[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 11, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4411-H4423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INITIATE OR INTERVENE IN
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE CERTAIN SUBPOENAS
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 431, I call
up the resolution (H. Res. 430) authorizing the Committee on the
Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce
certain subpoenas and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Rules, printed in the resolution, is adopted, and the resolution, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:
H. Res. 430
That the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives is authorized, on behalf of such
Committee, to initiate or intervene in any judicial
proceeding before a Federal court--
(1) to seek declaratory judgments and any and all ancillary
relief, including injunctive relief, affirming the duty of--
(A) William P. Barr, Attorney General, to comply with the
subpoena that is the subject of the resolution accompanying
House Report 116-105; and
(B) Donald F. McGahn, II, former White House Counsel, to
comply with the subpoena issued to him on April 22, 2019; and
(2) to petition for disclosure of information regarding any
matters identified in or relating to the subpoenas referred
to in paragraph (1) or any accompanying report, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), including Rule
6(e)(3)(E) (providing that the court may authorize disclosure
of a grand-jury matter ``preliminarily to... a judicial
proceeding'').
Resolved, That the chair of each standing and permanent
select committee, when authorized by the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group, retains the ability to initiate or intervene
in any judicial proceeding before a Federal court on behalf
of such committee, to seek declaratory judgments and any and
all ancillary relief, including injunctive relief, affirming
the duty of the recipient of any subpoena duly issued by that
committee to comply with that subpoena. Consistent with the
Congressional Record statement on January 3, 2019, by the
chair of the Committee on Rules regarding the civil
enforcement of subpoenas pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule II,
a vote of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to authorize
litigation and to articulate the institutional position of
the House in that litigation is the equivalent of a vote of
the full House of Representatives.
Resolved, That in connection with any judicial proceeding
brought under the first or second resolving clauses, the
chair of any standing or permanent select committee
exercising authority thereunder has any and all necessary
authority under Article I of the Constitution.
Resolved, That the chair of any standing or permanent
select committee exercising authority described in the first
or second resolving clause shall notify the House of
Representatives, with respect to the commencement of any
judicial proceeding thereunder.
Resolved, That the Office of General Counsel of the House
of Representatives shall, with the authorization of the
Speaker, represent any standing or permanent select committee
in any judicial proceeding initiated or intervened in
pursuant to the authority described in the first or second
resolving clause.
Resolved, That the Office of General Counsel of the House
of Representatives is authorized to retain private counsel,
either for pay or pro bono, to assist in the representation
of any standing or permanent select committee in any judicial
proceeding initiated or intervened in pursuant to the
authority described in the first or second resolving clause.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution, as amended, shall be
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentlewoman
from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H. Res. 430.
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 myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a dark time. This Congress is being tested--in
this case, not by a foreign adversary but by our own President, a
President who is undertaking a relentless campaign of obstruction and
stonewalling.
We have never seen anything like this. Never before, Mr. Speaker, has
a President from either party so flagrantly ignored Congress'
constitutional oversight authority and our Nation's separation of
powers.
You don't have to take my word for it. President Trump has declared,
``We are fighting all the subpoenas,'' and, ``I don't want people
testifying.'' These words make Richard Nixon look like an Eagle Scout.
His Attorney General, William Barr, is apparently more than willing
to follow the President's command. He has refused to release the full,
unredacted Mueller report and any underlying evidence until a
compromise was finally reached yesterday. That is after the Judiciary
Committee had already voted to hold him in contempt of Congress.
Apparently, the Attorney General went from being America's lawyer to
being the defense counsel for the President of the United States.
I hope the Justice Department acts in good faith on this new
agreement. These are documents that Congress needs to see in response
to Special Counsel Mueller's findings. But if they do not, and if the
Attorney General holds back key information, then all options need to
be on the table, including enforcing these subpoenas. That is in
addition to the fact that some documents and testimony we deserve to
obtain could very well fall outside the bounds of this agreement.
The Mueller report is just the tip of the iceberg. The President is
using every trick in the book, including false claims of executive
privilege, absolute immunity, and lack of legitimate legislative
purpose, all to obstruct legitimate inquiries into matters that impact
Americans' daily lives. This includes the President's attack on
affordable healthcare coverage for millions of Americans, including
those with preexisting conditions; his family separation policy that
has torn apart vulnerable immigrant families; his misappropriation of
military funds for his offensive border wall; and his decision to roll
back landmark civil rights protections.
This is exactly the sort of concentrated power in the hands of the
few that the Founders intentionally prevented through the creation of
the three separate but coequal branches of government, each branch with
unique powers and responsibilities and each branch expected to act as a
check on the power of the others.
But the President is trying to take this balance of power and
centralize it
[[Page H4412]]
in one place, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He is acting as though the law
applies to every American but himself.
The President's strategy here is clear. Tweet by tweet, quote by
quote, he has laid it bare for all of us to see.
The question is whether this Congress will have the courage to take a
stand against it and whether we will confront it for what it is, an
attack on the very notion of Congress as a coequal branch of
government. I can't speak for my friends on the other side of the
aisle, but this Democratic majority will not allow this President to
turn a blind eye to the rule of law.
That is why I introduced this measure, H. Res. 430. It is a civil
enforcement resolution that will strengthen our hand in court as
Congress tries to get the documents this administration is currently
trying to hide, so we can uncover the truth and follow the facts,
wherever they may lead.
The first part of this resolution follows past precedent used by
Democratic and Republican majorities, this time to allow the Judiciary
Committee to go to court to enforce subpoenas issued to the Attorney
General and former White House General Counsel Don McGahn.
The second part reaffirms key language in House rules, making clear
that every committee chair retains the ability to go to Federal court
to seek civil enforcement of their subpoenas when authorized by the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. That includes those already issued, as
well as any future subpoenas.
I know some of my colleagues on the other side will be quick to claim
this resolution is unprecedented. To them, I would ask this: What is
the precedent for an administration refusing to comply with any
congressional oversight--no documents, no information, nothing? There
isn't one.
We have never seen anything like this before, so we need an
appropriate response like this because of this administration's
constant obstruction.
I am proud that my fellow committee chairs quickly joined in
cosponsoring this resolution, including Oversight and Reform Committee
Chairman Cummings, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Engel, Judiciary
Committee Chairman Nadler, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Neal,
Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff, and Financial Services
Committee Chairwoman Waters.
I urge all of my colleagues to join us. This deserves support from
both sides of the aisle.
I know the silence from some of my Republican friends to what this
President is doing has been deafening, but this moment demands you
finally speak up and say enough is enough. This resolution is not
about politics or partisanship. It is about defending the rule of law
and the very notion of separation of powers.
The challenge here is so great that if we don't stand up to President
Trump today, then we risk losing the power to stand up to any President
in the future.
I strongly urge my colleagues: Let's make clear that the law still
matters, even in Donald Trump's America. We can do that by voting
``yes'' on this resolution and making clear that no one is above the
law, not even the President of the United States.
Let's do right by the American people. Let's restore the dignity of
this institution. Let's pass this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. Res. 430.
It is disappointing that we are here again debating a measure that
will have absolutely no impact on the lives of our constituents.
Instead of fixing pressing issues like the security and humanitarian
crisis at our southern border, the Democrats continue their focus on
influencing the 2020 election at taxpayer expense. Americans are tired
of this witch hunt.
For nearly 2 years, Democrats claimed that the President colluded
with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election. After
22 months, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 warrants, 40 FBI agents, and spending
$35 million, Special Counsel Mueller concluded there was no collusion
between President Trump and Russia and did not charge him with
obstruction.
Yet, my Democratic colleagues continue to attempt to undermine the
President of the United States because, all I can think of is, they
haven't accepted the fact that he won the election. It is clear to me
that the Democrats are trying to influence the 2020 Presidential
election at taxpayer expense.
Americans have real problems that we can and should be tackling
instead. In May, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended a jaw-dropping
133,000 people at our southern border. That is only the people they
caught. Yet, we are here debating subpoenas targeting the President,
probably because it will provide Democrats free airtime.
This unprecedented resolution should not even be on the House floor
today. It has never been done before in the entire history of the
United States.
The House has only sued for documents twice before. In both cases,
the individuals in question were first found in contempt of Congress at
both the committee level and by the full House. This has not happened
here.
On top of that, the relevant subpoenas seek material that includes
grand jury materials that, by law, cannot be made public. The Democrats
are asking Attorney General Barr to violate the law.
When my colleagues and I tried to improve this resolution, the
Democrats blocked us at every turn.
I offered an amendment that would let the American people know how
much money this resolution would cost taxpayers. Democrats blocked it.
Republicans offered amendments to prevent taxpayer money from going to
lobbyists, to disclose contracts with lawyers, and to disclose where
this taxpayer money was coming from to fund this witch hunt. Democrats
blocked each and every one.
One amendment in particular highlights the partisan political, media-
grabbing motives of this resolution. Republicans offered an amendment
requiring the Judiciary Committee chairman to certify that he made a
good faith effort to negotiate with the Attorney General, but the
Democrats blocked that amendment, too.
The Attorney General has been transparent, and the Department of
Justice has attempted numerous accommodations, including just yesterday
when the Department of Justice agreed to let members of the committee
view an unredacted report excluding grand jury material, which, by law,
cannot be released.
{time} 1430
But even as the Attorney General has attempted to work with the
Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Nadler has moved at unprecedented
speed, moving from a demand for an unredacted report to subpoena to
this resolution in a matter of mere weeks. From the Democrats' actions
and prior statements, it is difficult not to view the purpose of this
resolution and this debate as anything but political.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial
Services Committee.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 430, which authorizes
litigation to compel Attorney General Barr to provide key evidence
underlying the Mueller report and the unredacted report itself,
authorizes a civil suit to compel Don McGahn to provide the Committee
on the Judiciary with documents and testimony, and, prospectively,
allows committee chairs to bring civil actions on behalf of their
committees to enforce their subpoenas without a subsequent full House
vote when authorized by the bipartisan legal advisory group.
H. Res. 430 is key to ensuring that Congress is able to efficiently
exercise its constitutional responsibilities in light of the
unprecedented stonewalling by the Trump administration and a President
who has openly said such things as: ``We're fighting all the
subpoenas,'' and, ``I don't want people testifying.''
Who does he think he is? A dictator?
The committees have requested information that we are
constitutionally
[[Page H4413]]
entitled to, as a coequal branch of government, and that we need to
fulfill our legislative and oversight responsibilities. In the
Financial Services Committee, for example, we have subpoenaed documents
from financial institutions, including Deutsche Bank and Capital One,
as part of our investigation into the integrity of the United States
financial system, bank safety and loan practices, and anti-money
laundering policies, including as they apply to and involve the
accounts of President Trump and family members. So, ladies and
gentlemen, in another display of stonewalling, President Trump sued to
prevent the banks from complying with the committee's valid subpoenas.
I will continue to support efforts to ensure that our critical
oversight is not impeded.
Who does he think he is?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
H. Res. 430, a resolution authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to
initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain
subpoenas, and for other purposes.
This resolution is an assault on this body's constitutional oversight
authorities. By proceeding in this unprecedented manner, the House is
putting the judicial branch in an unfortunate position.
Never before has the House authorized the general counsel to sue
without first exhausting all our constitutional remedies to gain
compliance with our oversight demands. Proceeding in this manner risks
weakening our ability to carry out our oversight responsibilities.
On May 8, the Committee on the Judiciary voted 24-16 to hold Attorney
General Barr in criminal contempt of Congress. The committee did not
pursue contempt against Donald McGahn. Mr. McGahn's case is unique, and
I will address it in more detail later.
Contrary to press reports, Mr. Speaker, we are not acting today on
the contempt citation reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. We
are authorizing the House to sue the Attorney General, Mr. McGahn, and
any other official or private citizen any committee chair deems
contemptuous in the future.
This is a novel, untested, and risky proposition. I will give it to
you this way, Mr. Speaker: The majority is definitely audacious in
their request.
The media and the Democrats routinely rail against the President
being quick to sue. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the
majority is doing. Having rushed to contempt, we are now bypassing that
remedy altogether and going straight to court.
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley recently wrote, Democrats'
litigation strategy ``is clearly driven more by political than legal
calculations.''
This is the problem I have, Mr. Speaker: These tactics weaken the
House, aggrandize the executive branch, and cede decisionmaking to the
judicial branch.
This is a problem. The majority can mess up oversight however they
want to. The majority can rush to judgment whenever they want to.
My chairman has subpoenaed most everything that moves, and it seems
other committees are wanting to as well. But here is the problem: When
you are rushing to this and you are taking it on grounds that are not
legally sound--and which, by the way, at this same hearing where Mr.
Turley was, all three of the Democrat witnesses also agreed that the
subpoena of the Attorney General was not legal in the sense that it was
asking him to do something illegal.
The other issue here is, when you practice proper oversight, we are
getting documents on election results, we are also getting documents on
immigration and others from this administration. Where the rub has come
is in overbroad illegal subpoenas from these committees.
Now, they may want to screw it up now for their purposes, but I don't
want it in the future, going forward, where this House's oversight
ability has been tampered by a rush to judgment. Let's think about this
institution more than our next headline.
This is a problem because it is uncertain here, Mr. Speaker, the
House will even be granted standing in court since we have declined to
exercise all of our constitutional remedies, namely, contempt, in its
many forms.
This is not the only impediment facing Democrats. At every turn, as
we have discussed in our minority views to the committee's contempt
report, the majority refused to engage with DOJ in the requisite
negotiations and accommodation processes.
During our markup of the contempt resolution, the chairman made
several damaging admissions--this is the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary:
First, he conceded the Attorney General cannot lawfully comply with
his subpoena demanding grand jury material.
Second, he stated the subpoena was the beginning of a dialogue. I am
not sure what first-year law student will believe that a subpoena is
the beginning of a dialogue.
Third, he admitted the subpoena was intentionally broad to give the
committee clout in court.
Again, I am not sure which Black's Law Dictionary we are looking up
under ``subpoena,'' but that is not part of it.
All along, the goal has been to get to court, not to get information
and conduct legitimate oversight of Russian interference or secure our
elections. If Democrats were interested in these good government
issues, they would have accepted DOJ's offer to review the nearly
unredacted Mueller report.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the chairman, even, has not done so. The goal is
to clearly haul the administration into court in an attempt to pacify a
base rabid for impeachment.
When Congress exercises its oversight powers, it must take advantage
of every offer of information from the other branch. It is disingenuous
to decline the free information Democrats so strongly claim to want. It
shows the majority does not want the information; they want a fight.
In addition to the subpoena being overly broad and requiring the
Attorney General to violate the law to comply, the chairman failed to
establish a valid legislative purpose for his demands. There are other
avenues the chairman could seek to get the information he wants.
Congress could pass a law granting itself an exemption to grand jury
secrecy rules, but the majority has not brought that up.
The most alarming aspect of this action, however, is the
unprecedented speed--a mere 44 days passed between the chairman's first
request to the Attorney General and the date the committee held him in
contempt. In stark contrast, 464 days passed from the date that
Chairman Issa requested information from Attorney General Holder on
Fast and Furious and the date the Committee on Oversight and Reform
held him in contempt, 138 days for Harriet Miers and the date the
committee held her in contempt.
The action the majority is authorizing today against Don McGahn,
however, Mr. Speaker, is far more egregious for many reasons. Mr.
McGahn is not the custodian of the documents the committee and the
chairman demand. The White House is. Yet we are smearing a private
citizen's reputation and dragging him into court--at taxpayer expense--
in an effort to redo the Mueller investigation because the majority and
the media didn't like the outcome.
Democrats again have failed to lay a foundation for any action
against Mr. McGahn. Chairman Nadler has never formally objected to the
President's protective assertion of executive privilege or other common
law privileges asserted by Mr. McGahn.
Under Supreme Court precedent, the chairman must take this important
procedural step to pursue further actions against a witness. The
witness should be given a clear-cut choice between compliance and
noncompliance, between answering the question and risking prosecution
for contempt. Here, the witness is being hauled into court without
proper notice.
Evidence of this glaring error is in the Record. On May 31, Chairman
Nadler wrote Mr. McGahn's counsel and stated he did not agree with the
White House or Mr. McGahn and offered to
[[Page H4414]]
continue negotiating, but the chairman also gave Mr. McGahn a deadline
of June 7--this past Friday--to respond. Meanwhile, the Rules Committee
noticed a markup of this resolution on June 6, one day before the
deadline.
I think we are seeing the pattern here. This is a revealing error.
But errors occur when you are pushing action through at light speed and
ceding your power to the judicial branch. A court will decide whether
the House has standing, whether the case is right, and whether the
Congress is entitled to the information outside of an impeachment
inquiry.
As also has been said, the propositions are a gamble. Here, Mr.
Speaker, we are gambling with the power of a coequal branch. This
approach is untested and can do significant harm to Congress' Article I
authority.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I must make mention, the authorization of the
general counsel to seek pro bono legal services circumvents the House
ethics rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, those rules provide an exception
for Members to bring civil action challenging the lawfulness of an
action of a Federal agency or an action of a Federal official taken in
an official capacity provided that the action concerns a matter of
public interest rather than a matter that is personal in nature.
This resolution contravenes ethics rules by giving the general
counsel the authority, in Mr. McGahn's case, to solicit a gift: pro
bono level services. I am not sure that was the majority's intent, but
the inconsistencies result when Democrats aim to rush resolutions
through the House outside of regular order.
Mr. Speaker, the majority may wish to change the rules. This majority
may wish to get to the finish line quicker. The majority may wish to
circumvent everything that is present in this House--and we have seen a
lot of it over the past 5\1/2\ months--but I wish they would take into
account that they may not be the majority forever, hopefully, and if
they mess up oversight of a coequal branch, it is on their hands.
That is what the vote for ``yes'' is on this resolution. That is why
a Member of this body should vote ``no'' for the integrity of this
House.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just assure the gentleman from
Georgia that there is nothing novel about this legislation. It is not
novel because everything in this bill goes to the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group, and that has been the case in the past.
What is novel, however, is a President of the United States who says
``ignore subpoenas'' and ``we will not cooperate'' and tells people not
to testify. That is not only novel, it is shocking.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friends on the other side: You
are going to have a choice today to either vote for this resolution and
stand up for this institution and support the rule of law, or you are
going to vote in a way that is going to be complicit with this
President's obstruction and disrespect for this institution and
disrespect for the rule of law. I urge you to vote with us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Oversight and Reform.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is engaged in one of the most
unprecedented coverups since Watergate, and it is not just about
Russia. It is so much broader than that. This coverup spans across
numerous investigations, and it extends from the White House to
multiple Federal agencies of government to completely separate outside
parties.
The administration officials now question the fundamental basis of
Congress to conduct oversight. They object to committee rules and
precedence that have been in place for decades under both Republican
and Democratic leaders, and they make baseless legal arguments to avoid
producing documents and testimony. The Trump administration is
challenging the very constitutionality of congressional oversight, and
it is happening in broad daylight.
Several weeks ago, President Trump vowed, ``We're fighting all the
subpoenas.'' Since then, he has refused to work on legislative
priorities such as infrastructure until Congress halts oversight and
investigations of his administration. He wants us to forgo our
responsibility under the Constitution as a condition of passing laws to
help our constituents and his constituents.
The President's arguments are baseless. He suggests that all
subpoenas that Congress puts out are partisan and somehow related to
the Russia probe, but that is simply not correct. In the Oversight and
Reform Committee, we have issued eight subpoenas: six of them are
bipartisan and none of them are about Russia. They involve issues like
the census, immigrant children being locked in cages and separated from
their families, and the President's finances.
{time} 1445
This entire year, the White House has not produced one document to
the Oversight and Reform Committee. Let me say that again: In all of
our investigations, the White House has not produced one single shred
of paper in response to our requests.
The hurricanes in Puerto Rico, the White House has produced nothing.
Security clearance abuses, the White House has produced nothing.
Efforts to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, the White House
has produced nothing. Hush-money payments, the White House has produced
not a thing. Even on issues like spending taxpayer dollars to pay for
private jets, the White House has produced absolutely nothing.
Over and over again, it does not matter what the topic is, the
tactics are the same. This begs the question: What are we covering up?
Tomorrow, our committee will vote on whether to hold the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Commerce in contempt of Congress for
refusing to produce documents relating to the Census. Again, these
subpoenas are bipartisan, and this issue has nothing to do with Russia.
Yet, the Trump administration has delayed, stonewalled, obstructed, and
challenged the authority of the Congress on even those questions.
I support today's resolution because it makes clear that in addition
to seeking criminal contempt on the House floor, committees may seek
authority to enforce their subpoenas directly in civil court actions.
Nobody is above the law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, nobody is above the law, not even the
President of the United States.
Today's resolution reaffirms that Congress has the independent
authority under the Constitution to investigate waste, fraud, abuse,
and wrongdoing so that we can pass laws that are effective and
efficient on behalf of all of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Before proceeding, Members are again
reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the
President.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my friend.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
oppose this resolution.
The subpoena for Attorney General Barr is unenforceable on its face.
It demands the full and unredacted Mueller report, including grand jury
material that the Attorney General cannot lawfully disclose, and the
Democrats know this.
In a hearing last month, Chairman Nadler admitted that Attorney
General Barr could not lawfully release grand jury material. He
therefore admitted that the Attorney General could not lawfully comply
with the subpoena.
Instead, the chairman suggested that the subpoena is a starting point
in negotiations. Rarely have I heard that term used with regard to a
subpoena. In fact, I never heard it before that time.
[[Page H4415]]
In the Judiciary Committee's hearing on executive privilege last
month, one of the majority's own witnesses testified that ``one of the
categories of information presently sought by the committee appears so
broad as to put the executive branch officials to a nearly impossible
task. . . . The committee cannot in good faith expect compliance;
accordingly, the burden is on the committee to substantially narrow
this aspect of its request.''
My friends talk about the rule of law, but the Democrats have
admitted in a hearing in the Judiciary Committee that the subpoena was
overly broad and that objects of the subpoena that are prohibited from
disclosure, such as 6(e) material, were not subject to the subpoena.
But they didn't fix their subpoena. They didn't issue a new subpoena.
They didn't amend the subpoena. They just attempted to amend their
contempt citation.
The defendant's confusion over what is subject to a subpoena is
adequate evidence that the subpoena itself is legally deficient as
being confusing and overly broad. A court will not be able to read the
collective minds of our Democratic colleagues and will not expect such
clairvoyance from the Attorney General nor from the former White House
Counsel.
The administration is currently negotiating in good faith. We see
that an agreement was reached just yesterday. The same Democrat, when
discussing the assertion of executive privilege by the administration,
stated, ``These developments do not, however, relieve the committee of
its obligation to continue to negotiate.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, just as the subpoena is overly broad and,
quite frankly, unprecedented, as well as legally deficient, this
resolution is also overly broad and unique in the annals of American
history.
When the chairwoman from California referred to the President of the
United States as a dictator, her language was rancorous and
unparliamentary, but it seems to have been filled with projection, as
this resolution provides unique authorities.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of
the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for giving us this opportunity to protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States, which is our oath of office.
Let me salute the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction who have
led us down this path of great respect for law, precedent, and the oath
we take: Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressman Cummings, Congressman
Nadler, Congressman Richard Neal, and Congressman Eliot Engel, all of
whom have been fighting the fight and gathering the facts to protect
and defend our Constitution.
The oath of office that we take is why we are on the floor today, to
hold Attorney General of the United States Barr and former White House
Counsel McGahn in civil contempt for their refusal to comply with
Congress' subpoenas. We must follow the facts and uncover the truth for
the American people.
At the birth of our democracy, amid war and revolution, Thomas Paine
said the times have found us. We are here today because the times have
found us. While we do not place ourselves in the same category of
greatness as our Founders, we do recognize the urgency of the threat to
our Nation that we face today.
This body has a solemn duty, Mr. Speaker, to protect and defend our
democracy, honoring the oath we take and the Constitution that is the
foundation of our freedom. That Constitution begins with our beautiful
preamble, ``We the People.''
Immediately following those words of the preamble is Article I,
establishing a Congress in which ``all legislative Powers herein
granted are vested.''
The Founders conferred upon the first branch responsibilities that
are sweeping in scope. We set an agenda. We hold the power of the
purse. We write the laws that all of us are bound by, including the
President of the United States and those who surround him.
Fundamental to those responsibilities is oversight of the executive
branch and all the areas essential to the well-being of the American
people.
Oversight is our institutional duty, to ensure against the abuse of
power, protect the rule of law, and expose the truth for the people who
are ``the only legitimate fountain of power,'' in the words of James
Madison.
To conduct that oversight, the Congress is both constitutionally
obligated and legally entitled to access and review materials from the
executive branch, which it can subpoena.
Yet, the President and the administration have shown an unprecedented
and unjustifiable refusal to furnish Congress with that information.
President Trump himself has said, ``We're fighting all the subpoenas,''
and, ``I don't want people testifying,'' and, ``No do-overs.''
His administration has employed every tool it can find to obstruct
legitimate committee oversight, everything from witness intimidation to
blanket stonewalling to spurious claims of executive privilege,
absolute immunity, and lack of legislative purpose.
This obstruction violates decades of established legal precedent.
Throughout our history, the courts have made absolutely clear that the
House has the authority to follow the facts to uncover the truth for
the American people and that ``the power of the Congress to conduct
investigations is inherent in the legislative process.''
Our oversight responsibility continues to be resoundingly affirmed in
the courts again and again. Last month, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia ruled in the Mazars court decision that ``there
can be little doubt that Congress' interest in the accuracy of the
President's financial disclosures falls within the legislative
sphere.''
That same week, the judge ruled in the Deutsche Bank case that
Congress' ``subpoenas are all in service of facially legitimate
investigative purposes.''
The administration's obstruction not only violates long-established
precedent, but it also endangers our very democracy. We need answers on
the many questions left unanswered by the Mueller report, which made
clear that the Russians waged an all-out attack on our democracy, and
the Mueller report documented 11 instances of obstruction from the
White House itself.
This is a grave threat to our democracy, but the President calls it a
``hoax'' and refuses to protect our democracy. Why is that? We take an
oath to protect our Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
domestic. What the White House and the administration are doing is a
danger and a threat to our democracy.
At the same time, the administration's campaign of stonewalling
extends far beyond the Mueller report. The administration is obscuring
the truth behind its disastrous policy decisions, from attacking
Affordable Care Act coverage for millions of Americans, including those
with preexisting conditions, taking it to court to overturn it while
saying to the American people that it supports preexisting conditions
coverage; to tearing apart vulnerable immigrant families at the border;
to stealing military funds for an ineffective, wasteful border wall; to
rolling back key civil rights protections for women, LGBTQ Americans,
and people of color. The list goes on and on.
In court, they also tried to defend their abuse of power when it
comes to the Census, which the Constitution is very clear about, that
every 10 years the people of the country will be enumerated. They want
to put a citizenship phrase in there to put a chilling effect on our
getting an accurate count.
The well-being of the American people and the integrity of our
democracy are imperiled by this brazen behavior. Senator McConnell
declares ``case closed,'' enabling this campaign of blanket,
unprecedented obstruction.
We see the obstruction in this House to trying to uphold our
proceedings, but we have the votes to proceed. The United States Senate
has a responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution, but they
are ignoring that. As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to
honor our oath of office
[[Page H4416]]
and strengthen the institution in which we serve for the people.
We have a responsibility under the vision of our Founders and the
text of the Constitution to ensure that the truth is known. No one is
above the law. Everyone will be held accountable, including the
President of the United States.
The people's House will continue to fight to make the truth known for
the American people and will defend Congress' role under Article I.
I urge a strong bipartisan vote for this resolution to hold Attorney
General Barr and former White House Counsel McGahn in civil contempt
for their refusal to comply with Congress' subpoenas and to honor the
oath of office that they take.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason for the abusive
rhetoric from the left. For 2\1/2\ years, they peddled a monstrous lie
that Donald Trump is colluding with a hostile foreign government. They
concocted it with a phony dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign
and promoted by the highest officials in the FBI, our intelligence
agencies, and the Justice Department, first in a failed attempt to
interfere with the 2016 Presidential election and then to undermine the
constitutionally elected President of the United States.
Now, despite spending $25 million on an outrageously biased team of
partisan zealots assembled by Mr. Mueller, which initially included the
now-infamous Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and using some of the most
abusive prosecutorial tactics ever employed in this country, they could
find no evidence to support the lie.
{time} 1500
So what to do?
They had to think up another lie and think it up quick. So now we
hear cries of obstruction and coverup. Good luck with that.
Coverup of a crime that never happened?
Obstruction, by turning over every document Mueller requested and
even waiving executive privilege to allow the White House counsel to
testify?
Now, Mr. Speaker, you compare that to Hillary Clinton's willful
destruction of 30,000 emails under subpoena and you get a sense of the
double standard involved here.
This is a desperate scavenger hunt to salvage their false narrative,
and their time and the Nation's patience is running out. The other shoe
is about to drop. Broad investigations are now well underway and will
soon reveal how this lie was perpetrated and promoted. Two governments
interfered in our elections, the Russians through ham-handed
propaganda, and the Obama administration by turning the most terrifying
powers entrusted to our government against our political process.
The reckoning is coming. As Longfellow said:
The wheels of the gods grind slow, but they grind
exceedingly fine.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for Congress to
reassert itself as an equal branch of government. The fact that it is
supposed to be three equal branches of government is not totally
accurate.
When we came up with the Constitution, we decided that we didn't want
to have an autocratic king rule us. That is why we had a revolution.
When the men met to write our Constitution, they made Congress Article
I. There was a reason they made Congress Article I, because the
Congress represents the people. It is not a king, it is not an
autocrat, and it is not a despot. It is the Representatives of the
people who make the laws. We are supposed to really be the embodiment--
and we are the embodiment--of the American people.
This President has thumbed his nose at the Representatives of the
people by not complying with lawful requests for documentation and
lawful requests for testimony for Congress to do its constitutionally
delegated purpose of oversight of the executive branch and laws that
are necessary for the betterment of this Nation.
This is about time Congress did act. I am proud of Congress for
bringing these bills, and I am shocked at the opposition for not
wanting the people's House--their House, their legislative body--to
stand up for future Congresses as well as this Congress for the
rightful power that it deserves to do oversight and perform its
functions with the best possible witnesses and testimony and materials
that could aid it in its efforts.
I support the contempt citations. I condemn the parties that have
thumbed their noses at us, subpoena under law, they are supposed to
arrive with documentation and appear to testify. If they object, they
can object there and then, not just disregard Congresses' subpoenas
that are lawful.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend on the Rules Committee
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate intently. I don't
disagree with much of what my friend from Tennessee had to say. It is a
bad habit that both parties have gotten into over the decades of my
lifetime putting party above Article in terms of judicial oversight,
executive branch oversight, and even our responsibilities here, such as
declaring war.
But what you have not heard here today, Mr. Speaker, and what you
will not hear is why the passage of this resolution advantages us in
any way. There is not one piece of information that the Speaker of our
House--our Speaker--just came and asked for that we are not empowered
to request today.
The difference, Mr. Speaker, is if we pass this resolution, rather
than the House requesting this information--as has historically been
true--we would begin to request information one committee chairman at a
time.
Does that advantage us in Article I, going to court one committee
chairman at a time, or are we advantaged when the Speaker speaks on
behalf of us all?
I don't know the answer, Mr. Speaker. I am not a legal scholar, and
in the Rules Committee where we had original jurisdiction on this, we
did not call any legal scholars to help us answer that question. In the
Judiciary Committee they did not call any legal scholars to help to
answer this question.
Mr. Speaker, I tell you there is not a Member of this institution on
either side of the aisle who cares more about Article I and our
exerting the responsibilities the Constitution gives to us and our
constituents expect us to do than I do. Perhaps there is someone in
here who cares as much, but there is no one who cares more.
Are we disadvantaging the institution for life by taking what has
traditionally been the responsibility of our Speaker to do on behalf of
all of us and putting it in the hands of committee chairmen?
We don't know, and anyone who tells you that they do isn't telling
you the truth. We are going to continue to argue about the White House
and what they have turned over and what they didn't turn over and what
they ought to turn over, Mr. Speaker. That is not what this bill does
today. There is not one piece of information that is requested that we
do not have the authority to request today. Let's not move in ways that
disadvantage us for generations to come.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the gentleman from
Georgia.
I have a card in my hand. This is a Member's identification. There is
no designation of party on this card. This card designates 435 of us
when we are at full complement as Members of the Congress, the people's
Representatives. I urge all my colleagues to use this card in a few
minutes on behalf of the people and on behalf of this institution.
Mr. Speaker, when Democrats won the majority in this House, we did so
on a promise to the American people to hold the executive department
accountable. That is our responsibility. The Constitution gives us that
responsibility, and we swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. That
is what the committees have been doing, and it is what the whole House
is doing today.
[[Page H4417]]
Now, the previous speaker said we have the right to ask for any
information. That is accurate. What he did not then say is we have
asked, and we have been refused. Not only have we been refused in the
particular, we have been refused in the general because the President
of the United States has directed his people not to give us any
information and not to respond to any subpoenas, whatever the rationale
may be.
Why?
Because he believes the House of Representatives is not acting
properly.
Mr. Speaker, you imagine anybody who doesn't want to give us
information would say, I am not going to give it to you because you are
not asking properly?
Of course, that is what they do; and the House, on behalf of the
American people, would be unable to perform its constitutional duty.
This is not political. It is constitutional. It is about separation of
powers. It is about responsibility. It is about accountability.
The House is exercising its responsibility to uncover all the facts
and discover the truth on behalf of the American people. We represent,
each us, about 750,000 people. We are not asking on our own behalf. We
are asking for the people, so that the people have the information they
need in a democracy to make the decisions that they are called upon to
make in a very solemn exercise we call voting.
Attorney General Barr and former White House Counsel McGahn have both
refused to respond to subpoenas to testify before the House, and the
Attorney General refuses to allow Congress to see the full and
unredacted report by the special counsel, Mr. Mueller. You can see
entire pages blacked out, Mr. Speaker.
The Attorney General's efforts to prejudge the conclusions of that
report before it is released, as he did, and his public
mischaracterization of its conclusions are, in my opinion, evidence of
the contempt with which he refuses to answer questions and respond to
subpoenas. It seems contemptuous as well of the basic principles of the
rule of law and checks and balances.
The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's
efforts to interfere in our elections and subvert our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, you didn't have to listen too closely to Bob Mueller to
understand that he believed that there was much more to be found or to
miss the fact that he said to Congress: Do your duty and make sure the
American people know the facts.
The American people deserve to know whether the President or anyone
in his administration or inner circle of confidants were involved and
tried to cover it up.
Now we have been accused of doing awful things, but I remember
watching conventions where they said, ``lock her up, lock her up.''
Flynn--General Flynn--who was the National Security Advisor said:
``Lock her up.''
Well, the fact is they locked him up, and many others who were
associated who lied about their involvement with the Russian Government
and, yes, with other foreign countries. So there is reason for the
Congress to want to get to the bottom of this serious invasion of our
election process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand
up for our Constitution and vote for this resolution. I thank the
chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. I thank Chairman Nadler,
Chairman Schiff, Chairman Cummings, Chairman Neal, Chairman Engel, and
Chairwoman Waters, all who have jurisdiction over various facets of the
information that is needed, and I thank the members of their committees
for their hard work to conduct necessary oversight on behalf of the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this vote is about. I presented that card.
It has no party designation on it. It just has a designation of us--
each of us--as Representatives of the people. Let us make sure that
today we vote for the people and stand up for our Constitution, for
this House, and for the rule of law.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is my fellow Judiciary Committee member.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, Mr. Speaker, and I
rise in opposition to this resolution.
It seems to allow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to go to
essentially whatever court they want to get a court order to get
whatever documents they want--even grand jury documents and those that
relate to our national security--all because they don't want, or are
afraid to, really, hold Attorney General Barr or former White House
Counsel Don McGahn in contempt of Congress, just as they are afraid to
institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump or accept the
fact that the Mueller investigation found that there was no collusion
and Attorney General Barr found no obstruction.
They just can't get it through their heads that that is the case, and
they don't want to focus on the real issue threatening our democracy
which is that Russia actually attempted to interfere in our national
elections back in 2016 while Barack Obama--not Donald Trump--was
President, and the Obama administration did absolutely nothing about
that.
They really don't seem too concerned that the Russians or another
foreign entity might attempt to do so again in 2020. That is what they
ought to be using their oversight powers--very powerful things the
power that the majority has--they ought to be using it about that, not
this charade.
{time} 1515
How many documents have the Democrats requested that relate to
Russian interference in our elections? None. How many hearings? Zip.
How many Obama-administration officials and others connected to
Russia's efforts have they subpoenaed to testify before the Judiciary
Committee? Zero.
By continuing with this fake impeachment, the Democrats are doing the
American public a disservice. My Democratic colleagues ought to be
embarrassed.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me correct the Record in response to
the gentleman of Ohio. The Russians didn't attempt to interfere in our
election; they did interfere in our election.
And, if my friends read the Mueller report, they would realize they
interfered in the election to help Donald Trump get elected.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, when a congressional committee issues a subpoena,
compliance is not optional. We expect witnesses to testify when
summoned. We expect the administration to comply with subpoenas and to
provide us with the materials we require to do our jobs.
Of course, there may be differences between the Congress and the
executive branch as to what information can be produced on a timely
basis. When those differences arise, we are required to seek a
reasonable accommodation.
We first requested access to the full Mueller report and the
underlying evidence on February 22. After refusing for almost 4 months,
the Department of Justice, in the last few days, has finally agreed to
permit us to view the special counsel's most important files.
We are hopeful this will provide us with key evidence regarding
allegations of obstruction of justice and other misconduct.
Given this potential breakthrough, we will hold the criminal contempt
process for Attorney General Barr in abeyance for now.
But President Trump has blocked other key witnesses from testifying
before the Judiciary Committee, including his former White House
counsel Don McGahn, whose account of the President's actions was
featured in the Mueller report.
The President has claimed absolute immunity for critical witnesses to
prevent them from even showing up. He has invoked executive privilege
to prevent us from seeing documents that stopped being privileged long
ago, if they were ever privileged to begin with.
He has done the same in response to Congress' important work
unrelated to the Mueller report, and he has ordered the agencies not to
cooperate with even our most basic oversight requests.
This unprecedented stonewalling by the administration is completely
unacceptable. The committees have a constitutional responsibility to
conduct oversight, to make recommendations to the House as necessary,
and to craft
[[Page H4418]]
legislation that will curb the abuse of power on full display in the
Trump administration.
This is why it is important that the Judiciary Committee be able to
act in such matters using all of our Article I powers, as contemplated
in this resolution and described in both the Rules Committee report and
the House Judiciary Committee's contempt report.
Now, I heard what the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) said a few
minutes ago, and he is exactly right. This resolution gives committee
chairs the power, with the approval of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group, to go to court on behalf of the House to enforce our subpoenas.
This has not been done before, but neither have we ever seen blanket
stonewalling by the administration of all information requests by the
House. We have never faced such blanket stonewalling.
The President himself said--and they have been as good as their
word--they will oppose all of our subpoenas.
We must go to court to enforce the subpoenas without a separate floor
vote each time if we are going to enforce our subpoenas and reject the
arrogant assumption of power by the administration and denigration of
the power of the House and of the Congress.
We cannot afford to waste all the floor time every single time the
administration rejects one of our subpoenas, which is every time we
issue a subpoena.
That is why we must pass this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that
we can get into court and break the stonewall without delay.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), our Republican leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, Special Counsel Mueller officially ended his
investigation several weeks ago. His office is closed. Because of
Attorney General Barr, his report is public.
And his findings are very clear: No collusion and no obstruction.
This is the bottom line of the Mueller report.
But, Mr. Speaker, Democrats refuse to accept it. Mr. Speaker, even
the chairman of the committee refuses to go read the portion that he is
allowed to read, only six lines. He refuses to read it, but he wants to
come here today.
They continue to believe their worst conspiracy theories about the
President, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Speaker, it is even reported in newspapers that, in the campaign
to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, one said he campaigned
for the position because he would be the best with impeachment.
Mr. Speaker, even on the floor of this House, there were more than 60
Members on the other side of the aisle who voted for impeachment before
the Mueller report was ever presented to the public.
At its core, H. Res. 430 is just a desperate attempt to relitigate
the Mueller investigation. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose
this resolution.
It does not strengthen Congress' oversight powers, contrary to what
you may hear from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Fundamentally, it is an
impeachment effort in everything but name.
Mr. Speaker, just look at the unnecessary contempt citation against
Attorney General Barr. Less than a month after Barr received the
Mueller report, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Nadler issued a subpoena that
would have required the Attorney General of the United States of
America to break the law.
That is not my opinion. Let's be very clear whose words those are:
Jonathan Turley's. Mr. Speaker, probably everybody in this body not
only knows who Jonathan Turley is; he has, probably, the utmost
respect. He is one of the most respected legal scholars in this
country.
Now, he told the committee, Mr. Speaker:
You have to tie your request carefully to your authority to
demand information . . . if Bill Barr had actually complied
with the subpoena as written, he would have violated Federal
law.
If he would have complied, he would have violated Federal law.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here. Not only, Mr. Speaker, does the
chairman of that committee ask the attorney general to break the law or
he will try to hold him in contempt; he won't even go read the report.
On May 8, only a few weeks after the first subpoena was issued, House
Judiciary Democrats voted to hold A. G. Barr, the Attorney General of
the United States, in contempt.
Why would they vote to hold him in contempt? Because they were so
angry that the Attorney General wouldn't break the law. They wanted him
to break the law; then he won't be held in contempt.
In a May 24 letter to the Attorney General, Chairman Nadler offered,
for the first time, to negotiate and narrow the scope of his subpoena
request. Then, you know what? He changed his mind.
Yesterday, the Department of Justice reached an agreement with the
Judiciary Committee to turn over documents related to the Mueller
report.
Now, if the public is watching, this just looks so disorganized. You
wonder, from that committee, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't they know better
than to ask the Attorney General to break the law?
Mr. Speaker, wouldn't you know that, when you get to this point in a
career, you wouldn't be so upset that someone just doesn't do exactly
what you want--and you ask them to break the law--that you would vote
to hold them in contempt and force your side of the aisle just to vote
that way.
That is not how it has happened in this body before. If the public
wants to see a good example of congressional oversight, then let's look
at something that is comparable: the House's contempt vote against
Attorney General Holder in 2012.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform took two important
actions before suing in Federal court. First, it negotiated with
Attorney General Holder in good faith for 15 months--not a few days. It
never asked him to break the law either.
After narrowing the scope of its original subpoena, and only after
extensive back-and-forth negotiations failed, did it vote to hold him
in contempt.
Second, it got the full House to vote on it and approve--you know
what--a bipartisan contempt.
Now, I am not sure why the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Speaker,
would not know this, but I did a little research because I was here
during that time. You know why they didn't realize it was the best way
to do it and it was bipartisan? Because, Mr. Speaker, a lot of them
stormed outside of the Chamber.
Yep. You heard me right. Even though 17 Democrats voted in favor of
the criminal contempt resolution against Holder and 21 voted to enforce
civil citation, a number of them stormed outside and protested, took
their ball and ran home. Mr. Speaker, I guess, to the public, it looked
like they had just thrown another fit.
Now, that is pretty significant. As many of you remember, it was
contentious. I remember, Mr. Speaker, watching then-Minority Leader
Pelosi, Minority Whip Hoyer, and Congressman Nadler lead 100 Democrats
off the House floor to protest the vote.
Mr. Speaker, you won't see that on our side. We believe in the rule
of law. Mr. Speaker, we would have done the exact same thing the
Attorney General did, that Jonathan Turley said, that you would have
had to break the law to try to appease somebody's own personal
vendetta.
The idea, Mr. Speaker, that someone would run for a position to say
that they would be best to impeach somebody and even vote to impeach
without even having a report and then, when you get a report and you
could go down and read just those six lines that you want to complain
about, but you won't--the same person, Mr. Speaker, that would run
outside and say: I got elected to Congress, but I am going to pout and
I am going to go outside.
Mr. Speaker, that may be the same person that would want to bring
this to the floor today.
But what is so different about today than all the others? Well, we
are doing something we have never done before. We are doing something
that is going to take the power away of every Member in this body and
give it to a select few.
[[Page H4419]]
Mr. Speaker, if this vote passes today, Members of this body are
going to say: Don't bring it here and let me represent my own people
and vote about going to court. Let's just give it, really, to three
people. Let's give it to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer,
and to the majority whip. Because that is what BLAG is.
I know the courts are going to sit there and say that is not what
Congress is supposed to do. Congress has never done that before. But,
you know what? If this new majority thinks all they want to do is make
an attorney general break the law, I guess they could break every rule,
every history, every point of representation there is inside this body.
Did we wonder if this would happen? Do we wonder why you wouldn't
take the months, as they have shown in the time before, and actually
come to a bipartisan conclusion?
I think the plan was already written. I don't know if people can talk
about the word ``patient'' because, Mr. Speaker, I remember Congressman
Hank Johnson of the Rules Committee--this is the Speaker's committee,
so everybody understands correctly, that is just appointed by the
Speaker on the majority side--said, Mr. Speaker: ``Donald Trump will
stand for reelection again in a very short period of time, and we don't
have 400 days to wait. . . .''
So, don't care about the rule of law. Don't care about asking him to
break the law. Just break every historical trend and try to take the
power away from millions of Americans and from the Members of Congress
who represent them here.
I didn't know today would come. Mr. Speaker, I didn't know if someone
would go this far.
I didn't know, just because someone, Mr. Speaker, despises somebody
else, that an election didn't turn out the way of the desire--Mr.
Speaker, I have been on losing sides before, but I would never think I
would break the law just because of losing an election.
I would never think of asking somebody in as high an office as the
Attorney General of the United States of America to not give due
process, to come to the floor and strip the power of 430 Members and
put it in a select few.
Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest. I don't put anything past what this
new desire is about.
{time} 1530
Mr. Speaker, Democrats say we are in a constitutional crisis, and
they are right, but not because of Attorney General Barr. The
constitutional crisis is this: When Democrats can't win, they change
the rules.
I just heard it on the floor, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, from the other
side of the aisle, said this has never been done before, and, yes, this
is nothing this House has ever desired to do. But it is also no way to
govern.
The American people deserve a majority that is serious about coming
up with solutions, not subpoenas. There are plenty of important
challenges that we can be working on to solve.
Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I opened The New York Times. It is not a
paper that I think I always agree with, but it had an editorial not for
the first time, but for the second time, and it was talking about the
crisis on the border.
As I read this editorial, I found myself agreeing with it greatly.
When I read it, it talked about the border, talked about Washington
needing to stop dithering and do something about it.
I looked and wondered what committee would be most responsible for
this challenge? Lo and behold, it was the Judiciary. So I turned it on
in hopes that I would see a hearing, maybe I would even see a markup.
No, Mr. Speaker, who did I see? I saw John Dean. John Dean, who
pleaded guilty in Watergate. The same individual who has put more than
900 tweets out against the President, many before any Mueller report
came forth. He was the expert witness--the same individual who is paid
by CNN, the same individual who said the Presidency of George Bush was
worse than Watergate.
I guess this new majority will go to no end. It doesn't matter if the
facts don't go where they want; just change the rules.
I wonder, all these new freshman Democrats, Mr. Speaker, when they
swore in to uphold the Constitution, does that mean trying to make the
Attorney General break the law? Does that mean giving their power away
to a select few?
There is a crisis on the border. The New York Times knows it. The
country of Mexico knows it. I think almost everybody in America knows
it except, Mr. Speaker, I guess, this majority.
The committee of responsibility is more concerned about bringing
somebody in who pleaded guilty in Watergate, who makes their money off,
Mr. Speaker, writing books claiming every Republican President there is
is worse than Watergate and then asking the Attorney General to break
the law.
That is not a legacy I would be proud of. It is not a legacy I would
want to be a part of.
But, Mr. Speaker, I will say on this floor: I will vote against
taking the power away, even the power away from people on the other
side of the aisle. I won't lead a protest, and I won't go outside, and
I won't take my ball, and I won't run home. I believe in the rule of
law.
Mr. Speaker, I had the responsibility and the opportunity to go read
the redacted portions of the Mueller report, just as some on the other
side of the aisle could. It is just six lines. Not that I think it was
just my responsibility, but as an elected official I thought it was a
responsibility, so I went. But, Mr. Speaker, the people leading this
today, they have not. They think they know better.
I don't know if they know better, but one thing I do know: They are
changing the rules of the House simply because they cannot win. That is
not the American way.
Those are the reasons why we stand up. Those are the things that
America unites behind, the rule of law. This will not be a day that is
proud. This will not be a day that, when they look back in history, the
individuals who vote for this will talk about.
It is one when they get asked the question later in life, Mr.
Speaker, is there something they regret, they will regret that emotion
overtook them. They will regret their own personal dislike drove them.
I am not sure if they are proud of the day when they storm out of the
building, even though there is a bipartisan vote here. But I guess that
same emotion, the same, Mr. Speaker, lack of ability to actually look
at the rule of law and work toward something instead of just changing
the rules because you can't have your way, that is what today is about.
The worst part of it all is removing the power of individual Members
and putting in a select three. But then again, Mr. Speaker, when you
study history and forms of government, that is what socialism is all
about.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The distinguished minority leader began by saying that the Mueller
report makes it clear that there was no collusion and no obstruction.
Maybe that is what you would conclude if you just read Barr's summary
which tried to cover up what the Mueller report said, but I would urge
the distinguished minority leader to read the report. I am happy to
lend him my bifocals if he has trouble reading it.
But the report doesn't say that. It doesn't say no collusion. And on
the issue of obstruction of justice, it says: If we were convinced that
he, the President, did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
That is what the report says. And I would remind my colleagues that
obstruction of justice is a crime.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ted Lieu).
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, the issue today is very
simple. It is simply about the right of the American people and
Congress to get information. That is it.
All this resolution does is allow us to enforce congressional
subpoenas. These are documents and witnesses we want, and it allows us
to go to Federal court to enforce it. That is all this resolution does.
Why are Republicans so scared of this resolution? Because they know
we are going to win in court. We have won three times against the Trump
administration.
[[Page H4420]]
But why do we even have to go to court to do this? Because the Trump
administration is engaging in unprecedented obstruction. And it is not
just about the Mueller report; it is about all areas.
So, for example, right now, the Trump administration is suing to
eliminate healthcare coverage for people with preexisting conditions.
We want to know more about that. We can't get it. We want to know about
a lot of areas that we cannot get, so we want to go to Federal court to
get this enforced.
What are Republicans doing? They are making stuff up. They are saying
somehow we are asking the Attorney General to do things that will make
him violate the law. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I am just going to end with this simple example.
The Attorney General of the United States gave the Republican ranking
member of the Judiciary Committee the right to see their unredacted
Mueller report. Was that illegal? No. But I can't see it.
That is wrong. There is no basis for that. We are simply going to go
to Federal court. We are going to litigate it, and we are going to win.
All this resolution does is it allows us to enforce congressional
subpoenas in Federal court. It is about not allowing the Trump
administration to cover things up.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, this is about harassing the President, and
it is about delaying the inevitable.
I would have hoped that my friends across the aisle, especially in
the Judiciary Committee that had concerns in 2005 and 2006 about the
overreach that was possible through the FISA procedures, would have
seen that there was no collusion, that the Russians did try, but nobody
with the Trump campaign bought.
So we are left with the fact that the real collusion here was between
the Clinton campaign, with Fusion GPS hiring a foreign agent,
Christopher Steele, who talked to people he now admits could well have
been agents of Vladimir Putin, who gave false information about Trump,
the candidate, that was used in a dossier that was used to manipulate
the FISA court into giving a warrant to start spying on the Trump
campaign. That is what this was about.
And what people are calling obstruction of justice is exactly what
you have when you have somebody falsely accused of colluding,
conspiring with the Russians, and he knows he didn't do that, and he
sees his family being harassed, and everybody that worked with the
campaign that can be pushed and shoved and blackmailed, as happened,
and bankrupted, you want to bring it to an end. You want to see justice
done.
But instead of my friends in Judiciary coming together with us who
have been concerned about the abuses of the FISA system so that it
doesn't happen to other Americans, instead, they come with this
resolution to push the matter down the road a little further to the
2020 election.
It has got to stop. Let's stop now.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to correct a
number of statements that have been made on the floor.
First of all, this is not the end. Director Mueller made this the
beginning. When he concluded the report, he left a very large direction
to the United States Congress. He recognized that he could not follow
up because of policies at the DOJ regarding indictment in the process
of the administration.
So the Congress, in its due diligence, took the responsibility not to
target anyone, but to simply uphold the rule of law. In upholding the
rule of law, we had an empty seat by Attorney General Barr, an empty
seat by Mr. McGahn, an empty seat by Ms. Hicks, Ms. Donaldson, and we
hope not an empty seat of the author of the report.
So all this resolution does is authorize the committee to seek civil
enforcement of its subpoenas against Attorney General Barr, requiring
him to provide Congress with the key evidence underlying the Mueller
report as well as the unredacted report itself, and former White House
Counsel Donald F. McGahn, requiring him to provide documents and appear
for testimony.
He is not covered by executive privilege. In fact, executive
privilege does not cover--his duty is to the White House Office of the
General Counsel, or the White House counsel's office, not to the
individual officeholder, the President. He has personal lawyers.
And we didn't break the law. 6(e), which is grand jury materials, our
committee diligently said let's work with the Department of Justice, go
to court, and decide what we can see.
We are simply following this little book that many have died for, and
that is the Constitution of the United States, and those words in the
Declaration of Independence that said we all are created equal, with
certain unalienable rights of life and liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. The American people would not want a Congress that
turned its back on, frankly, the rule of law.
For those of us who had the special privilege of going to Normandy
this past week, we got a great sense of pride, of the courage of
Americans, the bravery of those young men, and all I could think of is
how important it is to all of us to adhere to those wonderful
principles.
So, again, there is no targeting here. This is not a way to do policy
or legislation. We can fight that battle on the floor of the House.
But if you read those volumes and end it in the last pages of Volume
2, you know that Director Mueller asked us to finish the task of
looking into elements that he did not or could not and the underlying
issues.
Let me also say, as we do that, we do it forthrightly because, in
2020, we want to make sure that every American has the right to vote
and every American is not undermined by a foreign operative interfering
and taking the election away from you.
I support the resolution. We must stand for the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 430, authorizing the
Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial
proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and for other purposes.
It is an honor to serve in this body.
We are the successors and heirs to an august freedom earned centuries
ago, expanded for successive groups and defended through the blood,
sweat and tears of the nation's fighting forces.
It is this debt that took me to the beaches of Normandy to pay my
respects on the 75th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion.
We are heirs to this legacy, and we are heirs to this ingenious
system of separation of powers.
The system they laid down presumes equality of power among the
branches.
As custodians of Article I, we have a duty to ensure the rigors of
the Constitution are upheld.
This includes that when the Second Branch, Article II, flouts the
investigative prerogatives of the Congress, there must be recourse and
accountability.
As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have to say
that it is regrettable that we are here.
This is because a hallmark of our constitutional republic is that no
person is above the law.
Congressional oversight has been the tradition going back to the
first years of our republic.
And the congressional prerogative of oversight has been a tool in the
Article I arsenal as a way of asserting our power and protecting
against the worst excesses of an executive.
This comports with the founding of our government, which sought to
prevent the concentration of power in an autocratic executive, which
was anathema to the Founders.
Which is why the events of the last many months have been so
confounding.
The decision by this executive to flout all lawfully authorized
subpoenas has been unprecedented.
This dispute between the political branches should work itself out,
but because of this presidential obstinacy, we are in this predicament,
which is why we must pass this H. Res 430, Authorizing Subpoena
Enforcement Litigation.
This Resolution, H. Res. 430, builds on the House Judiciary
Committee's contempt finding against Attorney General Barr.
[[Page H4421]]
The resolution authorizes the Committee to seek civil enforcement of
its subpoenas against: (i) Attorney General Barr requiring him to
provide Congress with the key evidence underlying the Mueller Report as
well as the unredacted report itself; and (ii) former White House
Counsel Donald F. McGahn, II requiring him to provide documents and
appear for testimony.
The resolution further affirms that all committee chairs, when
authorized by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, retain the ability
to seek civil enforcement of their own subpoenas.
The resolution adds that when committees proceed to court, they have
any and all necessary authority under Article I of the Constitution,
ensuring that they have the maximum range of legal authority available
to them.
For example, on other key issues--such as the Department of Justice
defying a subpoena to produce counter-intelligence documents relating
to Russia's interference with the 2016 election, or the Commerce
Department defying a subpoena to produce documents relating to the
addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census--the committees
can enforce these subpoenas without a floor vote.
This resolution ensures the House can conduct meaningful oversight on
issues critical to Americans' lives while continuing to deliver on
pocketbook issues.
The President's disregard for congressional oversight allows the
Administration to cover-up his many disastrous policy decisions such
as: attacking affordable healthcare coverage for millions of Americans
including those with pre-existing conditions, tearing apart vulnerable
immigrant families, misappropriating military funds for his ill-
conceived border wall, and rolling back landmark civil rights
protections for minorities.
The information subpoenaed by various congressional committees,
including documents and testimony, is information to which Congress is
constitutionally entitled and that past Administrations have routinely
provided.
President Trump has prevented fact witnesses referenced in the
Mueller Report from testifying or providing documents to Congress.
This is despite the fact that the Report detailed the Russian
government's sustained attacks on our elections; over 170 contacts
between President Trump's campaign and associates and agents of the
Russian government; as well as numerous efforts by President Trump to
impede or thwart House investigations scrutinizing his own conduct and
that of his Administration.
In keeping with the President's sweeping public refusal to comply
with congressional subpoenas, the White House and the Administration
are fighting to keep the truth from the American people.
This resolution ensures we can conduct oversight on issues that are
critical to Americans' lives while continuing to deliver on pocketbook
issues.
The information subpoenaed by various congressional committees,
including documents and testimony, is information Congress is
constitutionally entitled to and which past Administrations have
routinely provided.
Congress not only is constitutionally entitled to the underlying
evidence in the Special Counsel's Report and key fact witness
testimony, it requires this information so that it can fulfill its
legislative, oversight, and other constitutional responsibilities.
This resolution follows past precedent used by Democratic and
Republican Majorities while reinforcing an important principle in the
House Rules.
This Administration's disregard for the legislative and judicial
branches has reached a tipping point.
Despite representing a coequal branch of government, this
Administration is flagrantly disregarding the role Congress and the
Judiciary must play in our democratic system.
Mr. Speaker, the foregoing has been the basis for this Resolution.
It was my hope that this was not needed.
But the President has proven me wrong, which is why this Resolution
is needed.
I urge passage of the Resolution.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cline), a fellow Judiciary Committee member.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time,
and I want to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas for her remarks
because, as a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee, we all stand
for the rule of law. I, too, carry a Constitution with me.
The Constitution explicitly creates a system that is representative
of the people, where the people are elected by their constituents to
come up here and represent their views in Congress and vote for them.
It is not to come up here and to hand off control, to hand their vote
to the majority leader, to the Speaker, and to the majority whip and
let them vote for them and for the people of their district whether or
not to go to court.
The votes to enforce subpoenas, the votes to hold in contempt should
be votes of the Representatives of the people. That is why this
resolution today is such a travesty.
{time} 1545
Mr. Speaker, I have only been a Member of this body for a few months,
and I was proud to be named a member of the Judiciary Committee, but
unfortunately, the circus that I have witnessed over the last few
months is shocking, as the Democratic majority tries to find some
reason, any reason, to impeach this President now that the Mueller
investigation has wrapped up with no crimes found.
If they want to go back and repeat the last 2 years of the
investigation, the millions of dollars, the hundreds of subpoenas, they
are certainly entitled to do that, but I would argue it would be a
waste of time for the American taxpayer and the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing earlier today on the 9/11 Victim
Compensation Fund, and the chairman did a masterful job of arguing in
favor of that legislation, of which I am a cosponsor. It is bipartisan
legislation. It is going to be marked up tomorrow. That is the way that
this Judiciary Committee should operate.
Instead, we have hearings with empty chairs for the Attorney General,
we have a hearing with an empty chair for the White House counsel.
Finally, yesterday we had a hearing with people in the seats, but
they were all MSNBC and CNN commentators.
Mr. Speaker, this is a travesty of justice. I would urge my
colleagues to defeat this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary is one of the most
venerable in the House of Representatives, and I am honored to have
been selected to join its ranks.
It has jurisdiction over intellectual property, during a time of
exponential scientific breakthroughs. It has jurisdiction over election
interference, during a time when we are concerned about Russians
interfering with our election. It has jurisdiction over immigration
issues, during a time of an unprecedented security and humanitarian
crisis on our southern border.
I am disappointed to see how the Democratic majority has chosen to
waste this authority. I am disappointed to see that it has chosen to
ignore its responsibilities to the American people in favor of sound
bites and photo ops.
Instead of legislating, the Democratic majority prefers posing with
buckets of fried chicken for the national media in crude attempts to
undermine our President and his administration.
Really?
It is time to move on and tackle the real issues that Americans care
about.
The American people elected us, they elected me, to Congress to get
things done. Let us secure the border. Let us improve healthcare. Let
us improve education.
Let us stop this political theater that happens meeting after meeting
and hearing after hearing in multiple committees in what I believe is a
blatant attempt to influence the 2020 presidential election using
taxpayer resources.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left and
how much time the other side has left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 1 minute remaining.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to use my 1 minute to actually refute these
blatant allegations and fantasies, I believe, by my fellow Democrats,
and that is how somehow the President and the Department of Justice has
been stonewalling them.
Let me go over the timelines really quick.
On March 22, the Attorney General immediately notified the chairmen
and the ranking members of the House and Senate Committees on Judiciary
that they had received the confidential report from the special
counsel.
[[Page H4422]]
The next day, the Attorney General informed Congress of the special
counsel's principal conclusions.
March 29, he updated the Congress on what could be done and what
redactions had to be made.
Then on April 18, less than a month after receiving it, the Attorney
General made the redacted confidential report available to Congress and
the entire public.
The same day, the Attorney General released the confidential report
and made the minimally-redacted version of the confidential report
available for review.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side have responded to this
legislation with the same old same old.
They are circling the wagons around this President and his team. They
are deliberately turning a blind eye to the corruption, to the
deception, to the illegality that has surrounded this White House.
But let me remind them all of why we are here today. We are here
because the American people elected each of us to write laws and to
ensure those who execute them are accountable.
We all took an oath when we were sworn in to uphold and defend the
Constitution. That is our job.
None of us were sent here to play defense for the President of the
United States.
There are some things that are more important than politics, and I
hope that even in this day and age, there are still some things that
are more sacred than partisanship, like the rule of law and the
separation of powers.
I mean, each of us took the same oath. We now have a choice whether
or not to uphold it.
The choice should be a simple one: to stand up to President Trump and
to defend the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when many of my Republican friends ran for
office claiming to be constitutional conservatives. Well, this is their
chance to back up their campaign slogan with their vote.
We have a President that publicly states: ``We're fighting all the
subpoenas.''
And I don't want people to testify.
Those are his words. Those are the words of the President, not some
mob boss.
As we heard from the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee,
Chairman Cummings, the White House hasn't turned over a single
document, a single piece of paper that his committee has requested to
do their oversight work, not one piece of paper.
At the core of this resolution is Congress getting the appropriate
documents, so we can do the appropriate oversight. That is part of the
job.
How can anybody be against that? To be against that is to be part of
the coverup, is to be complicit with the obstruction that this White
House demonstrates each and every day.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that history will judge how we
react to this moment. So I urge all of my colleagues, do not let this
moment pass us by. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and let's hold the
President accountable.
Nobody is above the law in the United States of America, not even the
President of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 431, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution, as amended.
The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. 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, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2609.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 191, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 247]
YEAS--229
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--191
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
[[Page H4423]]
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--13
Axne
Bost
Buck
Clay
Davis (CA)
Gabbard
Green (TN)
Griffith
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
King (IA)
Kuster (NH)
Wright
{time} 1623
Mr. ZELDIN and Mr. ADERHOLT changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
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.
____________________