Skip to main content

tv   House Oversight Committee Votes on Pending Legislation  CSPAN  July 25, 2019 10:07am-11:36am EDT

10:07 am
10:08 am
before we come to order, i want to welcome student interns at john hopkins university in my district. welcome. we're pleased to have you. the committee will now come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. pursuant to committee rule five and house rule 11, the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or manner or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote for the yays and nays are ordered. now, pursuant to notice, i call
10:09 am
senate bill 406, federal rotational cyber work force program act of 2019. the clerk will report the bill which was distributed in advance. >> s 406, federal rotational cyber work force program act of 2019. >> without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any point. i now recognize myself for five minutes. i want to thank my colleagues in the senate, senator gary peters, john hovin, margaret hasan, and ron johnson for good work on senate bill 406, the federal
10:10 am
vocational cyber work force program act of 2019. the bipartisan bill passed the senate by unanimous consent at the end of april, i am pleased to consider it today. this measure would create a program in which cyber personnel could be detailed to other agencies to develop additional skills and help fill agency skill gaps. the legislation would require agencies to identify the cyber positions eligible for rotation and report those positions to the office of personnel management. opm would be required to distribute to each agency a list of positions available for participation in the program. the bill also would require opm, the chief human capital officers
10:11 am
counsel, and department of homeland security to develop an operational plan for the program that includes a merit based selection process. employee details would be for a maximum of one year, and detailees would be required to return to the agency to serve the same length of time as the detailing. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan good bill and it is indeed a good government bill. and with that, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, the ranking member of our committee who just had an addition to his family by the way, and we congratulate him as i told him the other day, every time a child is born, it is god saying that he wants the world to continue. mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
10:12 am
thank you for that, those comments. i appreciate that. the federal government has a cyber work force problem. gao high risk list has been littered with warnings. they added to the list in 1997, they added human capital management to the list in 2001, and in 2003, gao combined the two, said cyber work force issues were also a problem. earlier this year gao told us the same thing we heard the last two decades, we have a cyber work force problem. the trump administration put this front and center in reform proposals a few months into his administration. the president issued executive order 13800 to address cyber security on critical networks and infrastructure. executive order established a number of initiatives, including charging the department of homeland security and department of commerce to develop the cyber work force. march, 2018, they put the president's management agenda, pma, they identified three
10:13 am
drivers, it, modernization, strategic policies, human capital, identified the need to work across bureaucratic silos for high value reform. following up, the administration issued a bold plan to reorganize the federal government in june of 2018. the reorganization plan included proposal to fix cyber work force issues, recruit new talent, rescale existing employees, and greater mobility for cyber talent we already have. president trump issued executive order 13870 to implement cyber work force mobility work force initiative. this charges department of homeland security with developing a program to allow federal employees to be detailed to other agencies. now dhs is working with omb, opm and other agencies to develop the program and issue a report by august 7th, 2019 on resources and actions necessary to implement the program. senator peters' bill creates a
10:14 am
similar but slightly different program, the bill imposes new reporting requirements, new obligations on agencies in i am plen tags of the program, and puts opm, the key distinction, opm, not dhs in the lead and sun sets the program in five years. there's no explanation for differences and it is unclear why dhs is not the lead agency. i appreciate what senator peters has embraced the cyber work force proposals, but i think we need to slow down. let's work with the administration to evaluate the right way to implement the program. should it be opm or dhs. let's wait and see what the august 7th report has to say. once we receive the report, seems to me we should revisit text to make necessary changes before it goes to the floor to make sure it fully reflects the trump administration initiatives. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. miss maloney.
10:15 am
first of all, thank you for yielding. i want to thank my colleagues in the senate and senator gary peters and the others for what they've done with regard to this legislation. i understand the concerns raised by the minority. but i think we all agree that the bill is intended to address what everyone agrees is a long-standing, ongoing problem. the critical shortage of qualified cyber security personnel to protect the federal government information technology assets, this is a bipartisan bill sponsored by ranking member peters and chairman johnson of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee that passed the senate by unanimous consent at the end of april. director of cyber security and infrastructure security agency within the department of
10:16 am
homeland security recently testified in support of the measure. it is a federal agency charged with leading the nation's efforts to protect our critical cyber and physical infrastructure. at a may hearing before the house appropriation subcommittee on homeland security, director krebs said he thought the bill would, quote, be a useful tool across the government, end of quote. president trump supported a cyber rotational program. in fact, he directed the establishment in an executive order issued this past may. i applaud him for that. this bill would implement and codify this portion of the president's executive order. if there are clarifications that need to be made prior to the floor
10:17 am
consideration, i'm certain that we will willingly work together with the minority and the administration to address them. i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the common sense bipartisan bill. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> i would like to yield t to ranking member, mr. jordan. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i was going to ask a question, but you answered it. i appreciate your willingness to work. this report is coming the 7th. we're not going to object to the bill, i think it will sail through. depending what the report may say and the sort of distinction does it go opm or dhs, if you're willing to work with us when we get the report, that's great and let's pass the legislation. >> the gentleman yields? >> yes, sure. >> certainly willing to work with you. i just think it is so important, with the shortage of cyber
10:18 am
security experts that we have now, and with the government needing cyber security expertise, i think this is a very more effective, efficient way to work with our various agencies to make sure that they have what they need. >> yield back. thank you. >> there being no further discussion, question now occurs on reporting favorably to the house. those in favor signal by saying aye. all those opposed signify saying no. any opinion of the chair, ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. 406 is reported favorably to the house. motion to reconsider is laid on the table. staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming changes. now pursuant to notice, i call
10:19 am
up hr 3889, the ondcp technical corrections act. the clerk will report the bill which was distributed in advance. >> hr 3889 to amendment the office of national drug control policy reauthorizatict of 1998 to make technical corrections. >> without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any time. i will recognize the sponsor of the bill, mr. root of california to speak on his legislation. i commend him for taking leadership on the issue. and yield him five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am proud to support this bipartisan legislation that will make technical changes to provisions reauthorization office of national drug control policy included in last year's support act. this year americans will lose
10:20 am
close to 70,000 family members, loved ones and friends due to drug overdose. more americans are dying annually due to overdose, at the height of the aids crisis or during the entire vietnam war. no community is uneffected. my home of orange county, california, drug and alcohol overdose deaths increased by 82% since 2000. across our country, our constituents are asking us to advance solutions to address this epidemic. last year congress passed and president trump enacted support for patients and communities act. a wide ranging bipartisan bill aimed at addressing treatment, prevention, recovery, and enforcement. and the support act represents an important step in the right direction to reverse tide of overdose deaths. reform the office of the policy, a component of the office of the president.
10:21 am
it plays a critical role in the drug control efforts. however, there were several technical issues in the support act that must be fixed to ensure that ondcp can carry out provisions as congress intended, and improve the federal government response to the crisis. the technical corrections act of 2019 will support the integrity of performance measurement system, help ondcp hire the best people to address the addiction crisis, and improve effectiveness of grant programs. i want to thank committee staff on both sides of the aisle for working to develop and advance the bill as well as congressman meadows for joining me as co-lead of the legislation. i look forward to the committee passing the bill today. there's much more to be done to address the addiction crisis. look forward to working with all my colleagues on this important issue. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you very much. we yield to the ranking member,
10:22 am
mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill makes technical amendments to a law passioned last congress to reauthorize the office. last year we moved quickly to reinvigorate the office, give the administration additional authorities to address the opioid crisis, crisis that is not a partisan issue. we have done good work to reinvigorate the office. we heard from the director carol twice about the work the administration is doing to combat the opioid crisis. i hope this helps further support the goal. i want to stand with the subcommittee chairman and chairman meadows, revitalize with important changes for the opioid crisis and other issues is important. with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much. i want to thank my colleagues, represent rouda and meadows for their collaboration and leadership on the ondcp act of
10:23 am
2019. this act resolves technical issues in the office of national drug control policy authorization act that became law last year. it would ensure effective hiring of critical leadership positions, increase efficiency in performance reporting, and maintain integrity of grant programs as originally intended in that bill. we are in the midst of a substance use epidemic that claims 70,000 lives in 2017 alone. it is critical that ondcp can operate as effectively and evil as possible to combat the crisis and ensure the health and safety of our citizens. i continue to appreciate the bipartisan support of you, mr. chairman, and our entire committee and for the office of
10:24 am
national drug control policy working closely with us. so with that i would urge members to vote in favor of the bill. is there anybody else that wants to be recognized? very well. there being no further discussion, the question now occurs on reporting hr 3889 favorably to the house. all those in favor shall signify by saying aye. all those opposed signify by saying no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. s 406 is reported favorably to the house. motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming changes.
10:25 am
3889. now pursuant to notice, i call up the following postal naming bills that were distributed in advance. hr 887, hr 1252, hr 1253, hr 1972, hr 2151, hr 3207 with an amendment. hr 3314, hr 3329. without objection, the bills are considered read. if any member would like to speak briefly on any of these items in the package, i will recognize you now. hearing no further discussion --
10:26 am
>> wait. >> i said before i think we should restrict honoring post offices. we have so many military heroes in this country, particularly when you see members of the popular culture which is probably overall had a negative influence on the country in the last 60 years, i guess when you record the vote, i would vote no on nonmilitary names. >> let me just say this. we have so many heroes and sheroes in this country. i applaud members that want to recognize people for what they did. so often we come upon this earth and then we're forgotten. people do great things and then they're forgotten, and i would urge all of us to support all of
10:27 am
these postal naming bills. hearing no further discussion on the bills, i request unanimous consent -- we're going to call the -- without objection, what we'll do is we will call the vote on block and take the yay and nays. all those in favor of the postal naming bills signify with aye. those opposed with no.
10:28 am
appears that the ayes have it. is there request for roll call? there being none, the ayes have it. we will report them to the house. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman, mr. roy. i would like to associate myself with the remarks of m mr. grossman, not a blanket statement, i agree about recognizing individuals and their lives and what they've done, i agree with him on focus of those that served in the military, some concern that we get a boost with who we name post offices. associate myself with his remarks. >> thank you very much. now pursuant to notice, i call up a resolution relating to investigation of the use of
10:29 am
nonofficial electronic messaging accounts by noncareer officials at the white house. the clerk will report the resolution which was distributed in advance. >> a resolution offered by mr. cummings of maryland authorizing issuance of subpoena related to nonofficial electronic messaging accounts. >> without objection, without objection, the resolution is considered read and open to amendment at any point. the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute copies of the amendment have already been distributed and the clerk will report. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. cummings of maryland. >> without objection, the amendment is considered read and will serve as base text for purposes of amendment. i now recognize myself for five
10:30 am
minutes. today we are considering a resolution to authorize me as chairman to subpoena records relating to use of private email and texting accounts by the white house employees in violation of the presidential records act. the presidential records act was enacted in the aftermath of the watergate scandal and i want to remind all members it is the law. it is the law. it makes clear that white house records belong to the public, not the president. the law requires that the president and senior advisers to the president preserve the official records of the white house. the law prohibits federal employees from using nonofficial
10:31 am
email accounts for official business unless the employees copy their official account or forward copies to their official accounts within 20 days. again, i emphasize it is the law. for years our committee has been responsible for dating and enhancing laws and for conducting oversight on compliance with them. we have done that during the republican and democratic administrations alike. in this case it has become clear that the committee needs to examine the use of personal email and other text message accounts by this white house carefully because the committee has already received evidence of multiple senior officials using personal accounts to conduct official business.
10:32 am
for example, jared kushner's attorney confirmed to the committee he uses the messaging application what's app to communicate with foreign individuals. ivanka trump's attorney admitted she receives emails about official business to her personal email account and does not, does not forward them to her official account within 20 days as required by law. according to special counsel robert mueller's report, steve bannon admitted that he, and i quote, regularly used his personal blackberry and personal email for work related communications and took no steps to preserve these work communications. end of quote. that is an admitted violation of federal law. an admitted violation of federal
10:33 am
law. and this was not a low level employee. this is one of the president's closest advisers. this investigation began as a bipartisan one. listen up. listen to this carefully, members. in march, 2017 chairman jason chaffetz requested information about whether officials in the white house were using personal email accounts in violation of the presidential records act. in september, 2017 chairman trey gowdy renewed the committee's requests, requested new information about the identity of individuals who have used private email accounts or text messages and other phone based messaging applications to conduct official business. in response, the white house gave us only a couple pages of policy documents, a commitment
10:34 am
to conducting an internal review, and a promise to follow up with us when their internal review was concluded. to date, the white house has never given us the results of their internal review and has never given us another document. on december 19, 2018, after he was selected as chairman i sent a letter to the white house requesting that they produce all of the documents requested by the committee in this bipartisan investigation under chairman chaffetz and under chairman gowdy. we have received nothing. since my selection as chairman, the white house has refused to produce even a single document in response to the committee's request. as a result, on july 1st, 2019 i sent a letter explaining that in light of the white house's
10:35 am
complete refusal to provide any documents whatsoever, the committee is now seeking copies of all emails or texts sent or received in violation of federal law and the white house's own policy. we need these documents to understand why the white house officials are violating the presidential records act, why they're attempting to keep certain communications out of the official record system, and whether sensitive information is being properly protected, whether legislative changes should be made to prevent similar violations in the future. there's significant precedent for the investigation. in 2007, this committee investigated violation of a presidential records act by officials in the bush administration. the committee's investigation revealed senior white house
10:36 am
officials conducted official business using email accounts maintained by republican national committee. during that investigation the committee reviewed more than 20,000 pages of emails and other documents, just a few years ago president trump and many republicans demanded that former secretary of state hillary clinton provide thousands of her emails to congress as part of the gaza investigation which i am very familiar since i was a ranking member on that select committee. representative gowdy, then the chairman of the benghazi committee wanted all emails related to benghazi sent or received by secretary clinton, using her personal email account. we received the documents, i call for them to be made public.
10:37 am
our report shouldn't be different because president trump is the president. the resolution authorizes documents that are not preserved properly and violated the law. i remind members of the committee, these seats will be occupied by other people i think t -- in the future. it is possible few of us will still be on the committee and be here. what we have to do is make sure that the presidential records act is enforced and that we preserve records for not only ourselves and the public but for generations yet unborn. so i urge the committee to support the resolution. with that i yield to ranking member, mr. jordan. >> yesterday in judiciary, democrats had bob mueller testify. they were hoping his testimony would help their crazy impeachment plans.
10:38 am
instead it was a total bust. no new information. the democrats are no closer to the goal of i am impeaching the president, i think they're farther away. thank goodness for that. they don't waste any time. now they're going after emails of the first family in attempt to create appearance of some type of controversy. you won't hear them say it, the real goal is to go fishing through the private emails of ivanka trump and jared kushner. the issuance of this is purely for politics. chairman cummings asked the white house to produce emails of white house officials july 1st, 2019. three weeks ago. the white house, and abby wolf, attorney for ivanka trump and jared kushner are cooperating with requests from the chairman. he briefed the committee twice. chairman cummings is rushing to subpoena for head lines before august recess, choosing confrontation over cooperation. here are the facts. here are the facts. jared kushner's attorney told us he preserved all records as required by law and does not use
10:39 am
personal email or other platforms to conduct official business. following the law. imagine that. ivanka trump inadvertently used unofficial email for official business on a few occasions but corrected her actions exactly as the law directs and provided all, every single one of those emails, to the white house for preservation. furthermore, contrary to chairman cummings' assertion, her attorney explained she forwards all emails relating official business to her official white house account. again, as you're supposed to do according to law. despite this, the chairman is requesting all of her emails. think about this. you reference the clinton administration. think of what secretary clinton did? clinton exclusively used private servers, sent and received classified information over private servers, and destroyed
10:40 am
30,000 emails. i was on the same committee the chairman talked about. i was on the benghazi committee. i asked her when she testified, i said you have 60,000 emails. for years, you've only done them on your personal, private server. got 60,000 emails. how about letting a retired federal judge, neutral third party examine emails and determine which ones we should see what happened in the tragedy in benghazi, she said no, not going to do that. we'll let cheryl mills and her attorneys figure out which ones. that is not even the same thing. i can't think of a single reason for this request, this broad, other than wanting the personal emails of the president's daughter and son-in-law. this is abuse of the committee's authority. i urge my colleagues to vote no. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. we move to mr. raskin. i remind all members this is the
10:41 am
law. >> it is indeed the law mr. chairman. yesterday, the committee heard from robert mueller, a decorated war hero that came to testify about among other things the ten episodes of presidential obstruction of justice detailed in his voluminous 448 page report delivered about sweeping and systemic russian attack on the american presidential election. i'm not quite sure how that somehow is a counter to the purpose of this resolution. this committee has received evidence that multiple officials in the trump white house may have violated the presidential records act which i would think would be something of unanimous interest to the committee. all of us should be invested in the article 2 branch compliance
10:42 am
with the presidential records act. the president's core job is to take care that laws are faithfully executed, including maintaining a record of everything that's taking place in the presidency. the personal counsel for jared kushner and ivanka trump confirmed that jared kushner who serves as senior adviser to the president used messaging application what's app to communicate with foreign leaders. the committee was told mr. kushner took screen shots of communications and forwards them to official white house email account or to national security council. the personal counsel for jared kushner and ivanka trump said she continues to receive emails relating to official business on her personal email account, and she doesn't forward those to her official account unless she responds to the email. that's out of compliance, at least to my understanding of it, mr. chairman.
10:43 am
i thought that was the whole basis of the hullabaloo about hillary clinton that she was using her personal email account. it sounds like that's what ivanka trump is doing without report of special records. steve bannon admitted he used a personal blackberry for his work in the white house, took no steps at all to preserve his communications. is that something that's of concern to us in congress or not? the committee obtained a document that appears to show that kt mcfar land as national security adviser conducted official business on her personal account. we need to support the resolution so the committee can investigate why the individuals violated the law, whether others violated the law, and how to prevent this outrageous disregard for the rule of law in the future. i think this is something, mr. chairman, that drives the american people crazy, the idea
10:44 am
that well, if our side does it, it is perfectly okay, if your side does it, we're going to have a huge campaign around it and we're going to attack it. i think we should have one yardstick. one rule here. and we need to stand by the presidential records act. we are the law making branch of government under article 1. we are charged with powers of the people to make laws. and it is the job of the president to take care of laws faithfully executed. we need to have official record of what it is the president is doing and we can't have people flouting it and running outside of it. >> would my friend yield for a question? >> delighted to yield to my friend from virginia. >> would it surprise my friend from maryland to learn just a few years ago in this very committee, the distinguished ranking member mr. jordan actually emphatically stated subpoenas were the primary tool for this committee and for congress to be able to get at necessary information to do its
10:45 am
work without which frankly would be -- and advocating passionately for the issuance of subpoenas to compel cooperation in issuance of documents and witnesses. would that surprise my friend, given what we just heard? >> i wasn't here then, it would not surprise me that our friend mr. jordan was an effective champion of legislative oversight in use of subpoena power in order to get the information that congress needs. and i think congress should be doing that regardless of who the president is. >> if my friend would further yield. is my friend saying we ought to be consistent in our views about the importance of subpoenas irrespective of the topic at hand? >> look, i understand that partisanship is built into the system in some sense as founders thought it is built into human nature. i think all of us have to struggle to be as consistent as we can be in terms of conducting oversight that the american people want us to do. and with that, mr. chairman, i
10:46 am
yield back. >> mr. jordan. >> i would point out, did ivanka trump set up an unofficial server in her home exclusively to conduct all official business on? >> my friend asking a question of me? >> both you and the gentleman from maryland that are talking about this issue. i'm asking, did she do that? i know someone that did. >> mr. jordan, i mean, every law breaker, every rule breaker has his or her own m.o.. >> one at a time. i want to go back to regular order. if you're going to yield to the gentleman, back and forth, so we can keep some order. >> they referenced it multiple times. >> i am allowing you to do that, i just want one person speaking at a time, that's all.
10:47 am
>> did ivanka trump set up a server at her home to conduct official business on? >> as far as i know, she did not. everybody breaks rules in their own way. >> no, she did not. she did not. but you know who did for the express purpose of evading the records law, the person that did that was secretary clinton. miss trump had a few emails when she first worked at the white house. once she discovered what the law says, she gave those over, kept those records. plain and simple. every single one and her lawyer told that to this committee when he came in and talked to us. so this is completely different and yet you want to make it the same. i do remember you all defending clinton when she had 60,000 emails on a private server and sent classified information and received classified information on that server and oh, by the way, she got to decide which ones we got to see, didn't turn them all over like miss trump
10:48 am
has done or turn them over like mr. kushner has done. >> would the gentleman yield? >> in a second. she didn't do that. what did she do? she destroyed 30,000. this is completely different. but we know how the votes will go. we know what you guys will do. >> would my friend yield? >> sure. >> i would say if my friend believes what he just said and is accurate, he has nothing to fear by issuance of the subpoenas. >> these are for all kinds of things, it is broader than official records. you want all kinds of personal things, too, that's the problem. this is scary, when this is going to be the standard. >> will the gentleman yield? >> when this is the standard, this is scary. you want personal information from people, that's scary. >> would the gentleman yield? >> the official record, sure, but that's not what the subpoena is about. who was asking? yes. >> thank you so much. this is pretty unprecedented that we are trying to protect family members now of the
10:49 am
administration. these are people that have access. our ranking member needs to understand. >> i'll let you finish. hold on. what's unprecedented is the fact -- >> we're talking about the daughter of the president who has access to information. >> excuse me. police tlaib, he has the time. >> i'm going to let her back. i want to say what's unprecedented is the nature of the subpoena. the personal information it is going after. >> let him finish, then he will yield. >> i yield now. >> miss tlaib. >> it is important for my colleagues to understand we're talking about transparency, talking about oversight. these are messages that impact the american people that right now all i hear is this year from the other side of information that might come about ivanka, and we have to protect. that's all i hear, you choose to protect family members of the current administration that have access to information.
10:50 am
they're at the table making decisions on behalf of the american people. they don't have privacy any more. they also have to be accountable to us in this chamber. mr. chairman, and ranking member, i understand that you want to talk about the specific processes, want to go back and forth about hillary clinton. >> i will reclaim my time. this subpoena is for personal emails, who their domestic help is, that's ridiculous. it stopped being personal when they're in the room making decisions that impact the american people. they're sitting at the trump
10:51 am
organization table. subpoena. with that i'll yield back. >> thank you very much. let me remind everybody that the these -- that the law requires -- let me finish. requires. that be recorded in a certain way. so i want to make sure we're clear on that. >> mr. chairman, would you yield for a question? >> yes.
10:52 am
>> because to the point you're making, i'm reading a resolution that isn't the one described by mr. jordan. because please correct me if i'm wrong, but this resolution for subpoenas says three things. we're seeking all presidential records sent or received by non-career officials by the white house using non-official electronic messaging. secondly we're looking at all communications sent or received by white house employees including employees of the national security counsel. >> yes. >> and all documents referring to or related to reports, allegations, or evidence of misuse of technology systems by non-career officials at the white house. is that correct? >> that is absolutely incredibly correct. >> so it's not some overly broad phishing expedition. i thank the chair. >> i would just -- mr. chairman. >> wait is minute, man. i gave you an extra ten minutes. >> no, you didn't. and i yielded it to three
10:53 am
members of your side. i want to point to number two. it says all communications. not official communications. it says all communications. that's what your subpoena says. >> let me say this. it says all communications sent or received by white house employees including employees in the national security council from january 21st, 2017, to the present about whether messages sent or received by non-career officials through non-official electronic messaging accounts. including text messages, phone base message applications, or encryption software were classified or may contained classified information. ladies and gentlemen -- >> would the chairman yield? >> yeah. >> you made my point. there is no qualifier. it says all communications. that includes personal too. if it said all communications
10:54 am
consistent with the presidential records act, that's one thing. that's not what it says. it says all communications. that is our concern. >> let me say -- >> mr. chairman? >> yes? >> at the appropriate time, i'd like to move to strike the last word. >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so i'm sitting here thinking about this and the opposition that has cropped up on the other side of the aisle. like i do when i had one of my children who comes to me and complains to me, but mom, what i did wasn't as bad as what she did. and i say to them, you broke a rule. there are consequences to breaking rules and when i am exploring what those
10:55 am
consequences might need to be, i need to know what you did and it has nothing to do with what someone else may or may not have done in our family. but consequences are going to result after i have an opportunity as their mom to take a look closely at whether they broke our rule. what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be suggesting is that, but mr. chairman, what some other person did is worse than what we think the white house employees working there now might have done. so since it's not as bad as we think the other person's was, we don't want to do anything. well, what is the point of having rules? there a law to comply with. we have credible information to lead us to believe that the current white house employees have broken the rules in use of
10:56 am
personal devices and/or use of personal email and not making sure that those records are preserved. we are the united states house of representatives, a co-equal branch of government. and this is the oversight committee of the united states house of representatives and it is our job to investigate to make sure those records are preserved and the rules aren't broken. no matter who breaks them. and when it was a different accusation, the republicans were all over it. creating a select committee, even, to get to the bottom of what their accusations were. and now because it's their people and they think it maybe wasn't as bad as the people that they wanted to go after and punish, then, oh, we should just dismiss this and it doesn't matter whether the records are preserved. that's hypocrisy and inconsistency. i wouldn't allow it with my own
10:57 am
children. i taught them better so that when they grow up and become adults, they know how to conduct themselves and not break the rules. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> before we go to mr. hise, keep in mind this is a subpoena to john michael mick mulvaney, the acting white house chief of staff for official records. now, mr. hise. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if we're going to talk hypocrisy and that rules matter, then we need to look no further than what happened on the house floor last week when the house rules were outrightly violated and then the democrats came up and changed the rules. so if we're going to talk about rules, okay, let's talk about them. already asked for business records. this is going far beyond the
10:58 am
scope of official records. this is getting into nothing but an attempt to go after the family or the president in an attempt to further go after the president himself. >> just a couple points. the gentlelady from florida talked about the clinton example and this example. i didn't bring up hillary clinton. he did. i didn't make that comparison. he did. i was just showing the big difference between the two. the subpoenas to mick mulvaney, but i don't remember the chairman talking about mick mulvaney in his opening statement. he mentioned jared kushner and ivanka trump.
10:59 am
so we all know what thus is about. i didn't bring up the clinton comparison. you all did. i'm just setting the record straight on the idea that she destroyed 30,000 emails. >> would the gentleman yield for a question? >> sure. >> so what my friend raised as it relates to the clinton emails and the 30,000 email reference that you made was a result of our chairman pointing out that you have inconsistently supported subpoenas of information depending on whose side of the aisle broke the rules. and that we had previous bipartisan support from mr. chaffetz -- >> reclaiming my time. that's why i pointed out, that's why i asked the question 10, 15 minutes ago to mr. raskind and mr. connolly did trump set up a
11:00 am
private server and -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> you don't get to reclaim my time. >> i'm not trying to reclaim. i'm asking you to yield. >> i'm not right now. she didn't do anything remotely close to what she did. all when it was discovered there were some emails she hadn't properly preserved? she preserved them. what did senator clinton do? destroyed them. that is a big difference. their lawyer met with the committee. their lawyers said they have complied with everything once she knew by the way there's a few emails i didn't comply with the record. she complied. big difference from that behavior and the behavior of secretary clinton. i yield back to the gentleman from georgia. >> i will just add to that and thank the gentleman that the content of these emails is not necessary to determine whether or not there was compliance to the presidential record act. we don't need to get into details of this other than for the purpose of going after the president's family and that's
11:01 am
totally inappropriate. i yield back. >> mr. clay. mr. clay. >> yes. thank you, mr. chairman. i heard you. you know, we should all be alarmed, all of us when the presidential records act is ignored by a white house with total disregard for the law. we should be concerned. according to media reports from politico and "the new york times," senior adviser to the president jared kushner created a new private email account in the months before he joined the government. politico reported kushner used his personal email account to communicate with senior white house officials and others outside of the government about official white house business. in response to these reports on
11:02 am
september 25th, 2017, congressman cummings asked mr. kushner to provide information about the security of the private email account and the names of the individuals mr. kushner communicated with about official business on his personal account. mr. kushner never responded to the letter instead the white house directed us to the personal attorney for jared kushner and ivanka trump. that attorney confirmed mr. kushner uses messaging applications including for communications with foreign individuals. we spent the entire day yesterday listening to special
11:03 am
prosecutor mueller highlighting the threat the russian government had to the subsequent elections. and we have a senior adviser to the president communicate iing h foreign government. you should be alarmed. you should be concerned. he could not answer whether kushner included classified information which would be a major national security breach. and for the other side to not be concerned about that is kind of like selective memory.
11:04 am
i would be concerned. and you're going to let the president's son-in-law just willy-nilly put us in jeopardy? what's going on? you know, on july 1st, 2019, the committee requested documents related to reports, allegations, or evidence of misuse of information, technology system by political appointees in the white house. mr. chairman, we pass laws like the presidential records act to protect this government. a total disregard for the law by this administration.
11:05 am
and i will yield to my friend from virginia. >> i just have a question for my friend. assurances have been made here about violations of the law about a different case in the previous administration. is it my friend's recollection that as a matter of fact that was investigated thoroughly investigated by the fbi and nothing was found? >> that is correct. >> and the fbi director had a press conference to assert that. >> yes. >> i thank my friend. >> and i thank my friend. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> there -- it seems like there are a bunch of young people here today, students. so i want to just recreate the conversation between mr. jordan and some of our colleagues on the side of the aisle. i think the claims and counterclaims of hypocrisy miss the point. there was a logical fallacy in what mr. jordan said. it's called the two-cloak fallacy. it's when you answer in argument
11:06 am
by making criticism of a third party. but look at what happened several years ago. so i think that the students can recognize that as a logical fallacy and we can see through the move that he made. it was clever but it was wrong. >> perhaps all of us need to be in one of your classes. perhaps we should go to one of his classes, mr. jordan. i yield back. >> there being no further discussion on -- >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman? >> mr. gibbs. >> you know, after sitting here listening to this i think i'm living in a parallel universe. there was a secretary of state a few years ago that had her own private server and think about this. she's secretary of state. secretary of state, secretary of defense, people in those positions are going to see classified information on a
11:07 am
daily basis. and she was using that as her primary email account so she was either receiving and emailing classified information or she wasn't doing her job. you can't have it both ways. and my understanding, i wasn't on this committee but my understanding back when all that was going on and we tried -- this committee tried to get -- tried to get a solution to rectify that and get the answers, the other side of the aisle was opposed to that. clearly we all knew she had ore own private server. clearly a violation of many laws. the hypocrisy here is just unbelievable. it's really about politics, it's clear. and it was stated earlier by the ranking member that the request for some of this information for the -- to the administration was just done here in less than 30 days ago. and, you know, i think this is
11:08 am
playing politics before we go on the august recess. especially what happened yesterday. i will yield the rest of my time to the ranking member if he wants it. i didn't bring up clinton. chairman dp. ivanka trump is complying with the law. hillary clinton never did. never did. even at the end. even when she got caught, she used bleach bit to destroy things. i remember jim comey saying she did all these things wrong, but we're not going to charge her. i remember that conference. i remember all that. but i didn't bring her up today. >> would the gentleman yield? >> the chairman brought up the comparison to cliniton.
11:09 am
hillary clinton never complied with the law. when it was brought to ivanka trump's attention, she said sure. she turned over her personal device complying with the law. that's been clear. their lawyer told this committee that. just three weeks ago, the chairman asked for some more information and now he's moving right to a subpoena. you guys brought up the comparison. i didn't. no one at the white house is using bleach bit. i haven't seen that. no one in the white house is destroying 30,000 emails. i haven't seen that. but you guys aren't going to stop. >> oh, my god. >> you're going to keep going after it. >> would the gentleman yield for a question? >> well, but -- >> am i yielding to connolly or raskind? who am i yielding to? >> i was just invoking the almighty mr. jordan. >> well, it is. when you look at the comparison,
11:10 am
i would say oh my goodness. >> everything you said about the past were completely true -- >> there's no conceding it was the truth. that is the truth. what i said about secretary clinton. >> i understand in your mind it is. >> you guys are making stuff up about ms. trump. >> would you concede that even if we all accept what you say is true hypothetical, that it would have no -- >> no. i'm not going to -- no. it's truth. it's the truth. >> hey hey hey. hold up. one at a time. >> all right. i'm yielding now to the professor from maryland who was giving a lecture earlier. i'm yielding to the professor. >> i just want to point out that even if the arguments made by the distinguished gentleman from ohio were all true, it would have no logical bearing at all upon the facts of what the resolution deals with. which is as as i understand it, personal counsel for kushner and trump confirmed to this
11:11 am
committee that ivanka trump continues to receive emails -- >> no, he didn't. no, he didn't. >> -- on her personal email account. and forwards them to our account. >> reclaim my time. two points. first, that is not accurate. second, i didn't bring this all up, this comparison. you guys did. i just want to set the record straight. you're the ones who want to talk about clinton. and if you want to bring her up, i'm happy to point out the big differences between secretary clinton and ivanka trump. i yield back to the distinguished gentleman from ohio. >> i would just say that the hypocrisy here is just -- it just smells so bad it's ridiculous. we need to move on and get off all this stuff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. very quickly. i just wanted to take us back to the original premise for the presidential records act. following up on something that
11:12 am
my colleagues sent earlier. when you are elected by the people of this country to occupy an official position, it stops being about you and it starts being about us. when you step into a position of public trust, ie serving as an employee in the white house, you then -- in a volunteer capacity in this instance. but carrying out official business, you're not acting on behalf of yourself. you're acting on behalf of everybody who's assembled in this room. it's your government. it's your presidency. it's your office. and everybody who works in that administration is working for you. and it's you that want these records. we're not issuing these subpoenas for ourselves.
11:13 am
we're a committee of congress elected by the people to exercise oversight with respect to official business that is conducted in the white house. that's our job. so i just want to remind us that when we are issuing these subpoenas, we are trying to carry out our duty that has been given to us by the public. we are carrying these subpoenas and these requests for documents and information on behalf of people who elected us to come here, make sure that the business that is conducted by the president and in the white house is business that is for your benefit and not theirs. >> would the gentleman yield? >> that's the premise for this. and i yield to -- >> thank you to the chairman. on december 19th, 2018, former chairman trey gowdy -- remember him?
11:14 am
and i met with mr. lowell along with the committee staff directed us to meet with mr. lowell at our requested information about mr. kushner's reported use of what's app to communicate with foreign officials. during our meeting, mr. lowell confirmed to me that jared kushner uses messaging applications to conduct official business preserved records of his, his messages, by taking screen shots of his conversations and then forwarding them to his official account. in a letter to the white house, mr. lowell claimed that my letter was, quote, not
11:15 am
completely accurate about what was said. i was at the meeting and i know what i heard. but this committee should not have to rely on me or mr. lowell to answer questions about kushner's issues of messaging applications to conduct offic l official. if there wasn't a question about the use of what's app, that is a question for the white house council. not me. that is why i have repeatedly requested information from the white house about this issue over the past two years. there are serious questions about this white house's emails. and we need subpoenas to get
11:16 am
answers. i want to distinguish myself with mr. starbangs. we act like we are -- and i said this early on. we act like we're just legislating for the day. we are legislation for generations yet unborn. so -- and by the way, this is the law. come on, now. this is the law. and damn it if you -- excuse me. because i know that'll be on a front page somewhere. i strike my word. but all i'm saying is that if we are going to preserve our records, we need to preserve them consistently. >> mr. chairman, will you yield for a question? >> i'm out of time.
11:17 am
>> strikes me as important to figure out what on earth we're trying to find. are we trying to find that ivanka trump somehow is engaged in a conspiracy to cover up emails relating to the death of an ambassador in libya? are we trying to dive into emails that are dealing with dead americans in libya? because we know that's what kicked off the issue with respect to the email controversy regarding the former secretary of state. and that was what was being discussed. so my question here is, when we've got ms. trump acknowledging through her attorney in discussions with this committee turning over emails to this committee, ak nonling that there was a window of time, transition where she used private email for business that may have been public, why are we asking for emails from january of '17 to present? when she's acknowledged this committee, we've had a window of
11:18 am
time that she's got on the private servers turning that over. it is clear that this is a phishing expedition. and not because it's the daughter of the president. it could be any member of the white house related to the president or not. but we're engaged in this open ended inquiry, right? i mean, where is the probable cause here? where is the reasonable suspicion here about what kind of wrong doing was undertaken by the emails that were used on a gmail account versus an official account? what are we looking for as an oversight body? >> would the gentleman yield? >> keeping my time. >> sure. i don't know how to say this any differently. we have laws. and the laws say we keep official records. i mean, come on, now. you don't go around probable cause. you're talking about the official records and we're not asking for personal records. >> mr. chairman, i can yield to
11:19 am
the distinguished ranking member in a second. we should comply with the laws. she's working to comply with the laws. my understanding is she's turning over emails in response to it and making those records public. that's what the laws are saying. to make them part of the presidential records act. this is something critical to the debate. why are we doing this? they're working with us. in the meantime, while we are doing this, while we are sitting here as i pointsed out for the hour we're going to be debating this. another $100 million of debt has been racked up. another how many people poured across the boarder? how much control have we yielded to cartels that truly run our border? that's what we're dealing about. i've got information right here from someone on the front lines on the border saying i will tell
11:20 am
you my station -- this is border patrol. my station has around 500 total agents. around 70 for the day shift, 90 for swings, 80 for midnight shift. i'm averaging between 9 to 14 on the line for day shift. they've atted the horse patrol. they are making our elite line the same. detention security. all the agencies helping us are doing hospital watch sandwich making, handing out hygienic items, and milk and transportation. my army unit was called up. what are we doing? we're building new detention facilities at the border. they're not patrolling the border. we're not doing anything to stop and deal with the problems we've got with cartels managing the border. and we're sitting here in a phishing expedition for emails about a law that's being complied with. in what universe is this what we're supposed to be doing for the united states of america, for the people of this country who are watching their country
11:21 am
racking up mountains of debt? $320 billion over existing spending levels which would still give us a trillion dollar deficit. well done, congress. well done. that kind of level of spending while we've got wide open borders. what are we doing for the people of the united states? i'm going to be told, oh, we're protecting the law. the law's being complied with. when instead what it is is a fishing expedition for political purposes which we saw on high display yesterday in the room next door where we got nothing other than dawdling responses about an incompetent effort. and here we sit mounting up debt for our children and grandchildren. my 9-year-old son is in this room. we all have families. what are we passing down to them? $100 million of debt per hour? it's extraordinary. wide open borders, destroying
11:22 am
communities, endangering lives of americans in south texas while i get smirks from my democratic colleagues. while there are people right now facing attacks from cartels dealing with it on a daily basis and we get smirks and we get requests for emails from people in the white house. this is the face of the democratic party. this is the face of your congress today, america. >> mr. connolly. >> i thank the chair. i have a motion. i do just want to say shame on my colleague from texas. to question the motivation of democrats -- >> shame on this body. >> i know. we've heard from you. it's my time. it's my time. >> and you'll continue to hear from me. >> wait a minute! >> in defense of this country. >> mr. chairman. >> hold up. he has the time. zblif the time. >> america deserves the time. >> for god's sake.
11:23 am
>> america deserves better than what it's just heard from. >> he can't take it. >> mr. chairman, i have a -- >> he's taking his ball and going home. bye. >> recognizing. >> i move on the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> the question on ordering the previous question. all those in favor say aye. opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the previous question is ordered on the amendment in the nature of the substitute. okay. the previous question having been ordered on the amendment in the nature of the substitute, the vote now occurs on agreeing to the amendment as amended. all those signify by saying aye. all those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
11:24 am
and the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. we will -- >> not yet. this is final passage. >> i thought we already -- >> no. previous question. yeah. >> the vote now occurs on approving the resolution as amended by the amendment in the nature of a substitute. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed no. in opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the resolution as amended is agreed to. there's a request for roll call. the clerk will call the roll. >> chairman cummings. >> aye. >> chairman cummings votes aye. miss maloney. >> aye. >> miss maloney votes aye. >> miss nortin? >> aye. >> mr. clay? mr. lynch? >> aye. >> mr. lynch votes aye. >> mr. connolly. >> aye.
11:25 am
>> mr. connolly votes aye. mr. krishnamorthi. >> aye. >> mr. raskind. >> aye. >> mr. ruda? >> aye. >> miss hill? >> americans deserves an aye. >> miss wasserman schultz. >> aye. >> mr. sarbanes. >> aye. >> mr. welch. >> aye. >> miss spear. >> aye. >> miss kelly. >> aye. >> mr. desonya. >> aye. >> voting for this country. aye. >> miss plasket. mr. kana. >> aye. >> mr. gomez. >> aye. >> miss ocasio-cortez. >> aye. >> miss pressley. >> aye.
11:26 am
>> miss tallib. >> aye. >> mr. gosar. ms. fox. mr. massey. >> no. >> mr. meadows. mr. hise. >> no. >> mr. grothman. >> no. >> mr. koemer. >> no. >> mr. cloud. mr. gibbs. >> no. >> mr. higgins. >> no. >> mr. norman. >> no. >> mr. roy. >> no. >> miss miller. >> no. >> mr. green. >> no. >> mr. armstrong. >> no. >> mr. stuvy. >> no. >> mr. keller.
11:27 am
>> no. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> mr. clay is not recorded. >> mr. clay votes aye. >> mr. clay votes aye. >> how is mr. gosar recorded? >> not recorded. >> no. >> and how is miss fox recorded? >> miss fox is not recorded. >> no. >> has everyone voted? the clerk will give us the tally. >> on this vote we have 23 ayes and 16 noes.
11:28 am
>> on this vote there were 23 ayes and 16 noes. the resolution is agreed to. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming changes. i want to thank the committee for a very -- a good discussion. for a good discussion. and i really appreciate it. and now -- huh? the committee is adjourned. thank you. and have a good recess.
11:29 am
11:30 am
11:31 am
11:32 am
finishing up our live broadcast of this committee meeting on a contempt citation for kellyanne conway. it will be available to viewon line shortly at matthew albence testifies before
11:33 am
a house appropriations subcommittee regarding oversite. you can see that at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3 or listen live with the free c-span radio app. watch our live coverage as the nation's governors meet in salt lake city. friday starts at 11:15 a.m. eastern recognizing america's space program. then at 11:30, a conversation about safer and smarter roads. and just after 3:00 p.m. eastern, improving infrastructure with maryland governor larry hogan. the summer meeting live friday on c-span2 and or listen with the free c-span radio app. in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea. let viewers make up their own minds. c-span opened the doors to washington policy making for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content
11:34 am
from congress and beyond. a lot has changed in 40 years, but today that big idea is more relevant than ever. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government. so you can make up your own mind. brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. up next, the u.s. census bureau director testifies before the house oversight and reforms subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties. he talks about the bureau's readiness for the 2020 census. what plans have been put in place to count communities in areas that are difficult to reach. and the safeguards that have been implemented to protect the information of all on the census. this is about 90 minutes. >> and also, let's see, without objecti objection, i want to wave onto the subcommittee today steven horseford from nevada. who wanted to ask questions.
11:35 am
so by unanimous consent, we will grant him that privilege. i want to thank our witnesses for their ongoing cooperation with our subcommittee. you and your staff have been truly excellent partners in this oversight process. so i want to thank you both. doctor, i want to thank you for your work preparing for the 2020 census. i learned from this district staff earlier this month that you toured silver spring in beautiful montgomery county, maryland. these are diverse high density areas with a high concentration of immigrants where a variety of languages are spoken. i appreciate your coming out to check out our community. my district director kathleen connor met with your staff this month and was really encouraged by the bureau's preparation. i want to thank you and your staff for that hard work. that work of course is ongoing. we've got a lot of accomplish before 2020. we spent much of last year embroiled in battle over the administration question.
11:36 am
now that the administration has been forced to stand down by congress and by the supreme court, the bureau must devote all available resources to repairing the damage of this effort. getting us back on track and complete an accurate count in 2020. the question has been called arbitrary and capricious. i think it may be endangering an accurate count. i'm eager to hear about the aggressive steps they are taking to repair the damage caused by this campaign. every ten years the bureau struggles to count everybody in america according to constitutional directive. some communities of immigrants and people of color are chronically undercounted. they then do not receive their fair share of government resources in everything from federal and state legislative representation to medicaid and head start. the consequences of an undercount reverberate for decades. the bureau's


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on