[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 109 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5820-H5826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 970, INSISTING DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE COMPLY WITH REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 971 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 971
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 970) insisting
that the Department of Justice fully comply with the
requests, including subpoenas, of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the subpoena issued by the
Committee on the Judiciary relating to potential violations
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personnel of
the Department of Justice and related matters. The resolution
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Curbelo of Florida). The gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on House Resolution 971, under current
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to
bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule
provides for consideration of H. Res. 970, which insists that the
Department of Justice comply with the request of the Judiciary and
Intelligence Committees. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate,
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from
Congressman Jim Jordan, a fellow Judiciary Committee member, as well
as Ranking Member Jerry Nadler. We also heard from Congressman Mark
Meadows and Congressman Scott Perry and engaged in a vigorous
discussion that lasted a while in the Rules Committee yesterday.
[[Page H5821]]
Mr. Speaker, oversight of the executive branch is one of the House's
most important responsibilities and authorities. As a member of the
Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Justice
and the FBI, it is a responsibility that I take very seriously.
I believe the administration has an obligation to comply with the
committees of jurisdictions' legitimate oversight requests and
subpoenas. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has not fully
complied with numerous of these requests, many of these which stretch
back several months. To illustrate this, let me lay out a timeline for
you.
On November 3, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy, along
with additional Members, sent a letter to the Attorney General and
Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, requesting five specific
categories of documents. The deadline listed in the letter was November
17, 2017. That deadline was not met.
On December 12, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, and
additional Members sent a letter reiterating the expectation that the
Department of Justice provide the requested documents. The deadline
listed in that letter was December 19, 2017. Again, the deadline
arrived, and again, the deadline was not met.
On February 1, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte sent a third letter
requesting documents relating to potential abuses under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
On March 22, 2018, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein compelling him to produce
documents and communications referring to internal DOJ or FBI
management requests to review, scrub, report on, or analyze any FISA
collection involving the Trump campaign or the Trump administration.
{time} 0915
It also compelled the production of communications relating to
defensive briefings provided by the Department of Justice or the FBI to
the 2016 Presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Finally, he compelled production of all documents and communications
referring to proposed, recommended, or actual FISA coverage on the
Clinton Foundation or persons associated or in communication with the
Clinton Foundation. The deadline for this subpoena was April 5, 2018.
The Department of Justice is in the process of complying with this
subpoena, but complete compliance has not yet occurred.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in regard to the subpoena, the
Department of Justice is trying to comply and is in the process of
doing so but, yet, has not at this point.
I also share the frustration of my colleagues and the American people
that this process is taking way too long. We need the answers, and we
need transparency. It is our duty to conduct oversight. The law charges
us with shining light where the government has fostered shadows instead
of providing answers. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to
produce these documents and yet has not made them available.
The resolution provided for by this rule speaks to the core of our
democracy, the inherent tension between branches of government that our
Founders intended and our responsibility as a coequal branch to act as
a check upon the other branches.
Could this debate not happen at a more appropriate time as we look
toward the Fourth of July and our country's founding? This is why we
were set up the way we were.
The inherent tension has arisen most recently out of the Department
of Justice's failure to timely comply with congressional oversight.
Some of the documents this body seeks relate to congressional inquiries
that have extended almost the length of the 115th Congress. They deal
with some of the most pressing issues in our government today.
Has the Department of Justice abused its FISA authority?
Was an investigation of national importance affected by bias?
I believe that these investigations need to play out, but I also
believe they can't last forever. I also believe that evidence of bias,
a library of extremely troubling texts, and key personnel removals at
the FBI illustrate the heightened need for robust congressional
oversight.
As James Wilson, an architect of the Constitution and Associate
Justice on the first Supreme Court so eloquently stated: ``The House of
Representatives . . . form the grand inquest of the state. They will
diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things.''
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will continue to take that
charge seriously.
Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee considered a similar resolution.
Today, the whole House has a chance to responsibly exercise its
oversight responsibility and reiterate to the Department of Justice the
need to fully comply with our legitimate requests.
It is important to note that the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has been similarly stymied by delays to requests for
information and that certain documents have been provided to only
select members of that committee.
This resolution insists that the Department of Justice comply with
the requests, including subpoenas, of these committees--one of which I
proudly serve on--so that the American people can get answers and we
can exercise our proper constitutional duties. The American people
demanded answers, and that is why Congress, Representatives of the
American people who answer to the American people, are demanding that
the DOJ answer to us.
Let this also serve as a reminder to the Department of Justice that
the U.S. Congress was created by our Founders, and its authority and
responsibility arise directly from Article I of the United States
Constitution.
The Department of Justice, on the other hand, was created by
Congress. Its powers arise from those given to it by Congress. And just
as those powers are given by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility
to ensure that they are not abused; and, if necessary, it is Congress'
responsibility to limit these powers.
Woodrow Wilson, who was among the first to use the term ``oversight''
in reference to the investigation of the executive branch, stated:
Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of
the administration.
Today, we show that we are taking oversight of the executive branch
seriously, particularly the Department of Justice, and we are working
to prevent bias in government. We demand accountability because the
American people deserve no less.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin. With all that is going on
in the country and in the world--we have children being ripped apart
from their families at the border; we have Republicans working with the
White House trying to take away healthcare protections for the American
people; and we have a President who seems unhinged--with all that is
happening, this is what we are dealing with today on the House floor
this morning. Basically, it is a resolution to try to undermine the
Mueller investigation, which is investigating potential Russian
involvement and collusion in our election.
That is a big deal. We should all want to get to the bottom of this.
We should all want the truth. Instead of wanting to get to the truth,
my Republican friends throw roadblocks in the way, one after another
after another, to try to get people to try to discredit the
investigation and to try to derail the investigation. It is
unbelievable to me.
The President this morning tweeted that Russia continues to insist
they had nothing to do with meddling in our election. I can't believe
the President of the United States is tweeting that. What is wrong with
him?
Every single intelligence agency in our government says that the
Russians meddled in our election, and we have the President of the
United States this morning tweeting that Russia says they didn't do it,
so we have got to believe Russia.
[[Page H5822]]
I don't know how my friends can defend this. At some point, you have
to say, ``Enough.''
I get it. Republicans want to constantly circle the wagons around the
President with every outrageous thing he says and does, but this is
about a foreign power--an adversary--meddling in our elections.
What is the response? Let's try to disparage the investigation. Let's
try to undermine the investigation.
It is unreal that we are going through this exercise today, but I
guess we have come to expect this.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, also, that the process in this House
that got us here today to debate this resolution was a disgrace and an
affront to the way this Chamber is supposed to conduct business. In all
my time here, I haven't seen a committee minority of either party
treated as disrespectfully as Democrats were on Tuesday. That is when
the Judiciary Committee considered this resolution of inquiry.
Democrats showed up on time and sat patiently waiting for this
hearing to begin--and they waited, and they waited, and they waited
because the Republican majority gaveled the hearing to order more than
an hour after it was supposed to begin. They didn't even have the
courtesy to tell the minority about the delay.
Things got only worse from there. When the hearing actually got
underway, Democrats were cut off at every turn. The Republican majority
moved the previous question, cutting off debate and preventing
consideration of Democratic amendments. They blocked parliamentary
inquiries and a unanimous consent request. Committee Republicans even
took the extraordinary step of overruling their chairman after an
amendment was ruled out of order. It was heavy-handed, and it was
undemocratic.
My Republican colleagues should be ashamed of the way they conducted
themselves. Maybe they are, because the chairman of the committee
appeared to hide in the hallway during the vote until he was called by
another Member, and when he did vote, he voted ``present.'' So did the
Acting Chair.
Mr. Speaker, were they unwilling to stand up to the more conservative
elements of their caucus? or did they condone what went on?
I don't see how anybody in this Chamber could endure such an
embarrassing process. It is unfortunate that the majority of the Rules
Committee essentially enabled it by using emergency procedures to
quickly move this resolution.
This is a new low for a majority that has already turned this
Congress into the most closed Congress in history. There have already
been 89 closed rules this Congress, and it is only June. There has not
been a single open rule under Speaker Ryan--not one.
It is fitting that this measure from the Judiciary Committee is being
considered under the majority's 90th closed rule because the Judiciary
Committee is now the second most closed committee in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, what does the majority have to show for this bad
process? We have another bad product here, this time a partisan measure
meant to undermine the Russia investigation.
Now, we know this isn't a serious attempt at oversight because the
Republican majority apparently doesn't believe in fulfilling its
oversight responsibilities to begin with. Republicans have refused, for
example, to examine foreign payments to the Trump organization. They
refuse to examine extravagant travel by members of the administration.
They refuse to examine HUD Secretary Carson's $31,000 dining set.
Who buys a $31,000 dining set? Where do you find a $31,000 dining
set?
They refuse to investigate the use of private email by administration
officials, including Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller, and countless
other scandals involving EPA Administrator Pruitt.
The list goes on and on and on and on. We actually have a long list
here, Mr. Speaker, of what we should be investigating. If my Republican
colleagues would like a copy, I am happy to provide it to them. But
suffice it to say, there is no oversight with regard to the misdeeds of
this administration.
Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Republicans' zeal for oversight?
Former Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Issa
subpoenaed the Obama administration more than 100 times in just a 4-
year span. I didn't always agree with him on his investigations, but at
least the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was performing some
oversight.
Republicans today are completely missing in action under President
Trump. This is an administration that has been embroiled in one scandal
after the next. It is an administration dripping with corruption. This
makes the Nixon administration look like Common Cause. I have never
seen anything like it. Apparently, the Republicans only believe in
oversight if it involves President Obama or Secretary Clinton.
Let me remind my Republican colleagues that there wasn't a single
scandal in President Obama's 8 years in office that implicated him: no
Cabinet official was forced to resign in scandal; no senior White House
official had to leave in the face of wrongdoing. Only with the Trump
administration can you have one scandal start at breakfast only to have
another one by the time you sit down for dinner.
We should be doing our job--getting to the bottom of what is
happening and holding people accountable--but instead we are throwing
sand in the gears of the Russia investigation. This is crazy.
Now, let me remind everyone of what Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation has yielded so far.
Twenty people and three companies have either been indicted or pled
guilty. That includes George Papadopoulos, foreign policy adviser on
President Trump's campaign, who pled guilty to making false statements
to the FBI; Michael Flynn, the President's former National Security
Advisor, who also pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI.
Paul Manafort, his former campaign chair, was indicted on charges of
conspiracy, money laundering, and making false statements. He was later
also charged with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges. He is sitting
in jail today. As we have this debate right now, Paul Manafort is in
jail.
Rick Gates, the President's campaign aid, was also indicted on
similar charges.
That is just a small sample based on what we know today. We will see
what else the Special Counsel's investigation finds.
So this goes beyond your basic policy disagreements. This is about
whether the minority in this Congress is allowed to do the job they
were elected to do--not just this Democratic minority, but any
minority, because we have seen and we could see again this year just
how quickly power shifts in Congress. This is about whether this
Congress is going to fulfill its oversight responsibilities or sweep
possible wrongdoing under the rug.
Now, we have a chance today to demand better from this majority, so
we should vote against this rule and demand a better process. That is
the only way we are going to see a better product.
Just one final thing before I reserve my time. I say to my Republican
friends: Look at what you are doing to this institution. You are
destroying it. Not only the closed process, the most closed Congress in
the history of our country, but the way you move legislation forward.
The way Democrats in the Judiciary Committee were treated on this
resolution, in all my years here, I have never seen anything like it.
I get it. We have a President who wants to behave like a king and who
thinks, when he speaks, everybody should sit up to attention just like
they do when Kim Jong-un speaks. But this is supposed to be the
people's House, and you are diminishing this institution. This has to
stop.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. At this point in time, as the gentleman from
Massachusetts and I have discussed many times--and he has his opinions
on things and process; I have mine as well--we can agree and disagree.
But I think one thing is let's take a step forward today.
This is a process of what we are doing forward. We are warning and
requiring
[[Page H5823]]
from an Article I to an Article II agency. Let's do that and continue
that process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, there are a
whole bunch of troubling things happening in our country today. The
Supreme Court's Janus decision was just yet another very disturbing
development that really attacks working men and women.
{time} 0930
Mr. Speaker, a union's ability to collectively bargain benefits both
its members and nonmembers alike. Unions are responsible for many of
the worker protections Americans enjoy today, and they continue to
fight for fair pay and good working conditions, including for 17.3
million public employees.
We have unions to thank for our weekends, for paid vacations, for
overtime pay, for the 8-hour workday, for child labor laws, for
pensions, for the minimum wage, for sick leave, for Social Security,
for parental leave, for holiday pay, and the list goes on and on and
on.
However, yesterday, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to
hardworking employees, the unions that represent them, and the
protections they provide us. In a 5-4 ideological decision, the Court
invalidated the laws of 22 States and undermined public sector unions.
This decision enables free-riding by those who benefit from union
agreements but do not want to help cover the costs of collective
bargaining and enforcement.
Unions fight for every single worker. Therefore, every worker should
pay their fair share.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cartwright's
legislation, H.R. 6238, the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act.
This bill protects the rights of State and local government employees
to join unions and collectively bargain.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) to discuss his proposal.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in northeast
Pennsylvania where collective bargaining rights are time-honored and
highly valued. The work our unions have done over the past 100-plus
years has changed our laws and practices that helped create our strong
American middle class. Our middle class is something that really makes
us the envy of the free world, and American unions keep the middle
class strong.
Today, public sector unions represent about 17.3 million workers in
State and local governments across the country. These public sector
workers keep us safe and teach and nurture our children, care for our
families. As union members, they are empowered through collective
action to fight for fair wages and work conditions, as Mr. McGovern
mentioned.
But yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against
unions in the case of Janus v. AFSCME. They overturned four decades--40
years--of legal precedent to undermine the rights of correctional
officers, State and local policemen, firefighters, snowplow drivers,
teachers, all the local government employees that work hard for us and
make us safe every day.
The Court's decision invalidates the laws of 22 States and the
District of Columbia. These are States that decided to allow unions and
State employees mutually to agree on ensuring that employees pay a fair
share fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining enforcement.
This Court's decision is nothing but bare-knuckled politics. In fact,
prominent Republican politicians have already described it and praised
it as a devastating blow to Democrats. It is not jurisprudence; it is
just politics.
When you overturn 40 years of American legal precedent, when you rip
up 40 years of the fabric of American law, it is a big deal.
Associate Justice Kagan described it yesterday as a weaponization of
the First Amendment that has been going on. And she is right. This
decision comes at a time when hardworking Americans are fighting every
day just to pay their bills and support their families. Labor unions
are working hard to give workers a collective voice to gain higher
wages, better healthcare, and a secure retirement.
Make no mistake, a tax on public-sector unions is the camel's nose
under the tent flap. They are coming after private sector unions next.
Strong public unions build the middle class in our country and shape
the life of every American by negotiating for labor rights, including
the minimum wage, 8-hour workdays, weekends, employer health insurance.
Now is not the time to turn our back on American workers and labor
unions. Now is the time to stand with employees who serve the public
across the country.
For that reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up my bill, H.R. 6238, the Public
Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, a bill that will defend the right of
every public sector employee to join a union and bargain collectively.
The bill empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to ensure
that State and local government employees are treated fairly and that
workplace conditions meet a proper standard. Every employee deserves
these basic standards, whether they choose to join a union or not.
Again, the Janus decision is an outright attack on all unions, on all
working people, and an attack on the cause that we here in Congress,
here in the people's House, fight for every day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and
the rule so that this important legislation will be considered
immediately.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many
more speakers he has.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. If the
gentleman is ready to close, I will be as well.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, there are lots of things that
we should be doing oversight on and that they we are not.
The Oversight Committee has chosen not to look into all the scandals
in this White House. They have chosen instead to look the other way.
I mentioned EPA Administrator Pruitt. He has demonstrated over and
over that he has no regard for taxpayer money. He is living a lifestyle
of the rich and famous at EPA. He has no respect for his position and
no desire to follow our ethics law. His many abuses of his position
demand that we fully investigate his actions.
For example--I love this--he spent $43,000 on installing a soundproof
booth in his office. Who does that? GAO stated that he was required to
notify Congress before spending more than $5,000 on office
improvements, but he goes ahead and spends $43,000 on a soundproof
booth, I guess to make private phone calls. He racked up nearly
$200,000 flying first class and luxury aircraft on the taxpayers' dime.
One of those trips was to Italy. It cost $30,000. He rented an
apartment from an energy lobbyist for $50 a night here in Washington.
He enlisted an aide to help find his wife a job.
You can't make this stuff up. And crickets from the Oversight
Committee and my Republican friends in Congress.
Congress needs to investigate the alarming drug price trends in this
country. This is an emergency, a life or death issue for our
constituents. Because of high drug prices, one in four Americans cannot
afford to fill a prescription. These high drug prices are not due to
foreign markets, but they are due to our unfair pricing system.
We issue patents to drug companies, allowing them to have exclusive
rights on drugs. Make no mistake, patents are important for
incentivizing and rewarding innovation. However, drug companies found
ways to game the system by prolonging their patents and continuing
their tight hold on lifesaving medications.
A study by UCLA found that 74 percent of new patents from 2005 to
2015
[[Page H5824]]
went to drugs that already existed. Patents allow these drug companies
to charge patients unfair prices without facing competition. That is
just unacceptable.
But I guess we shouldn't be surprised that there is no investigation,
because my Republican friends are working with this White House to
undue patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. They are even
trying to take away preexisting condition protections.
Right now, because of the law, if you have a preexisting condition,
an insurance company cannot discriminate against you and demand that
you pay more. They have to give you the insurance. They want to take
that away. This is unbelievable. We should be investigating this stuff.
I could go on and on and on, but we are not doing that. What we are
doing is, we are bringing a resolution that has been put forward by
some who are trying to undermine the Mueller investigation and who do
not want the American people to focus on the involvement between Trump
operatives and the Russians.
When I would go up to Massachusetts on the weekends, it used to be
that people would ask me who in the Trump administration met with the
Russians. Now the question is: Who in the Trump administration didn't
meet with the Russians?
What I love about the people who are testifying before the Mueller
committee, they now are getting in trouble because they are realizing
that, if you lie, there is a consequence, so they all have amnesia.
They met with Russian operatives time and again, and they forget. They
mysteriously remember when they are confronted with the evidence.
We all should be shocked by this. A foreign adversary interfered in
our election. Every single intelligence agency in our government
confirms that. And yet you have the President of the United States
today tweeting: Oh, Russia insists they didn't meddle in our election.
Oh, my God, I can't believe this. The President of the United States
is tweeting that today. It is shameful. Stop defending this
unacceptable behavior, and stop defending a process that is
unacceptable as well.
I mentioned the terrible treatment Democrats received in the
Judiciary Committee when this thing was reported out. I have never seen
anything like that in my life. Democrats waited for an hour and they
were just shut out of any opportunity to amend the measure or even
speak.
Welcome to the United States Congress. This is supposed to be the
people's House. This is supposed to be the shining example of
democracy, and you get people who have questions or who have ideas who
are shut down in committee.
Then we bring it to the floor after going through the Rules Committee
last night, and it comes to the floor under a closed process. This is
the most closed Congress in history. This is the 90th closed rule.
What does that mean? It means that this legislation cannot be
amended. There is limited debate. You have to vote for it up or down,
my way or the highway. Everybody, Democrats and Republicans, are
blocked from offering any of their ideas or any of their potential
improvements to this bill. Nothing.
This is the 90th closed rule, completely closed rule, in this
Congress, the 90th bill that has come before us where neither Democrats
nor Republicans can offer anything.
It is frustrating beyond words to be here today. The system here is
rigged. This is going to pass on a party-line vote, I guess. But this
is not the way the people's House should be run. This is disgraceful.
At some point, my Republican friends who care about this institution
have to say enough is enough. They have to demand a more open, more
transparent system here. This cannot stand.
So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so
we can address the terrible impacts of the Supreme Court decision in
the Janus case and vote ``no'' on the rule. We should not be doing this
today. We should not be engaged in an attempt to try to defend
the indefensible or undermine an important investigation into Russia's
meddling in our election.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, we can discuss this and continue to discuss it, as we
have.
I respect my friend from Massachusetts and his opinion and the issues
of transparency. I want to see that same transparency. I want to see us
work. And I think we have an opportunity to do that. By saying that we
bring this rule and this resolution here today, to disparage this
institution, when we are asking for what we are required and can't get,
I am not sure how that is.
Now, we can discuss other issues you want to investigate and other
areas you want to go to, and you can do that and we can discuss things,
but there is nothing undermining the investigation. The Mueller
investigation is still going on, the FBI investigation. All of that is
still going on. Nothing is undermining it except the DOJ that has had
obvious issues of telling the truth and obvious issues of not giving us
the documents we have requested. This is Article I, Article II.
We can have discussions about everything else. And I know if I were
in a position on the other side, I would want everything investigated,
because when you have seen what we have been able to do in the last
year and a half with the economy, with jobs, with regulations, with
small business, when you start looking at that, I would yell at
everything else, too, Mr. Speaker, because the President has done what
he said he was going to do. And our economy is better, our jobs are
better, and we are working toward a system in which America is safer.
But I would also want to investigate everything else, too, because if
I was going into a cycle, I would want to throw off and look other
places and tell the American people things aren't really right when
they know that it is.
{time} 0945
Also, the American people, when I go back home to Georgia, want to
know: If the Congress asks an agency for documents, why do they not get
to produce them?
And don't go to the fact, well, it is classified.
We have SCIFs up here. We have got classified areas up here. What is
problematic here is we are hiding behind the fact of things that look
like--after they are produced, after they are compelled to produce--it
looks like they are just trying to keep it from us to hide
embarrassment, and that is not a reason to hide documents.
So we have a simple proposal here. Do what you are required to do.
Let Congress be the oversight that it is supposed to be, and we can
discuss whatever else we want to for oversight. That is the part of two
parties working.
But in this one, this is pretty simple. You can vote ``no'' and say
no, Congress shouldn't do that, in an area in which we have
responsibility and oversight protection. If you want to do that, go
right ahead.
Again, when you want to throw off everything else in the world--I
think it is when you look at the President and you look at the
administration and you look at what we have done in the last 18\1/2\
months, you see a light at the end of a tunnel, you see an economy
coming back, you see a good thing for businesses and small businesses.
When people get up and do not care, Mr. Speaker, what happens on this
floor. They really don't. All they want to do is get up in the morning,
get their families ready, pay their bills, get a good job, have a
possibility of a promotion, or go start that business they want to
have. We have provided that.
Now, up here, in the internal workings of government, in the mesh of
web that is inside this beltway, when you have got a government agency
and government employees who do not want to do what they are supposed
to do, it is time for Congress to act. That is exactly what we are
doing today.
John Stuart Mill stated: ``The proper office of a representative
assembly is to watch and control the government, to throw the light of
publicity on its acts, to compel a full exposition and justification of
all of them which any one considers questionable.''
Today the Republicans in the House are doing that, Mr. Speaker. We
are taking our oversight responsibilities seriously. We are abiding by
the checks
[[Page H5825]]
and balances of the Constitution to ensure that the government is
acting appropriately to ensure that the American people--who, by the
way, we represent--have the answers that they deserve, one way or the
other.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 971 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
6238) to secure the rights of public employees to organize,
act, concertedly, and bargain collectively, which safeguard
the public interest and promote the free and unobstructed
flow of commerce, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6238.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 186, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 304]
YEAS--224
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--186
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
[[Page H5826]]
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Barletta
Black
Blumenauer
Brady (TX)
Buck
Costello (PA)
Ellison
Grothman
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Labrador
Richmond
Rush
Schweikert
Thompson (MS)
Tsongas
Walz
{time} 1011
Messrs. VELA, PETERSON, Ms. PINGREE, and Mrs. DEMINGS changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. KINZINGER, NUNES, POE of Texas, and BANKS of Indiana changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 184, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 305]
AYES--224
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--184
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Barletta
Barton
Black
Brady (TX)
Buck
Cartwright
Cicilline
Costello (PA)
Ellison
Grothman
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Labrador
Pelosi
Rush
Scott (VA)
Thompson (MS)
Tsongas
Walz
{time} 1019
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, due to an unavoidable scheduling
conflict, I was unable to cast my vote.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 304
and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 305.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 304 and
``yea'' on rollcall No. 305.
____________________