authorized to issue subpoenas with officials relating to the following. one, the zero tolerance policy and other family separation policies and practices. two detention or short-term custody of children and/or family and discussions about or offer the presidential pardon to the department of homeland security officials or employees. the chairman at his discession. >> without objection, i begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. >> today the committee will take important steps to avoid oversight of the trump administration in two areas. immigration and obstruction of justice. first immigration. we have held hearings and sent letters to the jurisdiction regarding inhumane policies. many questions remany and it is past time we hold this administration accountable. january is one of my first acts as chairman i sent letters to secretary nielsen. and then with whittaker and azar asking they preserve and turn over any information and records pertaining to the development and execution of the administration's so-called zero tolerance which really meant family separation enforcement policy and the detention of migrants. i'm pleased to say they have for the most port complied with this request. however in the span of six months, the department of justice has produced only a smattering of heavily redacted emails and they represent the administration's most substantive response to the inquiries we have made in this congress. in april we requested documents regarding troubling reports that the administration was considering actions against members of congress. if the president openly discussed this on social media shocks the conscious. we were told by agency officials because these actions were never executes there was no need for the disclosure of related documents or information. that however is for congress to decide. not the administration. hether we need that or those documents. in may 2019 along with several f my colleagues i wrote to dhs demanding an investigation into the deaths of five migrant children at the southern border and the conditions of the short-term holding facilities. having been to el paso twice this year, i was already aware conditions were deplorable and not acceptable. my concerns have grown. to date, dhs has not provided a single briefing or response to the letter. i use the examples of the serious concerns we have raised with the administration and the withholding of information from the congress despite our oversight responsibility on behalf of the american people. we have given the administration ample time to respond to these reports of egregious conduct. this committee cannot sit idly by. in april 2019, the immigration and citizenship subcommittee and the civil rights and civil lirkts i sent a letter to the acting dhs secretary requesting information relating to president trump's offers to pardon him if he were to illegally close the southern border as the present has adjusted. and -- as the president reportedly suggested he should do. the follow-up letter was sent on may 29th. we have yet to receive any response to these inquiries. that matters, because he represents us serious threat to our rule of law. it brings me to the other group of subpoenas we are authorizing today. let me elaborate. for a president -- these are allegations and news reports. for a present to order an administration official to violate the law and say, don't worry, if you violate the law, i'll pardon p it would be a terrible violation of the presidents duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. an open invitation to violate the laws. [sighs] this brings me to the other group of subpoenas we are authorizing today, relating to the committee's investigation into allegations of obstruction of justice, public corruption , and abuses of power. including such conduct described within the scope of the mueller report. the report also detailed ten instances of possible obstruction of the investigation and that most serious matter as well as other items. the committee of a judiciary has a constitutional obligation to investigate allegations of misconduct. we have been doing that through pursuing the unredacted mueller report and key related witnesses and documents. there is no substitute for primary evidence as the committee makes the decisions. which is why we have sought documents and testimonies from former white house counsel , former white house communications director hope hicks, and annie donaldson. today we focus on 12 additional witnesses. these include officials who worked or continue to work in close proximity to the president. these witnesses include those outside of government who have critical information in connection with our investigation. we will not rest until we obtain their testimony and so this committee and congress can do the work the constitution and the american people expect of us. i now recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee. the gentleman from georgia for his opening statement. >> thank you. here we go again on another round of an episode of premature subpoena authorizations brought you by the democrats of the house judiciary committee. aside from the lack of specificity and the lack of a lot of things and lack of an understanding of a subpoena, this is another trek down an empty road. today's markup makes absolutely no sense. we have a zero-tolerance policy. this is an area where the chairman made one single request on january 11, six months ago, and not a single follow-up request. nevertheless, the administration has produced a steady stream of documents, the department of 20lth and human services may four over 75 pages. the department of homeland security has made over four productions and 3300 pages as you can see in the boxes beside me. the department of justice provided six productions totaling over 1200 pages. so, the administration has voluntarily made 29 productions. totaling over 12,000 pages. yet, the chairman without a single former follow-up wants to issue subpoenas for more documents. second, the chairman was to for thesubpoena detention of children and families and a subpoena for information about the discussions for offers a presidential pardons to dhs employees. the chairman has only issued a document requested regarding detention in january. a subpoena is not only premature, but unjustified. he has zero predicate for this today. i guess the chairman was telling the truth when he said during an earlier authorization he views the subpoena is the beginning of a dialogue process. third, the chairman was to continue his subpoena binge and issue an additional 12 subpoenas. he has had no formal contact with three individuals during his chairmanship. a subpoena would be the beginning of a dialogue process. once again, i want to emphasize the chairman has not sent one written request to three of the individuals on this list we are authorizing. four of the individual part of the chairman's defund -- defunct investigation into the 81 trump associates, each responded to the chairman cooperating with an inquiry before that investigation died on the vine. another one of these individuals has received a subpoena from the chairman. to produce documents as well but i guess the chairman will reward him with yet another subpoena. apparently the first one was not good enough. i guess there was not enough dialogue. the record is devoid of any basis for authorization. at least the chairman is consistent. do you, cooperate with them you get a subpoena. in the world congressional oversight be subpoenas make no sense at all but in the world of politics today's markup makes perfect sense. when we left for the july 4 recess, my friends on the other side were having very public inter-party squabbling over funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border. the crisis this committee has repeatedly failed to address. before we go to town we were greeted by the chairman's intention to go on a subpoena binge, to focus on issues he has not touch for months if at all. this is a very haphazard way of conducting congressional oversight. no wonder other committees have taken the lead on investigating issues the chairman was to focus on today. the judiciary committee is trying to play catch up. chairman cummings issued subpoenas back in february 5 months ago. he has been consistently leading the way in regard to the mueller investigation. one of the subpoenas is for michael flynn. the chairman refused for months reviewed the redacted mueller report and healthy attorney general and content. -- and held the attorney general in contempt. meanwhile, adam schiff cut a deal with the department. he got access to the underlying documents. if the goal is to get testimony, our chair is failing. if the goal is for political theater, we are winning. the chairman also threatened to subpoena special counsel before the july break. he fulfilled his promise and forced the chairman's hand. now instead of having a hearing where we are getting to ask robert mueller questions we are having our legs cut out from under us by limiting the questions. not all republican members will be able to ask questions and democrats members will be able to ask questions. this is an odd format as a result of the chairman is not taking seriously this information and moving forward. we are all here to suffer. let me just bring up it is against house rules. but that is another problem we have never had a problem with it seems like in the last six and a half months. the democrat members are not happy about it. today's subpoena binge is a show of force and a chance for the chairman to prove to his rank-and-file and the democratic caucus that we can be tough on the trump administration after being pushed around for six months. today's a chance to show that we have what it takes and will not bow in the spotlight. week, a hearing in this committee got rolled. gets to divide the haves and the have-nots. this is a farce, especially when it flies in the face of the five-minute rule that is conveniently being ignored. here we go again. as i had to say for the past six months, let the show begin. >> thank you, mr. collins. without objection, the amendment will be included in the record. i will recognize myself to offer an amendment. the clerk will report the amendment. >> [clerk reads the amendment] >> objection to the amendment. it will be considered as read. i will recognize myself to explain the amendment. my amendment makes no substantive changes to the resolution. it simply makes a technical revision to form attorney general sessions name as stated in the resolution. i urge adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. and i recognize the gentleman from georgia mr. collins for any comments you may have on the amendment and the nature of it. >> i have no comments about the amendment nature. the broadness of this, lack of specificity of this. the understanding of looking at it and saying what do we want? also as i stated in my opening statement, we are here again for show. this committee is run by press release. this is not the way subpoenas are supposed to work. this is not the way congressional oversight is supposed to work. for those of us who hope to be in the majority one day, quit ruining it for the rest of us because this is not the way subpoenas are supposed to work and oversight is supposed to happen. some of these have never even got to first request. the ones who have responded are now getting served with another subpoena. wow. let's keep going. i yield back. >> are there any amendments to the amendment? >> move to strike. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, despite the fact that millions and millions of taxpayer dollars in 22 months were spent on an investigation and report that determined that there was no collusion by the trump campaign with russia and the attorney general concluded that there was no obstruction of justice, the majority continues on what clearly is a fishing expedition, yet more subpoenas here today. i agree completely with the ranking member that this is much ado about wasting this committee's time and avoiding other issues which are within our jurisdiction which will continue to avoid. it is really a faux impeachment to satisfy the hard core democrat base who hate this president, who despite the fact -- despise the fact that he's still in the white house and in fact despise the fact that he was ever there. now this committee has allowed itself as the ranking member said to be rolled, runover, roughshod by the intelligence committee. it's really embarrassing for committee that really has had significant statue in this house for so many years. rather than wasting more time on this fishing expedition, we could be spending our time on things that really matter, on things that would actually benefit the american people. for example, we had nearly a quarter of million people enter over the southern border over the last two months. think of that. a quarter of a million people in two months. most of those came in through our very flawed asylum process, which we ought to be able to come to some bipartisan agreement if we talk about and discuss it, have hearings on that issue. it is so flawed, we have people that are paying drug cartels to come here. the money is flowing back there. when these people were coming in narrow one point, people are literally coming down loaded with drugs and boxes, you can watch tv. our border is so unprotected at this point and putting the american people at risk. that is something immigration, asylum, etc., is within the jurisdiction of this committee, but we essentially ignore that over and over again. as i said, the cartels are making huge amounts of money. this is putting the american people at risk. we had 70,000 people who died of drug overdoses last year. 70,000 people. most of itopioids. those people, by the way, when they come here, they are told -- by the cartels, again who are making money, they come into the country, they are given a court date two to five years down the road. 10% actually show up for the court date. the other 90% or so completely ignore it. they are put on a bus or a plane. shipped off to some place in the country. our congressional districts, and they essentially disappear. it's in the population. and, and that photo which i think a lot of us really, it hit us, that father and that young child that died, that drowned coming into our country, horrible incident. never should have happened. but we should not forget that our policies as they remain or our lack of policy lures these people to our country. the mothers and fathers who literally get birth control knowing that their daughters has a reasonably good chance that they will be raped by the coyotes are the other people bringing up here. that is the kind of stuff we ought to be dealing with but instead, more subpoenas, more wasting this committee's time. it is really a shame. this committee ought to be better than this. hopefully will be in the future. i yield back. >> what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? use your mic. the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. chairman, just a little chronological history. let me acknowledge the importance of this subpoena on a number of bases, but my friends on the other side of the aisle and certainly those who are here in 2013 remember that the brunt of what we are facing falls at the feet of this house on the republicans because in 2013 there was a bipartisan bill that came to the house from the senate, 68-32, led by john mccain. even chairman graham was on the bill. now chairman of the senate judiciary committee. and that was to address the problems of the american people as it relates to immigration. it was a pathway to citizenship. and the members of this house, democrats, were prepared to work with a bill. we had a bill. we were prepared to work with a bill and go to conference. but the republicans did not want to answer the call of the american people, fix the broken immigration system. i've just come back from the border and i can assure you that children are still being separated from their families. children are still being housed and the reason why they are housed as children labeled on -- unaccompanied, because i asked the question, did they become unaccompanied because he separated them from their families? yes, that is how they became unaccompanied. so, it is important to note the zero policy still effectively undermining what i think the american people are most outraged about is that is the care and the responsibility for these children. if you go and talk to migrants one-on-one, they will tell you that, as they told me, their son was murdered. they went to the grocery store and came back and saw their nieces and nephews drugged by someone who had broken into their house. and they had to escape with their lives. these are migrants on the other side of the border in juarez. a policy the president says is working. i have no quarrel with the mexican government. they did whatever they had to do diplomatically, but there are no work permits, no facilities that these migrants staying in. they have no guarantee they will not be thrown out into the streets because there are no places for them to stay. there is no health care. and yes, they are human beings. so, it is important for us to be able to utilize our authority, our oversight responsibility to ensure that the flores case is adhered to come of that there is a short-term custody. we understand there is a massive $700 per child day private prison being built somewhere. with no authority from the united states congress. wasting money, reprogramming, taking money. yet, they could not take money, mr. chairman and ranking member, they could not take money to answer the call for toothpaste and toothbrushes. they could not reprogram the money and the dhs. they continue to whine about the congress was not responding. that is not accurate. our hearts were torn. the american people are torn. they are concerned about these children. it is crucial for us to respond to them. then to be able to deal with the litany of individuals for mr. dearborn, hunt, mr. lewindowski, rosenstein, mr. sessions and mr. davidson and mr. howard and pecker, to be able to continue the oversight, that is the responsibility of this committee, because the american people are asking to be informed in a way they can understand, the enormity of what has occurred in this administration. we may soon hear an announcement about this incident. -- the census. in complete contrary to the supreme court decision. this administration will stand up to the supreme court and tell them they are not worthy of their name and begin to issue executive orders on the question of citizenship on the census. so, i don't have any doubt that this subpoena is for nonpolitical purposes. it is for purposes of information. and it certainly is for purposes of dealing with the important question of the responsibility of this judiciary committee and , finally, i would argue the point that offers of pardons and questions regarding homeland security officials are important inasmuch as they are announcing raids that will frighten everybody and put everybody in danger and separate more children from families again. i think it is important that we move for this resolution for subpoena. with that, i yield back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman. quickly, since this is about the subpoenas, let me just first respond. there is, i'm glad to see my friends on both sides of the aisle, the other side of the aisle have joined us on this side of the aisle in acknowledging there is a crisis on the border. we have been battling in the majority. a few joined the democrats that did not want to secure the border. but the failure to secure the border is what has caused this crisis. the failure -- the promises, the legalization, amnesty, better living conditions, all these kinds of things. have continued to lure more and more people here. now, if we didn't have immunity in congress, then you could have the survivors of those who had died trying to get here or the hundreds of thousands potentially that have been personally harmed, raped on the way, may be millions, they would have lawsuits against members, but, um, we have immunity. but we know in our evolved system of justice that if you have, for example, swimming pool in your yard and you fail to put a fence around it or a wall and somebody comes in and is harmed, drowned, they have the potentially major verdict they are going to get against the individuals who refuse to put a wall or a fence around an attractive nuisance. that is the legal term, not mine. that is what has been created by our friends across the out. -- across the aisle. "an attractive nuisance" that has lured people to their deaths and horrible living conditions. and then, when this administration is begging for beds to take care of these people, we were told that the crisis created by the refusal to secure our border didn't exist. oh, it's a manufactured crisis. doesn't exist. so, i'm glad at least we now have those people that stuck their head in the sand, now acknowledging there is a crisis, but let's be real about what created it and what will solve it. and continuing to encourage people to come from around the world in greater numbers is not the fix. with regard to the subpoenas, if i put my robe back on as a judge or chief justice and think about -- because that is the way you have to look about these things -- will a federal court in force the subpoenas? you would want to see what was the process, what is this about? it's about the mueller report. what did you do? we first subpoenaed barr because we said it was a summary. he said it was to just get out the conclusions because he knew the report was coming, but we subpoenaed him, even though that is totally irrelevant if you want to know what the report said. and then, we finally got around to having an agreement for mueller to come testify, but if you told me it's six months ago the chairman schiff would be able to marginalize the judiciary committee and chairman nadler, i would say that would never happen. i found otherwise. our committee has been rolled on our jurisdiction over special counsel. that is our jurisdiction. the members on both sides ought to be able to ask questions. and not be marginalized by the chairman of the intelligence committee, but we got rolled. so, if you are the court looking to see, because that is the only other way to enforce the subpoena and a contempt, it would be if you arrest them and put them in our little cell up here. but otherwise you got a get a federal court on board with you. and when they see the process that has been followed here, it doesn't make sense. it makes it clear. maybe the subpoena is an effort to make it look like we are trying to get back our jurisdiction from the intelligence committee. but, whatever the case, this is going to damage future majorities regardless of which side of the aisle. it is a terrible precedent. that is why the subpoenas should not be coming now. instead, we ought to be demanding full-time to question mueller about the report and then issue subpoenas if necessary for the witnesses that make up that report if we are not satisfied with mueller. that would impress the judge and, short of that, the subpoenas, will be meaningless. i yield back. >> what reason does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i can't start without just making clear what everyone on this committee knows. the united states of america is not an attractive nuisance. united states of america is a beacon of hope and opportunity to the people around the world as it has been since our founding. now, i strike the last word. to speak out strongly in support of the subpoena authorization. i would expect bipartisan support for these authorizations. first, the list of individuals in the investigation of obstruction of justice. i've heard many times for my republican colleagues on the other side of this dais that they don't want expert witnesses, they want the people who were there. this list should satisfy them. these are the key players and our ongoing investigation and in the mueller report. that is exactly what my republican friends have been asking for. to this point, unprecedented obstruction by the white house has blocked testimony and appearances by the people who were there. we will not stop in the face of baseless claims of immunity or privilege. i thank the chairman for his continued work and pressing this work forward. and i hope the minority will join us as we continue this important investigation. secondly, this authorization also authorizes subpoenas for information related to the detention or short-term custody of children and/or families by the trump administration. that is the administration's policy dictated tearing kids from their parents. the same administration that has put kids in cages. in the days before the committee's february 26 hearing on immigrant detention, the administration dumped thousands of pages of documents on the committee. within those pages, we found reports of incidents of sex assault and misconduct involving unaccompanied children. in the care of the office of refugee and resettlement. those incidents included 154 staff on unaccompanied minor allegations of sexual assault and now this week, nbc news reported new allegations against customs and border protection agents. a 16-year-old boy alleged that the sleeping mats were removed from his cell after he complained about the water. a 15-year-old girl alleged that she was assaulted by an officer. when he groped her in what was meant to be a routine pat down. while some of these incidents are under investigation by dhs, they demand full congressional oversight and swift accountability. we cannot, we cannot stand by and hope this administration does the right thing, because time and time and time and time again, they do not. and it is children who are paying the price. kids. innocent kids. we have seen it with our own eyes. many of us has seen the conditions. from texas to my own state of florida. we cannot stand by and think the inspector general will just simply handle it. we can't wait for response for multiple letters. this is urgent. we cannot stand by and ignore our duties as an independent branch of government and, mr. chairman, we absolutely cannot stand by and allow human rights to be violated beneath the american flag. if the administration is going continue its unprecedented obstruction, we will continue to respond. today, we authorize an important step forward in providing oversight of an administration that simply must be reined in. i yield back the balance of my time. >> for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. chairman and members, i'm absolutely disgusted by the obsession that is going on here of trying to undermine the president of the united states. you know, and then to hear that, you know, we're not doing it. republicans are not doing anything about immigration. are you freaking kidding me? we have immigration bill after immigration bill that members have submitted that have not even been heard that could help solve this problem. and i'm really irritated that next week we're going to be questioning robert mueller, and i don't even get a chance to question him? this is just plain wrong. i have been elected, just like anybody else here. for the leadership on this committee to decide that only certain members and there's only time for certain members to be questioned, even on your side of the aisle, is just plain wrong. i yield back my time. [laughs] >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from california. for what purposes it the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i move to strike the last word. let me just begin by saying that i think for the last several years until january this year, the republicans controlled the presidency, the senate, the house, and comprehensive immigration reform was not passed. earlier this year, there was a child welfare case in california involving the abuse and captivity of 13 children. the parents were charged with abusing and imprisoning the children, only allowing them to eat once a day and to shower in frequent. these parents are serving life in prison for their crimes against the children. today, the department of homeland security is imprisoning children in crowded cells for an extended period of time without adequate food, supervision, medical attention or access to basic hygiene needs like soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes. children are suffering and -- suffering from the flu, chickenpox, 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 is never routine for an adult male to pat down a female child. that is never routine. 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 that the money could not be spent to build additional detention centers. yet dhs is expanding for-profit immigration detention centers in states far from our southern border. they have found money to expand for-profit detention centers, but somehow, they do not have the money to provide soap, toothbrushes, and medical attention for children? john kelly, the 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 windfall of dollars that businesses are making. in february of 2018, i received reports in my office that a large number of infants and toddlers were sent to the office of refugee resettlement services. these are services 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 2500 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 of 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? mr. mcclintock: move to strike the last word. mr. nadler: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: 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, even being shielded from deportation after committing crimes in this country -- to equate our border patrol to child abusers i think just goes beyond appall. and to hear claims of 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 of 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 questioning of the special counsel. this committee has already been eclipsed, i think precisely because of the way it has comported itself, and that's a decision that has obviously 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, johnson, 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 said 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 calls 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 as 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 2016 election. our chairman was caught openingly plotting impeachment just days after the 2018 election put him in charge of the judiciary. mr. chairman, democracy depends on the willingness of all sides to accept the result of an election. that didn't happen this time. that is a dangerous phenomenon in a nation like ours. and meanwhile, the violent crime rate is 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, to make matters worse, we just 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: will the gentleman yield for a moment? will the gentleman 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, but i would hardly consider james buchanan among the giants. [laughter] i think the gentlelady for yielding. the gentleman's time is expired. the lady is recognized. jayapal: thank you, mr. chairman. june 10th, 2018. that is almost 13 months ago. that was the day that i became the first member of congress to talk to family members who had been separated from their children. i went into a federal detention -- into a federal prison where they were being held just south of my district. i wouldn't have gotten access to that place had it not 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. so 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. except, guess what? those weren't their children. you know why? because the immigration system, because the entire health and human services system, nobody knew whose children belonged to whom, nobody had kept track of them, nobody had 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. and 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 humanity policy. laura bush wrote a compelling op-ed. franklin graham, the evangelical, spoke out, the churches spoke out. but 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. right 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 four months old. four 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 four-month-old constantine away from his family when he requested 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 that he be reunited with his son. immigration officials told him constantine would never be returned to him once he was on the plane -- sorry, that he would be returned to him once on the plane but constantine 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. so 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 now, 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 gentlelady'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. mr. biggs: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. i do 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. i didn't have the same experience as my colleague. that's probably unique to me. i 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. so, if we start eight to 10 minutes late for that hearing, if we only have two hours and then we are going to 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 in the response necessarily of the witness, but in their actual questioning. and if there is some post testimony commentary, which is sometimes the case as we see, we have even seen here today, that will further erode the time. so, 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 at 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? well, you are being treated unfairly, disproportionately. we have taken the forceful step as a committee, whether you agree or disagree, to subpoena robert mueller, the 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, that we are going to subpoena him in. but 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 that 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. because 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 hierarchical system, a system based on preferential treatment. quite frankly, by 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. so 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, and 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. so 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 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. mr. neguse: 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 empathize with the frustrations of my colleague, representative jayapal, who i thought articulated the sentiments of people in my district and state very effectively. i think many of my colleagues here on the committee know, i, like many others, the son of immigrants, my parents are refugees from east africa. so i understand the importance of immigrants to our communities and of the often difficult circumstances that have led many to seek shelter, refuge, and a home in the united states. and for some, coming to the u.s. is a desire and for some it's a need. regardless, immigration has certainly made our nation stronger in countless ways. and so, i share the outrage by the continuing stories and the 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. -- without proper medical care, toothbrushes, soap, windows, or proper nourishment. we cannot allow this treatment to continue under our watch. and 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. and 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 health and dignity 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 solitary confinement. even department of homeland security's own investigators raising various issues about the facility itself. by the way, 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 that congress provide critical oversight of the continuing conditions at our border and of immigration detention facilities, especially thisght of 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 important questions about these policies and to hold them accountable, which it is long past time for us to do. and so, 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. mr. armstrong: with all due respect to my friends on this other side of the aisle, not all these subpoenas are for zero tolerance policy. we are talking about that. we are talking about jared kushner, david pecker, rod rosenstein, and we know those aren't for those. so we have spent over two hours aboutrings 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 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. but 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 saying let's bring in bob mueller. he's the one who wrote it. let's deal with it. let's go through that. let's have all of 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 as much as possible. i tried to contribute to the committee as much as possible. i find out this morning that next week, 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. quite frankly, i don't think people sent me to congress to do that. but 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. so 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. i mean, we had hope hicks for 8 hours. 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 are going to 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 dice, 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. again, i think when you just 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. 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. but also, our members need to be able to talk to robert mueller, if he's actually 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 subpoenas. again, let me go back for a second. some of these 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, it started off with three different hearings. first -- and this is straight from the chairman's mouth to me. but now, we are finding out 11. i guess we just decided that 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. and 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 gets to dictate terms. 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. rep. mucarsel-powell: thank you, mr. chairman. before i make my remarks, i want to respond to some of my colleagues across the aisle. 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. that is something that's a very low point in our government. so, i just want to stand here before you to support the authorization of subpoenas, because it is vital to extracting basic information from this administration. what we know right now is that 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 on 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 is in my district. i have visited that facility now 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 messages from different agencies. in june 26, there was a press release where h.h.s. said at the the end of may, there were 2200 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. so 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 is 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 to 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. rep. mucarsel-powell: i yield back. chairman nadler: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? reschenthaler: mr. chairman, to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. rep. reschenthaler: thanks, mr. chairman. i want to say i'm disappointed that when mueller comes in, i'm not going to get to question him. i was looking forward to it. i read the report. i read the 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. was a district judge. i was elected to congress. i just thought i would get a chance to ask mueller questions. i think it is hypocritical we are letting a witness dictate terms to us. 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 that i don't get to ask mueller questions. with that, i'd like to turn it over to the ranking member, doug collins. rep. 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 is called asking and trying to work with it. the way oversight works. we have been given some letters that supposedly were c.c.'d. we don't remember the letters. where just continuing to find out 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. again, 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 now intel gets to do what they want to do, chairman schiff gets to tell us what we want to do. that is a problem. there have been no discussion s been no discussion about that. but also, it has 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 to actually have had 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 am in favor of, when you go actual agency that will put this out, they say that it not workable. it was pointed out to the majority this is an unworkable bill in many cases. they knew this and chose to ignore it, because they had to get the bill out. a simple discussion could have happened. a 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 bill yesterday that will help them. it won't help you because it won't work. we want to put a bill that will actually 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 and some of this and we can work on it again. hopefully, we can come back and all vote for it. the problem we have here i want i want to yield back to the gentleman from pennsylvania, i appreciate his time. i sorry that you are not going am to ask questions next week. rep. reschenthaler: will the gentleman yield? i yield to my colleague, mr. gaetz. rep. gaetz: 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 impeachment. what she has done is she has 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 , send elijah cummings home? send adam schiff home? what she has done to block your access to go about your impeachment endeavor is she is taking the time away from the bottom row of the judiciary committee and giving it to the intelligence committee. if you centralize this, it accelerates the argument in your various conference meetings about how you have to do this. she is dividing the committee. she is giving your time to intel. we just think that that's a bad precedent. we disagree with impeachment. it is 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. rep. collins: would the gentleman yield to me? thank you. just firming up. it is 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? escobar: thank you, mr. chairman. for holding this important mark-up -- chairman nadler: will the gentlelady seek to strike the last word? last word is duly struck. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. escobar: 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. and 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 little 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 intended to make sure that that meddling and that those attacks don't get exposed, it's about time we get the subpoenas, and we getbout time that this 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 remainder of my 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. rep. cline: 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 is going to get to ask questions. i hope she will ask her questions, because i'm not going to get to ask mine. i would like to ask mine. i have quite a few. i was at town hall meetings over the weekend, and those questions were asked by my constituents. what questions are you going to ask robert 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. because 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 impeachment 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 try and make that case. so, i have a lot of questions for mr. mueller about when he determined that 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, into july, possibly into august and after august before any kind of conference could be convened and worked out with the senate-passed bill did the speaker yield and pass the senate-passed version. i am glad that 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 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. so, we need to set the record straight. with that, mr. chairman, i yield to mr. gohmert. rep. gohmert: thank you. in that same vein 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. and 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 has 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? rep. cohen: strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. rep. 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. kushner, etc. as being underlings of mr. mueller. they are not. rep. collins: i did not say that. that is not true. rep. cohen: i have the floor. chairman nadler: the gentleman from tennessee controls the time. rep. 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 ms. august and what happened with her, why they paid her off after the president said i know nothing about this. i never heard of this. i never paid any money. i have never heard of these people, etc., etc. so 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. and as far as the border, there is issues. we should not have to learn about the border from facebook posts of agents that talk about members of congress in sexually suggestive terms. that is 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 is great. and if they can't, that's fine, too. mr. mcclintock's right. there are good people working there. but 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. so 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 benghazi, benghazi, benghazi. benghazi, benghazi. benghazi. so, i appreciate that. i yield -- rep. escobar: would the gentleman yield? mr. cohen: i yield to ms. escobar. and i am going to go to the border with her on august 1. i think it is great what you are doing. we need to go see it. 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. please. 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 is 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 policies that were cruel. that is why it is a humanitarian crisis. this country has incredible resources. d.h.s. has incredible resources. it is not a question of resources. it is a question of will. thank you. i yield back. rep. cohen: and i yield back. chairman nadler: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama seek recognition? roby: i move to strike the last word. chairman nadler: the gentlelady is recognized. rep. roby: mr. chairman, i would 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. chairman nadler: i'm not going to comment on that at this hearing. it is beyond the scope of this hearing. right, i would like to yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member. rep. collins: thank you. i appreciate the gentlelady yielding. gentleladydler: the is correct, it is beyond the scope of this markup. not hearing. rep. collins: i guess why half the committee can't ask questions next week is beyond the scope of a markup. he is entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts. i have never said underling today. that is not something 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. let's 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. the 20th or the 29th, around that time. that is how long it took to reach back out on an issue that is of very much importance. and we agree it's important. but let's 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. you have not sent that. from january to may tells me there was other things on your mind. but 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 get to, and you're good. 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 would invite my democratic colleagues to go to my official twitter account, where i have posted an interview from january 9, 2019, it was on cnn, not exactly a hostile network for you folks, and it is -- let me just play what the question was. it is jim clyburn, the democratic asking the question. jim: the president said there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. is there? >> absolutely not. jim: the president said there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, is there? >> absolutely not. jim: the president said there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. is there? >> absolutely not. jim: the president said there is a humanitarian crisis at our border? is there? rep. escobar: point of order. jim: the president said there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. is there? >> absolutely not. 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. the gentleman controls the time. rep. dean: thank you. rep. gaetz: i still control the time. 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. again, 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. thought it was laughable, funny. 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. chairman nadler: the gentleman yields back. >> it's actually my time. he is yielding back to me. i yield the last 12 seconds to mr. mcclintock. rep. mcclintock: just 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. mr. jeffrey 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 psychological operations that some folks are trying to play. detract but it does not 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 there are that remain in these $775 a night facilities. 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 government supplier of goods. who are the goods? 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 in 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. there is more republicans that voted for the border humanitarian funding than democrats. i don't understand these auspices that we as republicans don't care about the humanitarian crisis on the border. i've 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 be able 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. reschenthaler 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 impeachment, 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 forward 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? >> the rules of the house and the rules of the committee provide for a five-minute rule. nothing prevents members from yielding time. >> i don't expect us to sort this out here. >> that's my observation. >> with the chairman enter negotiations about a unanimous consent rule package before the mueller hearing to reduce the time? would they? >> the chairman would entertain any reasonable discussions. >> i would encourage my colleagues on the democrat side who might want to ask questions to work with us to create more member participation, even if that means shortening the question time. i look forward to working on it and i yield back to my colleagues. >> i yield back to the ranking member. >> i think the issue here is that it's sad we have to discuss this. let's go back to the rules of the house. i'll pose the question. how do you expect to stop the hearing next week? >> i'm going to repeat what i said a few minutes ago. this line of discussion is beyond the scope and i'm not going to comment further. let me continue. >> i reclaim my time. this is my time. >> the gentleman asked me a question. i've been very lenient in permitting people to discuss the procedures at the mueller hearing. i'm not going to comment any further. >> this is my last opportunity. reclaiming my time again. i've lost 30 seconds on this. >> gentlemen will be granted 30 seconds. >> us here on the bottom row will have the opportunity to bring this up and talk about it. i have the right to bring it up in this markup to talk about the fact that myself and my colleagues on the others out of the aisle, who aren't in the famous 11, don't have the opportunity to ask questions to bob mueller, one of the biggest witnesses, and we have the right to discuss this because this is the last opportunity to discuss before he's coming in for a hearing. >> does the gentleman yield back? >> i yield back to the ranking member. >> gentleman yields back. gentlelady from texas is recognized. for what purpose -- all right. for what purpose does the gentlelady want to be recognized? >> strike the last word. >> recognized. >> i know there's been a lot of discussion about a lot of different things and my neighbor next-door, i just want to get as back in focus that this is really about the subpoenas and it means to me, i've heard the word subpoena binge. it's not a subpoena binge. it's about taking action. it's about accountability, the rule of law. it's about the constitution and those of us here at this table is a voice for the american people that elected us to be here. i find it disheartening to hear some of the discussion that's going on because we're losing focus. we're not keeping our eye on the ball. we're doing everything we can to protect the american people, the constitution, and ensure it never happens again. as to this issue about the border, i've been working with my colleagues from texas on these issues for many years. she's a county judge of el paso county and a state senator. for anyone to suggest that we are not doing our part as democrats to recognize the flagrantly notst true. the loss of life at the southern border should be reason enough to do things -- do something. furthermore, the growing number of deaths in custody of our young children underscore the need for oversight from the administration's cruel and inhumane policies. the committee has a responsibility to investigate separation policy, attention policies, and any other policy that undermines the acts of humanity. these are acts against humanity. they're acts against human rights standards. we should, frankly, act as if it's the first time. now there's been a second and third and fourth. i forget the count. i think it's eight. we need to look at it from top to bottom and do everything we can to make sure we protect these children. children belong in cradles. they do not belong in cages. my constituents elected me as a voice for them. they want action. they want responsibility. and that's what we're here to do. thank you, mr. chairman. >> will the gentlelady yield to me? >> certainly. >> i thank the gentlelady. i want to comment on some of the discussion we've had the last few minutes. -- purpose of this markup the subject matter are subpoenas to deal with two very, very serious subjects. one is the child abuse, and frankly negligent homicide, going on at the border by this administration. and we have to get to the bottom of it. that's what we want these subpoenas. the other is the flagrant abuse of power, also by this president. and that's the subject of these subpoenas before us. the question of the procedure, and the hearing we're going to hold, is an important question. it is not subject of this markup. and although i submitted people to talk about it and they can continue, i'm not going to add to the diversion of attention from the two crucial subjects we have here, which is the child abuse, and as i said, negligent homicide, and systematic torture children at the border. no, we're not stopping. i will finish my statement. >> it's out of order. >> you are out of order. if you have an objection, you'll state it in a moment. >> well, i have. >> i'll recognize you in a moment. the subject is child abuse going on at the border and the abuses of power by the president -- excuse me, the subject, by the administration -- >> point of order. i move to take the gentleman's words downs. >> which words? >> we will take a timeout while we would -- while we discuss it. >> [inaudible] >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? the words i'm objected to our the systematic use by the president to obstruct justice. you cannot use those -- >> i'll withdraw those words and say the systematic use of power by the president to divide the subpoenas of this committee and other committees. and i'll ask unanimous consent to withdraw those previous words. without objection, they're withdrawn. to summarize, the purpose of this markup is to summarize the child abuse and terrible things happening at the border by the administration and to administer subpoenas to get to the bottom. -- to the bottom of both of them. i'm not going to comment on anything beyond the scope of this market. i yield back to the gentlelady. >> i totally agree with you and yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> strike last word. >> gentle man is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe house democrats need to take a hint from the american people. the vast majority don't support this impeachment in drag that continues to fester up in the house judiciary committee. i would suggest you need to move on issues that impact the lives of the american people, not your own politics and the affliction of your own trump derangement syndrome. during the last congress, it was all about the mueller report. it didn't matter that people found no conspiracy with russia. we just had to keep calling them an agent. they may get their mobile report. they conclude there is no conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia. then we got to get mr. mueller here. he has got to be here. he has got to bring it to life with his words. no republicans objected to him coming. he's on his way. now we're here reporting on it because there's still no testimony. you already know you want to bring in these 12 additional witnesses regardless of what mr. mueller says. why are you bringing him in the first place? this is never going to be over. that's the message to the american people. they are never going to get over this. they couldn't deal with the fact donald trump won the election when everybody said he had zero chance to win. he was supposed to lose 100 million to zero, but he wins. they can't deal with it so they have to delegitimize the presidency. and now we've got the proof. i don't think there are americans who believe there's a conspiracy between the trump campaign and russia who are not democrat members of congress. we are in a circumstance where the only way to get them to not focus on this trump-russia stuff, is to take them out of power. this is the show. there could be endless hearings and endless reports that he wasn't engaged in a conspiracy. the more productive endeavor is to figure out why he was falsely accused for two years. how do we get to a that little point cooperation reports that was shuttled into the senior levels by deep state actors, how did all of that function as a basis to divide us and distract us? the gentlelady who spoke earlier said we're losing focus. yeah, we're definitely losing focus. we should be focused on reducing prescription drug prices. on the nearly 5000 people that show up at the southern border the trump administration has been talking about. we should be focused on limiting burdens on americans. but they'll never get over it. there will never be an end for them. and that is what is truly sad because we have 300 million plus americans who are counting on us to be the people's house, to do the work that rises to the greatest virtue that has ever lived. you know, when i hear my colleagues talk about humanity and being humane, just think about the fact it was your own whip, mr. clyburn, who laughed, chuckled, laughed when asked about the humanitarian crisis building on the border. it's like you guys didn't hear that. he just launched into your talking points. i think i heard the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, say republicans were using psychological operations. i guess he was referring to me. when we feed you your own words back, if you consider that a psychological operation, i deeply apologize. we're merely trying to point out the inconsistencies you failed -- inconsistencies you have held to get you to work with us and reform us on the loss. by the way, we'll do it with you in a bipartisan way. your own colleague introduced a great bill to force people to seek asylum in our home countries. instead of talking about the border and you guys cry harder or we cry harder or you left -- laugh harder or whatever, that's not productive for anyone. but your own members have bills that will help solve them and you won't bring them to vote. save us the lectures on humanity. there is nothing humane about the fact that children in central america are being stolen, rented, trafficked, and then sent right back across the border to do it again. that is what is inhumane. and that's what these asylum laws allow for, children being used like a fast pass into this country. it's despicable and you have the ability to bring bills forward to fix it and you should do it. i yield back. -- gentlemen yields back. for what purpose does he seek recognition? >> strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, the truth is i don't know where to start. responding to interactive red -- inaccurate rhetoric or just talk about how sad and embarrassing today is. and we're arguing about a humanitarian crisis that is created by donald trump. families have a lawful right to seek asylum. they're presenting themselves. and the question is why? it's because they are fleeing some very harsh circumstances. and what we as americans have yet to do is to acknowledge and accept our role and the circumstances they face. the cartels. the fact that we buy the majority of the drugs that are made over there. we contribute to the despicable conditions that they're trying to flee from. it was also mentioned here that there were giants that shared -- that shared this committee. truth is, there were giants who were on this committee. but what made them giants is the fact that they stood up for justice, no matter which team was doing the injustice. that they never deferred their moral compass to a person without one. to a person that from day one when he announced his candidacy, smeared immigrants as rapists and gang members. and if you don't have the courage to stand up to prejudice, bigotry, and bullying, you can't seek to claim to be a giant. that is the courage in my neighborhood we would say, the backbone of a wet noodle. but i want to do this. my favorite movie, and for the lawyers in the room, they probably know it, the movie, "a time to kill," with samuel jackson. and in the closing argument, matthew mcconaughey asks the jury. i'm going to ask my colleagues to do the same thing. he asked them to close their eyes. when you close your eyes, i want you to think of children that are held without enough food. i want you to think about children who don't have toothbrushes. think about children who go days without showers. in overcrowded conditions, wearing soiled clothes, no diapers, lack of medicine, sleep deprived. i want you to vision those children. now i want you to envision this -- those children if they were white. what would we be doing? and if the answer in your mind is to do the exact same thing, bless your heart. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. gentlelady from pennsylvania, for what purpose do you see recognition? >> to strike the last word. >> gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you. -- strong support report -- support of your amendment. it is very important we take a look at and expose the conditions of the detention of children, families, adults, women. i had the said privilege, on july 1 and july 2, to travel to the border. on july 1, thanks to veronica escobar, who put together a code l of congressional people, we visited el paso. we visited adult women in el paso border station one. and i'm going to quote john lewis, because he visited homestead with us. he said we've come to learn and to bear witness. what we saw there, what we will able to bear witness to his inhumanity and incompetence by this administration over the separation of children and the detention of immigrants. in one small, cold cell that we got access to, there were 15 women from columbia. -- from cuba. they had been held for 56 days. when did you come into the cell? their lips were cracked with exposure, with lack of water. it was a cell, a prison cell, i counted the cinderblocks, 10 by 13. they were lying in blue sleeping bags. when did they get the sleeping bags? only recently. donation from the forestry service. prior to that, they had been losing using those jiffy pop blankets in the elements. when we took a look at the stainless steel toilet, for 15 women with no lid on the toilet, we flushed it and it worked. but the sink above it did not work. when we asked about that, they said we put in a slip for that. and the women told us they were instructed to drink out of the toilet because that was clean enough water. we came to bear witness. three of the women were sick, two with epilepsy, one with a brain aneurysm. a fourth woman asked me to touch her back because she had a profound lump. there is no time to help her get the biopsy or treatment or diagnosis she might need. one woman, 58 -- they all cried, by the way. a hopeless kind of a cry, scared, 56 day kind of a cry. we went to clint where we saw 25 children in a facility that two and a half weeks ago had 250 children and two and half months ago had 700 children. a facility that was meant for 156 male adults. picture what that must've looked like before they moved out those children because congress was coming to see them. >> mr. chairman, the committee is not in order. >> gentleman is correct. the committee will come back to order. >> in clint, we were not allowed to talk to children, so we went to the prison door where the children were being held. six children and oneself. -- in one cell. we tried to say who we were. we're congress. we're here to help you. i held up a simple note. i love you. we heart you. the guard yelled at me, chided me. you have no business communicating. the children slipped a note to us. the guard was annoyed, thinking we were slipping something to the children. the children said to us, how can we help you? how can they help us? they retain their humanity as the guards' humanity was ebbing away. and then we went to the homestead, where children are being held for profit. and it was a beautiful facility. they wanted us to see it. a massive auditorium, twice the size of this, empty. massive cafeteria, twice the size of this, empty. not a smell of food, just a chef telling me of the food they prepare. and john lewis movingly spoke to them and talked about this country and a better place and how they were welcome. i say this to say if you can't get the inhumanity of it, get the incompetence of it. this administration has been utterly incompetent in the detention of immigrant children and it will be judged by. we must do our oversight. thank you, mr. chairman. [no audio] >> for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> moved to strike the last word. >> gentleman is recognized. >> i want to sue court the subpoenas -- support the subpoenas. both in relation to the zero-tolerance policy, the separation of children at the border and the miserable conditions of confinement that exist in many of the border detention facilities. i also want to express my support for the subpoenas related to presidential abuse of the pardon process, and i want to express my strong support for the subpoenas related to obstruction of justice and other potential crimes committed during the 2016 presidential election, detailed in special counsel mueller's report. there is an important principle i would have thought unified the committee, which is that the house of representatives has a fact-finding function, which is adjacent to and implied by our lawmaking function. in the supreme court said it repeatedly. other courts have endorsed it repeatedly. we cannot pass the laws we need related to immigration or obstruction of justice or anything unless we can obtain the information that we want, the information that we need in order to legislate. james madison said that those who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. and the people through article one of the constitution gave us the power to obtain information. our colleagues across the aisle know it. they use that power expansively, proudly, some would say promiscuously, with their expenditure of tens of millions of dollars for the benghazi investigation. that was their constitutional power. it was our constitutional power to do it. and this is our constitutional power to obtain all of the information that we are seeking from this administration and yet they president of the united states has pulled a curtain down, ordering two defied the lawful orders of the congress of the united states. i would hope every member of this committee would stand up for our powers, our prerogatives, and our rights under article one as the people's representatives as the lawmaking branch of government. let me talk specifically about what is happening at the border because yesterday, the oversight subcommittee had a hearing. i took notes. i'm going to read some of the words i wrote down. from the eyewitnesses who were working day in and day out on it, widespread flu, chickens pox, scabies, sexual harassment, sexual assault, huge lines at the infirmary where children's -- where children were turned away. and then we heard about the horrible, inexorable, inevitable, dreadful, and irreversible outcome of these terrible conditions. six children dying under the care and the custody of the united states government. yesterday, we heard from a young -- lovely young woman whose three-year-old daughter died after contracting a respiratory infection that remain untreated for a very long time as she begged for medical assistance and attention. and by the time she got out and went to the emergency room to the hospital, it was too late for poor maria, and her mother said she was coming forward because she doesn't want to see any mother or father or family go through this nightmare. but i'm also standing up strong for the subpoenas related to the mueller report and all of these witnesses -- mueller report for all of these witnesses. we heard from we started from one of our colleagues, i think it was mr. chapman, but i think he began with the appalling mantra, which the attorney general and president spread across the country, of no obstruction found by the attorney general. no collusion found by the special counsel. we know both of those things are not true. if you read pages one and two of the report, special counsel mueller said we don't deal with the question of collusion, which is not a criminal law concept and they record more than one hundred 50 encounters between the trump campaign and adversaries of the russian government and russian nationals. there's lots of evidence of collusion that the special counsel said there is not sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, which i never thought there was, which because pears and trump -- vladimir putin did not need president trump to execute his plot. all the tribes could do was mess it up, which i did because they blew the cover on the operation. that's the reality of the situation. but did trump call the fbi? no. they said come in. i love it. i think we heard the president said i love it. let's meet. about hillary clinton. ok. i was just getting started. i didn't get to respond to my friend from florida but i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from georgia seek resignation? >> i moved to strike the last word. >> the young lady is recognized. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> i would like to yield my time. >> i thank you so very much. i first of all think of gentlelady from georgia for her leadership and all of my colleagues who have been super on this issue. there has been a tone of my friends on the other set of the aisle, let me make it clear democrats do not support open borders. that's the call for 2020, that democrats support open borders. as i sit next to my friend, w e're reminded of our visit to the border into 14 under president obama -- in 2014 under president obama. the administration handled it differently. it was not perfect, but they understood they would not get the reputation that the united nations has declared abominable. in the eyes of the world, the actions of this administration, the trump administration, are abominable. without mercy, without care. and it is imperative that this committee that holds the highest ideals of investigation of congress, this judiciary committee, that this committee has set to do justice. and i believe it is curious, if i might say so, that first of all, the president of the united states are pushing law enforcement to do raids, to create a massive hysteria and danger for officers and to create more unaccompanied children. because the creation of unaccompanied children are not just those who come across, but as i was told at the border, they are unaccompanied because we take their family away. so you take their family away from houston and san francisco, chicago and new york, and elsewhere, and you create unaccompanied children. i think it is curious for the business insider says john kelly's new rules to settle ethics concerns, that he may be profiting from the children that he proposed and supported in a zero-tolerance separation policy. amazing. absolutely amazing. that you lead from being the secretary of homeland security, the chief of staff of the president of the united states, promoting child separation, taking families away from their children, not being able to unite every single child with their parent who didn't speak the language and knew they were going to see their child again. and if anyone is going to join me, along with other members who saw the attempt to reunite and see these mothers coming in with a pillowcase of clothing to get children who have been separated for months, and to see the distance and the sharp and the -- and the shock and the trauma of that child to see the mom that was coming and the child not responding because he had been traumatized. secretary kelly, you lead from this administration and go right to the actors who are in the midst of devastation and separating our children, my colleague from texas knows, that we have something called emancipation center in our collective areas that we have been fighting against, that you could barely get up to the front yard when they are trying to remove you. we're doing the right thing. and we will not be characterized as those who promote open borders. we'll be characterized as those who will be begging for the right ones to come into this country in a legal way and those who are here, undocumented, who want to seek the opportunity to be status and citizens, the very ones who put on the uniform to go on to fight or serve this nation. and so i hope that we can get a vote on this and that we will be able to move forward on the subpoenas so that we can do our oversight. i don't know if 11 sections is good. the gentlelady from georgia is not here and i don't know if i can give them to you. you have them. [chuckles] thank you. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. the question now is [no audio] >> roll call is requested. in opinion of the chair, the rollcall is withdrawn. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the motion to agree to the resolution as amended. those in favor respond by saying aye. the aye's have it. >> now roll call. >> rollcall has been requested. the clerk will call the role? >> mr. nadler? >> aye. >> aye. >> miss jackson lee votes aye. mr. cohen? >> mr. cohen votes aye. mr. deutsch votes aye. mr. deutsch votes aye. ms. bass votes aye. mr. richmond votes aye. mr. jeffrey? mr. cicilline? mr. raskin? mr. raskin votes aye. ms. jayapal? ms. deming? mr. korea votes aye. ms. scanlan votes aye. ms. garcia? ms. garcia votes aye. mr. negus votes aye. ms. mcbath votes aye. mr. stanton votes aye. ms. macarthur powell votes aye. ms. escobar votes aye. mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner? mr. chabot? mr. gombert votes no. mr. jordan votes no. mr. buck votes no. mr. radcliffe? ms. robie votes no. mr. gates? mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. biggs votes no. mr. mcclintock? mr. mcclintock votes no. ms. lesko votes no. mr. russian dollar -- mr. -- mr. kleinr votes no. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. >> the gentleman from new york? >> mr. jeffrey votes aye. >> the gentleman from -- gentlelady from washington? >> votes aye. >> has every member voted that wishes to vote? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are 21 ayes, and 12 no's. >> the ayes have it. the resolution is amended as agreed to. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, clifford monday will join us to talk about the results of a new c-span survey on american attitudes toward u.s. space policy as the 50th anniversary of the polymer leading approaches. and then congressman dan killed -- dan kilby will talk about the latest on this pending deadline and trade policy. and oklahoma republican policymaker will discuss spending and efforts to avoid another government shutdown. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern friday morning. join the discussion. >> live friday on the c-span networks, the u.s. house continues work on the 2020 defense programs and policy bill. that's at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. at 6:00 p.m. on c-span, former vice president joe biden takes his presidential campaign to portsmouth, new hampshire, where he joins the young democrats at their summer barbecue. on c-span2 at 10:00, that has -- the house oversight and government reform committee holds a hearing on child separations and the treatment of children in custody at the u.s. mexico border. c-span3 at 9:30 a.m., the has -- the house energy subcommittee examines cyber threats to the u.s. electric grid. and at 12:30 p.m., the federal society hosts a review of the supreme court's term. >> there has been a discussion before congress, any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. it contains our findings and analysis and reasons for the decision we made. we chose those words carefully and the word speaks for itself. the report is my testimony. i would not provide information beyond that which is already public and any appearance before congress. >> robert mueller is set to appear before two committees of congress on wednesday, july 17 at 9:00 a.m. eastern. he gives testimony. later in the day he will take questions from the house intelligence committee. both open sessions. our coverage of the testimony will be live on c-span3, c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. if you like to hear the complete reading lesson on the free c-span radio app. volume one heirs today and saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and volume two will air monday and tuesday at 7:00 eastern. >> next, president trump makes remarks at the presidential

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Georgia , Alabama , El Paso , Texas , New Hampshire , Washington , Juarez , , Mexico , Cuba , Florida , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Virginia , Togo , Russia , Uganda , Jordan , San Francisco , Arizona , Oklahoma , Tennessee , Sudan , Town Hall , Colorado , Pennsylvania , Maryland , Houston , Ohio , North Dakota , Chicago , Illinois , Americans , America , Russian , American , Chuck Schumer , Matthew Mcconaughey , Joe Biden , Daniel Webster , Robert Mueller , Vladimir Putin , Adam Schiff , James Buchanan , Scott Lloyd , Bob Mueller , Jim Clyburn , Franklin Graham , Dan Kilby , John Lewis , Macarthur Powell , Jackson Lee , James Madison , Annie Donaldson , John Kelly , Laura Bush , Elijah Cummings , Steny Hoyer ,