I want to thank the witnesses for their patience and i will now recognize myself for a second round of questioning. Lets see, i want to go back to the question of the domestic emoluments clause, mr. Borden. We talked about the foreign emoluments clause which was an attempt to guarantee the undivided loyalty of the president and all members of congress to the American People and not to foreign powers. And thats why there was this absolute prohibition of payments of any kind whatever coming from Foreign Governments. And so thats why were very concerned to get as much information from the gsa about whatever you know and whatever you can find out about Foreign Governments using the trump hotel for business because of the president s continuing Business Ownership interests in the trump hotel. But the domestic emoluments clause limits the president to his salary in office, and we cant increase it. We cant reduce it, but also it says that the president cannot receive any other payments from the u. S. Government or from any of the individual United States. And yet we have reports that the gsa gave the hotel 534,000 in federal credit for maintaining the historic clock tower. Is that correct . Can i confirm that with you . Id have to get an answer to you in writing. I dont know the numbers. I know theres an arrangement where they provide some services to the clock tower like cleaning serves. But im speaking off of but ill get you an answer in writing. Without pinning you down right now on the number, you can confirm the gsa does have some arrangement in which it makes a payment to the hotel for keeping up the clock tower which is on the building . Im working off dim memory here so i will get you that answer in writing but my recollection is there were some services for the cleaning of the clock tower. Taxpayers funded massive payments to the Trump Properties such as the trump hotel in d. C. The department of defense spent 147,379,000. 50 on Trump Properties including the trump hotel in washington. The Commerce Department spent almost 4,000 primarily at the trump hotel in the first month alone. The American People have a right to know how much is being spent there, and congress on behalf of the American People has a right to obtain this information because we have to defend the integrity of the Business Practices of the government. Nbc has reported that 56,000 have been spent by the department of defense, the department of agriculture and the gsa itself at the hotel. Does the gsa actually occupy rooms at the hotel for business purposes . Id have to check on the facts on that, but we often get tagged for spending thats not ours because its going through one of our programs like fed rooms and so forth. Just in general on federal employees staying at the hotel, as long as it fits within the per diem, theres no prohibition on that. But what Legal Authority or opinion are you relying on at gsa for continuing to allow federal agencies and departments to spend money at the hotel or Foreign Governments to spend money at the hotel . I dont believe we have any authority over other agencies or Foreign Governments where they choose to im sorry. I meant Legal Authority in the sense of what precedent or opinion. What legal opinion are you basing your acquiescence to these practices on . Im not aware of a provision in the lease beyond the one that you mentioned in your previous statement that we already sort of been discussed, that the agency has made a determination that the tenant is in compliance with that provision wait, that says no Government Official can profit or benefit in any way from the hotel. Isnt that right. I dont want to characterize what the provision does or doesnt mean. Theres legal opinion can you read it to us . Do you have it . It might take me a few minutes to actually, i dont think i have that one in my binder. Maybe i can have someone hand it to me but i understood it to be completely clear and unambiguous, crestal clear that neither an official of the u. S. Government, an elected official of the u. S. Government nor an elected official of the district of columbia could benefit in any way in the least. The gsas position i think during the Obama Administration was that this would prevent the president or any other elected official from deriving profits from the hotel, and that position has currently changed with the new administration, is that right . To my knowledge there wasnt any official gsa position on that provision in the lease, and that provision done in the lease and the . Ecter generals report hinged on the admit to language in that provision. Im a lawyer by education but im not serving as a lawyer for the agency. I got you. Well, the Inspector General of the gsa raised profound questions about this. In other words, he saw it as a prohibition on the president being able to collect money from the trump lease. I mean, look, the common sense perception of this is simply that the president as the president of the United States who oversees the gsa is acting as the landlord, but then on the other side the president is acting as the tenant, so, look, the purpose of the domestic emoluments clause was to say the president has one way to make money off of his tenure as president which is his salary. Thats it. Youre not going to get extra money from the defense department, the Commerce Department and the gsa and state department. And yet it appears that were violating that. The purpose of the foreign emoluments clause was to guarantee the independence of the president so he would be zealously devoted today the American People, not to the United Arab Emirates or saudi arabia or turkey or somebody else who comes and decides to spend 50 or 100,000 at the hotel. So i guess what im troubled about is we have a sense of urgency about getting to the bottom of this. The chairman of the committee sent on april 12th, 2019, to emily mu emily murphy the administrator of gsa a letter asking about a whole lot of stuff we havent gotten back yet. For example, all documents referring or relating to mayzars usallp relating to the post office. Why . Because when the president acting as a businessman made his deal for the Old Post Office mayzars had to present all of the documents reflecting the Financial Condition of his company. And where hes getting his money from, who hes doing his business with and so on. We want those documents but we havent gotten them. Do you know why those havent been produced . Youre referring to the documents that before the lease was initiated establishing financial wherewithal and so forth . Exactly. We have that request from your committee. There are also some Confidentiality Provisions regarding those provisions, but we are willing to work with the committee and see how we can you understand it when Congress Makes a request for documents from anybody in the country, everybodys first instinct is to say, oh, we stamped it confidential. We got a rubber stamp with we put it in ink and stamped it confidential. What does that mean to us . Were the congress of the United States, were representing the American People. So everybody has a duty to present documents and witnesses that are being requested by Congress Unless there is a some kind of legal immunity thats been recognized by the Supreme Court. So i think that to stamp a document confidential is beside the point from the standpoint of this is the lease that relates to the u. S. Government and it relates to the constitutional powers of congress, and it relates to prohibitions on money going to the president of the United States. So, you know, im not detecting in your answer any intention to give us this stuff, is that right . I think i think thats wrong. The first thing i want to say just in general about 55 billion in contracts flow through gsa. We have a lot of confidential Financial Information where we make arrangements to protect that information for our business partners. And thats one of the reasons why theyre willing to do business with us. However, were not hiding behind this and we are actively working with the committee and working our way as we can accommodate the committees interests. And i would point out its been mentioned some of the Monthly Financial summaries had been produced earlier, and they showed up in the New York Times shortly thereafter. Okay, so when you say you want to work with the committee, what exactly does that mean . In other words, you do want to produce those financial documents or i guess what im seeing is wheres the blockade . Wheres the blockage happening because gsa had no problem turning over materials like that before. Now theres a problem turning it over. Is there a problem at gsa, at the white house, is it a problem with trump the president , a problem with trump the businessman, a problem with the trump hotel . These are Agency Decisions and were trying to treat them the way we treat any other confidential business documents the agency holds. To answer your earlier question i dont think i got to is the adomication process which the number of cases referred to is a process for the two legal branches of government work through the interests theyre trying to protect. I see it a little bit differently. We are the law making branch of government. We represent the people. The president s job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, not circumvented, not violated. And as the District Court found in the case upholding this committees power to obtain documents, if this body has the power to impeach the president which we do, we have by definition all the subsidiary power to get any information that we need in order to investigate the president. And i think that that logical syllogism is just inescapable. The president doesnt have the power to impeach congress. We have the power to impeach the president. And so were not coequal in that sense. We are the Peoples Branch of government. Were the law making authority. We pass the laws. The president s job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed. So, you know, i wish there was some way we could break the logjam because ive seen this process and i think its frustrating to members on both sides of the aisle where people will come from an Agency Department and say were work on it and so on and then you dont hear anything from them for two or three months and it looks like a shell game. So, you know, can you just tell me this will be my final question along this line what is the Legal Authority for gsa saying a government lease, a u. S. Government lease for the taxpayers is confidential and the representatives of the American People to the United States congress cant obtain access to it, well whats the Legal Authority for that . Is there a Supreme Court case, a d. C. Circuit court case, a u. S. District court case . Where is that coming from . Sir, were not making a legal assertion ability these documents. Were like i said willing to work with the committee and try to accommodate the interests. As you know there isnt federal rules of oversight procedure and theres not a third party magistrate calling balls and strikes. Oats not something where you have motions and assertions and so forth. We are so you do advance no legal claim that youve got an immunity from us obtaining im not advancing that. That would be something for our lawyers to do. Okay, on behalf of the agency i mean i thought you just said youre not making the point i was trying to make the interactions between a committee of congress and agencies that enters the executive branch isnt taking place in a legal form. Its a negotiation between coequal branches of government. Okay. All right, well, you know, i would love to do whatever we can to sit down and go through the documents if you could give us a list of the documents. One thing i would like to emphasize is simply im not trying to not answer your questions or just keep saying accommodation over and over again, which i recognize i have, that we are sincerely interested in working through ways to provide these documents to the committee, and we stay in regural communication with the committee and that milwaukees them a priority for us. I mean, i would just say it is an absolute constitutional imperative for us to do our jobs having taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. We represent the people, and there are very serious reports that are in the media that have come out in Different Cases that domestic emoluments clause is being violated frequently. The Foreign Government emolumen emoluments clause is being violated almost on a daily basis. We have an absolute responsibility to stop that if its the case. You hold federal office in america, its not a money making operation. America is a great country. If you want to go out and make money, just go out and make money. But if you want to be president of the United States, be president of the United States. Your job is to collect your salary and do the peoples business, not your business. But our job is to make sure that the constitution is being respected and the rule of law. I believe based on what ive seen which is not enough which is why were here today, but i believe based on what ive seen that the trump hotel and President Trump are in violation of the lease in the provision that says no elected official can be deriving any benefit from the lease, the Old Post Office lease with the trump hotel. I believe the president is in absolute and repeat violation of the Foreign Government emoluments clause, which provides that the president cannot collect a payment of any kind whatever from a prince, a king or a Foreign Government. And i think hes in violation of the domestic emoluments clause which says hes limited to a salary and he cant be pocketing money from agencies and from agencies and federal departments that spend money at the trump hotel or the trump office or all these other places. What we are getting here, perhaps unsurprisingly but certainly unfortunately is a stonewalling of the committee. We are available 24 seven 24 7. We will do whatever we need to convince you that this is information we have got to get. Obviously, we are in a process where we have been rendering subpoenas, we have been Holding People in contempt, we know that President Trump ordered everybody in the executive branch to stop cooperating with congress. What you saw today was an bipartisan expression of frustration with that attitude. There is nothing illegitimate about the representatives of the people obtaining documents that go to our constitutional duty. Return for one second to mr. Billy. You testified, i just want, you testified you were not a lawyer under oath according to the information the committee has, you do have a jd but you are not a lawyer . You have not taken the bar, is that it . Correct. So, i want to go to the legal underpinnings for the closure of opm and so let me come to you if i could. How many formal legal opinions which would all be responsive to our request did opm create or use that assessed the administrations authority to dismantle opm . The administrations proposal is about merging the mission of opm and gsa to make sure we have a stable and sustainable platform to deliver on those missions into the future. Legal analysis of what statutory authorities exist today to enact parts of the transaction are still undergoing. So, are there no existing formal legal opinions that you could hand to us that assessed the administrations authority and engagement as you describe it . I do not believe there are documents that are part of ongoing analysis. What was the legal analysis or guarded gum, guidance before the decision was made . In other words, did you just not consider it a matter for the lawyers . This came out in june 2018. The view of what we believed as possible and now we are going through tollgate process which is a six eczema six sigma process. As part of that we address the legal analysis and that is one workstream within the tollgate process. Additional work streams include understanding what the impact to customers and stakeholders. Have we can mitigate Different Things and increase effectiveness and service delivery. Those were all the policy conditions he looked at. Why was the Legal Authority redacted in the documents provided yesterday . So, Legal Authority, that whole section is redacted out the one part that you think would be easier to turnover, commit can you tell us why the Legal Authority is redacted in these documents . Legal analysis is ongoing and right now we do not have a legal analysis to share. Why does that give you the authority to redact that . Why is that justification for blocking out what the Legal Authority was when the memo was written . Are acting director has instructed us to provide as much information as we can to the committee and that we fully respect the oversight and we want to continue working with you, our attorneys are providing us guidance as we are going for interagency workings to determine what we are able to present and when. We are not withholding anything at this time, were just going through the process of releasing it all. Gotcha. If i am reading the responses correctly, there was no detailed legal analysis or no legal analysis at all done of the proposed merger before it was accomplished. In other words, there is just an assumption that it was lawful. How do you know that opm has not been the subject of an illegal scheme x how do you know that you are not violating the law . We know, as you said there is an assumption that some parts likely are able to be executed under current statutory authority. There different authorities that could potentially move different pieces, how they would affect people versus resources and so we are going through the will and with our interagency partners in this. We have provided a legislation of of proposal to work with us and are engaged in the legislative process because we believe it would be the most effective and efficient way to carry out the entire et of the transformation that we would need from the agency to help us on principles moving into the future. Okay, look, and closing out, this part of the hearing, i just want to say opium made a very significant decision essentially to dismantle itself or to dissolve itself without first obtaining any formal opinion as to the legality of this decision and, my first take on it, having looked at some of the legal authorities is that the proposal is likely illegal. The administration came up with a plan and never took care to vet it or to assist its lawfulness. There are obviously dramatic implications for this. We will have to proceed, generally and i will offer a chance for closing, but i hope that all the witnesses heard a very strong bipartisan sense that our ability to get documents is essential to our lawmaking function. We will never allow that to become partisan football. We are all committed that when Congress Seeks documents, it gets the documents because they lawmaking function is integral to what we do. Mr. Meadows . I would agree with that. We just need the documents. This is not my first request for documents when we were at in the majority. Mr. Borden knows that i am there. When we talk about this miss tyson knows that and mr. Billy, maybe less so. I can assure you that getting that and pages does not equal quality. And i guess what i would rather have his quality. I know it is real good to come here and be able to say we gave you 30,000 documents or 30,000 pages and i appreciate you making a difference mr. Borden, because you know it all too well. But enough said. I think you all have gotten the message. Heres the only other thing i would. For the people who produced, that actually do your production, i would encourage all three of you to check in with them. Sometimes they act like they are making great progress only to find out that they are not making as much progress as they would indicate. Oh, we are making great progress and yet when you look at it, so if you would just check with people who do production, i think some of that could be streamlined. This is not your first rodeo for any of the three of you, so if you will do that, we will all be happy. I have nothing further to add. Mr. Meadows thank you very much. Think all of you for coming and we look forward to working with you to complete the production process. The meeting is adjourned. Robert mueller testifies to congas on wednesday about possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power by President Trump and russian interference in the 2016 president ial election watch our live coverage starting at 8 30 a. M. On cspan 3. Dumb of the free radio up and live wherever you are. If you missed our live coverage, watch when you are ready on cspan. Org. I was on an airstrip in the remote jungles of guiana having just concluded a delegation tour with a congressman. We were ambushed on that airstrip. And shot. I was shot, allison and members of the press died. I was shot five times on the right side of my body. Sunday night on q and a, jackie sphere talks about her memoir, undaunted surviving jonestown. When people say, it was a mess suicide, it was not a mess suicide they were forced to drink this toxic brew by jones. He had many of his guards surrounding the pavilion, i am sure, to make sure that people did as they were told. Sunday night at 8 pm eastern on cspans q and a. Next a hearing on last years republican text legislation and how increased taxes on people in certain locales. Officials from new york, ohio, pennsylvania and virginia testified