN KIDS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GO UPSTREAM BECAUSE HER NOT BE RELEASED. THAT IS CONDUCIVE TO ILLNESS. THAT IS PART OF THE REASON IN THE FAMILIES FACILITIES WE ARE NOT PROVIDING CARE. VERY QUICKLY, IS THERE ANY POLICY THAT YOU KNOW IF THAT REQUIRES ICE TO COUNT PREGNANT WOMEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE 02:08:41 Hope Frye PREGNANT PREGNANT? SO WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE WOMEN, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE, COUNT OR RECORD A WOMAN WHO IS PREGNANT AND CUSTODY AND WE KNOW AT LEAST 28 MISCARRIAGES. AT LEAST. THAT IS ALSO TRUE OF CHILDREN. AND WE SAW GIRLS WHO 02:08:58 Ronald Vitiello WERE PREGNANT WHO WERE NOT GIVEN ANY MEDICAL CARE AND NOBODY SEEMED TO CARE THEY WERE PREGNANT. THAT IS REALLY SERIOUS. CAN I ADD, WHEN FEMALES ARE TAKEN INTO ICE CUSTODY AND CONTEMPLATING THE DETAINED BUT THEY'RE ALL GIVEN A PREGNANCY EXAM. SOON AFTER, WITHIN THE FIRST TWO FOR HOURS IN ICE CUSTODY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ARE AWARE OF THE PREGNANCIES. THANK YOU THE GENERAL LADIES TIME IS EXPIRED. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO THE LEADERSHIP WAS ACCUSING PRESIDENT TRUMP OF EXAGGERATING A CRISIS ON THE BORDER AND IN FACT MINORITY AT THAT TIME HE USED THE BACKDROP OF THE OVAL OFFICE TO MEET EFFEXOR CRISIS AND DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE TURMOIL OF THE MINISTRATION. IT IS SHOCKING TO ME THAT IT IS TAKEN THIS LONG FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO FIND THE ADDRESS THERE IS A CRISIS. IN 2019 WE HAD MORE THAN 593,000 ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENDED OUR SOUTHERN BORDER. FROM OCTOBER 2018th TO MAY 2019 WE HAVE HAD 23944 UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN ATTEMPT TO CROSS THE BORDER. I AM GLAD WE FINALLY REALIZE THE SITUATION THAT WE ARE IN AND WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD AND LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS. IT IS NOT TIME FOR POLITICAL GAMES, IT IS TIME TO ACT SWIFTLY TO GET THIS CRISIS IN HAND. HOW LONG IS 02:10:33 Ronald Vitiello A TYPICAL TRIP FROM THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES? HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE. IT COULD BE WEEKS. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CHILDREN WILL ARRIVE AT A FACILITY ON A GIVEN DAY? THE DATA I SAW WAS RECENTLY IN 02:10:52 Ronald Vitiello THE PRESS WAS TWO THIRDS OF THE GROUPS COMING TO THE BORDER EVERY DAY SO TWO THIRDS OF 2000. OUR MANY OF THE CHILDREN WHO ARRIVE IN NEED OF MEDICAL CARE? IF SO, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES YOU ARE SEEING THAT THEY HAVE? IT IS A DIFFICULT JOURNEY. DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO SLEEP ON THE JOURNEY, NOT SAID, IN THE HANDS OF SMUGGLERS, PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEM AS INDIVIDUALS ONLY AS A COMMODITY. WHEN THEY GET TO THE BORDER THEY ARE SICK. EARLY DAYS, WHEN I WAS STILL IN CBP, SCABIES, LICE, RESPIRATORY INFECTION, FEVER, ET CETERA. IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF WHAT COMES TO THE BORDER EVERY DAY. SO INFECTIOUS PROBLEMS. CRACKED. HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE TREATED FOR THE ELEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE IN THE IS THE RESULT FROM A TRIP OR RESULT FROM HERE. CBP DOES ITS BEST AND WHEN I WAS STILL A GOVERNMENT WE SOUND SPENT THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TAKING PEOPLE FROM CBP CUSTODY INTO THE HOSPITAL AND SAFEGUARD THEM AND TAKE THEM BACK. THERE IS MANY HOURS COMMITTEE DOLLARS SPENT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM. IS THERE SOAP AND WATER CUSTOMER. THERE IS. SEVERAL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE ALLEGED THAT PREGNANT WOMEN ARE NOT PROPERLY CARED FOR ONCE THEY CROSS THE BORDER. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THOSE PREGNANT MIGRANTS ARE PROCESSED AND HANDLED. YOU CAN IMAGINE A FACILITY THAT IS 400% OVER CAPACITY. THEY CAN BE IN CUSTODY WITH SOME TYPE BEFORE THEY'RE INTERVIEWED BY OFFICER. THEY WILL NOT KNOW UNLESS THEY ASK OR MAYBE THE INDIVIDUAL WILL NOT TELL THEM. WHEN THEY'RE IN DETENTION WITH ICE CUSTODY, THE SINGLE ADULT THAT DO MAKE IT TO ICE DETENTION, THEY ARE QUICKLY ASSESSED MEDICALLY WITHIN THE FIRST DAYS OF THEIR STAY IN DETENTION AND PART OF THE ASSESSMENT IS PREGNANCY TEST. WITHIN A WEEK? SUITOR MOST CASES. CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TESTING OF ICE IN CBP? CBP DOES NOT DO PREGNANCY TEST. THE MISSION OF CBP AT THE BORDER IS TO MOVE THE INDIVIDUAL DOWNSTREAM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. IF IT'S A FAMILY THEY GET RELEASED, IF IT'S A CHILD THEY GET REFERRED TO HHS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. IF IT'S A SINGLE ADULT THEY GET REFERRED TO ICE FOR DETENTION. YOU WOULD ASSESS THE ABILITY TO PROCESS AS APPROPRIATE FOR THE MIGRANTS THAT ARE PREGNANT? THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE. THIS IS 500,000 PEOPLE WHO COME TO OUR BORDER THIS YEAR. IN CBP HOLDING FACILITY IN ICE DETENTION, WHAT TYPE OF ON TYPES SERVICES ARE PROVIDED IN THEIR CHILDREN. ICE DETENTION HAS A FULL RANGE OF MEDICAL CARE, LAW LIBRARIES, SAFE AND SANITARY CONDITIONS THAT ARE DESIGNED FOR LONG-TERM SPACE. ANYTHING YOU WOULD FIND IN A MODERN FACILITY. AT CBP THEY HAVE ADOPTED AS BEST AS I CAN'T WITH THE LOCATIONS AND FACILITIES WERE NOT DESIGNED TO HOLD LARGE NUMBERS OF YOUNG PEOPLE OR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN ALONE. WHAT RESOURCES DO YOU BELIEVE WOULD HELP CBP TO DO ITS JOB EFFECTIVELY GIVEN THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS THAT ARE HERE. THEY CONTINUE TO BECAUSE MODIFICATIONS, THEY WILL ADD FLOORSPACE TO THESE LOCATIONS WHERE THERE'S A LARGE INFLUX OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES BUT I DON'T 02:14:27 Jamie Raskin BELIEVE THAT IS GOING TO GET THEM OUT OF THE SITUATION THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED TODAY. WITHOUT A CHANGE IN THE LAW THESE PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO COME TO THE BORDER IN THE CONDITIONS BECOMING. THANK YOU. SHIELD BACK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BEFORE I YELLED, I WENT TO ENTER SIX STATEMENTS INTO THE RECORD. FROM THE MEDICAL AMERICAN SITUATION NOTED THE CBP FACILITIES WE DISCUSSED ARE NOT APPROPRIATE PLACES FOR CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMEN. THE STATEMENT EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT DETENTION CENTER CONDITIONS. A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST AND TRAUMA EXPERT THAT PROVIDED PSYCHOTHERAPY TO THE RECENT IMMIGRANTS. THE STATEMENT FROM CHURCH WORLD SERVICE, RELIGIOUS-BASED MILITARY GROUP WITH REFUGEE OFFICES IN 17 STATES OPPOSING ANY UNDERMINING OF CURRENT PROTECTION FOR BIGGER CHILDREN, THE STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PEDIATRIC NURSE PRACTITIONERS. THEY WORKED TO PROVIDE CARE FOR REFUGEE CHILDREN IN A STATEMENT FROM IRA JONES TAYLOR THE POLICY OFFICER 023 A NONPROFIT ADVOCATING ON BEHALF OF OF BABIES 02:15:36 Ayanna Pressley AND TODDLERS. WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION I WILL CEMENT THEM INTO THE RECORD IN A RECOGNIZED AS PRESLEY FOR FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WERE ASKED AND ANSWERED. YOU INDICATED CBP AGENTS ARE SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF THE LAW SO TO SPEAK I AM JUST CURIOUS I THINK THE LAW IS A CRUEL AND INHUMANE. AND I HOPE HE'LL ELABORATE FURTHER ON THE GENERAL CULTURE OF DEHUMANIZING CULTURE FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. JUST CURIOUS, THE CBP AGENTS TAKE, DOES IT OFFER ANYTHING ABOUT HUMIDITY AND WE KNOW THE DOCKETING THE TRAINING ON THE MEDICAL SIDE IN ORDER TO THE INDICATORS OF CHILDREN IN DISTRESS IS THERE ANY 02:16:29 Ronald Vitiello ANTIBIAS TRAINING OR CULTURAL COMPETENCY OR TRAUMA INFORMED TRAINING WHICH WOULD BE BENEFICIAL WHETHER YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 72 HOURS OR THE 60 PLUS DAYS, MANY ARE CURRENTLY BEING DETAINED. THEY DO RECEIVE CULTURAL TRAINING, THAT IS PART OF THE TRAINING WHEN THEY COME BACK FROM THE BORDER PATROL ACADEMY THERE ARE CURRICULUMS FOR THAT. IN THE 2014 CRISIS WE DEVELOPED CURRICULUM FOR AGENTS TO TAKE THAT RELATES TO THE CRISIS UNDERWAY AND HOW TO SPEAK TO CHILDREN IN A MORE ACCOMMODATING WAY AND HOW TO GET TO NEEDS QUICKER SO THE TRAINING IS PART OF WHAT AGES EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU 02:17:10 Ronald Vitiello TALK ABOUT FAMILY MEMBERS AND WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES. WE TALK ABOUT ADULT FAMILIES THAT WERE NOT MOMS 02:17:18 Ayanna Pressley AND DADS CONGRESS CAN HELP US, THEY CAN CHANGE THE LAW TO RELIEVE THE LIABILITY IF SOMEBODY IS TRAVELING THEY CAN BE HELD TOGETHER AND KEPT TOGETHER -- I APPRECIATE THAT I 02:17:31 Ronald Vitiello WILL PLAY MY TIME. I WANT TO GET A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. ONE OTHER THING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RECORD. IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL THAT SPEAKS TO HUMANITY AND HOW CBP AGENTS SHOULD BE TREATING THOSE WITH CUSTODY. AN OATH IS A CONSTITUTION AND THE PEOPLE UNITED STATES. IS CBP THE COUNTRIES LAWS UNDER LARGEST LAW AGENCY WHICH IS PRETTY INCREDIBLE. THE STATE AGENCY THAT CLAIMED THEY DID NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO PROVIDE BASIC NECESSITIES, TOOTHPASTE ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN IN THE RESOURCES TO DETAIN THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL MIGRANTS AND RECENTLY REPORTED THREE NEW ICE FACILITIES HAVE OPENED THROUGHOUT LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI IN THE LAST MONTH. SINCE 2000 A NUMBER OF ORBITAL AGENTS HAS INCREASED FROM 9000 TO 18500 AGES SINCE 2006 AND IS MORE THAN DOUBLED FROM 7. 1 BILLION TO 6. 7 BILLION AND AGAIN, WE SEE THESE PERSIST WHICH THIS IS NOT ABOUT CAPACITY AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CULTURE. THE INNER CALLOUSNESS AND CREPITUS IN THE CHAOS. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT TO 02:18:50 Michael Breen COURSEWORK. IT DOES. OVERSIGHT IS NECESSARY. I WILL MAKE A COUPLE OF QUICK POINTS. CONGRESSMAN EARLIER MENTIONED THAT THE U.S. POLICY WAS COMMITTED CARTELS. I HAVE TO AGREE, I WOULD POINT TO TWO POLICIES, METERING AND THE POINTS OF ENTRY. YESTERDAY I SPOKE WITH THE MOTHER OF AN EIGHT -MONTH-OLD CHILD. SHE HAD TRIED TO FOLLOW THE LAW, FOLLOW THE RULES AND I SEEK ASYLUM IN THE UNITED STATES. SHE IS TOLD TO TAKE A NUMBER AND TO GET HER. SHE IS HOLDING NUMBER 17000 PLUS PLUS, SHE IS WORSE BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS SEEN FIT UNDER THE OBSCENELY NAME PRODUCTION PROTOCOLS. THESE CARTELS HAVE ABSOLUTE ACCESS TO HER AND HER FAMILY. AND YOU THINK SHE'S BETTER OFF OR DO YOU THINK WE ARE BETTING THE CARTELS BY HAVING HER SIT WHERE THEY CAN ACTIVELY PRAYING HER BY PLACING HER IN A CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES WERE ICE HAS RUN A FAMILY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PILOT IN WHICH THERE IS 99% ATTENDANCE CHECK INS AND APPOINTMENTS AND 100% OF COURT HEARING. MAP PROGRAM IS MUCH CHEAPER TO FAMILIES. IT WAS COSTING $36 PER FAMILY COMPARED TO $319 PER PERSON. AT A FAMILY DETENTION CENTER. ONE OTHER POINT ON THE CULTURE. HE USED THE COMINTERN CAPTURED IN RELEASE AND IS HERE. THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS,. [APPLAUSE] PRESENTED HERSELF AT A POINT OF ENTRY TO SEEK ASYLUM IS EXERCISING RIGHT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. YOU WOULD'VE VOLUNTEERED YOURSELF AND BEING RELEASED THAT YOU WILL ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT ESCAPE WHEN YOU GET A CASE MANAGEMENT 100% THESE PEOPLE SHOWED UP AT HEARINGS. EVERYONE I SPOKE TO PLACE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FOLLOW THE EVER-CHANGING BIZARRE RULES THIS MINISTRATION IS CREATED ON THE FLY. THEY'RE ALL TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I THINK THIS LINK WHICH MATTER. 02:21:11 Glenn Grothman THE GENTLE LADY'S TIME HAS EXPIRED AND THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS. I WAS ON THE BORDER TWICE -- IN THE TUCSON SECTOR AND THE LAREDO SECTOR. I KNOW THE BORDER POLICE WERE SO FRUSTRATED HEARING POLITICIANS SAY THIS IS A MANUFACTURED CRISIS BECAUSE THEY LIVE THIS CRISIS EVERY DAY AND KNEW IT WAS NOT MANUFACTURED. AND I KNOW THIS HEARING T FOCUSES ON CHILDREN DIED BUT I HEARD THE SECTOR ALONE ABOUT 250 PEOPLE ARE DEHYDRATED TO DEATH...

PROCESS PLATE 3/4 BACK LEFT OF CAR DRIVING ON CITY STREET. OFFICE BUILDINGS AND STOREFRONTS VISIBLE. PEDESTRIANS VISIBLE RUNNING. COULD BE ATTACK OR INVASION.

city view from Bathurst Street Bridge in Toronto at night.