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 focused on what is correct and proceed accordingly. I appreciate that. Its just funny. I dont remember the gentleman raising those objections when we took action against mr. Holder. When there was not only no hearing but no markup. Mr. Raskin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to start by thanking mr. Woodall for his very kind remarks. I always appreciate your reasonableness and your thoughtfulness. Mr. Chairman, i want to thank you for bringing this matter of utmost importance and urgency before the rules committee. Our distinguished Ranking Member invoked i think the critical word which is unprecedented. But whats unprecedented is not our attempts to deal with the lawlessness and the obstruction of the administration. It is the lawlessness of the administration. In some sense, weve lost our sense of the unprecedented in this time. And, you know, there are the obvious things like mocking disabled people or mocking womens bodies on television or talking about grabbing peoples genitals or paying hush money to mistresses, those kinds of things. But im not even talking about that. Im talking about not even huge unprecedented policy shifts like pulling out of the paris Climate Change agreement and denying Climate Change science. Im talking about the president s wholesale defiance and contempt for the United States congress. He in that passage that you quoted, mr. Chairman, has essentially pulled down a curtain over the executive branch of government. Hes said no witness, no documents, no testimony, and were going to deny all of your subpoenas. Its completely unprecedented. Richard nixon never came close to this level of wholesale defiance of the power of congress. Theres nothing in history that directly approximates what this president has said about his ardent refusal to engage in the fact finding process of congress. Lets be 1000 clear about this. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that the fact finding function of congress, our investigative power is integral and essential to the legislative function. Because how are the representatives of the people supposed to govern and pass the laws that affect the people if we cant get information, and if its suddenly open season on giving the finger to congress and refusing to participate with its legitimate and lawful demands for information. So it is true that after the chairman of the Judiciary Committee leveled the threat of going in for criminal contempt that the attorney general at that point said we will let you see some of the documents. And so, im hoping, if our meeting ends in time i will be able to go over just the member of the Judiciary Committee, not members who arent, but they said well let the members of the Judiciary Committee come and check it out. Whats not included in that . The grand jury material redacted from the Mueller Report when every other independent special counsel has turned the entire report over to congress. Thats what ken starr did with the clinton investigation. Remember those big boxes they brought over in a truck . They gave everything to congress. It was up to congress to do the redactions. Were perfectly capable as had representatives of the people of doing that ourselves. The testimony of key witnesses Like White House don mcgahn who was allegedly told to special counsel mueller to fire the special counsel and then to lie about it later and to claim that it was because of trumped up conflicts of interest that had already been rejected by the department of justice. So theres a lot of stuff were not getting. But in any event, this motion goes beyond the Judiciary Committee in conducting its legislative inquiries. So the Oversight Committee is trying to investigate the White House Personnel Office because ofcru of the security clearance process. There were 25 people who were denied their security clearance by the professional staff. Then the professional staff was overruled by the president or his political attendants and they havent said why. So were trying to get what was the basis for the original deny of security clearance, which is extremely rare. There may have been more people denied their security clearance in the Trump Administration than the last seven or eight administrations combined. But we dont know what the basis of that was. We havent seen the professional recommendations and findings. And then we havent seen why they were overruled. And there was some suggestion there wasnt even an a written explanation. There was just an order from the president. Were trying to get the information and executive branch says were not going to participate. Now, is it unusual or unprecedented in the words of the Ranking Member that we would delegate the chair the ability to go to court in order to vindicate their right to do their fact finding . Yes, but what else can we do . Are we going to put aside all of our other ledge slabtivegislative work and just have contempt rulings from every committee being refused by the executive branch . I do not think we can do it. I think its the efficient way to do it, and correct way to do it. And we dont need postponement, we do not need delay, we need action. Thats what the American People are asking for. Im in very strong support of this motion and im afraid im against. Ofi am against the amendment the gentleman from oklahoma. I yield back to you. Thank you, mr. Chair. I stand in agreement with mr. Coles motion to postpone this, and theres several reasons. The first one is this bill is really unprecedented. In the entire history of the United States. And that is because there has never been before authority to go sue unless the entire full house of u. S. House of representatives has held the person in contempt of congress as did happen with eric holder. So the eric holder case and this case are different. Because in that case, the entire house voted to hold eric holder in contempt of congress. This did not happen in this case. Also since chairman nadler has reached a agreement with the department of justice for the entire Judiciary Committee to see the almost totally unredacted report of the Mueller Report i just dont see why this is necessary. And therefore, i support congressman coles motion to postpone. Thank you. Anybody else . Thank you, mr. Chair. I think the special counsels report raises deeply troubling actions. And these questions merit further scrutiny in order to hold the president accountable should the American People receive the full truth and has to be able to fulfill its article one responsibilities. This is built into the very foundations of the way the obstruction is governed, the way the founders wanted it, their fear of an executive that had way more power when it talks about the balance of the various branches of government. Thats why its important to continue to investigate the president in my view of obstruction of justice and the additional claims brought about and brought to light by the Mueller Report and the resolution. And i oppose the amendment because the resolution clears the way for house committees as mr. Raskin identified their jobs and reaffirms no one is above the law and demonstrates our commitment to defending Congress Power as an independent branch of government to hold this or any other administration accountable. So i oppose the amendment and also support the resolution. Mr. Chairman, i also oppose the amendment because i believe the resolution, the underlying resolution reaffirms the fundamental principle of checks and balances. Its very clear this administration doesnt recognize congress as a coequal branch with independent congressional oversight authority. If its allowed to go unchecked , it means the end of congressional oversight. And i think the democratic majority is committed to defending Congress Power as an independent branch of government. And therefore this resolution is pretty fundamental to the principle of checks and balances. Anybody else . Theres no further discussion so that will now be on the gentlemans amendment. All those in favor signal by saying aye, all those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair the , noes have it. Now to call the roll. Report the total. 4 yeas, 8 nays. Mr. Cole. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have the amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. Without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this recognizes along with the authority granted to Committee Chairs comes the responsibility to exercise this authority in the most prudent and educated manner possible. I was very disappointed to learn chairman nadler makes a point to repeatedly tell the media that he refuses to read a version of the Mueller Report available. The chairman claims he needs access to the full report to gain complete understanding of russias influence and hacking operation. Specifically the instruction and actions of the ira. However, the chairman has refused to review the less redacted version of the report including volume one which addresses russia collusion. The chairmans Public Comments surrounding his need for a full report are almost exclusively focused on obstruction. Over 97 of the obstruction volume is available for the chairman to review. Hes refused to do so. Only six lines in over 182 pages is redacted in the obstruction volume. I believe this fact bears repeating. Over 97 of the obstruction volume is available to the chairman to view. The past legislation authorizing chairman nadler to expend the resources of the house and taxpayer dollars in pursuit of enforcing a subpoena on the full report. At the very least he should read the vast majority of the report currently available to him. It seems reasonable on a number of fronts. Not the least of which chairman nadler should want to present the strongest case possible in court. As arguments for the full report would seemingly only be further bolstered if he actually read the redacted report and found it insufficient. But i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this common sense amendment and the committee chirmen exercise their authority responsibly. I yield back. Is there any objection on the cole amendment . Hearing none, the voters on the cole amendment, all those in favor say aye, those not in favor, no. The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Now rollcall. Report the total. Four yeas, eight nays. We just need to see it. The gentleman ask unanimous consent. She is passing them out right now. I apologize. Absolutely. That is all. He asks unanimous consent that it be given as read. This amendment requires the chair of the Judiciary Committee to certify with the clerk of the house, he made a good faith effort to negotiate with attorney general barr prior to exercising the authority provided to him by this resolution. The department of justice has been extraordinarily transparent. In contrast, the chairman refuses accommodations and negotiations and prematurely went forward with contempt proceedings. And now, he is the big game he is pivoting to litigating and civil court. In civil court. Any impass in negotiations regarding the Mueller Report between the Judiciary Committee and department can be attributed solely to the Judiciary Committee. The department has made multiple accommodations to the committee, but until just a few days ago, the committee has not budged from its demand and all associated underlying documents including legally protected grand jury materials. The speed at which the committee has both made demands and without hesitation rejected any attempt by the attorney general to add accommodation is unprecedented. The Judiciary Committee majoritys continuous assertion of accommodation of the attorney general is not there for me, and theres not been any good faith effort to negotiate with him or staff. And additional tempts to compromise a separation of the traditional attempts to compromise a separation of powers and substantive exchange and negotiation seem to have been abandoned by the Judiciary Committee. And the few contempt of Congress Proceedings that have been brought against an executive agent or department in the past including the subsequent authorization of civil action have forced reader efforts to negotiate, forcing committees in the court because the attorney general has not acquiesced and is an insufficient basis for action, particularly as the attorney general has a filled his duty under the pertinent framework and laws governing the special counsel. Disputes between the executive and legislative branches generally encourage accommodation and negotiation and recognize that accommodation is the best way to resolve these disputes. While courts have not defined how the accommodations process should be, its widely accepted by courts and experts that its best practice should be done while issuing subpoena and certainly prior to enforcing a subpoena as the majority purports to do, and the separate citation reported by the judags Judiciary Committee. And the committee on judiciary United States representative houseus myers, the refused to enforce it after officials refused to appear and testify before congress about the firing of u. S. Attorneys on executive prevolog privilege privilege ground. The court found that many courts considered subpoena disputes raising privilege and immunity questions in both civil and criminal contexts and often only Judicial Intervention could prevent a quote, stalemate that , could result in a paralysis of government. The factual timelines clearly show that a, quote, stalemate that could result in a paralysis of government is nowhere close to occurring in the current context. In fact, just last week, chairman nadler reconsidered his earlier positions and wrote to the department offering a narrow scope of his subpoena to restart the accommodation process he previously refused to participate in. Today, we are not aware of the status of those negotiations. For the sake of the institution, we are hopeful that chairman nadler will be willing to find an appropriate accommodation, as the house has always them before. Given the prior refusal to seek accommodation with the department of justice and a significant legal applications of pursuing civil action on a subpoena when a good faith effort to accommodation has not been made, this amendment is critically important. This is not a partisan amendment nor should it be a political one. Rather, it is a serious safeguard effort to ensure the chairman forces the housing for litigation only when absolutely required. Certifying to the house that the good faith effort has been made, a prudent step in that direction. I yield back. We heard from the gentleman from oklahoma. Any comments . Mr. Raskin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise to oppose the amendment because i think it will be used to slow the house down. And forgive me, but im somewhat biased by virtue of my participation in these where the , Judiciary Committee has made dozens of good faith overture s to the department of justice. In fact, we began a month before the report was even released and in order to establish ground rules and we got nothing but , instructionism and stonewalling and the kind of defiance President Trump has ordered. So its something a good Faith Department of justice, i think it might be more fitting. In any event, i think the gentlemen might be consoled that all of this has to be authorized by the bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee, so it goes up through the leadership of the house of representatives. If there were some committee that did not engage in the goodfaith negotiation that all of our committees oversight judiciary those are the ones i know about. Ways and means has been bending over backwards, doing triple backflips, to try to negotiate getting the president s tax returns to a clear stature. I think this is unnecessary, and i hope it would not be considered insulting by the chairs of the committee who have really been doing everything in their power to act in good faith. Yield back. Thank you, mr. Chair. I too serve on the Judiciary Committee and i guess its not surprising i disagree with you, mr. Raskin. This is really quite unprecedented. Again, the speed that this is going for. If you compare it to eric holder, there was 464 days, you know, gone through from the first request until contempt of congress was voted on in committee. Compare that to attorney general barr, 44 days. And then the days from the subpoena until the contempting contempt in committee for eric holder, 255 days with william barr, 19 days. And you know, from the staff, our staff on the Judiciary Committee had said that they were told that the department of justice tries to make a accommodations with chairman nadler and repeatedly offered Different Things with him. He has written a letter from my understanding along with other democrat chairmen saying were not even going to read that mostly unredacted report except for grand jury information. Forget it. Even though we want to know the information, were not going to read it. And, you know, so obviously i disagree with my colleague. This is going at unprecedented speed. Theres no need for this underlying bill, and i do agree with the motion of my colleague mr. Cole. Before i yield to mr. Cole, id just point out the accommodation process began over 100 days ago. We have still not gone to the floor with the contempt resolution. Thank you. And id say to my friend from arizona that at least on financial services, we requested documents pertaining to the Deutsche Bank and monies that we think may have passed through russia to the Deutsche Bank to we dont know where a year and a half ago, democrats did. And now, obviously, the committee was in the hands of the republican majority until the beginning of this year, but we didnt get a single word, nothing. Either from justice or the Deutsche Bank until this year, and then they said, no, were not going to give it. I think Deutsche Bank may now be prepared to start submitting information, but to my Friends Point i just want to say it isnt as if these are new requests. These have been pending for more than a year now. And since weve taken a majority since early on in this congress, so i agree with my friend mr. Raskin that this amendment, although on its face looks ok, the fact is that good faith negotiations have been presented, offered, will continue to be, but theyve been rebuffed at every turn, and i yield back. If i could very briefly comment. You know, im not on that committee, but this amendment is confined to the judiciary chair. Thank you. So weve heard the impact. Hearing them, the voters on the cole amendment, all those in favor say aye, those opposed nay. Pretty sure the noes have it. Call the roll. Court will report the total. Four yeas, eight nays. I would ask that the amendment be considered as read. Without objection. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This resolution in my opinion is nothing more than political theater. The democrat majority is attempting to use this committee and the Judiciary Committee to create News Headlines and capture Media Attention by continuing this witch hunt against the president and his administration. I believe the democrats are using taxpayer money that is set aside for legislative solutions for instance for the crisis at our border for legitimate oversight, but instead i feel that what were doing is garnering free publicity to influence the 2020 president ial election in the democratics favor. My amendment requires the office of general counsel of the house of representatives to periodically report how much money it is encouraging as a result of initiating or intervening in a judicial proceeding in subpoenas issued against attorney general barr and former white House Counsel don mcgahn. After all, if were going to be using taxpayer money to have these committees put on political theater to influence the 2020 election, i would think its up to the taxpayers since theyre paying if it to know how much theyre spending, and thats why i ask for your support and i yield back. Thank you very much. Before i ask if anybody has any comments or question, were the democratic majority, not the democrat majority. I hope people would respect that. Mr. Chairman, could i put a i notice that political speech impediment has been spreading recently. And i read a nice book about franklin d. Roosevelt called traitor to his class by a historian. And in it president roosevelt , would make speeches and he referred to our party as the democracy. So if you cant pronounce the democratic party, you can shorten it and call it the democracy. I yield back. Thank you very much. And again, i would say for the record the reason why im here, and i think i speak for i speak for the majority of the committee is because this meeting is the right thing to do. We think that what is happening, that isious obstruction not just with regard to the Justice Department, but the gentlelady mentioned immigration. The committee cannot get information from the administration on what is happening at our border. I can on and on and on, and this should not this cannot stand. This cannot stand. That is why i am here. Im not here for political theater. I am here because i think its the right thing to do, and i think the people of this country deserve a congress that is going to provide a check and balance no matter who he or she is. And that is what were here for. Any further discussion . Mr. Chairman. Mr. Woodall. I will presume everything that you say is absolutely accurate, but we are here to decide not whether or not the house is entitled to document. Documents. We are here to decide whether or its best footputs forward in its demands for document if your chairman requested or our speaker requested. And it simply is not true that we put our article one best foot forward by having a chairman make that request. Now we have not had hearings, so , we dont know. We have not had testimony, so we cant cite it, but im retiring. I wont be here. You all will. Youre going to regret that we moved with great haste even if everything you say is true, mr. Chairman. We can achieve your goals with a rules Committee Debate for an hour and an hour on the floor and pass the resolution through the house instead of through the committee. I want you to think back to all of those republican chairman en that youve seen over the years, and when those shivers leave your spines, i want you to remember this is the new precedent that this institution is setting, and i cannot imagine that folks are going to look back in the calmness of morning and believe this was the best we could do. Thank the gentleman for his comments. One of the reasons why we are here today is because when the gentlemans party was in control, we didnt move on oversight at all. We did nothing. Instead, republicans allowed no legislation on any request that democrats and even some republicans wanted, so i think we are here because we have no other choice. To me, this is about respect for this institution about whether we think we have Constitutional Authority for oversight or not. And this administration has provided us nothing but obstruction. One obstruction after another, after another. My friend may be fine with all of that, but im not. And so, you know, i think we said at the beginning its sad that we even have to be here, but i think its about time this house of representatives stood up and demanded that we got the respect we deserve, that we are entitled to under the constitution, and the American People get the information they are entitled to get. Reclaim my time i know the , chairman is not suggesting he has more of a love for article one than i do. I know that he is not. I didnt say that. I know that you didnt. I know that you didnt. We can achieve your goals in a way that advantages this institution. By having our speaker do it under the current rules instead of your chairman during it. Doing it under this rust through provision rushed through provision. I would have my colleagues not to suggest that the passage of this resolution entitles us to something we are not otherwise entitled to. It doesnt. The passage of this resolution doesnt give us something. Of thisage resolution simply moves it from our position as article 128 committee position, and again we , may disagree on whether or not i disagree that we are rushing anything. We have been waiting patiently for quite a long time. I yield back. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you. I dont know if this moves to mr. Woodall or not, but remember this only goes forward if its , authorized by the bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee which means the speaker is passing in upon it, i think, you know, and the normal course of things. If the speaker does not agree with it, it is awkward to happen. And again, it is a delegated power of the house of representatives, of the full house. Thats what were doing to give the committee the power to do this, but i love the soliloquy colloquy between the two gentleman because i think we need to be having precisely this discussion about how ardent and passionate are we about the powers of congress under article one . I think that is the critical constitutional question in america today, and my only contribution to that in this session is to remind people that the sentence of the first constitution, the preamble, we, the people in , order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, do hereby ordain the United States, that is followed by the second sentence in article 2, which is all legislative power is vested in the congress of the United States. I think the sovereign power of the people flows directly into congress, and then you get dozens of paragraphs of the city elucidating all the powers weve got from the power over the first, to declare war, to the power to establish the seat of government, to establish the post office, set up the copyright system, and on and on. And then, you get to article 2. There are four sections and it. The fourth one is the president can be impeached and removed by the congress. Congress cannot be impeached and removed by the president but the president can be impeached and removed by congress. What is the core responsibility after the president assad from being the commanderinchief in times of actual conflict . It is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That is the president s job. The president works for congress. And we work for the people. That is the proper constitutional design. Everything in america is out of whack today because the president is acting like a quasimonarch who thinks he can trample the rule of law and Tell Congress to go and pound sand. When we try to obtain information. And i know my colleagues, we heard in congress when i was not here, and millions of documents were obtained in the fast and furious investigation and the Hillary Clinton emails investigation, and the benghazi investigation. No. Congress gets what it wants when it is seeking information and no body gets to superintend that and secondguess it. We are going to insist on the exact same rights that were exercised by the majority when our friends across the aisle were in it. Thank you very much. I want to remind my colleagues what my amendment is actually about. And it is just to reveal the cost. The cost is kind to be by the general counsel what the cost is going to be by the general counsel, and the office of the general counsel. If we are spending taxpayer dollars, they should know how much its costing. Thank you. Since we are back to the amendment, i was going to say to my friend that if we were engaged in theater, we would ask questions like, we want a full accounting of every document for the cost of protecting the president every time he goes on a golf outing, ok . Which is far more than this, so we have a right to this information. This amendment of yours, just if we were going to add all sorts of other things that showed in context how much this investigation is costing compared to the security protocol for the president to go to maralago, would put it all in perspective. With that, i yield back. Hearing no further discussion, the vote is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. She will call the roll. Total . R yeas, eight nays. Mister burgess. Mister chairman, i have an amendment that would prohibit the hiring by the office of general counsel of any law firms or consultants who lobbied before congress. I would be happy to read the amendment or move that it be considered as read. Without objection. So this resolution authorizes the committee on judiciary and reaffirms the authority of the Committee Chairman to sue or to enforce the subpoenas. This will allow the Committee Chairman to authorize legal action without first exhausting all options available to the house to provide desired information. The strategy is unprecedented. It is not considered the will of the entire house, but rather allows the Committee Chairman on to act on behalf of all members. I offer this amendment to ensure that all registered lobbyists would not be paid by the house, and therefore not paid to the by the american taxpayer. It is important that we do not permit registered lobbyists to be paid by the house for litigation that has not been approved by the full house. Any further discussion on this amendment . Mr. Chairman, a part of clarity. Is this not presently covered by the ethics rules . Its my understanding that it is, but not its not covered under , no its not covered under , current ethics rules, and in that case, it points to a much bigger problem. I appreciate the gentleman bringing it up. I dont think that any lobbyist should be able to be hired by the house of representatives in any context, and we should work on comprehensive legislation on that, if thats the case, but i would love the opportunity to research it. I dont know. I think we might read it differently. Does this mean that a Large Law Firm that has a lobbying arm cannot be hired by the general counsel . That would be consistent with the lobbying disclosure act, so the answer to your question is yes. If i may. Any further discussion . The vote is now on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Roll call. It is agreed to. Further amendments . Again, i ask that the reading be dispensed with. Without objection. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. House resolution 430 affirms the ability of all committee sue. Rman in the future to assu e as i previously expressed, am concerned that allowing the house to sue to enforce subpoenas or is all tools in their toolbox put the house on a stream the week legal footing. Going through the courts could drag it out for years. When the house has previously sued for documents, officials were first held in contempt. That is not the case here. My amendment was seeks to reduce the reputation of and institutional risk of the house for these untested tactics, by requiring at the very least that the house office of the general counsel explained to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group the likelihood of success for this litigation, and how they will overcome the legal obstacles presented by the decision. While chairman nadler has made numerous statements including the may 24, 2019 letter to the department of justice that the committee is not seeking any documents that are properly subject to all 6e, the federal rules of criminal procedure, leprosy to hit authorized thees to 6e procedure he authorized applies to 6e. In the decision, a threejudge panel rolled to the federal courts lack Inherent Authority to authorize disclosure all grand jury materials in circumstances not covered by the explicit exception set out in rule 6e. Before the house assumes institutional and reputational risk, a bipartisan of the low should at the very least oferstand the legal strategy how the house general counsel will respond to the wiki for decision in court. That is why my amendment requires for the sake of article one. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. The amendment is on the vote. All those in favor say aye. . All those opposed rollcall pkease. The total . Nays. Ayes, 8 thank you. Mr. Woodall. Rep. Woodall mr. Chairman, this amendment may look at , but for those of us here, it is known as the mcgovern amendment, which you offered when we were last thought of litigation here in the house. That we said 10 days before initiating any action, that the committee make available to the house of the contract of the terms of the legal engagement. You may remember the case you made at that time, that is still valid today. I would ask that you make this a part of House Resolution 430. Did we abduct the mcgovern amendment . My recollection is that it failed. Ok, it may have been for good reason. [laughter] rep. Woodall but the wisdom of the chairman on the gets better with age. I have no doubt that if we vote on it today, we will have a better result. In a comments on the woodall amendment . Say those in favor say aye . , say no. Rollcall please. Court reports total . Ayes, 8 nays. Rep. Nadler guess we cannot break the losing streak. This is an amendment that would retire the disclosure of the source of the funds, much of amount, by the source of the funds used to pay the costs associated with the judicial proceedings authorized to the underlying resolution, which takes the president is step of authorizing the Committee Chairman to authorize litigation before exhausting all tools available to require the information you democrats are demanding the attorney general to comply with a subpoena that applies to 60 grand jury materials, making it impossible for him to comply with the subpoena without breaking the law. If House Democrats will soon to ife the dust tose democrats sue enforce the subpoena, taxpayer dollar support for the house should not be used to support a agenda. L this amendment would make it clear how taxpayer funds are being used for litigation. Therman nadler in questions or comments . Vote on the amendment. Aye . Hose posts opposed, no. Rollcall please. Please report the total. Nays. S, 8 the amendment is not agreed to. I give my notice for the intent to file www. Cspan. Org no questions or offered by theot chairman of colorado, mr. Perlmutter. All those oppposed aye . Those opposed, no. Clerk will call the roll. As we in order. Announcer for 40 euros, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court, and public of the sea washington, d. C. And the countryp so you can make up your in mindp created by cable 1970 nine, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan. Your unfiltered view of government. Announcer here on cspan this morning, washington journal is next, live with your phone calls and is look at todays headlines. That is followed by the house in at 10 00 a. M. Eastern for business. E on the agenda, a resolution to allow the house Judiciary Committee chair to take legal action against attorney general william barr and former white House Counsel don mcgann over access to the Mueller Report. Coming up on todays washington journal, a look at the debate over congressional oversight versus executive privilege with irvin nathan and William Pittard who each served as counsel to the house of representatives under speakers nancy pelosi