Powers, and the constitutional oversight responsibilities of congress. He used every trick in the book to stonewall our efforts at every turn. You do not have to take my word for it. Declared weump are fighting all subpoenas. I do not want people testifying, and no do overs. Like a mob boss than the president of the United States. His administration is more than happy to follow his lead. Attorney general barr refused to release the full, unredacted Mueller Report and underlying evidence. The committee voted to hold him in contempt of congress. That ans news today agreement was reached on some of the underlying evidence but it has yet to be seen whether the department of justice will live up to its deal so we need to keep all options on the table. There were some documents and information that falls outside of this agreement. Meanwhile, don mcgann has also failed to provide documents of congress while refusing to testify before congress. This unrelenting campaign of stonewalling with the Mueller Report. It includes many issues that everyday lives. Issues like the president s attack on the Affordable Health care coverage, including those with preexisting conditions. Separation policy, his misappropriation of military funds for his offense of border wall. His attack on civil rights protections. I can go on and on and on. Thepresident s actions test very notions the founder government upon. Three separate booklet we will branches of government, each with unique powers and responsibilities and each expected to act as a check on the power of the others. President trump washed strategy here is clear. Turn america into a place where the president of the united they is not only immune from prosecution in the courts but also immune to any congressional accountability. Here is the bottom line. Each and every member of congress in this body took an oath of office. Not to this president , not to this administration, but to the the unitedn of states of america. Donald trump may not care much about upholding his oath, but we care about upholding our ours. To protect the constitution and that is exactly what we are doing here today, just as our founders intended us to do. That is why we are here today to markup a resolution i introduced last week with the support of Six Committee chairs. The first part of this resolution authorizes the Judiciary Committee to seek enforcement of its subpoenas against the attorney, requiring him to provide congress with the key evidence underlined in the unredacted report itself. It would force the Committee Subpoenas of don mcgann requiring him to provide and appear for testimony. That follows past president used by democrat precedent used by oversight. Making clear every committee to goretains the ability to the federal court to seek Civil Enforcement of their subpoenas, authorized by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. That includes subpoenas that are already issued as well as future subpoenas. This sufficient approach will allow us to walk and chew gum at the same time, to hold the president accountable while continuing to deliver on other issues like health care, infrastructure, and jobs. Look, i wish we didnt have to be here today. I wish donald trump acted more like a president and less like a king, but this resolution is necessary because of his actions and those of his administration. If we dont stand up to President Trump then congress could lose its power to stand up to any president in the future. No member of congress should sitideally by and let that happen. And this democratic majority certainly isnt going to let it happen without a fight. With that now im happy to turn the mike over to the Ranking Member, mr. Cole, for any remarks he may have. Thank you. Were here today for a jurisdictional markup for a bill thats quite frankly unprecedented. To authorize the committee on the judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to affirm the duty of the attorney general william p. Barr and former white House Counsel donald f. Mcgahn to comply with certain subpoenas. This authorization extends to the petition of subpoenas for disclosure of grand jury materials that otherwise may not be disclosed under law. I call the events under consideration today unprecedented because this sequence of events has literally never happened before. The house of representatives has only filed lawsuits to demand documents twice. And both times, the individuals in question were held in contemt contempt of Congress Prior to the house filing suit. Thats not the case here. In neither of the previous cases did the house move with anything close to the speed of which the majority is pushing towards today. Lets consider what happened in those two previous cases. In 2007, the house filed suit to recover documents from former white House Counsel heriot myers. It was 138 days from the day the first request until the Judiciary Committee voted to hold myers in contempt of congress. In 2012, the house voted to hold thenattorney general eric holder in contempt of congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the fast and furious scandal. But it was 464 days from the date of the first request to the Judiciary Committee voting to hold holder in contempt, 464 days. Here, just 44 days have elapsed from the date of the first document request to the attorney general until the Judiciary Committee voted to hold him in contempt. The speed at which this matter is moving has never happened before. I dont understand the majoritys haste here. Without exhausting all other options, negotiation, discussion , and turning to a vote on contempt as the last result, the majority pay be placing the house in a position that causes longterm damage to the institution. When this goes to court, it will do so on a matter of First Impression. It will never have been tested in the courts before, and using such untested theories could set a dangerous precedent harming us all, republicans and democrats in the long run. Its also unclear what exactly this resolution will accomplish. The house has not voted to hold either mr. Barr or mr. Mr. Barr or mr. Mcgann in contempt of court. Nor is it clear negotiations with the Justice Department and white house over the documents at issue are at end. Indeed, given how quickly the majority is pushing forward and seeking these documents, it seems unlikely that the only course of action left in the house is to file a lawsuit. I strongly urge the majority to continue working with the Justice Department and the white house to find a resolution to these issues without resorting to a knee jerk lawsuit that may ultimately damage the house and institution. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back and thank you. And it does require that the judiciary if in fact negotiations turn out to not bear fruit. And i would also say, you know, the last time we did this the gentlemen referred to in regard to then attorney general holder. But whats different and whats unprecedented is that when we did it last time there was no markup. With all due respect, mr. Chairman, what happened last time is the whole house actually voted on these issues and thats not happening here. So were circumventing the house. Well, the house will have a chance to vote on this on the resolution tomorrow. Weve never done this before so it is very unprecedented. At this time, id like to the chair will entertain a motion from the gentleman from colorado. Mr. Chairman, i move that the Committee ReportHouse Resolution 430 as amended to the house are favorable recommend agds. Recommendations. So you heard the motion from the gentleman from colorado. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of the substitute to h res 430 will be considered as read. It will be considered as based text for the purposes of the amendment it is open for amendment at any point. Mr. Chairman is recognized. Thank you very much. Tomr. Chairman, pursuant clause 4a house amendment rule 16, i move the consideration of h res 430 be postponed indefinitely. Just a few brief hours ago the department of justice offered even more accommodations to chairman nadder that he has said publicly publicly he accepts. Legal action should never be the first step, and chairman nadler finally agreeing to negotiate with the Justice Department should be all the more reason for what this body needs to definitely pause in consideration of h res 430. Forcing the house on time consuming and costly litigation to only occur after all available tools have been expended and that that standard has cheerily not been reached. Clearly not been reached. The resolution, i urge my colleagues to proceed with caution and allow the Judiciary Committee to move forward with this agreement with the Justice Department, giving preemptive authority is against reason of the government. We frankly do not have accurate or timely information at this moment to vote on this matter or accurately weigh the risk of the institution by moving forward with an unprecedented and weak legal thelry. Theory. Theres nothing to be lost by agreeing to this motion and returning to this resolution in the future should it be needed, which i very hope it will not be. You heard the motion of the gentleman. I guess i would respond by simply repeating the words of President Trump himself, who said, and i quote, we are fighting all subpoenas. I dont want people testifying, no do overs, end quote. And hes made it clear where hes coming from. And, you know, theres nothing in this resolution that says the Judiciary Committee or any other committee has to go forward with the lawsuit. This basically is insurance, if you will, to make sure they do keep their word. And based on the level of obstruction coming from this administration, i quite frankly am glad we are doing this because i think they need to know were going to do everything we can to protect our Constitutional Authority. And were not going to sit by and roll over while they deny congressional committees and the American People the information we requested. Any further discussion or comments . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just want to thank you for bringing this crucial resolution to the rules committee. It is unfortunate that we cant stand together on this issue when we have seen this administration pushing so far to fight against any effort to bring about transparency and accountability to how they have behaved and how they have denied information to congress. I think that this is this is step in the right direction, empowering our committees to do their work which is expected of them to do. Thats what our constituents sent us to congress to do to ensure that no one, no one is above the law. When our district attorneys bring charges about people that are being accused of criminal wrongdoing, i think it would be unfortunate for folks to stand up and say, you know, refuse to answer any questions, refuse to be transparent. And that is exactly what we are doing here, what this administration has done. So i urge my colleagues to move this resolution forward, and lets begin doing the work that congress that our constituents selected us to do. Thank you. Any other comments . Are we being heard on the motion . It is. You quoted the president , mr. Chairman. I want to quote the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, mr. Nadler, who said, just commenting on the deal with the doj that has just been reached. If the department proceeds in good faith and were able to obtain everything we need, then there will be no need to take further steps. Clearly, we are getting to a place where we can vote on this resolution 15 minutes into a hearing if the majority ultimately needs this authority, we can do it. I confess im a lawyer but im not a prosecutor, im not a litigator. I dont know what the lawyers have said about the legal impact on article i versus article ii if we allow a chairman to prosecute this as opposed to having the speaker prosecute on behalf of us all. What have the witnesses have said i would put to my colleagues, what have the witnesses said about the potential harm as a case of First Impression reports. I do trust you as being one of the finest litigators in the house but i havent seen it developed. Your very kind. I could either respond or i could incorporate it into my remarks, but youre asking specifically about the delegations of the Committee Chairs in order to vindicate rights of the committee. I think the House Counsels interpretation of this is that this is not a shot up problem in the sense its not one house acting alone because the house itself could clearly go in so its just a question of the delegation of the authority of the house of representatives to go to court to committee chair, and we dont see theres any legal obstacle. I thank the gentleman for his council. He makes my point. Ms. Torres spoke eloquently about the frosustration we cant frustration that we cant stand together as article one on these issues, and we should. We may have disagreements about this issue, but there are others where we can absolutely be article i versus article ii and should be, but i know we havent called any witnesses here. The committee having the jurisdictional markup here, i know you and i havent heard from witnesses on the impact. And i consider him to be one of the finest legal minds in the house, i understand the Judiciary Committee hasnt had these hearings either. So while were trying to build that framework where we can come together and speak as one voice, to have our Committee Chairman say he doesnt even need this authority as long as the deal holds up and to have us as a rules committee to say we know we havent recalled any witnesses nor as the Judiciary Committee to have this conversation and for us to share in amity we want it to present itself as strong as we can when we enter these inrgovernmental intergovernmental challenges. I support mr. Coles motion because i know that while he may disagree on the underlying premise, he can count votes as well as anybody. We can move something out of this committee in a flash if the chairman deems it necessary to have an opportunity where the chairman says he doesnt need the power or the Committee Says we havent talked about the delegation of the power, and for the committee to say wed like to speak with one voice seems like an opportunity if there ever is one to delay until the majority decides in its wisdom it absolutely positively has to exercise this power and in this way. I move to strike the last word, and in response to mr. Woodall, i say two things. One, if the gentlemen is urging we the rules committee should ding authority to the other committees that were doing it prematurity thats one thing. If the gentleman is saying theres no evidence, theres no reason to move and accelerate this process, id say the gentleman is completely off base on that. And ill just finish because we know from the Mueller Report or at least what you can read in the Mueller Report with all of its redactions that there are are a dozen instances of obstruction of justice. So, in a Justice Department investigation theres obstruction of justice. We have the president saying were going to oppose all discovery, all subpoenas, all requests for testimony. And in this motion there isnt any requirement of any specific committee to do anything, but were providing them the tools to move forward without us having to have another hearing. If the gentleman would yield. I certainly will. Its not having another hearing. Its having our first hearing. We have never had a hearing on this issue. Weve gone directly to markup. I did go to law school. Im not a legal scholar, but i have a legal mind. I do not understand what this impact is. I know that when we passed a resolution here in the committee , and we go to the floor in two hours, i can give the speaker of the house the authority to file this lawsuit on behalf of the house. How am i advancing as a house member by having the chairman as the litigant instead of the speaker as the litigant . Reclaiming my time, and i appreciate the gentlemans point. But for me, weve been watching this thing unfold for two years. This isnt like its the first time any of us have ever addressed this subject at all, and so im going to urge that we deny the motion to postpone indefinitely by the gentleman. And with that, i yield back to the chair. Anybody further . I want to speak in favor of the motion to postpone. I was on this rules committee probably two committees ago when mr. Baner sought and received from the rules committee the permission to sue the administration over some aspect of appropriations and the Affordable Care act. We had a lengthy hearing here in this hearing room. We had two democrat and two republican witnesses so it was a balanced hearing, all law school professors. Everyone was reminding me why i didnt go to law school. But at the same time, i think at the end of that hearing, there was pretty good elucidation what the problems were and what was hoped to be accomplished. I dont think you can say the same in this situation. Certainly from a standpoint as a member of the rules committee and were the ones being asked to vote on this. Again, ill stand with mr. Cole, hes right, we need to postpone this and come back and do a normal standard hearing like we had do for any other person. Just because its donald trump doesnt mean we need to lose contact with reality. We should stay f