basic hygiene needs like soap, toothpaste and tooth brushes. children are suffering from the flu, chicken pox and measles. in every state in this country, this is child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect. a state child welfare agency would remove the children from these conditions and arrest the parents. by the way, it's never routine for a male pat down a female child. we can't tolerate state sponsored child abuse. the department of homeland security says they don't have the money to treat the children better. we provided $4.6 billion to address the humanitarian crisis at the border and specifically said the money could not be spent to build additional detention centers. yet, d.h.s. is expanding for-profit immigration detention centers in states far from our southern border. they found money to expand for-profit detention centers but somehow they don't have the money to provide soap, tooth brushes and medical detention for children. john kelly, president trump's former chief of staff, and secretary of homeland security, during the family separation pilot program, now serves on the board of the company that was handed a $341 million no-bid contract to run the homestead center, an influx detention center for children. the company that runs the center charges $775 per day per child. yet, children in detention have access to only the most basic services and then oftentimes not? there are foster parents in this country who don't get $775 a month to care for a child. the untold story of this debacle is the corrupt wind fall of dollars that businesses are making -- windfall of dollars that businesses are making. i had a report that a large number of infants and toddlers were sent to the office of refugee settlement. this is designed for older children who typically arrive at the united states border alone. we couldn't understand how infants and toddlers were crossing the border alone. they weren't coming alone. they were stripped from the protective arms of their family when they crossed the border together. more than 2,500 children were separated from their families under the administration's zero tolerance policy. the administration said this policy was ended, but it was not ended. children are still being separated from grandparents, from aunts, uncles, siblings, and in whose world are these not families? it is a lie that the administration ended this policy, breaking up families. this is about punishing children and families so they can send a message back to their central american countries to not come to the united states. c.b.p. agents don't have adequate training to determine whether a child is abused, and there are no clear standards for what criminal convictions constitute a danger to a child. there is no due process and no judge to determine the best interest of children at the border. we are using law enforcement to address a humanitarian crisis. i have been to refugee camps in south sudan and uganda. children are never separated from their parents. what is going on at the border is an embarrassment to our nation. there is a crisis at the border, a crisis that has been fueled by an administration that refuses to address the root causes. why do people leave their countries? dollars should go to help the central american countries, not cut aid. we need these subpoenas to get all the facts about family separation policy and to get the facts about how agencies are awarding contracts. the administration hasn't responded to our letters. we now need subpoena authority to end the unconscionable treatment of children, immigrants, and asylum seekers. thank you. i yield back my time, which has expired. mr. nadler: i thank the gentlelady. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. mr. nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the hypocrisy in this room today is staggering. to accuse the dedicated men and women who serve our nation in the border patrol as child abusers is simply despicable. they are doing everything they can under the most difficult of circumstances to provide for the needs of these children who have been brought here illegally in large part in response to the promises of free health care, free legal representation. mr. mcclintock: even being shielded by deportation after committing crimes in this country to equate our border patrol to child abusers i think just goes beyond appall. and to hear kids in cages under trump. i'd bring to the majority's attention the report yesterday in "the new york post" which pointed out the democrats on the house oversight committee sent out a pair of tweets wednesday and earlier this month with photos of migrants sleeping in a detention center to publicize an immigration hearing in capitol hill. just one problem. the pics were snapped in 2014 during the obama administration. the dems deleted the two messages and claimed it was an error. i think a lie would be more appropriate. mr. chairman, this is a committee that has been chaired in the past by giants of our history. men like james buchanan, daniel webster. when we speak of an abuse of power, i think the real abuse of power is right here before us today. 12,000 pages of material have already been produced for this committee. i wonder if we've even read them. three of the 12 subpoenas are people for whom we have not requested any information yet whatsoever. when the subpoena process is abused to this extent, it cheapens the moral and legal authority of all subpoenas of the house and the moral standing and authority of the judiciary committee that it may well very need to summon in the future. in fact, i think our stature has already been diminished and compromised. we've seen that already. the dramatic truncating of our legitimate authority, the question of special counsel. this committee has already been eclipsed i think precisely because of the way it has exported itself and that's -- comported itself and that's been made by the democratic leadership. the executive and legislative are separate and co-equal branches. they cannot interfere with the internal functions of the other, and the frivolous and indiscriminate abuse of the house's subpoena power can only be interpreted as an attempt to interfere with the executive's function by tying down key officers with unlimited demands to produce paperwork. this is not a new issue. congress has tried to do the same thing to truman, eisenhower, carter, both bushes, clinton and obama with the same results. and the courts consistently backed the presidency. the congress even tried to subpoena truman and his subordinates after they left the white house and the court says the same immunity applies. if this is an impeachable offense, then i think every president since i was born would have been impeached. many of the -- i think the democrats on this committee are suffering from what the air force called target fixation. that's the phenomenon when pilots focus so much on the target that they fly their plane into a mountain. many of their candidates in trump districts ran a self-described problem solvers. instead, i think people are seeing they are not problem solvers but trouble makers. they are the ones that will be most likely held to account. the first calls for trump's impeachment came one week after the plex. our chairman was caught openingly plotting impeachable after leadership put him in charge of the judiciary. this depends on the willingness accept the to election. the violent crime rates rising, we have a crisis on the border, all matters under the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee and all matters that have been unaddressed by the judiciary committee, in fact, make matters worse, we passed three bills out of committee last month to grant amnesty for millions of illegal aliens already in our country which is sure only to attract more, to attempt the dangerous and illegal crossing into our southern border. mr. nadler: if the gentleman will yield? if the gentleman will yield? if the gentleman will yield for a moment? thank you. i just want to agree with the gentleman that this committee has in the past been chaired by giants i would hardly consider james buchanan among the giants. . ms. jayapal: i wouldn't have gotten access to that place had it been a for-profit detention center, but it happened to be a government federal prison and they actually believe in being accountable to the people that give them money. i was able to get in. and talk to over 226 mothers and fathers who had been separated from their children. separated at the border, at that point sometimes for three weeks, four weeks. they did not know where their children were. mothers who told me that they could hear their children crying for them and they could not go to them. mothers who told me they were given slips by the immigration enforcement agents with the names of their children on those slips. guess what? those weren't their children. you know why? because the immigration system, bass the entire health and human -- because the entire health and human services system nobody knew whose children belonged to whom, nobody planned for this, nobody knew what was going on. in fact, if they did, they had actually told the higher ups not to do this because it would cause lifelong damage to those children. mr. chairman, we have scott white here, commander white here who testified to that with scott lloyd sitting right here next to him that he had told scott lloyd that this would cause irreparable long-term damage to these children to be separated. in some cases for seven and eight months now. you know what scott lloyd did? nothing. nothing. on june 13, 2018, two days later, i was in this committee, this committee, sitting right there, controlled by republicans, when this republican majority refused to do a darn thing about these family separations. not a single hearing, not a single hearing. and you know what? the country was outraged. it wasn't just democrats. two weeks after i went to see those children, working with organizations on the outside, working with people who were outraged by what was happening because this is not any kind of america, not a republican america, not a democratic america. half a million people turned out into the streets to protest the family separation policy, the zero humanitypolicy. laura bush wrote a compelling op-ed. franklin graham, the evangelical spoke out, the churches spoke out. you know who didn't? do you know where there was complete silence on the issue of family separation? right here in this committee from the republican majority. . ght here in this committee so, mr. chairman, these subpoenas are not just appropriate, they are absolutely essential. essential. we have had no accountability around this trump administration's zero humanity policies. we now know that the youngest child who was separated from his parents was only 4 months old. 4 months. we don't know this because the government disclosed this information. we know it because of a "new york times" investigation. according to "the new york times," immigration officials took 4 month old constantine away from his family when he asked asylum to an immigration officer stationed outside the american border, he followed the directions set out by then secretary neilsen, but immigration agents still took his son away. constantine's dad finally agreed to be deported on the condition he be reunited with his son. immigration officials told him constantine would never be returned to -- that he would be returned to him once on the plane but konstantin never came. so despite the claims from the administration that nearly 500 parents chose to leave without their children, we have a clear example of coercion. of parents doing everything they could to regain custody of their children, only for our united states government to deny family unity. but we never had a hearing on family separations in this committee under the republican majority. we have sent letter after letter after letter. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the immigration subcommittee chair. thank you to members of this committee, including ms. bass, ms. jackson lee who were with us on a trip to the border last summer, but nothing under the republican majority. don't tell me that we have done what we can. we have not done what we need to do and that is why we need these subpoenas because this administration is lawless and trades in cruelty and money. let's be very clear that the for-profit detention facilities that john kelly is on the board of, board of after overseeing the implementation of family separation is the company that is profiting off the cruelty to children. so, mr. chairman, thank you for doing these subpoenas. i am in full support. i yield back. ms. jackson lee: would the gentlelady yield? chairman nadler: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate. i appreciate the passion in this committee. this is a committee full of passionate people who think about issues deeply and care deeply. i also had an opportunity to visit multiple detention facilities and holding facilities, and i'll tell you, one of the ones i happened to be able to visit was a for-profit private i.c.e. detention facility. mr. biggs: i didn't have the same experience as my colleague. that's probably unique to me. get that. these subpoenas seem to be overkill in my mind. it's probably too early. i think that we can get these folks to come in. i think we can negotiate this. but leaving that aside, i'm especially troubled by the format that's been reported to me will be for this upcoming mueller hearing. if we start eight to 10 minutes late for that hearing, if we only have two hours and cede it over to the intel committee, mr. chairman schiff, who is apparently running this in some respects, if we start eight to 10 minutes late as we did this morning, that will lop two people off who won't be able to ask questions. if we adhere to the five-minute rule. but we likely won't because it's not unusual for individuals on the other side to be allowed to go over a minute or two in their questioning. not response necessarily of the witness, but in their actual questioning. if there is some post testimony commentary, which is sometimes the case as we see, we have seen seen here today, that will further erode the time. if you happen to be sitting on the bottom row here and you have one hour and you have one hour, that's a two-hour limit, that means five minutes you get about 11 people in. when you start moving to these other things, you start loping off members of that 11. if you are not part of the 11, what are you? you are being treated unfairly. disproportionately. we have taken the forceful step as a committee, whether you agree or disagree, to subpoena robert mueller, special counsel. it's our committee's jurisdiction. it's not the intel committee's jurisdiction. we have done this ostensibly because we find his testimony to be valuable. so valuable we are going to subpoena him in. we are going to constrain the opportunities for members of this committee to ask questions. that's neither appropriate, it's neither fair, and quite frankly probably won't comport with the rules of this committee or the house. the chairman of our committee has said witnesses shall not dictate the terms and conditions of the testimony. but that seems to be what's going on here today, either that or chairman schiff is dictating. we are getting only two hours. and then it's going to go to the intel committee. well, that means not everybody on this committee will get the opportunity. that means that we have a igher arcal system, a system based on preferential treatment. quite frankly where you sit on the committee. means if you are in the front row, i happen to be in the front row, i was just inches away from the back row. it means that membership of this committee is not democratic, and we are not going to be treated equally. but i know everybody here has questions. the "washington times" reported on a couple of my friends who sit on the front row asking them what do you want to ask questions of mr. mueller for, they stated what they want to ask their questions. bad news for you. if you sit on the front row you are not in that 11 most likely. that means you are probably not going to get to ask questions, the questions you told the "washington times" you wanted to ask. including me. i told them what i wanted to ask. the way i view this is, if we are really going to go by the plan that we have heard that's been related to us, we are going to get an hour apiece, we are going to go to the five-minute rule, that means that my time to ask questions has been ceded over to the intelligence committee. instead of this committee where we have jurisdiction. and that is really, really wrong. this is a committee that has a long and storied histry. we are undermining it -- storied history. we are undermining it by that type of session to the other committee and not allowing us to adhere to the rules for five-minute rules for everyone to ask questions. i yield back. chairman nadler: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with great respect to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, i will say i'd like to bring this markup back to the fundamental issue before the committee which is these critical subpoenas that we are poised to authorize on the administration's dangerous and disastrous zero tolerance and family separation policies. that's why we are gathered here in this committee room today. i share the concerns and emif a thies with the frustrations of my colleague, representative jayapal, who i thought articulated the sentiments of people in my district and state very effectively. mr. in a juice: -- mr. neguse: i like many others, the son of immigrants, my parents are refugees from east africa. i understand the importance of immigrants to our communities and often difficult circumstance that is have led many to seek shelter, refuge, and a home in the united states. and for some coming to the u.s. it is a desire and for some it's a need. regardless, immigration has certainly made our nation stronger in countless ways. i share the outrage by the continuing stories and horrific images of the inhumane conditions immigrants at our border and detention facilities across the country have been subjected to. we have heard deeply concerning reports over the last several weeks of children being housed in unsanitary facilities, sleeping on cold, concrete floors without proper medical care. toothbrushes, soap, windows, or proper nourishment. we cannot allow this treatment to continue under our watch. i will say that these inhumane conditions are not just occurring on our southern border, they are happening in facilities across the country. including in my home state of colorado. i continue to be alarmed like many of my constituents by basic human rights violations happening within a private detention facility run in colorado. g.e.o. group is the largest private prison company in the united states, and holds immigration and custom enforcement contracts to operate immigration detention facilities across the country. as we have heard from my distinguished colleague, representative bass and others in the committee today, these private facilities benefit from limited oversight and they operate under a financial interest in which they receive fixed payments from the federal government per individual. so the incentive is monetary, not the indignity of individuals. so we see the result of that broken and absurd system. when you have at the facility i mentioned in colorado, subpar medical care and use of restraints on folks in sol trumpcarery confinement. even department of homeland security's own investigators raising various issues about the facility itself. by wait that's why i also believe this committee should hold a hearing on the detention facilities, including g.e.o. group in particular and why i support representative jayapal's dignity for detained immigrants act, which would end these for-profit facilities once and for all. ultimately for all these reasons and more, i think it's critical congress provide critical oversight of the continuing conditions at our border and immigration detention facilities, nuclear weapons light of this administration's dramatic expansion of enforcement efforts at the border and numerous reports of detention facilities providing woefully inadequate medical care. the subpoena before us today will allow this committee to ask administration officials important questions about these policies and to hold them accountable, which it is long past time for us to do. i appreciate the chairman's leadership on this front, as well as representative subcommittee chairwoman lofgren's leadership. with that i yield back the balance of my time. chairman nadler: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> not all these subpoenas are for sear row tolerance policy. we are talking about that. we are talking about jared shner, david pecker, rosenstein, and we know those aren't for those. mr. armstrong: we have spent over two hours in hearings arguing whether the attorney general can be held in contempt for not violating the law. we spent over two hours in these hearings talking to john dean and three cable news pundits about whether there is obstruction of justice. we have spent two hours over -- over two hours in this committee talking about a bipartisan solution to the mueller report which -- the nature and testimony brought to the hearing changed the day before. we are going to spend two hours and nothing longer talking to the guy who wrote the report. i joined ranking member collins very early on say let's bring in bob mueller. he wrote it. let's deal with it. let's go through that. now we have been dealing with these circus sideshow hearings for months. we have been doing it constantly. it's not because any witness that has been in front of those tables has had anything substantive to add to what has gone on in this report. it is a narrative, messaging hearing, we have done them over and over again. i have sat through every one. i tried to be in my chair schts possible. i tried to commit -- contribute to the committee as much as possible. i find out this morning that next week i have my constituency has no voice in this hearing. none. not a single voice. i'm not going to be able to participate. and i'm not here to whine and kick dirt. i don't think people sent me to congress to do that. i think it's unbelievably disrespectful to every member of this committee and i think it's unbelievably disrespectful to my constituents to put those kind of parameters in place. with that i would kind of end on a question and if we are going to limit the guy who wrote the report to two hours of committee time, i'm hopeful that we are considering limiting all of these hearings we have with these subpoenaed witnesses to two hours. because if we are not going to spend more than two hours dealing with bob mueller while he's here in our committee, then i don't think we should be spending more than two hours dealing with any of his underlings we are trying to pull in front of the committee for another sideshow. with that i yield back. i yield to the ranking member. mr. collins: you make a great point. eight hours on transcribed interview. i'm still waiting to hear from the chairman how he had plans to get around the fact we are breaking and violating the rule on the -- five-minute rule and only limit it to 11 people. i guess they'll pull that magic we'll adjourn. that's not right. it's not right to your members. it's not right to these members. this committee got rolled, admit it, and we are in a position now to where you got members on your dais, a lot on ours, they'll ask great questions. but this is where we are at. these subpoenas -- we never objected to having oversight hearings on the border or any part of it. this prerogative of this chairman, you have these and having more next week, there is no need for subpoenas there. when you look at it from a legal perspective, the question becomes these are so broad in asking what we are looking for, come on. this is where we are having a problem. we needed to change the narrative today, this is what this is about. it's for that table over there and the camera, this is what this is about. we need oversight hearings. we need to do investigations. we need to do these things. our members need to be able to talk to robber mueller if he's going to come. have that conversation. when the intel gets to ask all their questions, every member will get to ask questions, we don't, when we have jurisdiction, primary of this, that's a problem. you can argue that we need these subpoenas. i appreciate my colleagues saying yes. fine. you are going to have the votes to authorize these smeenas. again, let me go back -- subpoenas. again, let me go back for a sefpblgt some have never been contacted by this committee and we are leading with a subpoena. ok. that's what we'll do. but at a certain point in time i think it's a deeper issue that's very concerning is that when over the last number of days we have been given mixed reports every time we have almost asked on what this hearing will look like next week. mixed opinions. first started off with three different hearings. first -- this is straight there the chairman's mouth to me. now we are finding out 11. i guess we just decide the state of north dakota shouldn't have a voice in this. i guess that's what we are doing. and florida, and others, california, just don't have a voice in this. don't tell me this is the best we can get. also as reminded earlier, the chairman reminded me on several occasions earlier when we had these hearings, he leaned over, witnesses don't get to dictate terms. i guess chairman schiff gets to dictate terms and the witness. with that i yield back. chairman nadler: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i make my remarks i want to respond to some of my colleagues across the aisle. is you hear -- what you hear is not necessarily passion. when you hear us voicing our concern for children being detained, it is outrage. outrage that so many of our colleagues refuse to stand up for what is right. and instead try to use the criminalization of immigrants to score political points with your base. p ms. mucarsel-powell: that is something that's a very low point in our government. i just want to stand here before you to support the authorization of subpoenas. it is vital to extracting basic information from this administration. combha we -- what we know right now is this administration has instituted cruel, inhumane policies against migrants, children, and families. thousands of people are being held in overcrowded facilities at the border. we have seen the horrific images of children being held in cages, sleeping in concrete floors, families continue to this day to be separated. what we do not know is how these detention facilities are being run, what is actually going on at these camps, and what the administration plans object doing to make sure that migrants and their children are safe or when they are going to stop detaining kids in cages. now, the homestead detention facility in my district. i have visited that facility several times. i have made multiple requests for information about what is happening inside the detention facility. i have asked about the camp's hurricane plan. last week i sent a letter for information on 51 different points about the conditions at homestead. have i received any answers? no. what i have received is conflicting message from different agencies. in june, 26, press release said h.h.s. said at the end of may there were 2 k. 200 kids being held in a prison like facility. most of these kids, about 80%, have family members in the united states. however, they are being detained by a for-profit company because it is to their incentive to keep these kids locked up. they are making close to $2 million a day by keeping these kids locked up in a for-profit detention facility. i don't want to hear that the administration is running out of funding to deal with the crisis in the border when they are paying $775 per kid at the homestead detention facility. and then we see kids that have no toothbrushes, no blankets. it is ridiculous. now, what these kids are going through is so shocking that the center for human rights and constitutional law filed a motion at the end of may in support to enforce the flores settlement agreement because they are in violation of the agreement. some of what we read in the motion is very disturbing. the homestead detention facility has a no touching policy. here's a statement from a child who was held at homestead. the rules here that you can't touch anyone, sometimes when your friend is crying because they can't stand being here any longer, you want to be able to give them a hug. but you can't because it's against the rules. another child describes her constant sadness at the camp. i often feel sad and depressed here. i am accustomed to getting hugs from my family and having my family say good night to me. i don't have anyone to do that for me here. i cry in my room some nights. i try to distract myself by reading the bible, listening to music, or talking with other kids. but it is most hard and sad to think about my family because i miss them a lot. we have to take into account what harm we are causing, thousands of kids, by this administration and we have to remember that these are children that are being held. while their families are in other places in the country waiting for them. so i would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record three declarations of children being held at the homestead detention facility that were filed as exhibits in the flores versus barr case in the u.s. district court for the central district of california. chairman nadler: without objection. the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, to strike the last word. chairmanned nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to say i'm disappointed when mueller comes nim' not going to get to question him. i was looking forward to it. i read the report. i read unredacted report. i think i'm qualified to ask questions. i was a prosecutor in the navy, defense attorney in the navy. practiced law in the civilian world. district judge. i was elected to congress. i just thought i would get a chance to ask mueller questions. mr. i reserve the balance of my timen taller -- mr. reschenthaler: when the attorney general wouldn't submit himself to questioning for staff, we held strong and said he had to. he chose not to attend. now mueller can come in here and dictate terms to the committee. i think it makes us look weak. again i think it's inherently unfair i don't get to ask mueller questions. with that i'd like to turn it over to the ranking member, doug collins. mr. collins: again, the district in pennsylvania is absent from the table next week because of the agreement made by the majority. again, as we continue this, it's been interesting -- i agree with a lot of the discussion. i said this before. nobody on our side will disagree by having oversight hearing. we are having one at 5:30 monday, everything i have seen we didn't have to subpoena them. inspector general is showing up. it's called asking. from an attorney perspective it's called asking and trying to work with t that's the way oversight workers. we have been given some letters that supposedly were c.c.'d we don't remember the letters. there's been not a lot of contact. especially there can be no doubt some of these on the list, especially the names, have never been contacted for the first time. we are going to lead with subpoena. let me just reiterate, this is about the table to my right and the press because they have to change the narrative. the narrative was awful. now we are trying to change the narrative to reclaim what should be our complete jurisdiction. we have just let it go because it now intel gets to do what they want to do, chairman schiff gets to tell us what we want to do. that's a problem. there's been no discussion about that. ing it's been interesting as we go forward on immigration and discussing this, there are things we can do. there are things we can work on. it would have been nice yesterday that-to-have a bill that many of us agree on. i had to reluctantly -- i wanted this to happen. if we had a markup on it, it would have happened. even if it had 300-something co-sponsors on a caps bill to remove those caps, i'm in favor agency you go actual that will put this out, they say that's not workable. it was pointed out this is an unworkable bill in many cases. they knew this and chose to ignore it because they had to get the bill out. samplee discussion could have happened. markup, we could have had 400 votes. instead we put to put out something and be dishonest with the tech community that we actually passed a yesterday that will help them. it won't help you because it will work. we want to put a bill that will work. that was the bill yesterday on the floor that we worked on. i wish we could work on it again. hopefully the senate will see the error in some of these and work on it again. hopefully come back and all vote for it. the problem we have here i want to yield back to the gentleman from pennsylvania, i appreciate his time. i'm sorry that you are not going to ask questions next week. mr. reschenthaler: i yield to my colleague. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. just to go over what's happening here with my colleagues in the majority. many of you, house judiciary democrats, have spoken up in favor of impeachment. your speaker doesn't support impeach. . what she's done is she's turned other committees on you. there was the reporting that came out of your conference meeting where she was saying, what are you going to do send elijah cummings home? and adam schiff home? what she's done to block your access to go about your impeachment endeavor is she's taking the time away from the bottom row of the judiciary committee and giving it to the intelligence committee. mr. gathes: if you centralize -- mr. gaetz: if you centralize this, in your conference about how you have to do this. she's dividing the committee. she's giving your time to intel. we just think that that's a bad precedent. we disagree with impeach. . it's bad for the committee whether you are in the majority or we are in the majority for the committee to be functionally defrocked by intel . then doing so in a way for the speaker to kind of maintain some tension among your caucus. i hope you guys get it sorted out. i yield back. mr. collins: would the gentleman yield to me? just firning up. it's interesting. now they are excited about this because we are upset about it as well and they can use this leverage to get something else. again it's not the way you do business. you noticed the hearing. i yield. chairman nadler: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. for holding this important markup -- chairman nadler: does the gentleman seek to strike the last word, last word is duly strufpblgt the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a very important hearing. these subpoenas are critical to our ability to perform our oversight function. for me in particular these subpoenas relating to the zero tolerance policy and what's happening on the u.s.-mexico border are especially important. as you-all know i represent el paso, texas, which has been ground zero for many of the trump administration's policies of cruelty. ms. escobar: those policies include child separation, child detention, and they have resulted in child deaths. we have had children dying in american custody for months now. one of my colleagues just a while ago was complaining that she perceived us as trying to undermine the president. absolutely. absolutely. child detention, child separation, child deaths. we are absolutely trying to undermine that. and the only way to get to the bottom of this abhorrent behavior, of these hateful policies, is by shining a light on them. i want to thank so many of my colleagues who have been to el paso on congressional delegation visits. colleagues who have been to homestead on congressional delegation visits. we have an obligation to get to the truth. we have an obligation to expose what is happening in the name of the u.s. government. and with regard to the subpoenas that will help us get to the bottom of russian attacks on our democracy, russian attacks on our country, foreign meddling in our election, and the cover-up inteded to make sure that that meddling and those attacks don't get expose -- intended to make sure that that meddling and those attacks don't get exposed, it's about time we get the subpoenas, and the information so that we can protect our elections. so that we can protect our country and the american people against all enemies, foreign and domestic. mr. chairman, thank you. i yield back the time. chairman nadler: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i figured i'd better speak now because i can't speak next wednesday. it is unfortunate i'm going to speak on behalf of the whole front row here. i do think it's disappointing that our time is being given to the intelligence committee. there is only one of us who is on both. i commend the gentlelady for being on both. she's going to get to ask questions. i hope she'll ask her questions because i'm not going to get to ask mine. mr. kline: i'd like to ask mine -- mr. kline -- mr. kline: i'd like to ask mine. those questions were asked by my questions. what questions are you going to ask robber mueller? and i have several that i'd like to ask and they are not funny questions. they are very serious questions. but because of the decisions of this administration, i'm not going to get to ask my questions. my constituents deserve to be represented at this hearing. the questions, the issues being discussed affect my constituents. the waste of their tax dollars on the investigations continuing to focus and try and pursue impeach. under the guise of oversight is ridiculous in the view of many of them. and after the special counsel found that there was no conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia, this committee continues to make -- try and make that case. so i have a lot of questions for mr. mueller about when he determined there was no conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. there is a lot that's not in the report that we know about. i want to find out the answers to those questions. and, yes, i want to also under the issue of immigration, try and fix the problems that are at the border. i am very glad that finally this house took action and passed aid for the humanitarian crisis at the border, because this president was calling for an aid package back in may. and this house did nothing. nothing. to pass legislation until just a few weeks ago when after there was a bipartisan bill that came over from the senate, this house determined that they were going to pass a partisan bill out of the house and delay that aid for that humanitarian crisis. and it was only after this majority and this speaker realized that that was going to further delay into the july 4th recess, until july, possibly into august and after august before any kind of conference could be convened and worked out with the senate passed bill d the speaker yield and pass the senate passed version. i'm glad they did. i was proud to vote for it because aid is now being delivered to the border to assist in that humanitarian crisis. i have been saying since day day one that there is a humanitarian crisis on the border. many of us on this side have been pleading with the speaker to take action in a comprehensive way to address not just the humanitarian crisis, but the enforcement of our borders which is an emergency. thankfully the president declared an emergency at the border. long before anybody on the other side acknowledged there was an emergency. we have testimony from folks on the other side ridiculing members of this side of the aisle for declaring an emergency at the border. mocking. and to set the record straight is important on who was calling it an emergency, who was calling for action to address this crisis, and who only reluctantly has come to the table and said, ok, now we are going to vote to provide aid to address this crisis at the border. we need to set the record straight. with that, mr. chairman -- mr. gohmert: thank you. in that same vain of setting the record straight we heard earlier that only 13 months ago for the first time ever did any member of congress go talk to people that were being detained . i did that numerous times during the obama administration , the same facilities that were built back then. they weren't adequate then. they aren't adequate now. that's been going on for years. apparently some of my friends across the aisle didn't know it. chairman nadler: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: i think about everything that can be said has been said. except for the fact that the ranking member referred to the possible witnesses, mr. lee juan do you i ask, mr. kushner, etc. as being underlings of mr. mueller. they are not. mr. collins: i did not say that. that is not true. mr. cohen: i have the floor. chairman nadler: the gentleman from tennessee controls the time. mr. cohen: they are not underlings of mr. mueller. they are direct witnesses of possibly obstruction of justice . and therefore they need to be subpoenaed, they need to be here, and they need to have as much time as possible. it is so important that we get the direct witnesses the best evidence to obstruction of justice. obstruction of justice should mr. mcgann go and tell mr. mueller that he's fired. direct witnesses of people who might have gone to mr. sessions and said unrecuse yourself. direct witnesses of people who might have had knowledge of mr. trump dictating a note to say i'm the greatest ever. and mr. sessions should limit this work to simply what happened in the next election and not my election. direct evidence of mr. pecker in buying the silence of miss stormy daniels. direct evidence of obstruction of justice with mr. pecker being able to tell us about possibly miss august and what happened with her and why they paid her off after the president said i know nothing about this. i never heard of this. i never paid any money. never heard of these people, etc., etc. they are not underlings, they are direct witnesses to crimes. that this committee has a responsibility to oversee and bring forth if they do exist to the american people. and mr. mueller will do that, too. because he had four or five instances of obstruction of justice minimum where all three elements were met but for the opinion of the legal office in the justice department that the sitting president of the united states cannot be indicted for a crime, he would have been indicted for a crime. he would have been just as he is in new york state, number one. and he would be with michael cohen. he was an unindicted co-conspirator. we have got that situation. as far as the border, there is issues. we shouldn't have to learn about the border from facebook posts of agents that talk about members of congress and sexually suggestive terms. that's not what we should be getting our information. we should be getting it directly from people. if the folks from i.c.e. and our border patrol, there are a lot of great folks working there, can come and give us good information to clear that up, that's great. if they can't, that's fine, too. mr. mcclintock's right. there are good people working there. it's not going to hurt to have them testify because there's been a lot of information that says otherwise. and there is a lot of information about inhumane conditions at the border. these subpoenas should be issued. we should do our job, which we did not do when the republicans were in charge. we did no oversight. the only oversight they did was enghazi, benghazi, benghazi. benghazi, benghazi. i appreciate that. i yield -- >> would the gentleman yield? chairman nadler: -- mr. cohen: i yield to ms. escobar. i'm going to go to the border with her. ms. escobar: thank you mr. chairman, thank you, mr. cohen. i invite any of my colleagues to join me on any of the congressional delegation visits. i want to clarify something. a myth that is being perpetrated over and over and over again that needs to stop. this idea that the democratic party somehow was in denial about what was happening on the u.s.-mexico border is really offensive. here's what we were saying. we were saying that we saw the challenge facing us. i saw the challenge facing us. i saw it up close at my front door. my community. when it became a crisis is when this administration chose to implement possiblecies -- policies that were cruel. that's why it's a humanitarian crisis. this country has incredible resources. d.h.s. has incredible resources. it's not a question of resources. it's a question of will. thank you. i yield back. mr. cohen: i yield back. chairman nadler: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to ask you a question. for the benefit of your members and ours, on both sides of the aisle, i'd like for you to lay out for us what exactly, with respect to the mueller hearing next week, what exactly you agreed to, and most importantly, why you agreed to it. many chairman nadler: i'm not going to comment on that at this hearing. it's beyond the scope of this hearing. mrs. roby: i yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member. mr. collins: thank you. i appreciate the gentlelady yielding. chairman nadler: it's beyond the scope of this markup. mr. collins: i guess why half the committee can't ask questions isn't the scope of a markup. he's entitled to his opinion but not facts. i have never said underling today. that's not something i tip will i use. he can find -- i typically use. do not contribute that to ranking member. that didn't happen. also it goes back to something said earlier we were sent letters saying we have -- i made in my opening statement a lot of this has never been outreach. show you how important immigration was to this majority that in january they reached out. the next reach out was may. the next formal reach out was may. that's how long it took to reach back out on an issue that is of very much importance. we agree it's important. don't become all of a sudden saying it's just something that we need to do subpoenas on. you have not followed up on it. from january to may tells me there was other things on your mind. when we understand this. the interesting thing also is the fact that, again, with facts being fact, mr. cohen will get to ask questions next week. i don't think you are going to good., and you're a shame you got left out. and also we can't get a reason why, either. i think the interesting thing today is this is just a continuing free fall of process in this committee. and that's the sad part we have today. with that i yield to the gentleman from florida. >> the gentlelady from texas in her prior claim of time said it was offensive to assert that democrats were in denial about the crisis on the border. i invite my democratic colleagues to go to my official twitter account where i have posted an interview from january 9, 2019, on cnn, not exactly a hostile network for you folks, let me just play what the question was. it's jim clyburn, the democratic whip asking the question. >> the president said there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. >> absolutely not. >> president said there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, is there? >> absolutely not. the president said there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. is there? >> absolutely not. >> the president said there is a humanitarian -- >> point of order. >> the president said there is a humanitarian crisis at the border -- >> i guess it's a parliamentary inquiry. is it appropriate for a member to put on a loop a teeny sound bite out of context? is that allowed? chairman nadler: i am not aware of any rule that would preclude him from doing so. >> i just think that's quite something when you are fed back your own words from your own leadership, from earlier this year, you think that's out of context and inappropriate and not allowed. we didn't raise the issue. it was the gentlelady from texas that said, these allegations from republicans that we were in denial, they are offensive. we have always known of the crisis. and the democratic whip laughed. absolutely not. laughed. mr. gathes: -- mr. gaetz: you know who doesn't think it's funny? the trump administration. the secretary has been ringing the warning bell for months about the crisis. he begged you-all to take action more quickly. one of the reasons why so many young people, so many vulnerable people are in tragic conditions is because we didn't act when the administration wanted us to provide funding that was absolutely necessary to care for people. so it is appropriate to question why we are in these conditions. but it wasn't the republicans that were in denial. it was all of you and it was in your own words from your own leadership. be offended with the democratic whip, not house republicans. i yield back. >> it's actually my time. mrs. roby: i yield the last 12 seconds to mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: to fill in a few gaps. speaker pelosi called the situation a big crisis at the border. chuck schumer said it doesn't exist. steny hoyer said there is no crisis at the border. our chairman said there is no crisis at the border. i could go on. i see the time's expired. mr. roby: i yield back. chairman nadler: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: i rise in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute so that we can issue subpoenas and get at this zero tolerance policy and other separation, family separation policies of this administration. and i have been listening to all of the crocodile tears being shed about the inability to question mueller. i have sat through the reverse psychology and the psychlogical operations that some folks are trying to play. but it does not destract the american people away from this administration's shamed action in implementing inhumane practices at our border president trump publicly announced this time last year that this family separation policy was over. and that was after his administration had stated repeatedly that there was no family separation policy. since that time we have seen the effects of the child separation policy with children, hundreds of children if not thousands being lost to their parents. we don't know how many children ere are that remain in these facilities. night being inadequately housed, fed, clothed, being inadequately cared for in terms of toothpaste, toothbrushes. hand towels. the basic stuff that you give to even prisoners of war. these child detainees are being deprived of. it's all part of the -- we talk about the military industrial complex where we have a prison industrial complex in this country. it consists of the private for-profit prison industry and the department of homeland security, which is its goods. nt supplier of who are the foods? it's the children of the immigrants. and they are being treated worse than p.o.w.'s. this administration has shamed america in the eyes of the rest of the world. we have heard stories about children dying in the care of border patrol. men, women, and children arriving at our border seeking asylum from places like honduras where we support their military. where their military is engaged in drug smuggling. where the military is engaged , gang killings, rapes terrorism. driving those folks from their own countries and forcing them to come to our borders. we are supporting that. when they get here and claim asylum, we are stopping them from claiming asylum, we turn our backs on them, and those who we can lock up, we fill up our private for-profit detention facilities with them, and then we ask the taxpayers for more money claiming that there is a crisis at the border. well, there is a crisis at the border, it's of the trump administration's own making. and it's been aided and abetted by people here in congress who sit here as if they were hand puppets and saying what the administration wants them to say. and then we get here today when we are talking about bringing some of these administration officials here and we get claims, we get righteously indignant claims about i'm not going to be able to question mueller. not one person on the other side of the aisle has voiced any displeasure with the way that the children are being treated at our border. it's really stunning where we are on this committee. i think congress needs to act swiftly to stymie this ongoing crisis. members of congress who want to visit migrants in detention facilities are being turned away from these detention facilities that we are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to fund. it's not fair, it's not right, it's not just. we need to bring it to an end. that's why i support this amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. chairman nadler: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for unanimous consent statement. > thank you, mr. chairman. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to submit into the record an article of the "new york times," trump urge homeland security official to close border despite an earlier promise of delay, april 12, 2019. and an article dated june 21, 2019, there is a stench, soiled clothes, and no bath for migrant children at a texas center. "new york times." ask unanimous consent to submit that into the record. chairman nadler: those articles will be entered into the record. i recognize the gentlelady from california for unanimous consent statement. >> i just would ask unanimous consent that my statement indicating that i was in the science committee this morning on a very important hearing on climate change was the only reason why i was not able to be here this morning. ms. lofgren: i counted on my colleagues to articulate the reason why we need this information from the department. chairman nadler: without objection, the statement will be entered into the record. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i honestly don't know where to start. i'll start in responding to the gentleman from the other side of the aisle on basically insinuating that republicans don't care about the humanitarian crisis at the border. when 176 republicans voted for the border humanitarian supplemental and 129 democrats voted against it. -- voted for t there is more republicans that voted for the border humanitarian funding than democrats. i don't understand this auspices that we as republicans don't care about the humanitarian crisis on the border. mr. steubey: -- mr. steube: i only been in congress six months. i came from a state legislature, served eight years in the state legislature in florida. and i chaired the florida senate judiciary committee in a state where there is 22 million people. never as the chairman of the florida senate judiciary committee would i have ever disallowed members of my committee, the minority or majority, to not have the opportunity to question a witness of such import as bob mueller. it's my understanding, as of yesterday i was told we would have a closed door session after the open door session where members who aren't in the famous 11 to question, would have the opportunity to question him in a closed door setting. at least we would have an opportunity as members of this committee to ask him the important questions that i think every member of this committee should have the opportunity to ask him. i would think even my colleagues who came in in my class in the democrats are a little upset by the fact that they are not going to have the opportunity to ask one of the biggest witnesses that has been brought to this committee that everybody's been talking about on both sides of the aisle for the last six months, and ask them what questions they feel is important. just like i have a background that lends itself to asking tough challenging questions, mr. armstrong, mr. cline, mr. rushen taller who was a j.a.g. with me and served around the same time. those people should have the opportunity to properly question a witness before this committee. i'm very, very troubled by the fact that the united states house of representatives judiciary committee where this chairman has spoken on several different news syndicates about impeach. and the proceedings start from this very committee, every committee member on this committee is not going to have the opportunity to question one of the biggest witnesses who opined on the mueller report. i think that's very, very distasteful. flies in the face of the five-minute rules and rules of this house, rules of this committee, and the five-minute rules that allows members of this committee to ask important questions to important witnesses here. i think it's a travesty and i look forwardle to supporting those 11 that get the opportunity to speak and i would yield my time to any republican member. i yield my time to mr. gaetz of florida. mr. gaetz: i thank the gentleman for yielding. having heard the concern of my colleagues who won't have the opportunity to ask questions, i wonder if there is a way for us to work together to maybe solve that. mr. chairman, would the chairman entertain a request -- would the chairman be likely to entertain a request of to perhaps go from a five-minute rule to a three-minute rule so we could get more members involved in the questioning? >> you can watch the rest of this house judiciary committee meeting on our website. c-span.org. right now we'll go live to the floor of the u.s. house where today members will be debating amendments to the 2020 defense programs and policy bill. also we'd like

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Alabama , Texas , Washington , Florida , California , Virginia , Russia , Uganda , Arizona , Tennessee , Sudan , Colorado , Pennsylvania , North Dakota , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , Russian , American , Bob Mueller , Chuck Schumer , Jim Clyburn , Franklin Graham , Jackson Lee , Adam Schiff , Laura Bush , John Kelly , James Buchanan , Scott Lloyd , Steny Hoyer ,