Was of President Trump, actually before the election and shortly after when i listened to him and he expressed this sentiment, which was, with Hillary Clinton and her transgressions and the way she handled the classified material and up to the secret server next to the bathroom up in new york, in her place, the president s position was, we need to move America Forward and we shouldnt go backwards on this or looking back. Lets move forward. And the public has litigated that. Thats where President Trump wanted it to be, but it wasnt to be because the left could not accept the idea that the American People had spoken. So they began to manufacture and continue the manufacturing of this Russian Investigation, allegations that there were investigation and i dont doubt that they made it. But we doubt that they had any impact on our election and we have seen zero evidence that the campaign of President Trump had any kind of relationship that went on with the russians that promoted or coluded in any way. But because there needed to be some explanation for this phenomenal president ial election of donald trump, we had to be drug back into this Russian Investigation over and over again. This began within two weeks of the president ial election after november 8. As that unfolded, mr. Speaker, then we saw what was really going on here and we got into about february or march of last year and that point, i said they arent going to relent and con to belabor this point. The election has been settled and not in question as far as the result of the polls are concerned. So we have a president , lets honor the president and the honor of the American People and respect the decision made in the polls. But instead the pressure continued on and on, allegations complicit with the fake news, as we have come to know them i think by habit and fact, and at that point, i said if they will not let up, if they will not let up, then its going to be an obligation to drill deeply into all of the things that bring this together from anthony weiner, all the way across the board from hillary and sham investigation and questioning of her on july 2, 2016 and on and on throughout the whole spectrum of things. Mr. Speaker, i would be happy to yield. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from florida would have to yield. Mr. Gaetz certainly yield to the chair for purposes of an announcement. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman will suspend. The chair will receive a message. The messenger mr. Speaker, a message from the senate. The secretary mr. Speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to h. Con. Res. Providing joint session of congress to receive a message rom the senate president. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from florida is recognized. Mr. Gaetz while we are very excited from receiving a message from the president tomorrow evening, i am excited to hear from mr. King and i yield to him such time as he may consume. Mr. King i thank the gentleman from florida. Picking up where i left off. So it became a drill to the complete bottom of all of the allegations that had been made from the investigation that surely didnt look legitimate to us as mr. Gaetz and i and others on the Judiciary Committee began to question people from the f. B. I. And Justice Department. And at that time, james comey, the director of the f. B. I. And we put those pieces together, each one of those little incidents that were testified to stood up on their alone, there had to be an unbelievable string of coincidences that were presented before other committees on the hill and it became clear to us, initiated by mr. Gaetz we needed to go much more deeply in this and much more quickly. So a good number of us supported a resolution to call for a special counsel. Now i support the idea of an Additional Special counsel to broaden this and i would write the language even more broadly than the original resolution. We should keep in mind whats going on in this hill today and there are, by my count at least, seven different congressional committees that are investigating this broad picture of the subject matter that we are discussing here today, seven different ones. On top of that, weve got Robert Muellers investigation as a special counsel and i. G. Investigation going on in the Justice Department under michael horowitz. And he has a good reputation and 450 investigators probably not all working on this. But these reports, seven reports from committees that will come out and one from Robert Mueller that will come out and one from the i. G. Now this is pretty confusing to understand the subject matter. It is defined a little bit different from committee to committee and assigned investigation groups. Ill envision this. Our attorney general, Jeff Sessions, sits there will in the Justice Department having, in an honorable way recused himself from the Russian Investigation which keeps his hands off of that. The recommendation as i understand that came from rod rosenstein, the acting u. S. Attorney general in the event that Jeff Sessions isnt there. That was the recommendation from the testimony that Jeff Sessions should recuse himself and thats the man who made the appointment of Robert Mueller. And so when i look at this whole picture, our attorney generals job is a tough one but one i think he can do better than anyone else on this planet and that is make sense of all these investigations. Seven congressional investigation, i. G. Investigation and special couples investigation that adds up to nine by my estimation. People are human. That says to me these assignments of these investigations are either going to overlap or going to be gaps and when you have nine of them all together there will be gaps. And where there are overlaps, there are likely to be contradictions. The job of the attorney general is to look at this whole picture and put this back and figure out what the contradicks are and fill in the gaps and investigate where there havent been investigations by the special committees and the special counsel and differ to the American People the right kind of view on the justice that needs to come, if there are indictments, to make that call for those indictments clearly based upon factual evidence. Thats why i support this memo being released and the vote of the select committee on intelligence today because its essential the American People can absorb this truth. It has to come out a piece at a time. I encourage the attorney general to keep his hand on this in a steady way he has. Im confident that the decisions made are the correct ones and very confident that the president will make a decision to release the memo so the American People can get at the truth. History will write that book. And i thank the gentleman for putting this together and i yield back to the gentleman from florida. Mr. Gaetz i thank mr. King for calling this congress, this administration to act in a way that is consistent with the values and principles of the American People. May i inquire as to how much time is remaining . The speaker pro tempore the gentleman has 33 minutes remaining. Mr. Gaetz i will not take that full allotment of time, but its worth repeating the good work that chairman goodlatte has done gowdy and t trey chairman nunes has done, each of these committees has jurisdiction over a component part of the information that is laid out before the American People and given rise to so many concerns about bias, departure from standard practices and the potential, political corrosion of institutions that we have to rely on for an effective democracy. I thank the thousands of people who work in the f. B. I. And department of justice who are patriots and protect us from threats at home and abroad and do a good job in defense of this country. It is not their work we question. Its their work we hope to empower. When you have circumstances where folks at the head shed, where the leading bureaucrats can get decisions, can alter the contents that is shared with the American People, it undermines the work that true Law Enforcement members are doing and we want to honor that work while at the same time exercising our oversight function to go after the bad conduct and where we find it systemic, institute the reforms so it does not happen again. The f. B. I. And the department of justice should never be a political weapon used to go after add veer sears. And we ought to have more bipartisan agreement. While im grateful that the members on the Intelligence Committee were able to carry the day in the fight for transparency, im disappointed that these issues led to partyline votes. The reality is that all americans, republican, democrat, independent and members of the whig party have an interest in ensuring we have systems in place to protect our Constitutional Rights and liberties. No matter which party wins or loses an election, the political apparatus of intelligence wont be used to go after enemies or people we disagree with. I believe this was an opportunity missed, but wont be the last one. I believe the president is going to declassify this information within the fiveday window allowed to him. And when he does, all americans will see why republicans have been concerned with the information we have learned and then the opportunity will arise to work together, to take these facts, to take what we know and to liberate ourselves from the partisanship of this town and to try to make things better so in the future you dont have a circumstance where one is called head quartered special as the Hillary Clinton email scandal s or spousal relationships influencing the outcome of decisions and we dont want systems in place that allow leaks to the media within the apparatus of intelligence to cloud our mind, to cloud the facts, to cloud the review of our courts. While im proud of the work of the people who have spent a year investigating these matters, while im confident in the findings of this report, i still remain disappointed that we dont have more unity to ensure that these too types of abuses never happen again. Tomorrow, the president of the United States will walk down the center aisle and address this aisle. Might be a few more folks than there are here this evening and i hope the first thing he does is hand to the speaker of the house is consent and his agreement to allow transparency to reign, to declassify this memo and put it before the American People and lets have a great debate about its consequences and the opportunity it presents to make sure these things never happen again. I yield back the remainder of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Scott, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. Mr. Scott thank you very much, mr. Speaker. I first want to ask unanimous consent that all members have five he legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of this special order. The speaker pro tempore works. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Scott mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that i stand to anchor this special hour. Because, mr. Speaker, this nation is faced with a very serious threat. As a matter of fact, it is a labor threat to the ions, our great labor unions that have played a most fundamental role in establishing the greatness of the economy of our great nation. And this evening, first i want to thank the chairman of the c. B. C. , mr. Cedric richmond of louisiana, for his great leadership and appreciate him giving me this opportunity to anchor this special hour. Mr. Speaker, i also want to , ank the staffs of the c. B. C. With ms. Karen street, who has worked very closely with my staffer, ms. Cema abraham, who has done a remarkable job. Our whole team of many congressmen from every sector of this country, every part of this country, is going to come before this house of , in these next 60 minutes to explain and xpose to the American People two important things. First of all, we want to lustrate with our deep understanding of the great lue of the labor unions to this great country. We also want to expose the eat threat that is now being faced by our labor unions. And the first group of our labor unions thats facing this threat are the Public Sector unions. Most pointedly because in a matter of a few weeks the Supreme Court will take up a , janice vs. In the Supreme Court. To janice case is designed remove what has already been established as the constitutionality of public to ce unions to be able their fees and dues for membership. Which will be a catastrophic threat to the survival of these unions. And so we want to explain that. We want to also share the greatness of this. And so this is where we are. And i want to ask those who are listening over cspan tonight, all across this country, call a neighbor, call a friend, tell them to tune in and listen to these members of congress pour ut the truth about whats at stake with this janice court case that will be coming up before the Supreme Court. The first union that will be is ask me. But its far more than just ask me. Its the Public Sector unions that will be ruled as whether its constitutional or not for them to have dues. To be able to pay. This case comes from an individual, mr. Janice in illinois, who disagreed with the political endorsements. Well, whats important to understand going forward, mr. Speaker, is that the constitutionality has already been upheld. And on top of that, if theres any union member who does not agree with those political endorsements, he has a right to get a financial rebate for that part of the dues that would go to political endorsements. So, if mr. Janice is concerned if mr. Janices concerns have been dealt with, why, why this case . And that is the achilles heel that will prove the deviousness of whats before us. So it is with great pleasure that i bring on our first speaker. And this gentleman, representative bobby scott, is the Ranking Member of our education and work force committee. And on top of that he is a fierce fighter for working families and a leader in making will hat labor unions continue to have the rights that they fought so hard for. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott thank you. Mr. Scott i yield two minutes to mr. Scott. Mr. Scott thank you, mr. Speaker. And i thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, unions empower workers with the freedom to negotiate for a fair run return return on their work and they provide a collective voice to advocate for policies that benefit working people. Union workers, including those in the Public Sector, have more access to paid leave, medical and retirement benefits, and higher pay than workers who are not unionized. Children of Union Members experience more upward mobility than children of workers who are not covered by unions, and states with high union densities have stronger workplace protections. Theres a long history of unions helping the least powerful secure dignity on the job. This is the 50th anniversary of the memphis sanitation workers strike in 1968, after two workers were crushed in garbage compacters. Memphis sanitation workers peacefully protested for better pay and safer working conditions. They sought representation from the American Federation of state, county and municipal employees. They marched with placards that simply stated, i am a man. Dr. Martin luther king jr. Long recognized that the fight for civil rights was fundamentally linked to Economic Justice and he gave his last public address before his assassination on behalf of these workers. Despite Police Brutality and the deployment of 4,000 national guardsmen, the strike was ultimately successful and they negotiated higher wages and safer conditions. The unions representing the works in the Public Sector continued to empower our workers in communities today. Just this month, when temperatures plagued plunged to dangerous lows, the Baltimore Teachers Union fought for children who are forced to bundle up in coats and hats in their own classrooms because there was no heat in their schools. Around the country, seiu represented hundreds of thousands of Health Care Workers who provide inhome health care for our nations elderly and disabled. In many states these workers are state employees and the unions play a crucial role in bargaining for better wages, better training and advocating for increased medicaid funding so they can deliver services to the disabled and the elderly. Despite the great work these unions have done on behalf of working people, they are constantly under attack by corporate interests determined to cripple the Labor Movement and we know why. Big corporations and the top 1 have rigged our economy against working people. They have gamed the system, including our tax laws, to redistribute wealth to a select few. They have starved our economy of investments in education, infrastructure and housing. The campaign to weaken unions has contributed to extreme thing equality and wage stagnation as smaller and smaller shares of corporate earnings are paid in wages. The latest of these attacks is happening in the Supreme Court. On february 26 the court will hear oral arguments in janice v. Afsme on the question of whether or not to overturn 40 years of precedence affirming the principle that Public Employees who choose not to join a union may be required to pay a fair share fee to cover the cost of collective bargaining and contract enforcement. In 1977 the Supreme Court ruled for a board of education. It states in fair share states may authorize the payment of fair share fees to support unions collective bargaining on behalf of employees. The court found that this fair share fees are constitutional under the First Amendment because they support collective bargaining, not Political Activities. This practice fosters states interests in preventing labor disputes, cures the free rider problem of employees benefiting from Union Representation while shifting the cost to their coworkers, and improves the delivery of services by state and local governments. The plaintiffs want to overturn laws in 23 states and the district of columbia. That now require Public Sector workers who decide not to be members of the union to pay a fair share fee. These workers enjoy all of the benefits of the union. Higher wages, safer workplaces, effective grieveance procedures, and these fair share states today, public and private employees who do not want to join a union may be required to pay their fair share for expenses for Services Required by law, not political but Services Required by law to benefit all workers. In janice seeks to overturn that law and allow people to benefit from all of those Services Without paying their fair share. The challenge to the longserving precedence is the latest move by corporate interests to weaponize the First Amendment against working people. Weve seen it before in citizens united, which used freedom of speech and the First Amendment to justify virtually unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns. Here in the house of representatives, we seek frequently we frequently see similar antiunion attacks dedicated to weakening the Labor Movements ability to function as an advocate for working people and as a counterweight to corporate power. Whether in the Supreme Court or here in congress, the campaign to weaken unions is a campaign to strip workers of their most basic protections. This is why it is crucial for congress to defend against any attacks to undermine workers freedom to negotiate for better wages and better working conditions. So i thank the gentleman from georgia for organizing this special order and i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Scott thank you, mr. Scott. Very important as he mentioned. Were talking about not just afsme as i said, were talking about nurses union, educators, the teaches that are teach our children, our police, firefighters, everyone. And so its very important that the people of this country really get informed for this. W i will recognize representative dwight evans of pennsylvania who normally anchors this hour and does a great job. For two minutes. Vance vance mr. Evans thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from the great state of georgia for introducing me that opportunity and this opportunity to state about this case. And the importance of our unions. Our unions give much to celebrate in our neighborhoods nationwide. As you know, all too well this case stands to destabilize collective bargaining rights within the Public Sector. This is clearly an attack on freedoms and liberties of hardworking americans. Were in the business of doing no harm, thats what we should be. All this case aims to do is take away the rights of the ability of hardworking americans to have a strong voice in their workplace. That is just not right. Next month the Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments in this case to determine whether fair share violates the First Amendment rights of workers. When it comes to this case, a negative direction for our unions nationwide would take us in the wrong direction. Across the country more than half of africanAmerican Workers and nearly 60 of latino workers are paid less than 15ds per hour 15 per hour. Union jobs have historically been and continue to be a path to middle class for people of color, when often lowwage jobs. Africanamerican Union Members today earn 14 2k7 more and latino workers earn 28. 8 more than their nonunion counterparts. In some section, the difference is even greater. Africanamerican women in unions earned an average of 21. 9 an hour while nonUnion Workers earn d 17. 04. In addition, theres more than 72 of women in unions who have Health Insurance while less than 50 of nonafricanamerican women do not. Our unions are a key road to our growing middle class, especially for women and communities of color. Nationwide our unions continue to be on the front lines of fighting for higher pay, fair wages, safer working conditions and better hours to provide for themselves and their families. I will continue to stand with the front lines of protecting rights for all hardworking americans. Back the balance of my time and i thank the gentleman for this caucus. Mr. Scott thank you very much. We really appreciate that. And now, i would like to yield two minutes to a leader and a fighter, mr. Speaker, this is representative danny davis from the state of illinois, the very we are from. Mr. Davis i welcome all of those who joined in it. There are three men in this country who own as much of the poorests 50 of all the people in this country. If it were not for organized labor, not for unions and the influence, millions of individuals who are middle class, would be working at small wages. Individuals would not be able to send their children to college, wouldnt be able to own an automobile or a home. So we can never underminor not understand the value of organization. Many of us in this room enjoy the support of organized labor. You got to get resources from somewhere. You got to get money in order to function. If you cannot match what the big egabucks individuals can give to maintain control of our society, how do you expect to change it . So im simply pleased to join with my colleagues and suggest that nothing is more important in the distribution and redistribution of the wealth of this country than organized labor. And im yield im pleased to yield back. Mr. Scott im so pleased that the gentleman mentioned the important fact of the fantastic role that labor has played. Without labor, organized labor, there would be no middle class in america, there will be no 40hour work week. Child labor laws would not be on the books. The role that organized labor has played cannot be communicated better than our next speaker, and that is the lady from california, ms. Barbara lee, who is a legend in standing up and fighting for working people and labor unions. And i yield to the gentlelady two minutes. Ms. Lee thank you, congressman scott, for yielding. And more importantly for your leadership and looking for working men and women throughout the country and bringing us together this evening to discuss the Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, as we remember the man and the movement which transformed the soul of america, we must never forget that dr. King fought for Economic Justice and workers rights. A few months before his assassination, two young africanAmerican Workers were crushed to death by a faulty truck. Afc me and Union Members went on strike and dr. King was there lending his support. In his speech to the sanitation workers, dr. King explained why he was there. E said, now our struggle for equality, which means economic equality for we know it isnt enough to integrate lunch counters, what does it mean for a man to eat an integrate lunch counter if he doesnt earn enough money to buy a hamburger. After fighting to end poverty, the Supreme Court is taking up a case that would gut union rights. The Supreme Court case is a political scheme to further endanger the rights of working people. This case is yet another attempt by billion with airs and corporations to stop working people from joining unions all together. This case will gut the very protections that are the fabric of our society and thats our unions. More than 16 Million People are represented by unions by teachers, firefighters, postal workers. Unions help improve lives and deservedwages and well benefits. Unions are beneficial for communities of color. They have been locked out of wage increases. But for africanamericans who do in unions they earn 15 than nonunion counterparts. The women earn 22 compared to 17 in a nonunion job and those wages make a huge difference. Plain and simple, unions provide. As Union Membership has decreased, income inequality has risen. As more states started forcing people to work forcing working people off of unions, income iran equality rose by a third. The case before the Supreme Court threatens the Economic Security of families all across the country. This case will go against what the American Public wants. More than three in five americans know the importance of labor unions and yet we are defending their existence. We must ensure that working people, people of color, everyone, continues to have the right to join a union. Its the right thing for our economy, right thing for our community. Thank you for leading this very important special order tonight. Mr. Scott thank you very much, ms. Lee. And ms. Lee, it is so right that you mentioned dr. Martin luther king junior and this is the 50th anniversary of his assassination. And what was he doing . He was helping the garbage workers, local 1733 that had just gotten their charter and when the threats were at the bottom, they wanted him to leave. He said no. I dont know what would happen. We have some difficult days ahead, but i just want to do gods will and thats what we are doing here tonight. Thank you. And now its great pleasure that i recognize and introduce a dear friend, a leader in the fight for unions and working people, who loves this nation immensely, my good friend, representative cleaver. Reverend cleaver who works with me on the financial services, i yield the gentleman two minutes. Mr. Cleaver i thank you, mr. Scott. You have pulled us together and those of us who have been able to work with you over the years as i have, 13 years on the committee, we appreciate your work from georgias 13th district. My colleagues have already reminded you, mr. Speaker, of the significance, the history and the benefits of unions. I want to talk to you about the power of unions, the power to effect change in the work force. Next month, the u. S. Supreme court will hear arguments in janice versus afscme. This will decide whether workers can receive benefits of a Union Contract without contributing in a funding in return. We call them fair share fees. Unions work because the workers pay their fair share and all benefit from what is goirpted. Each worker chooses whether or not to join a union. But the union is still required by law to represent and negotiate on behalf of all of the workers. Some people want to see an end to that, which is why this case is headed to the u. S. Supreme court. A negative decision could reverse a 40year unanimous precedent supporting states rights. I want to say, i believe in the power of unions. It allows employees a voice when some of them feel that they have been silenced and cant speak and ask for increased wages or safe working environments, for fear of retaliation, the unions speak. The United States are their voices and they demand fair and reasonable working conditions. We saw that power in 1970 during the postal workers strike. Workers had had enough. As mr. Scott from virginia mentioned earlier, the power from the sanitation strike, workers were willing to sacrifice their lines. A pastor, a good friend of mine, he made a phone call to a man he met 10 years earlier. Jim lawson got out of prison for refusing to go to korea. He met Martin Luther king and both ended up in india studying under ghandi. D he realized he started the southern christian Leadership Conference and he said will you come to memphis. He said we need you to help us with that strike. When dr. King tried to get the board to vote to come to memphis, they were not in support. Dr. King struggled around a couple of days by himself and let everyone know on the board he was going to go by himself. That of course changed everybody elses minds and they joined him in memphis. We know what happened when he went to memphis. He was killed on the balcony of a motel. And sacrificed his life for workers, for workers. The people who built this country, i owe my middle class to my maternal and paternal grandfather, both of them worked for the Southern Pacific Railroad and became members of a union and earned enough money to buy a house. And in my little town where i was born, an africanamerican owning his own home, not a shanty. And so, it inspired his three boys, one of which is my father, to raise his four kids in a middleclass way and went off to college. We owe that not only to the ingenuity of my grandfather and my parents, but also of the United States. So i will support United States as long as i can, long after im out of congress, i intend to support unions because they have power to change lives. I am an example. Mr. Scott thank you so much, reverend cleaver, for that. Ladies and gentlemen, there are 7. 1 million members of just the Public Sector unions. 34 of all of the employees in Public Service belong to unions. And this Supreme Court case would be devastating to these 7. 1 million families. And now it is with great pleasure that i recognize ms. Fromsentative he vet Clark Brooklyn who serves on the energy and Commerce Committee for two minutes. I rise in ms. Clarke i rise in solidarity for Union Employees and workers. N 1977, the Supreme Court in aboud versus detroit board of education decided that these fees were constitution, full stock. This decision allowed unions to be paid fair share fees by nonUnion Members in order to negotiate on their behalf. Fair share fees have become increasingly significant and important as unions continue to fight for protections, Worker Protections in the workplace. Now 40 years later the Supreme Court is poised to hear this issue yet again in janice vs. Afscme. So what has changed . What has changed . Mr. Speaker, i am deeply concerned that this is yet another attempt to put big business above working people and weaken organized labor as effective representatives for the working class. I therefore ask the court to be thoughtful. I ask that they think of the consequences that will follow by reversing this law. I ask the court not to be used pawns by the republican conservatives million airs and billionaires to weaken organized labor and unions of the 21st century. If it were not for organized labor, many of us would not be standing here representing our constituents today. My mother was a member of d. C. 37, part of afscme. D it was through her labor union, her local, that she was able to put money aside for my brother and i to go to college. To make sure that our health care was taken care of. And here we are in the wealthiest nation in the world where millionaires and billionaires are lining their pockets with profits. And at the same time we have workers who are before the Supreme Court just seeking dignity to be organized through labor and labor unions. This is a time for all americans to remember their roots. Organized labor is part of the bedrock of this nation. It is my hope that the Supreme Court will remember that in their deliberations. Mr. Speaker, with that i yield back. Mr. Scott thank you very much. And it was so good of to you mention the why in all of this of you to mention the why in all of this. Because, mr. Speaker, in 1977, in the aboud vs. The detroit board of education it was ruled constitutional. And now they want to come back 41 years later and say its not constitutional . Thats the big why were going to get to answer as we move with these great speeches from our members from across the country. And now its with great pleasure that i recognize mr. Keith ellison, a tireless fighter for working people. Who is also the vice chairman of our congressional progressive caucus, as well as the vice chairman of our Democratic National committee. And a good friend. Weve worked together on financial services. Two minutes, mr. Ellison. Els els thank you mr. Ellison thank you. Mr. Now, mr. Speaker, speaker and members, its important to understand the big picture here. When the Supreme Court takes up jains, yes, theyre going to be talking about janice, yes, theyre going to be talking about fair share. Is it legal, is it constitutional for someone to benefit from being represented by a labor union that has to fight for them, and then still not have to pay anything to help at all . That will be the question before the court. But thats just a very small part of whats really going on. Whats really going on, mr. Speaker, is that we see the deconstruction of the american middle class. The question is, will america a land of opportunity or will it be a land of stagnation where you can work as hard as you want to but youre never going to be able to make enough to really make it . What is going on here, mr. Speaker . What is going on here, mr. Speaker, is that conservative movement in our country is trying to break the link between hard work and prosperity. And send that as they rifle money and channel it to the very richest among us and working people just have to hope for the best and work hard just to get back to work for whatever they can scrape together. Because at the end of the day, labor unions have given workers a voice, which has helped create the Great American middle class. You know, the light bulb and the semiconductor are not the great inventions of america. Theyre great inventions. But the greatest invention of the United States of america is this big giant middle class, which you can work hard and get into. This is what is under threat. This is what we are fighting to uphold tonight. Now, janice is a decision that takes place within the context of other decisions. Let us not forget, shelby county. A case which attacked our right to vote. Lets not forget citizens united. A case which says, corporations are people and they can spend as much money on elections as they choose. Lets not forget these tax cuts passed just about a few weeks ago which rifled money to the richest among us and undermined American Workers. We are in the middle of a battle. Over whether or not the United States will continue to be a place where hard work pays. Thats what this fight is about. And that, mr. Speaker, is what we invite everyone to. Understand the union difference. If youre black, being a union in a union means youre going to make more money than other folks. If youre a woman it means the same thing. If youre a veteran it will mean the same thing. Unions have always done more for the people who are in them. And we want to get more people in unions, not fewer. The attack that we see tonight in the form of this janice vs. Afscme is an attack on that union advantage. But unions have helped everybody, mr. Speaker. If you look at the cost, if you look at wag stagnation in america, what you see from the wage stagnation in america, what you see from world warled doctor wage stagnation in america, what you see from world war i is wages going up until you see Union Density begin to break down. At that point we see wages flatten out and stagnate. Union members create not just good pay and benefits for their workers, but they actually create benefits for all works because unions create the wage floor and lift up all boats. Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is africanamerican history month, only a few days away, beginning in february. We must remember people like a. Phillip randolph who was not only a union leader, he was a civil rights leader. We cant forget about e. D. Knickson, who helped start the montgomery bus boycott, which led to the golf swing of the modern American Civil Rights to the beginning of the modern American Civil Rights movement. And lets not forget our beloved Martin Luther king whose birthday we celebrated a few days ago and we will recognize the 50th anniversary of his assassination this year. Died fighting for workers of the American Federation of state, county and hue miss it pal workers mue miss it pat workers. Who is municipal workers. Who is one of the litigants in this case. I yield back to the gentleman. If you care about income inequality, if you care about prosperity for working people, got to get on the side of fighting against this decision. This is whats going on. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Scott thank you, mr. Ellison. Well done. And now id like to yield two minutes to the distinguished epresentative from Sheila Jackson lee from texas. And you talk about a fearless fighter, mr. Speaker, ms. Sheila jackson lee. For two minutes. Ms. Jackson lee i thank the gentleman from georgia for his leadership and galvanizing all of us and i thank my colleagues for very eloquent messages on the floor of the house regarding janice vs. Afscme, counsel 31. Let me acknowledge lee sanders and the afscme family who have been champions in fighting for the rights of all of labor. And that is why we are on the floor of the house today. Because we wanted to in our way as legislators join in this magnificent fight for Constitutional Rights, First Amendment. And let me take issue with the 1977 Supreme Court case, aboud vs. Detroit board of education, and turn the Fourth Amendment back to supporting those workers who in fact want to associate and participate in unions. Let me also thank my colleagues chairman of both the c. B. C. , chairman richmond, who i thank for thank him for galvanizing us as well in this effort. We offered a resolution to honor echo cole and Robert Walker on february 1, 1968, will 50 years that these two sanitation workers in memphis were killed in a horrific accident, when the compacter on their sanitation truck malfunctioned. The key is that these individuals had no rights, no benefits, they had no death benefits. They had no protection for their families. They had nothing. And that is why this Supreme Court decision is so crucial and why i hope that the Supreme Court of the United States will rule in favor of afscme, against this wrongheaded approach to those who are trying to speak on behalf of those who support the rights of workers. The Supreme Court cases did the flip of the First Amendment and suggested that the First Amendment of those who disapproved unions was being violated. I believe that the Supreme Court got it completely wrong. And that the First Amendment rights of those who move positively to be part of a union could be argued vigorously that their rights are being violated. Not only their rights are being violated, but their rights to have a livable wage, and to live in a safe and protected work force. And workplace. That is what i think the real question is. Is to why those who want to be in a union must be defeated by the constitutional premise of the First Amendment. My First Amendment is to join the union and to secure the rights and benefits of those. I hope that the Supreme Court will look to the fact that Union Members who desire to have fees selected and utilized for the union, deduct deducked deducted from their salary, have every much of a right as the First Amendment. You can opt out but you should not deny those members to the First Amendment to have their voices heard. In particular, it is important to note the benefits that have come about to the Africanamerican Community. And that is the Africanamerican Community has seen increase in wages, africanamerican Union Workers earn up to 10,000 or 31 more a year than nonUnion Workers. In 2011 nearly 20 of employed African Americans worked for the state, local or federal government, compared to 14 of other groups. And African Americans are less likely than other groups to work in the private sector. So let me say this about why i stand here to support the unions in their right to the First Amendment to deduct fees to be able to express their rights. Let me just quickly say as i close, do you know among the many things that unions have helped us get oare weekends, are weekends, breaks at work, minimum wage, civil rights, child labor laws, workmans comp. Mr. Speaker mr. Scorkts i believe this is an important discussion mr. Scott, i believe this is an important discussion because so many good elements of saving lives, so much so that those deer sanitation workers would not have lost dear sanitation workers would not have lost their lives came about because of the unions. Let me salute Clara Caldwell who will be honored by our Union Brothers and sisters in austin, texas, and let me say the right thing for the Supreme Court to do is rule on behalf of the unions and their rights to the First Amendment. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. Scott thank you very much, ms. Sheila jackson lee. Nd now id like to recognize representative donald payne from the great state of new jersey who is a strong fighter on behalf of unions. Mr. Payne thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank congressman scott for hosting tonights special order hour. And his continual dedication to making sure that working families are represented by his reat leadership. On tonight, the janice case, counsel 31, and the value of unions is what were here to speak about. As we hold this special order hour, there are efforts across the country working to trample workers rights. The Supreme Court case janice vs. Afscme aims to take away the freedom and the opportunity for working people to join together in strong unions to speak out speak up for themselves, their families and their communities. Any effort that threatens to undermine Public Sector collective bargaining rights is an attack on working people and their ability to negotiate with a strong voice in their workplace. We must be unwavering in our support of workersritis. Over the decades unions were vital in our communities, particularly for women and communities of color. Africanamerican women in unions earn an average of 21. 90 an hour while nonunion women earn 17. 04 an hour. In addition, more than 72 of women in unions have Health Insurance while less than 50 of nonunion africanamerican women do. The important work that unions do every day sim proving our lives and the economy of countless working families in this country. Et me just say to mr. Speaker, i have much more to say because be but in the interest of time, i will say, i know how important it is to be represented. I, in my working career have been in two labor unions myself. And i worked at a company and my fired, my uncle fired me, father was the hearing officer against me, and my grandfather was the witness against me. But mr. Speaker, i know how important it is to be represented because the union got my job back and with that, i ield back. Thank you so much. Now id like to recognize representative Hakeem Jeffries a leader on the Judiciary Committee, who knows full well how wrong it would be for the Supreme Court to reverse itself and take away a right that was given to labor unions just 41 years ago and then switch it back. Thats not fair. Two minutes. Mr. Jeffries i thank the distinguished gentleman from georgia for yielding and for his tremendous leadership on this issue. Here in america if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide a comfortable living for yourself and for your family. But for far too Many American workers, that basic contract has been broken. Since the early 1970s, the productivity of the American Worker has increased in excess of 285 . But during that same period of time wages have increased by less than 10 . So the productivity gains of the American Workers have not gone to the American Worker. Instead, theyve gone to the privileged few, to millionaires and billionaires, big corporations, to subsidize the lifestyles of the rich and shameless. Thats the america that were dealing with right now. Some may explain it as a result of tpwhrobalization. Some may say its fully negotiated trade deals. Some may say its the outsourcing of goodpaying american jobs. Some may say its the rise of automation. Certainly all of those factors are implicated. But the decline in unionization has been a significant if not decisive reason, that so many people have been struggling to achieve the american dream. And now the supremes in their wisdom want to give us another raw deal right wing hit to benefit the wealthy and the well off to the detriment of hard working americans. So lets hope that Justice Kennedy does the right thing, that five justices on the Supreme Court see themselves to not interfering and overturning settled law for the purpose of continuing a march to benefit the privileged few to the detriment of hardworking americans, and i yield back. Mr. Scott thank you so much, representative. Now its a great pleasure that i recognize representative lisa blunt, who also served as the former secretary of labor of delaware, whom ive worked with on our agriculture committee. Two minutes. Ms. Blunt thank you, mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Scott, i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak at this special order hour. Mr. Speaker, as the former secretary of labor and head of personnel for the state of delaware, im hear this evening on the floor of the house to lend my voice in support of the thousands of men and women across the country who are dedicated public servants, who currently belong to Public Sector labor unions. Who teach our children, pave our roads, protect us, and care for our seniors. Who dont receive huge salaries, and who work who dont work in palatial offices and whose very right to organize and collectively bargain is under attack. At the end of february, the Supreme Court is set to hear a case, janis vs. Acsme counsel 41, simply another attempt to weaken the rights of Public Sector employees in the fight for better pay, paid sick leave, or the ability to one day retire with dignity. Mr. Speaker, the plaintiff in this case seeks to bar the ability for Public Sector unions from collecting fair share fees. Fair share fees are collected from Public Sector employees to help their unions negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. Its important to note that no union can be effective at negotiating with employers unless the employees who reap the benefits of these negotiations pay for the collective bargaining, even if they are not members of the union. The Supreme Court has already ensured that a unions Political Activities and their collective bargaining activities are separate from their fair share dues. No Public Sector worker is being asked to contribute funds to causes to which they do not agree. It should be noted that unions go through painstaking detail to ensure no funds are misused. When our first responders, teachers and Public Sector workers come together and form strong unions, they win benefits like better working conditions, better wages, health care, and retirement security, which also benefit nonUnion Members. As our economy shifts, and the wealth gap grows, the protective power of unions must be strengthened, not weakened. Without the freedom to come together, working people would not have the power in numbers they need to make our communities and our country more prosperous. It is my hope that the justices will see the value, need, and success of Public Sector collective bargaining and that everyone must way their fair share. Thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Scott thank you so very much. Also, mr. Speaker, its very important to recognize that ms. Sheila jackson lee is a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee as well and has vowed to lead this fight in the committee, and we appreciate that. And now, it gives me great pleasure to recognize for two minutes representative val demings of orlando, florida, and may i say, mr. Speaker, that ms. Democrattings mrs. Demings is the former chief of police of orlando. Who better to speak to the damage that this Supreme Court janis decision could be to our Police Officers than a former choof of police. Two minutes than a former chief of police. Two minutes. Mrs. Demings thank you, mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleague from georgia, mr. Scott, for your leadership on this very critical issue. Mr. Speaker, america is a great nation. And tonight we continue to celebrate that fact. But we do know that great things dont just happen on their own. If we take a serious look through the pages of history, we will see the blood, the sweat, nd tears of many people. Some of those people came on cruise ships. And some came on slave ships. But regardless of the foundation n which our journey in america began, many were there helping to build what we now know as a great nation. Mr. Speaker, the American Worker is intertwined in the moral fabric of our great society. As america begins to grow as an industrialized society, so did its work force. And the need to develop fair and equitable workplace standards. I join the Orlando Police department in 1984. And on my first day of orientation, i joined the union. I joined a Great Department and i wanted to do my part to keep it a Great Department. I proudly joined the union and i clearly understood and it appeared at that time that those in management also understood that the union was working hard to ensure that employees, both sworn and civilian, worked in a safe work environment, were paid fair wages, and were fairly compensated in the event of death on the job. I was an active member of the union and when i moved to the management rank, i met regularly with Union Leadership to ensure we continued to have healthy work environment, fair wages, meaningful benefits, safe working conditions. That has been and continues to be the work of american unions. And with that, i yield back. Thank you. Mr. Scott thank you very much, representative. Now i would like to yield two minutes to representative denny heck of washington, of strong a strong fighter for labor unions. Mr. Heck his name was victor, though he went by vic. He was the holdest of six on their very hardscrabble farm in rural south dakota. One day he came home from school, he was just in the eighth grade, and he was met at the porch by his father, who told him in his broken english, he would have to quit school to save the family farm. Denying him the education that he wanted so very badly. Because you see, it was the winter of 1930 and the Great Depression had arrived. He lived a live of deprivation before and after, kicking around from job to job just to survive, just to keep from starving. World war ii came , he volunteered. Afterwards, he became a truck driver. And a teamster. The woman he would marry, jean, she had a high school education, no college. She became a telephone operator. And a member of communication workers of america. Together they worked very hard and raised four children. They owned their own home, they had a wooden boat in the garage they took annual modest vacations. They had Health Care Coverage and they helped each of their children attend college who wanted to. And then they had a secure retirement. And they owed it all to the strength of their unions. One of their four children stands before you today. Thank you teamsters. Thank you, communication workers of america. Thank you, unions across america. I yield back. Mr. Scott thank you, representative heck. Now id like to yield one minute to representative mark takano from california. Mr. Takano thank you. I thank you, thank the Congressional Black Caucus for holding this important discussion. For the past four years, courts have held Public Sector unions can charge a small fee to workers that benefits the collective bargaining agreements. Reversing that is not an honest shift in legal interpretation, its a political attack against American Workers and the organizations that represent them and has been years in the making. For decades, a relentless campaign, supported by large corporate interests, funded by the koch members has tried to rebrand Union Membership as a burden on American Workers. Their campaign is as cynical as it is misleading. For years, the senate refused to give the highly respected judge Merrick Garland and everruled at least 100 years of Senate Tradition to steal a seat on the Supreme Court that seat is now the difference between a court that upholds the rights of Public Sector unions and one that undermine theirs existence and today, President Trump, the real estate billionaire who promised to be a voice for america worners has pursued the most aggressive antiworker agenda in recent memory. Mr. Speaker, i yield back to the Ranking Member. Mr. Scott thank you. Now id like to yield two minutes to representative january schakowsky of illinois. Jan schakowsky of illinois. Ms. Schakowsky i thank mr. Scott and the Congressional Black Caucus for this. The ja miscase is critical for employers but more importantly to all the people who rely on Public Services that they provide. This is an illinois case. Its my state. Janis versus acsme council 31 a relentless fighter for American Workers. Before becoming governor, bruce rauner was chairman of a private equity firm where he put profits ahead of working families and as governor hes the one who filed this suit. We need to make sure we protect workers all over this country. We need to win this case before the Supreme Court. Justice calls for winning for Union Members. I yield back. Mr. Scott thank you very much. Mr. Scott mr. Speaker, we asked for a unanimous consent to have four minutes of his time for our final speaker. Thank you. And now i would like to recognize the speaker pro tempore the chair cannot entertain the gentlemans request and the time has expired. Mr. Scott thank you for the time. And we had so many speakers and we appreciate it and we hope that we have shared with the American People tonight this case and the threat it holds for members. Valuable the speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Gohmert, for 22 minutes. Mr. Gohmert i would like to recognize my friend, ms. Foxx for such time as she may consume the speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields. Ms. Foxx thank you, mr. Speaker. And thank you, my colleague, mr. Gohmert, i appreciate you yielding time. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night, the president will come before this chamber to address americans and the wider world. While some in this chamber and those watching at home will disagree with the president s vision, i hope we may all agree to Pay Attention to the facts. The fact remains that our economy is booming. Thanks to the tax cuts and jobs act, middleclass americans are receiving bonuses and empowered to keep more of their paychecks. Energy companies are slashing their rates so that taxpayers are spending less on energy. Families are now able to keep more of their hardearned money to spend any way they wish. The dow jones has sored under w heights under this administration. These facts will be addressed by the president , even if they are conveniently ignored by some in this chamber and members of the news media. I look forward to attending the state of the union and encourage ll those tuning in to remember the facts. With that, mr. Speaker, i yield back to my colleague from texas. Mr. Gohmert my friend, former president foxx, collegiate president and a great member of the house made some great points and look forward to listening to the president s state of the yuning address tomorrow as well. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal going on here lately in washington and something that has been a real threat to what i believe is the greatest Law Enforcement institution in the history of mankind, the federal bureau of investigation. As former speaker of the house, newt gingrich, has pointed out a number of times, had Hillary Clinton won the presidency in november of 2016, we would have idea how badly or how significantly the department of ustice and the f. B. I. Had been weaponized politically. And i just thank god we have the opportunity to find out before it was too late and to do something about it. Oday, news has been that as the wall street journal today reports, f. B. I. Departmentsy chief steps down after trump criticism. The f. B. I. Deputy director left his po post after his possibles urged him to step aside after weeks of weeks of criticism and i would be one of those republicans. He will take leftover Vacation Time until he is able to retire in march, the people said. Mr. Mccabe has faced a steady string of attacks over an alleged conflict of interest over his wifes run for state senator before he became deputy director. He has denied conflict. They have cited it as part of a broader assertion of bias on the part of the f. B. I. , Justice Department as they investigate russian meddling in the 2016 campaign and any links twep the Trump Campaign and moscow. Mr. Trump has called for mr. Mccabes ouster. They said this is an attempt to discredit them. F. B. I. Director chris wray addressing his departure said mr. Wray will not be swayed by political pressure in making decisions, according to a person familiar with the message. Thats quite interesting, coming this long after evidence was slapping people in the face, figuratively speaking. It appears that evidence that is overly compelling also may not actually sway chris wray into taking actions as the director of the f. B. I. That are reasonable and prudent, director of the f. B. I. Would have taken under the same or similar circumstances. Mr. Wray thanked mr. Mccabe for his service and that includes the weaponizing of the f. B. I. In which mr. Mccabe was involved. But mr. Wray added that mr. Mccabe said he would take leave immediately following the conversation between the two. The email was first reported by the new york time. Mr. Wray also said he wouldnt comment on the opinion report on the Inspector General or watchdog which is inspected to criticize the handling of an investigation into Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state. The report is expected to prompt some personnel changes. You think . It was a surprise to many inside the f. B. I. , those who had gotten used to it being weaponized. Officials abruptly canceled a press conference. Goes on to say the u. S. Intelligence community in january of 2017 said it believed russia had conducted and influenced operation with the goal of hurting ms. Clinton and elping mr. Trump in the 2016 president ial election. Gee, this article is citing u. S. Intelligence community. I guess that would include the part of the Intelligence Community that made the decision state , along with the department, that would be secretary of state Hillary Clinton, to leave the ambassador to libya exposed to grave danger and even after seeing footage of tacks, the same Intelligence Community that decided they were better off leaving people to die and ordering four heroes to stand down and not go protect the ambassador and others from dying. That same Intelligence Community how about that they apparently, according to the article said they believed russia conducted an influenced operation. Well, it turns out the same Intelligence Community that couldnt stand george w. Bush and leaked plenty of information to hurt his presidency and has done a great job of information to hurt President Trumps administration, if this article is correct, they helped the weaponize the department of justice launch an investigation. Nto potential russia influence it is so amazing when we start finding out facts that there was a dossier that fusion g. P. S. Was involved in getting strictly an Opposition Research effort at ended up having a totally fabricated, really outrageous outlandish allegations. And according to the news media what was in that dossier was so outlandish and you would think these stupid americans have to be out of their minds to think that donald trump would have done Something Like this. But maybe, maybe the now weaponized d. O. J. In america and the obama administration, when coupled with the clinton campaign, maybe they are crazy enough to think that donald trump would do Something Like this and that would affect the election if the campaign were crazy enough to utilize such a total fabricated dossier. I guess that would affect the election. But i still have trouble getting tell american heroes, stand down, dont try to save the lives of our ambassador and the others with the ambassador. Tyrone woods wasnt going to have any of it. He and others headed out there to help as they could, including willingness to lay down their lives to protect other americans. Something the c. I. A. Station chief in collaboration with others in the u. S. Intelligence community, decided was not worth while. This article said mr. Mccabes abrupt departure is the latest event between the Trump Administration and federal Law Enforcement establishment that is both investigating him as it works for him and cherishes its independence. Well, we know thats not true. Oh yeah, the f. B. I. And other levels absolutely does, but at the same time, they also cherish their good working relationships with local and state local Law Enforcement. But this article said mccabes resignation as the f. B. I. Faces fallout between the f. B. I. Agent and lawyer who were involved in the Russian Investigation including texts critical of mr. Trump. The lawyer working for mr. Mccabe. T apparently mr. Mccabe is retiring with full benefits as the president himself tweeted out. And i cant help but still go back to former director of the f. B. I. , mr. Mueller, who set up a Personnel Program that would ensure that the thousands and thousands of years of incredible Law Enforcement experience that s obtained by honorable, honest f. B. I. Supervisors, that they would be run off by mr. Mueller. He didnt want those people hanging around and put a personnel policy in place that ran off thousands of years of an incredible Law Enforcement experience from the f. B. I. And i cant help but think if mr. Mueller had not such a policy to get rid of people that had great experience, there would have been people who could have gently nudged people like strok or lisa r. Paige and who would have warned hem. Those people werent there because director mueller put in place a policy that ran them ff. Still wonder about the victims of they have Boston Marathon bombing. Had we had an f. B. I. Director that was as interested in eking out radical islamist killers as it was in having Community Outreach with the mosque that was started by a man who is now doing 23 years in federal prison for supporting terrorism, if he had not been so interested in playing patty cake out with his Community Partnership and instead had gone to the mosque and been asking specific questions about the brother after we got two notices he had been radicalized that i e, they never asked a question, in the one, about tsarnaev. Not what has he been concentrating on, whats he reading, whats he memorizing, whats he talking about what books has he got . Asking those questions, because they didnt know what questions to ask because director mueller had seen to the purging of the f. B. I. Training materials so the f. B. I. Agents didnt know what questions to ask. They didnt know what they were looking for in a radicalized islamist. The same scenario has played out out out time and again. Tsarnaev should have never been able to carry out that bombing because he came into the cross hairs of the f. B. I. Investigation and basically from all we could find out, from the hearings, they asked him if hes a terrorist , he said he wasnt. They asked his mom if he was a terrorist she said hes a good by and thats an encapsulation of it, but they didnt know what to ask, because of mueller. Michele bachmann and i reviewed material that was purged, the f. B. I. Classified it so we couldnt reveal to you, mr. Speaker, or others, publicly what was purged. Some of it was silly and needed to be purged. But say, for example, there were a purging of a verse from the koran. Why should anything ever be purged from the koran if its part of the training materials . Have to ask mr. Mueller that. The f. B. I. , the d. O. J. , it deserved better. And were looking forward to finding out what the i. G. Report has to say. But its time for games to stop. Its time for Law Enforcement to do their jobs. At the department of justice and the f. B. I. Jeff sessions has got his hands full. Its obvious he felt like he could trust what were called career d. O. J. Employees. Hopefully hes learned some of those career employees didnt have the Law Enforcement long in the tooth to give them the benefit of their experience because mueller ran them off. And they got off into an area of po litization of the d. O. J. And of of the d. O. J. And f. B. I. He cant trust the people he would have been able to otherwise had the f. B. I. Not gotten so far off track. We need a Second Special counsel. As i advised the president back in june. Nd we need it now. Investigations cannot be conducted by mueller into what mueller did during the prior Russian Investigation along with the u. S. Attorney, rod rosen stein and could not rosen steyn and could not prop rosenstein and could not properly investigate his joined at the hip friend, mr. Comey. Cannot investigate what will be in the inspector genre port that certainly should require further investigation he cant do that. It needs to be totally independent and im not talking about the god father of mr. Omey, one of his kids, patrick fitzgerald, he conveniently got appointed after he talked John Ashcroft into recusing himself. Im not im talking somebody totally independent. Thats what we need. Where does the d. O. J. Go to get its reputation back . Its going to be a long process. And its going to take truly independent people cleaning up the mess thats been created so that that can happen. We need a reputable department of justice and f. B. I. And its high time we got one back. Yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. Under the speakers announced policy of january 3, 2017, the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. Perlmutter, for 22 minutes. Mr. Perlmutter sprk thank you, mr. Speaker. First mr. Perlmutter thank you, mr. Speaker. Im joined today by jared huffman. Eventually i think Brendan Boyle from philadelphia, home of the new n. F. C. Champions, is going to join us. What were going to talk about is really what are the republicans afraid of . What is it that theyre hiding . What do they think is going on with respect to this investigation of the president and his ties to russia . It starts from the very beginning. This time last year, we asked the president , are you going to turn over your tax returns so that people can see whats in your tax returns . Whether you have relationships with the russians or who knows who. Every president for the last 40 or 50 years has turned other their tax returns. But of course the president did in the turn over his tax returns. Has refused to turn over his tax returns. So the first thing you say is, well, whats in there . What are you hiding . Well, now what we see is a concerted effort by the republicans in the congress and in the white house to smear and disparage hardworking Law Enforcement officers in the f. B. I. , in the Intelligence Community, at the department of justice, who have been tasked with trying to figure out ether or not russia involved itself criminally in our elections last year, and whether or not theres any implication of the Trump Campaign with respect to those particular efforts by the russians. D so, we need to make sure that russia does not hack into our elections. Does not participate in a way that favors one party over another or one candidate over another. And so these investigations started, the first thing the president did was fire jim comey from the f. B. I. Through a process the Justice Department then appoints a special prosecutor, or special counsel, to continue this investigation. And since thats occurred, there ave been a couple of indictments and a couple of plea agreements. O michael flynn, who was the intelligence head for the part of has faced this investigation. Paul manafort and rhard gates who were involved with the campaign and then george papadopoulos. But thats just the tip of the iceberg. Both of all these people on the Trump Campaign side and all these russians have played some kind of a role, and this investigation must be pursued. And my friends on the republican side of the aisle can complain, can stomp their feet, can throw mud at the individuals who are asked to do these investigations , but these investigations must continue so that the people understand exactly what happened and to make sure that the russians are not allowed to participate and infiltrate and affect our elections once again. So, you know, just really a couple or three questions a couple of questions and a statement. What are you afraid of . You know, what are you hiding . You know, why is there a coverup of some kind here . The bottom line is just let our Law Enforcement individuals do their detective work, do what they were asked to do, and leave them alone and let it be done. And if it exculpates and proves that nothing happened, then great. But if there are some if there is some wrongdoing here, America Needs to know about it. With that, i yield to my friend from Northern California, mr. Huffman, for as much time as he wants to consume. Mr. Huffman i thank the gentleman from colorado and i thank you for organizing this specialed or hour conversation. You asked the right question. What are they hiding and what are they afraid of . Its a bit of a rhetorical question because when you think about the chart youve displayed there, think about the indictments and plea deals and all the other information that were beginning to glean, its pretty obvious what theyre afraid of and what theyre hiding. This investigation is getting pretty darn close to the personal and political and financial ties between this presidency and those around him and russia. And its a lot of information that they dont want the world to know about. And thats why were seeing all of these distractions, all of these elaborate and increasingly desperate attempts to change the subject and cry ate diversions. And frankly, today, my colleagues, i am very worried that not so much that this is coming from our president , because weve seen him throughout his career engage in character assassination and burning down the house tactics and all manner of ruthlessness, but im disturbed that manufacture our colleagues here in this body have taken up those same tactics and that same cause. Thats dangerous. One of the great things about this country, i believe, is that its about the rule of law. Our founders actively debated this question about whether we would be a country of laws and institutions or a country of men. Would we have some people above the law or would we all be subject to the law. They answered it loud and clear. We were going to be a country of laws and institutions. At every critical test in our history, we have reaffirmed that essential great aspect of what it is to be the United States of america. Thats what watergate was all about as we are beginning to remember. And yet today it seems that that proposition is being retested all over again and to my dismay, some of our colleagues are hoping for a different answer as we retest that proposition this time. And thats very troubling. Im not in the habit of quoting fox news very often, certainly not their news hosts, but one of their hosts, shep smith, said something that struck a cord in the last few days. Heres what he said about the socalled nunes memo. A memo can be a weapon of partisan mass distraction. Thats exactly what this is. A desperate attempt to protect President Trump from investigation and accountability and i think we need to recap a few facts that brought us to this point. Back in november, 2016, when the chairman of the house Intelligence Committee was appointed to president elect trumps transition team, he, like our president , started sowing doubts about whether russia had interfered with the 2016 election. Incorrectly claiming that there was some kind of disagreement between our intelligence agencies on the subject. In fact, there was that disagreement. All of the american Intelligence Community agreed. As they had looked into this, they determined that russian operatives had worked to undermine the inteckity of our election. That conclusion has been reinforced and reaffirmed by everything we have seen sin then. The chairman told politico that the house should not investigate contacts between russia and the trump camp even though his Senate Intelligence counterparts had already committed to following the facts wherever they may lead he had already made up his mind. The chairman described the trumprussia connections as a dead trail he said theres nothing there of course we know President Trump has said he has nothing to do with russia. Totally contradicted by everything we have learned since. All this is going to come as a surprise to the president s cam paper chair, who is under indictment to members of his family who have been hauled before the special prosecutor to answer to secret meetings and other dealings they have had with russia and others in this administration who have had repeated contacts with russia and no one can forget the trip to the white house where he staged a News Conference that he briefed the white house about a source who can explain how officials were caught up. His unnamed sources that he rushed to brief the white house about. Well, they were white house first. This was a completely stunt. They planted the information with the chairman and give cover to the president who tweeted about wiretapping and con expire cyst and on it goes. You are asking all the right questions. Answering igation is the questions. Its important to finding out the truth. The america cap people deserve to know the truth and reaffirming that that aspect and we are a nation of laws and institutions. Weve got to reaffirm that over and over again from time to time. With that, i yield back. Mr. Perlmutter i thank my friend from california. You were talking about this memo. Men, ne of the former chair mike rogers, was a panelist on a c nmp n program and apparently this memo is going to be released today against all sort of norms with respect to the Intelligence Committee and classified information. And his words were releasing a arch l e this is farsic and a mistake and undermines with respect to our Intelligence Community, the trust we have with our allies and all of it to put up this smoke screen. They go after the Law Enforcement agents who are the detectives on the beat. And now releasing information that is incomplete and mike to divertrds farsical the real conversation, which is what did the rush yaps do, how did they play in the elections, was there any kind of cooperation, col like with the Trump Campaign and we know that bob mueller was appointed and been a lifelong republican. And everybody embraced his position as special counsel when it first came about, but quickly, the president was thinking about firing him, now people want to smear all of this. Its a mistake. The real question is, what are you hiding. And my friend from philadelphia, will be , his eagles playing in the super bowl, he has some questions, too. I yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania. Mr. Boyle i thank my colleague and friend and the eagles, broncos fan a and super bowl will be the diversion from the seriousness of the subject ta we are discussing and debating tonight. T me take us back a bit to a couple of events that may have happened before i was born but i know well as a stupid of american history, because i fear we are on the verge of repeating possibly days away of repeating them. In october of 1973, after the watergate investigation was being conducted by the special counsel cox. , it had been going on for most of 1973, on a saturday night, president nixon decided to fire the special counsel. In part the special counsel was doing his job and was getting too close to uncovering the conspiracy. President nixon ordered his attorney general to fire the special counsel. He refused and went to the Deputy Attorney general and the Deputy Attorney general refused and number three man robert bork, decided he would follow what president nixon wanted and fired cox. That was the saturday night massacre. The anchor for nbc news came on the air and i was recently rewatching this and he said i uttered words but we are in the greatest constitutional crisis. I fear that history may well repeat itself. We now know and it has been reported and con filmed by fox news that President Trump has ordered his own white house attorney to fire the special counsel. Why . If the president really has nothing to hide, why would he fire the special counsel and bring this process to an end . It guess back to the very first question that my colleague from colorado has asked, what does he have to hide . I sincerely hope that the special couple will prove that nothing happened. That would be the best outcome and best course for all of us as americans. But boy, if the president is npt, he sure isnt acting like it. We must come together as democrats and republicans second but as Americans First and do what is in the best interest of justice and of this country and say the special counsel must be allowed to continue his work until its natural conclusion. If the president moves to fire the special counsel, that by its very definition is obstructing justice. This body and the other body on the other side of this building cannot allow that to happen. Heres the good news. In watergate, ultimately the American People didnt allow it. There was an outcry that within 48 hours, president nixon appointed another another special counsel who ended up being and pursued the president to the Supreme Court ap the Supreme Court ruled that president nixon had to hand over wereapes even though three nixon appointees. He released the tapes including a few tapes. The socalled smoking gun. Within about a week or two, resigned in august of 197. We can prevent that history from repeating itself to ensure there is a proper procedure in place to protect the integrity of that investigation. If that doesnt take place, there will be an outcry from the American People that you havent seen or heard since august of 197. These institutions are more important than any Political Party and we need to act in such a way that shows we believe in those words. I yield back. Mr. Perlmutter i thank my friend from pennsylvania. The History Lesson you just reminded about. Your words are ones that really, i dont think i could add anything to it. I would ask my friend from Northern California if he has anything else to add. I want the speaker to know and this chamber to know, we arent going to go away and allow things to be hidden or things to be covered up. This has to run its full course, just as my friend said. With that, i yield to my friend from california, who i think will yield to the speaker. Mr. Huffman we are being taken back to the lessons of watergate tonight. The system worked in the 19 0s. The checks and balances that our founders put in place took in effect. The public stepped up and media stepped up and people within the government stood their ground and did the right thing. But i think it would be foolish for us not to take the threats of this moment in our history very, very seriously, because there are some things at play this time around that werent there in the 1970s. You didnt have rightwing media organizations trying to undermine public trust in our government or a complicit United States congress that instead of oversight, they are running covering, trying to hide the facts and trying to olympic investigations and playing tribal politics instead of fulfilling our constitutional role. I think it is a very serious moment in our history and im glad you are convening discussions. We have to make this investigation that the professional Law Enforcement personnel are allowed to do their job so we can learn the truth whatever that may be. The question is, what are they afraid of and what are they hiding . And well accept that answer. We have to let the system work and i thank the gentleman. Mr. Perlmutter we yield back to the chair. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. The chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from colorado so moves. The question is on the motion to adjourn. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Accordingly, the house tomorrow, the house plans on budget spending for the Defense Department before hearing President Trump deliver his state of the union address. House and Senate Republicans intend their joint retreat. Follow the house live on cspan when members gaveled back in 10 a. M. Tuesday for morning our speeches and noon for legislative work. The house Intelligence Committee voted monday evening to make a gop memo on the russia investigation public. The memo was drafted by the staff of Committee Chair devin nunes and alleges surveillance abuses at the Justice Department. The hills Katie Williams reports of the committee voted against making public a minority crafted memo but did vote to release it to the entire house. Republican members expressed the president now has five days to review and reject or approve the publication. We heard from adam schiff who spoke to reporters following the vote to release the gop memo. He was joined by other Committee Democrats at this 15 minute briefing. Mr. Schiff good evening. I want to give a quick briefing on the events of the committee evening. I think we have crossed a deeply regrettable line in this committee where the first time in the 10 years ive been on the committee there was a vote to politicize the declassification and intentionally compromised sources and methods. I made a couple of motions this evening. First, we scheduled a hearing today, a business meeting so that the minority memoranda can be made available to the members of the house that had been misled by the majoritys memoranda. We expected that vote to be noncontroversial and it was. The house members will now have access to the minority memoranda. I made a secondary motion that prior to the public release of either memoranda that the fbi and department of justice have the opportunity to come and brief the entire house in a classified session on both memoranda on the underlying facts and underlying materials so that the committee could make a responsible judgment as to whether the memoranda should be made public. That motion was voted down by the majority. The majority expressed a concern that it could compromise sources that itds so we asked be vetted by the fbi for the department of justice, but that was voted down. I spoke with the director of the fbi earlier this afternoon. I relayed that interest to the committee, but that was unavailable. They were not willing to meet with the fbi to hear the turn for it instead, they voted against allowing their own