tv House Oversight Committee Meets to Consider Its Rules CSPAN February 28, 2023 5:56pm-7:48pm EST
>> c-span has your unfiltered view of government, and we are funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. >> buckeye broadband supports c-span's a public service, along with these other television providers. we give you a front row seat to democracy. >> the house oversight and accountability committee has adopted a new rules package for the 118th congress, by a party vote of 25 to 19. an end to public hearings for members and witnesses, and the
>> without objection, the chairman is authorized to declare recess by the committee at any time. we want to welcome everybody to the organizational meeting of the committee on accountability, a committee that i believe will be the most exciting and effective committee for this congress. we're going to be returning this committee to its core mission. that is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being mismanaged, abused, or wasted. to shine a light in the darkness of the federal bureaucracy and corruption, it. to make sure our federal government is working efficiently for the american people. because meeting, we will be proceeding as follows. first, ranking member raskin and i will introduce the new members, and then we will officially adopt the committee rules. i want to welcome all of our returning viewers, it's great to have you again in this congress. i also want to welcome back to committee chairman mike turner.
from ohio, congressman gary palmer from alabama, congressman kelly armstrong from north dakota, and congressman bob g.o.e.s.-r from north america. i also want to welcome our new members, hailing from all parts of our great country. first of, all we are going to order of seniority. i want to recognize scott perry from pennsylvania, welcome. william timmons from south carolina, tim burchett from tennessee. marjorie taylor greene from georgia, lisa mcclain from michigan, lauren boebert from colorado, russell fry from south carolina, and paulina luna from florida. chuck edwards from north carolina, nick langworthy from new york, and eric carlson from
misery. welcome to the oversight committee, which again i think you will find is the best committee in congress. we are very glad that you are all on the committee, and we look forward to working with each and every one of you in this congress. we have a big agenda, and we are going to work really hard to try to be very effective for the taxpayers and american people. with that, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, ranking member jamie raskin, to introduce these members, but first i want to publicly say, mr. raskin, we are all rooting for you, and we know that you are going to win this battle, it's good to see you here today. i yield to ranking member raskin. >> thank you so much, it means a lot to me, and i've been gratified to receive so many kind words of encouragement and sympathy from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and i hope that these expressions of concern and solidarity -- i certainly plan on getting through this thing, beating it,
and i thank you for your patience and intelligence. >> [applause] it is my turn to welcome the members on our sides of the aisle, beginning with eleanor norton, who represents the great people of the district of columbia. of massachusetts, miss conway of virginia, and illinois. mr. khanna of california, mr. mfume of maryland, miss ocasio-cortez of new york, the highest ranking member of this congress. miss porter of california, miss bush, miss brown, and mr. gomez, the returning members of ohio, mr. gomez of california, and miss bush of missouri. from across the country, new members artemis stansbury of
new mexico, robert garcia of california, maxwell frost from florida, a vermont, summer lee of pennsylvania, greg costar of texas, crockett, also from texas. dan goldman of new york, jimmy osco it's of florida. it's hard for me today to not think of my fellow maryland are and friend elijah cummings, chairman and ranking member of this committee not so long ago. he recruited me to oversight, the central purpose of this committee, our job is to make government serve not as an opportunity for, greed and self indulgent, not as a violator of the rights of the american people, but rather as the protector of the rights and liberties of the people. and always the effective and efficient instrument of the common good, the greatest good for the greatest number of americans. we conserve every single day, and i take this duty seriously,
and ensure with you but effective and efficient government. which delivers meaningful benefits to the people, which we serve. i've taken the liberty, mister chairman, of purchasing out of my own pocket, a copy of tom paine's common sense for every member of this committee, republican democrats, the pamphlet that launch the american resolution, because what we need to proceed and exceed in this committee is common sense, to use our five senses, and reason, to ensure that we are vindicating the public interests that our constitution exists for, and so that will be coming this week. we pledge to work closely with you, in the days ahead, and wherever that we can find grounds for bipartisanship, work, and collaboration. we will pursue this, and obviously, we will be standing up for the constitution, for
the bill of rights, and for the laws of the land. i know that our staffs are here to discuss different ways that the committee can begin the process of collaboration, and i'm optimistic that we will be able to find the good, instructive, collaborative path forward. i thank the chairman for the many courtesy's that we will be able to work successfully together over the next couple of years, thank you. >> i want to thank the ranking member. we now move to consider the committee rules. the rules package is substantially the same as last congress, with only a few changes. those changes include the following. first, i want to highlight reel six, which outlines the new subcommittee, and the new jurisdictions. through these subcommittees, we will once again focus on the priorities of the american people. secondly, we are including a change to allow members of the committee to participate in subcommittee and select committee hearings at the discretion of the chair, and lastly, the deposition
authority rule with house rules, we make clear that a witness can only bring to personal non governmental attorneys to the deposition to advise them of their rights. before i yield to ranking member raskin, i want to thank him for the feedback of the rules, i know we've had lots of communication back and forth over the last several days. i know we didn't come to an agreement on all of the significant things, but we will be able to find a bipartisan solution on the items not reflected in the committee rules. with that, i yield back to the ranking member for his opening statement of the rules. >> thank, you mister chairman. i have an amendment at the desk,
and as the clerk prepares to report, i will just say,, thank you for working with us on the rules, much and most of it we were able to go along with, but we will definitely have a few issues that we want to raise today, and i'm hoping we might be able to work them out. i hope that's the source of the first amendment. >> clark will devastate -- >> amendment number one to the rules of the committee on oversight and accountability, as offered by representative raskin. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read, mister raskin is recognized. >> thank you kindly, mister chairman, i move to strike the provision of rule seven, commanding the unilateral discussions about the feet numbers to participate in the hearings of the subcommittees, in which they are not members. this has been a common and replete practice on our committee, with such authorities historically been granted unanimous consent
requests on both sides. this is a practice which allows the members great flexibility and accountability to each other, and i'm certain that members on both sides will not recall a single occasion when anybody has ever dejected to leading somebody on. this practice has worked seamlessly in a bipartisan way for decades, and there is no need to break from precedent. and centralize this authority, in the chair. but the danger of course is that the seniority, whether the chair is democrat, republican, it will be light used to allow certain members to do it and other members not to do it, and so we prefer to stick with the unanimous consent practice. mister chairman, we move to strike that one part. but >> with the distinguished ranking member yield but? >> yes, i'm happy to yield. >> i would like to join him in supporting this amendment. i've been on this committee now
in my 15th year, on the republican chairs, democratic chairs, republican majorities, democratic majorities, and i would never have a problem in unanimously waving somebody on that seeks to participate. i need to know what the rationale would be for changing that procedure. and so i would just think that as we begin the new year, mister chairman, and ranking member, i just think that this amendment, adopting this amendment moving forward, would be a good faith action on behalf of part of all of us. what encouraged option and these modifications of the rules, and i want to thank my friends. i yield. but >> mister chairman, it looks like there might be some other members to weigh in, i will yield back. >> it's left silent, the house rule requiring the vote for unanimous consent to allow this, this rule change only
memorializes what is already the case. it can still be used, there's nothing changed. it can still be used. this just speeds thing up with some of these committee hearings, we will have to do that to disrupt the flow. i am bound by house rules, and i pledge the following. i urge my colleagues to vote in the amendment, do any members have further discussion? >> mister chairman, this is nearly in courtesy. i support the ranking members change, so that as a courtesy and member we could be waived on. i yield back. >> any other member secret mission? >> chair, recognize mr. lynch. >> thank you. i don't want to repeat what my
colleagues have said, but in the past, and i've been on this committee now for my 22nd years. we have always had a agreement, a gentleman gentleman's agreement between our parties. as you will see during this session, and i'm sure you know, mister chairman, with the competing activities going on in other hearings, it's often challenging to get members to come in, because they've also got commitments on other hearings. to make that process fluid, and generous, and bipartisan, it really helps the way that this committee has worked together in the past. i would hope that you will see fit to support mr. raskin's amendment, i think that it would be good, not for one party at the, other but for the work that we embark on. i yield back. >> any other member seek recognition? >> the questions on the amendment, all of those in favor say aye, i.
the opinion of the chair, -- >> i would like to request a recorded vote. >> we will call votes will be postponed, and time will be announced in advance. it's the same way we did this last year. i would get this down after about the third vote here. >> mister chairman? >> i have an amendment. i will designate the men. >> and then number two, to the rules of the committee and oversight and accountability, as offered by representative lynch. >> the chair recognizes mr. lynch. >> i think mister chairman. in the interest of fairness and efficiency, this amendment would simply afford the ranking member and the distinguished general men from maryland, the
same discussions and proposed committee rules currently granted to the chairman over member participation and subcommittees, and other proceedings. in support of this amendment, i would underscore that granting the chairman unilateral authority to determine whether the committee member may participate in the oversight committee hearing, or additional oversight committees, it is not align with the previous committee practices. the president during my time on this committee. as previous chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee of national security, for at least the last paced eight years. i can contest that the subcommittee rules, and committee rules have not granted our chairs such authority under either democratic or republican majority. this is in stark contrast, we primarily left the question of member participation to her colleagues. through bipartisan inanimate consent requests to waive interest for interested members onto the subcommittee hearings. this has never been denied. and so whether the republican
member or democratic member, whether they want to come in and, look, the oversight committee has unlimited jurisdiction. oftentimes, we have members that are on other jurisdictional committees which share our interests. the proposed rule regarding these efforts and participation also contravene with the fundamental mission of our committee in order to conduct oversight, to identify ways for fraud and abuse, and hold the government accountable. and also in favor of reform on the behalf of the american people. as recommended by the nonpartisan project of government oversight, the congressional oversight is stronger and more credible when it is bipartisan. and so rather than the bipartisan examination, for the american people, and their considerable, this proposed rule encourages the partisan selection of which members can be afforded the opportunity to want to take congressional oversight at all. the amendment under
consideration would at least ensure that the oversight efforts would not fall into partisanship, when it comes to members participation. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. here are the ranking members asking for more consideration the disco divide under the house rules. and there, for any rules within the conflict. the democratic members can still be considered in any subcommittee hearing at the discretion of the chair on a request for unanimous consent at any hearing. nothing changes. i urge my colleagues to vote no in this amendment. do any other member secret mission? mr. raskin? >> thank you, mister chairman. the only problem with this statement that was made is that it does create change in introducing asymmetry for the rules. again, members to consider this from the perspective of the majority now, and potentially being in the minority leader, because if an asymmetrical rule
is adopted, and it seems to benefit one team at one point, we will come to disadvantage you in the future. in the, past we have had a universal unanimous consent practice, nobody has had the incentive to object, and everybody understands that that should be a privilege of membership to the committee, and you should be able to go to various subcommittees. if we centralize the power exclusively this year, whether that is a republican or democrat, that person will be able to granted as a matter of his own party. but tonight to the others who are issuing unanimous consent to have somebody block it in that case. the rules work best when they work symmetrically, and fairly for everybody. and so i would like very much the approach that mr. lynch has taken, given that we seem to be going down this road. here is the power to unilaterally grant member participation in the subcommittee proceedings, where the ranking member should have that same power regardless of red or blue being in the majority. i yield back. >> the ranking member yields
back. again, i pledge to work with the ranking member on whoever they deem necessary to be waived in. it does not change anything. and so i think any further members seek recognition? seeing not, the question is on the amendment, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, -- >> a request a recorded vote. >> local votes are requested, they will be postponed, and the time will be announced in advance. other any more amendments at the table? >> mister chairman? >> i recognize ranking member. >> thank you, mister chairman,
-- >> it's three times. the clerk will -- >> amendment number three to the rules of the committee on oversight and accountability, as offered by representative raskin. >> the chair recognize ranking member. >> this amendment would simply allow for vote participation in committee activities for members when in-person participation would potentially compromise the members health. i know that there is a desire to have all members moving forward, i certainly share that desire. that should not prevent members with reasonable combinations in light of extremely exceptional medical circumstances from participating and committee proceedings, for example if somebody has covid-19. i appreciate the willingness the chairman comer has displayed for members with health issues to participate. i think that it's important that we try to have any exceptions of this nature in our rules, and i want all of our members to be able to participate fully in the
committee. nobody should be prevented by performing their duties on for half of their constituents due to unavoidable and uncontrollable health conditions, whether it be a being amino compromised, or having covid-19, or being injured in some way that prevents him or her from coming to. work with, that i submit the amendments to mr. chairman for consideration. the ranking member yields back >> reasonable comey nations, the exact situation the ranking member just mentioned, and i've said, he and i have had several conversations, i will do everything in my ability to work with you to make sure that we can accommodate on anything with respect to committee work. well you are undergoing treatment, i am very sympathetic to what you are going through. we have had members on our side that have gone through this, and we are going to work with you. i give you that pledge. for example, we made the accommodations this afternoon's
but transcribed interview to allow the ranking member to appear. we will work with you on that. this amendment is not necessary but. the pledge to continue to work with the ranking member, as i already have, we demonstrated that in good faith today with the transcribed interview later on today. i urge my colleagues to know. two other member seek recognition? >> the chair recognizes mr. conley. >> but i really appreciate his accommodation, both to the ranking member, and to his pledge to work in a reasonable fashion, given a legitimate health need. what we are debating here today is the rule. the rule is the architecture for the next two years. we need but rules to assure but should somebody else be in that chair, but we have protection, we have rights. and so i think that the amendment is not unnecessary, i
think it in fact improve things. over 1 million and a half americans have succumb to covid-19. people have died from this terrible virus. people are terribly vulnerable. people have immune compromised systems, and long term symptoms because of this virus. and so that is not just a nice thing to do if somebody asks for, it is an essential thing to do, both for members, and for witnesses as we perceived as a committee. but i think it's going to be essential, hopefully in a diminishing basis. but we don't know that yet, but we have had many rounds, and many variants of this virus. all of them have been deadly. i urge this change, and urge that we also do it with witnesses, and i think the chairman for bud -- and i think them for this
amendment. >> i know the chair seems to have agreed with the underlying purpose of this amendment. i think the amendment is necessary, because congress is so closely divided. because of this close division, we do not know, whether for partisan purposes, that there would be a disagreement. i think that this is a fail safe amendment that would be important for both sides to have in their pocket. i yield back >> the gentlelady yields back. >> thank you, mister chairman. members, i oppose the amendment of rules. obviously, the health conditions of the ranking members, and the chairman's desire to help him with that as we move through this congress. let's be very clear, as a
member of this committee in the last congress, there were many members who frankly abused the virtual nature of our hearings. they would be in their offices doing these hearings, and not here in this room. we are doing a lot of critical topics in this congress, and attendance is necessary. i urge my members and my colleagues to vote down this amendment, understanding fully the issues that the ranking member is dealing with buck with his health personally. this amendment is not needed, and i yield back to chairman. >> thank you, mister chair. one of the things that we all want to acknowledge is gratitude for your willingness to be able to work to accommodate the ranking member and the various conditions which we have to adapt to. i think that the ranking member would also be one of the first to say that this rule is not
about him. it is really about the vast majority of -- or the vast amount of people that encounter disabilities at some point in their life. or another. the rules here about the rules, are in place. this rule is in place so that it is not up to one individual's discretion to protect a person which may encounter a disability, who might find themselves with a condition such as the ranking members. pregnancy, et cetera. and so a rule to protect individuals based on health outcome should be part of our workplace protections. i think that the examples we said here are examples for the country. i extend an understanding towards representative from florida about making sure that we are here, but in the, rule estates explicitly about an extraordinary extenuating health care related circumstances. and so in that spirit, i would
hope that we can all be able to extend that example, and protect the millions of people who encountered disabilities, immunocompromised conditions, et cetera. i would hope that we should enshrinement protection, not just for the ranking member, but for all of us in the role of this committee. i yield back. >> i think the gentlelady. the chair recognizes miss marjorie taylor greene. >> thank, you mister chair. i oppose this amendment. i think it's important for us to all recognize that the white house just announced they will be calling an end to the covid-19 emergency. there is no need for us to vote to amend the rules to allow for this. of course, we extend our heartfelt prayers and good well wishes to mr. raskin, as he is going through this cancer treatment. it's something that certainly all of us can understand and hope the best for him. as far as pregnancy, it is a
wonderful gift for women. and becoming a weather is a wonderful thing. this does not stop many women from showing up for work. i don't think that should be considered to be a concern as to why we need to adopt this amendment. which members cannot show up. i think it's important for all members to be present, as much as they possibly can because we have a job to do for the american people. i yield back. >> any further discussion? >> the chair recognizes. >> but thank you, mister chairman. and it's great to call you mister chairman. i oppose the amendment, but i want to on a personal level,, ranking member raskin, so many of us have lost loved ones to cancer. i want you to fight, and i want you to win. god bless you. but >> the gentleman yields
back. any further discussion? >> and again, we, the chair pledges to work with any member depending on the various circumstances, that has been the rule, that will continue to be the rule. and so if nobody else seeks it, the question on the imminent, again i urge my colleagues to vote no. all those in favor, say i. all those opposed, say no. in opinion of the chair, the noes have it, but will call votes will be postponed, and the time will be announced. but does any member seek recognition moving further? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will designate the amendment. >> and we not have the men. >> amendment number four.
it is at the desk. >> amendment number four to the rules of committee on oversight and accountability, as offered by representative infamy. >> the chair recognizes mr. mfume. >> think you very much. i want to first say congratulations to the ranking member raskin for his continued leadership and dedication to the committee, and mister chairman, i want to congratulate you as well for the great work that you have done, in this congress, and i congratulate you as well on your new position. i move to offer amendment number four to the rules of the committee of oversight and accountability. as rule 11 calls to have authorized house committees and subcommittees and issue subpoenas for attendance of
witnesses, and of the production of this amendment. it will quite simply require a majority vote approval by members of the committee prior to organizing and issuing a subpoena and the conduct of any investigation, or activity within the jurisdiction of this committee. i think that we have a real meeting today to execute strong, bipartisan oversight. this is a rule, quite frankly, they both democrats and republicans have supported in the past. mister chairman, i am particularly pleased that you have supported this amendment the last time, and today. and i hope today it will carry. we can show the american people, in members of congress that we are still prepared in this committee to unite regardless of our different political beliefs. i would encourage my colleagues
from both sides of the aisle to support the amendment. i thank you, sir, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes himself. congressional subpoenas are a powerful tool we should be used in limited circumstances. it is used as appropriate when attempts to reach a combination of the witnesses are an impasse. when necessary to obtain circumstantial information, such as financial information, but when a friendly subpoena, just needed to protect a witness. in the normal course of action, the committee business to work with ranking members but in advance. the american but -- and we will do that. that will require this committee to work quickly and efficiently, and at times, provide the best opportunity but to uncover the truth in as timely fashion as possible. i appreciate mr. infamy
supporting this amendment. last congress, you all opposed. and so we just want to keep the rules the way that you all had them in the last congress, with respect to things changing. during the past two congresses, the committee democrats, as i said, voted against this change. and the refusal on at least two occasions, the reviews will to vote for the subpoena, before it was issued. if we need to provide that for any fact finding friends in the obvious we would be happy to do that. with this amendment, they now have to put these changes in place to get them right to refuse republicans, when democrats were in charge. as former chairwoman maloney pointed out during the last organizational meeting, hundreds of subpoenas have been issued under both republican and democratic controlled congresses without any vote. the democrats have provided no valid reason today but for this president, and so i oppose the amendment and urge my
colleagues to oppose it. >> but the chair recognizes mr. raskin. >> chairman, thank you. i rise in support of gentleman's amendment, and indeed, one of the great things about congress changing hands that we get to promote each other from prior congresses. mister chairman, you did then say that the subpoena is a powerful tool. noticing consultation is just common sense measures, the majority of support but. they are absolutely correct, and we are pointing out that the majority did not accept that. i will say that if we are simply going to be on a race to the bottom, then the precedent was set by the trump administration when tried president trump said he would not cooperate with any subpoenas at all. he simply shut down the process. he then ignored rejected hundreds of congressional subpoenas. i don't think we want to go down the road, and i don't think we want to encourage the biden administration. and so i would encourage a complete reset at this point
but, let's resolve to do better together. let's issue subpoenas together, and let's make those subpoenas stick and work, by making but true the congress requires them. i support mr. mfume's amendment, and i yield back. >> thank you, mister chairman. >> the issue of subpoenas for this committee has a long and sorry history. but when dan burton was chairman of the committee, he issued hundreds of subpoenas, losing track of who he had subpoenaed as a matter of fact. he made a mockery of the process. when tom davis, my predecessor, and henry wax men switched back and forth as chairman and ranking member, they said a model, where they genuinely did but try to cooperate on the issues. why is that important from an institutional point of view? if we simply plural --
but we are going to dilute the importance of that as a tool. as you correctly point out, mister chairman, it is a tool to be used sparingly, but and you have to out-force. i have been to believe the congress needs to -- and forcing subpoenas institutionally as a separate but equal legislative branch of government. that is a fight but they will i hope revisit. but we need to make sure bud, and i think all of us need to in this committee, that a subpoena has force. and it has meaning, that it has broad support behind it. and so i think that as we move forward, that is the spirit in which we look at subpoenas, and issue subpoenas. for the sake of the institution, and for the sake of the integrity of this committee, i think the chairman and ranking member, and i yield back. >> but germany is back, the
chair recognizes mr. sessions. >> i recognize the debate that is going on back and forth. we've got a lot of members here who are seemingly also in support. back in 1997 and 98, when i sat on this committee, but the gentleman, chairman burton was in charge. there is force in us having several hundreds of people, as a matter of fact i remember items in which i was particularly a part of with johnny chung, a communist chinese who came to this country. a man who did come in and compromise the clinton administration, a man who compromised companies, a man who compromised to use political contributions, not
just to get in the white house, but you have the commerce departments to allow export of important items of national security which felt directly with rockets and their ability to work off of a gyroscope. it was one of the biggest political important things the dan burton did. the attorney general of the united states chose not, to answer questions, when everybody in our department, including this u.s. determining from san diego, who is bringing for the case against johnny chung, and she used her political power to stop those things. national security, things dealing with not just this committee, but with the entire country, and so he was forced to issue these, the attorney general of the united states went into the hospital with
exhaustion, rather than coming to be a part of what this committee was asking for. and so i am aware of the games they played, i'm aware of the things that are hidden behind executive privilege, and other things. i would like to see us as opposed to that now, since the shoe is on the other foot, and encourage this administration be forthright as we ask things. this committee, and other committees, have gained knowledge about how to use the power of not just this committee, but of congress. against donald trump. if you don't think that those things aren't going to be expected now with issues on the foot of we have lost it. i think that the ranking member, and others on that side should, use this as a common stick to avoid what we have to do. this means that you have to be forthright in the
administration. that is the note of all of the things you talk. and so i think that it is not lay down your sword and leave yourself defenseless. i think it is, let's work for common sense. i would appreciate the gentlemen giving me time to express my views. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the senator from pennsylvania, mr. perry. >> thank you, mister chairman. i just wanted to observe that, now that republicans are in the league, it is not lost on me that suddenly it has become erased, don't you find that fascinating? >> the gentleman yields back. >> before we call for a vote, i am excited about this newfound willingness to work with republicans. and so i think that we will have some opportunities to work together in the future and subpoenas. mr. palmer.
>> thank, you mister chairman. i congratulate you on your chairmanship, and mr. raskin, as ranking member, we have worked together, and you are in our prayers. having been on this committee previously and, now returning, i think that many of us have been on this committee, and we have been through the process of issuing subpoenas. and also issuing preservation orders, and particularly involved in the obama administration administrators. and so this evidence of preservation workers were not honored. mr. connolly, the gentleman from virginia, he raises an interesting point about using contempt in cases where. our subpoena power is not honored. i've got full confidence that you will only issue subpoenas judiciously, and i have confidence that you and your
staff will not lose track of any of them. in the case where we do issue subpoenas, or in cases where we issue the evidence preservation works, which i think can very likely be the case in this committee, i think that we might need an additional tool in order to ensure that those subpoenas and evidence preservation laws are complied with. and that we do the duty, and due diligence that this committee is required to do, and some of these investigations moving forward, which we will most undoubtedly will have to engage in over the next couple of years. and with that, i yield back. >> thank you, very much, mister chair. just a few other words in support of my amendment. i have heard representative birx make mention of this, let me just tell you this about dan. he and i fight like on a number of issues, all through the 80s,
in through the 90s. we tried to find where we could, commonality on things that pushed us and pushed the congress in the wrong direction. in fact, we got in one argument in front of president reagan, who jokingly said, can i take you guys out and buy even ice cream cone and get you to agree? dan and i, we had strong differences. very strong differences. but at the end of the day, i thought where you could make a common sense argument, you could win over his support. he thought where he could make a common sense argument, he could win over mine. and so when i look up at the portrait of elijah cummings hanging, i'm reminded that elijah always said that we can do better. and mister chairman, you are absolutely right about the last congress. you voted to have this sort of
amendment in place, and the majority rules, and in that instance, they may have been misplaced in its report. but, having said all of that, this provides us with a fresh opportunity not to turn left, not to turn right. but to go ahead, together, as a committee, recognizing if not then, but who knows, two years from now where they might be in that same position, where somebody on the other side makes the argument for this amendment. life is too sure that, and i think more importantly that anything else, when it comes to subpoena witnesses and documents, they're up to be at least where we can be provided, essentially a bipartisanship so that democrats and republicans are, in fact, agreeing on those subpoenas. . i would ask people to keep that in the back of your mind, when use the term reset, i think that's the perfect word for the
situation. we can reset the clock now and start moving in the right direction, or we can continue and the path that we're going which is both the ranking member and chairman said, is a back and forth seesaw on whoever controls. i yield back. >> chairman yields back. mr. biggs? >> thank you, mister chairman. i am fascinated on this desire for freshness, it desire for a reset, having wandered through these halls for some period of time. what this rule is without the amendment is not dissimilar from you see in the judiciary chair, and that happens, and we have been content with the. we've lived with the, we know how it works. quite frankly, we know how it works in here because that's
what my friends across the aisle have engaged in for the last four years. this is nothing unusual. the notion that this is going to provide unity if we adopt this amendment is almost laughable on its face. that it will provide a clinton, secretary of state clinton russian reset moment is also laughable. the reality is, we have disparity here. we view the world differently. where we can find accommodation, we should and we will, but there is nothing unique, the czar or above order on the current underlying rule that we will be voting on. and so, to say that we must
have this freshness and reset, basically saying, now that you have control, we don't want you to treat us the way that you've treated us. you don't want to be treated the way you've been treating us, and you're saying, please, please have mercy, and the reality for me is, the pendulum may have begun real far to the left. it will spin back to the right, and ultimately, it will find equilibrium. equilibrium will come as we find points of accommodation, points that we agree on and going forward, but this amendment does not begin to do it -- to do what i think you are telling me it is going to do. i irredeemably opposed it. >> well the gentleman yields
for ten seconds? >> i've already yield back. >> i just want to set the record state. i am not saying, please, please have mercy. i am a fighter, that's not what i am saying. >> fair enough. >> i say, please, please, let's try to correct a wrong. >> that is fair enough, thank you. i appreciate that. i think everybody in this committee are fighters, and that's part of the reason that we love being on the committee. we are each fighting for what we truly believe is the best situation for the country. thank you, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the chair from georgia. >> i really appreciate the sentiments of bipartisanship. i think that is what is missing in congress, but i would also like to remind the committee that after two years of a very heavy controlled and here in congress and on committees, where republicans did not have a voice, i am particular, had
no voice, having no committees, being stripped of them by our former speaker and democrats in congress. i think it's also important to point out that as far as subpoenas are concerned and bringing up president trump and how his family has been treated by democrats, eric trump in particular, has been subpoenaed over 400 times and as never broken a law. i think subpoena power is extremely important, but i oppose this amendment because the democrats have proven what they do with subpoena power, especially with the january six committee. i think we can trust republicans on this dominion, our new chairman, jimmy comer, to do a great job but it. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. no one else seeks recognition, the question is on the emmett. although some favor, say i? >> i -- >> all those opposed, say no?
>> now -- >> in opinion at the chair, the noes have it. >> records the votes. >> the record of votes have been requested. >> mister chair, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment number five for the rules of the committee of oversight and accountability, as >> the chair recognizes representative porter. >> thank you, mister chair. i moved to offer this amendment so that our subcommittee rules are consistent with the house rules that we just enacted. this amendment would set forth a simple, clear process for the chair to determine when it is appropriate, and if it is appropriate for a non governmental witness to appear remotely. before i served in congress, i
was a witness before congress many times, and it is difficult for people of regular means, people in rural areas, people from tribal communities, to be able to travel here to washington. often on short notice and always at their personal expense. i think this committee room and the halls of congress need to be filled with the voices of regular americans, americans who are living and experiencing the very problems and challenges that we are trying to do oversight of. they should not be a committee room where the voices of lobbyists again and again are heard and heard loudly. i think this is an important rule to allow everyday americans for modest means from rural areas, indigenous areas, people with disability that cannot travel. when they chaired torments it's appropriate to allow them to appear remotely. again, this is entirely consistent with the republican rules package that was just enacted. and setting for the procedure so that the chair in his
discussion may exercise that authority really. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> i pledge to follow the house rules. in fact, i am bound by them to take on the steps necessary to see permission for a witness to appear remotely. the house rules give permission for witnesses to appear remotely and provide the instructions for this accommodation. i don't believe my friend on the angriest side of the aisle has demonstrated why this amendment is necessary, so i urge my colleagues to vote against it. ranking member raskin? >> thank you kindly, i would hope that this would be universally adopted is completely consistent and following through on the rules of the house. the amendment ensures that the public is not wrapped of essential testimony from people across the country. oftentimes, we talk about wanting voices of americans to
be hurt here. this is precisely the way to do it. it allows equal access to the right to testify, to make sure that witnesses are not far from participation, either because of distance, money or travel delays, whatever might be the circumstances beyond their control. it's common sense, and i hope we all endorse it. a yield back to mr. chairman. >> miss moran? >> i support this amendment, and i call two attention of the committee that the congress is evenly divided, so it will make a difference that such a member be able to vote remotely, and i strongly support the amendment. >> mister chair? >> the chair recognizes mrs. porter. >> i want to clarify that the amendment does not permit voting remotely. the amendment at the desk
allows non governmental witnesses who would otherwise had to potentially travel to this committee on short notice to be able, in the chairs discretion, to appear remotely. it does not affect our duties, it's about lifting up the voice of the full swath of the american people. >> i will do everything in my ability, if you have a witness that the matches that they don't have the financial means or whatever to be able to appear in person, then we will work with them anyway we can to accommodate. we will take that on a case by case basis, that is my pledge. i don't think this amendment is necessary. any other member seek recognition? if no one else seeks recognition, the question is on the amendment. all those in favor, say i. >> i. >> all those opposed, no. >> no. in opinion at the chair, the noes have it. any other member seek recognition? >> recorded vote has been requested. the recall vote will be
postponed, it will be announced in advance. >> mister chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will doesn't it the amendment. >> amendment number six to the rules of the committee on oversight and accountability, as offered by representative crockett. >> the chair recognizes miss crockett. >> thank you, mister chair. this amendment will quite simply restore the civil rights and civil liberty subcommittee that's been a vital part of this committee's work for the past four years. in light of the tragedy at this past weekend, passage of the amendment and the restoration of the civil rights subcommittee, which shows the american people what this committee stands for, whether we will waste taxpayers time and money on fishing expeditions or whether we will dedicate ourselves to holding those who violate the civil and human rights of our constituents accountable. because under the current rules package, if one of our constituents have their civil rights violated or the civil
liberties curtailed, this committee offers no place for them to turn. the rules as written set an unmistakable message to the american people that the civil rights and liberties are no longer a priority in the 118th congress as they have been in the past sessions of congress. i know that each of us regardless of our political backgrounds believe earnestly and the importance of civil rights and liberties, so why would we turn a blind eye to the violation, especially at a time like this one across the nation from small towns to big cities, americans are crying out against the horrible injustice that was perpetrated against tyre nichols and so many others every single day. it is undeniable that the civil rights of american people are under there, and this committee might do something about it. i congress has a proud legacy conducting history making investigations that rallies the nation to its most humane resolutions. in 1871, less than two years after the passage of the 15th
amendment, guaranteed the right to vote, regardless of race, the ku klux klan used domestic terrorism to infringe at the newly guaranteed civil right to vote, and i'm like later times when members of the kkk and vigilantes and 1870s, local officials of all stripes took part in this vile organization. and the face of this brazen attack on american civil rights, the congress rolled up its sleeves and conducted real investigatory oversight, producing after a ten month investigation with 15 pages of reports. the findings of that investigation were the cornerstone on which after great struggle, the landmark civil rights act of 1875 is built. as the committee charged with oversight and accountability, this is the legacy we inherit and we owe it to the american people to live up to it. so went over 100 people every year or losing their lives in routine traffic stops, went over a dozen large police departments are operating under consent decrees for violations
of their citizens civil liberties and when the attention of a nation is focused on the issue of civil rights, it is our duty to rise to the occasion and conduct oversight and provide accountability on this crucial subject. and that streak of the shared responsibility, but without this amendment, that is what passage of the current rules would do. no one really argued that government federal workforce committee's right committee to address the eagle -- upsetting that argument only gives more reason for concern. at the five causes concerning the jurisdiction of the committee comprised themselves of 18 identify subjects, only one of which could be construed to be used to investigate the tragic circumstances that the death of tyre nichols. the current rules package barry's civil rights as one of over a dozen charges that subcommittee, when upholding american civil rights and liberty should be one of the core functions --
it is a question of values, a question of legacy, a quotient of justice. as the delicacy of the committee. let's assure the american people that we hear them and we are fighting for them. let us restore the subcommittee on civil rights and civil remedies. i urge passage and with that, you've back. >> gentlelady yields back. let me be very clear, any topic that is not mentioned and the subcommittee jurisdiction is reserved for the full committee, so we can have a committee hearing, and this committee, basically anything we want. i know there are a knot of newcomers on the committee. i want to go back and history a bit. i requested with chairman maloney, who i had a lot of respect for, and i think even members on the other side of the aisle that were on the committee last year would agree, we had a good working relationship. we work together, not just maloney and i but several members of this committee and
bipartisan legislation. this but with the committee says, there is a lot of bipartisan work that the quiz in the committee, and there could be a lot more. last year, chairman maloney and i and mr. lynch worked together to pass what i think was the most significant bipartisan bill last year in congress, the culture reform bill. we will have postmaster general dejoy before the committee soon to give us an update of how that is going, to see what other improvements need to be made moving forward with the -- weave legislature jurisdiction here. chairwoman mace and rocha worked together on a lot of cybersecurity, bipartisan bills. i worked with former ranking member hice, mr. connally on many good government bills to come out of the committee, so there were a lot of bipartisan success in the committee, but i requested several committee hearings to chairwoman maloney
that would have been and should have been bipartisan. i want to go to this. we were very interested and very concerned how some of the covid funds were being spent, but we never had a committee hearing like we will have tomorrow to examine the covid spending. i know the covid select committee, which is a different committee, had some hearings on the, but this oversight, we never had a single hearing on the. we were concerned about the organization of -- i know there was a select committee, but there was separation between this committee and the select committee. i hope we are closer and i am confident we will be closer next year, because i was not on the select committee last year. the chairman served as ex officio on the committee. i think we will be working a lot closer with that select subcommittee action -- or this year, then we did last year. i requested a hearing with the fda to look at the cbd oil.
we're all over the board on this. there are people that support cbd oil, human -- there are people that opposed on both sides of the aisle. that's something that we should have done and could have done, but she refused. most baffling to me, something that will definitely have been very soon in the committee, we want it a bipartisan pairing on the pharmacy benefit managing. we had several hearings on the committee on prescription drug prices but never touched on the things that i think is an area where there is bipartisan support, do you agree this border? on the pbm, so we will have those hearings in this committee. i think there is going to be a lot of opportunity to work together, and there will be opportunity for -- we will disagree, but i do believe that there will be a lot of opportunities to work together. if there are hearings that my
friends on the other side of the aisle are interested in having that would have bipartisan support, i am very open to the. we are going to me a lot in this committee. you have to work hard to be on this committee. we will have a very active subcommittee process. any topic that's not mentioned in the disrupts the committee jurisdiction is reserved for -- i don't believe that this amendment is necessary, and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. there's any other member seek recognition? ranking member raskin? >> thank you, mister chairman. thank you for that expression and openness to have a hearing on a whole range of matters that will bring us together in the committee and interesting ways. i very much appreciate that sensibility that you have brought to the job, and i am glad that we are going to begin on covid 19 relief and some uses that have taken place
under that program. that is certainly something that we pursued a very aggressively and the covid 19 select committee, select subcommittee, rather. i am delighted that the over second media will take it up. having said that, i do want to strongly support the gentle ladies amendment. the gentlelady from texas, we talked about civil rights and constitutional lawyer, distinguished in her field, raises the important point that we had a civil rights liberty subcommittee, which seems to have vanished under the rules, and with mr. cummings looking down on us, i feel the obligation to stand and defense of this subcommittee, which i was the first and only chair of. i got to serve with miss mace from south carolina and ranking member who did terrific bipartisan work in that subcommittee and civil
liberties. there is an important point that makes this something far more than a semantic issue being raised by the gentlelady from texas. mr. cummings was always adamant that there are two major purposes for the oversight committee. one is to make sure that the laws and programs that congress adopts actually goes to the benefit of the people that they're intended for and not siphoned off and waste and self enrichment and corruption and other forms of fraud and abuse, but the other purpose is to make sure that the government is always respecting the rights and freedoms of civil liberties of people and the conduct of its operations, and so, the gentle lady raises an important point about our structural focus as a committee. our subcommittee was able to look at things that brought us together across partisan lines, including certain kinds of uses
and the war on drugs, treatment of marijuana, governmental seizures and forfeitures the violated single liberties of the people. we look that extremist political violence being led by a dangerous extremist groups in the country. we had multiple hearings on that, even before the explosion of violence that overcame congress in the capital on january six, 2021. i strongly support the gentlelady's amendment. are you back to you, mister chairman. >> the chairman yields back, the chairman recognizes miss greene. >> miss crockett, i do agree with you about tyre nichols that. i did watch the video, and it was tragic and extremely difficult to watch. i would also like to point out that the city's democrat -controlled, and the five officers that have been arrested and charged are black. i think that this is an not in issue of racism or anything
like that. i think that the judge and jury in the trial needs to work out what happened there. i share that with you, but i would like to also point out something that i hope you share with me. there is a woman in this room whose daughter was murdered on january six, ashley bab, and ashley babis, there's never been a trial. as a matter of fact, no one has cared about the person that shot and killed her, and no one in this congress really addressed that issue. the january six committee did not address it. i believe that there are many people that came into the capitol on january six whose civil rights and liberties are being violated heavily. this committee, will, i hope, mister chairman, look into those civil rights abuses because they're happening out of jail right here in the city, and i hope miss nor in will care about that as well. as well as just across the country. i've been in that show, and
it's not just the january 6th defendant, pretrial by the way, it's many at the inmates living in horrific conditions, so i think that is something that you and i could care about. >> will she potentially good for a moment? >> no, i will not yield. i would like to say and point out the civil rights liberties are important, but we have to make sure that we crack down on the two tier justice system because that needs to and. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentle lady yields back or time. any further -- seeing none, the question is on the amendment. all those in favor, say i. >> i -- >> all those opposed, say no -- >> no. >> an opinion editor, the noes have it. >> i would like to request recorded vote. >> recorded vote has been requested, roll call vote will be postponed, the results will be announced and events. >> mister chairman, i have an amendment. >> the clerk will designate the
amendment. >> amendment number seven to the rules of the committee on oversight and accountability as offered by representative donald. 's >> the chair recognizes mr. donald for five minutes. >> mister chairman and to the members, what -- what we've been doing under discussion at this committee. for the freshman to are here, people who watched committees, the colleagues who have been there for a long time, the process of all the committees in congress has typically been seen order recognition, so that members have simply come and by the seniority, you have your five minutes, you're recognized and not all members but a lot of our members do leave at the end of five minutes. we have witnesses at some room. -- there are back-and-forth witnesses across the room, and there is no broader discussion by the committee. my rule changed what would provide is an ability for all members to be recognized through teacher, so that the
members had their discussion of one they want to engage in dialogue would go to the chair. you would not be constrained to simply your five minutes. you'd have an ability to engage in dialogue, whether it's a witness directly, this is something later and discussion that you want to circle around and speak to or to even have dialogue through witnesses on members of the other side of the aisle. this rule change actually facilitates debate in committees. something that i found coming as a freshman, we do very little of. this rule change would actually up our committees be more efficient and time because instead of being structured in five minute blocks where, obviously, we have many staff members in the room, where the staff rank our commentary to five minutes, it would give us the ability to get to the point and sometimes, instead of eating five minutes, you only
need two or maybe even. one the thing it would do is that we have issues with government officials who do have to come before the committee, and sometimes, there that time is limited. what this would provide for is the ability for their time to be respected and for the members of the committee's who have less seniority, freshman, less ability to engage with members before -- that was the structure of the amendment. i would also add that, there are members of my side of the aisle, we have concern about this moment, because we are in a process where we kind of structure our days and our time based on what -- many of us have committees for structure of the house that should be change. to my colleague on the other side from florida, we know how that works in the state legislator, where you actually schedule your committees some blocks so that members can be where they need to be, but because this is something that is new to congress, and i think
it's something that congress does need, but also to respect the discretion of our chair, my hope is that the chairman will work with us all to make sure that we facilitate more debate in our process because in the oversight committee you are going to be touching many topics that are going to require the debate of the members do witnesses instead of just speech-ifying through the witnesses for clips and reels and all that fun stuff, so in the essence of being supportive of mature, i want to make sure that we are working effectively and efficiently in the committee. i will withdraw my amendment, but i do think it's something that members should think about not just in this congress but in the evolution of congress in years to come. mister chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. if i may respond, i will work with you on that and i agree with what you're saying, and we will make every accommodation possible to do exactly what you just said there. any other member seek
recognition on amendments? seeing none, we are going to recess until 12:30, and then we will have those votes at 12:30. we'll try to get through this as quickly as possible. we want to be very efficient and respectful of your time. we'll have ten minutes to gather everybody devotes and our 11 minutes, -- the committee is now in recess. >> it's now in order to pick up the postponed recorded votes. a recorded vote has been requested for amendment raskin number one. the clerk will file rule. >> mr. jordan, mr. jordan vote no.
mr. turner? mr. gosar? miss fox? miss fox votes now. mr. grove man? mr. grove mean votes no. mr. palmer? mr. palmer votes no. mr. higgins? mr. higgins vote no. mr. sessions? mr. sessions votes no. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes now. miss may's? miss votes now. mr. laturner? mr. fallon? mr. fallon votes no. mr. donald's? mr. donald votes no.
mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong those no. mr. perry? mr. perry votes no. mr. timmins? mr. timmins votes no. mr. birch? miss greene? miss greene votes now. miss mcclain? miss mcclain votes now. miss boebert? miss val barber votes no. mr. fry? mr. fry votes now. miss luna? miss luna votes now. charlotte or edwards? mr. edwards votes now. mr. langworthy?
mr. langworthy votes now. mr. burlison? mr. burlison votes now. charlotte mr. raskin? mister raskin votes i. miss norton? miss norton votes yes. mr. lynch? mr. lynch votes yes. mr. connally? mr. connally votes yes. mr. krishnamoorthi? charlotte a question mark the votes yes. mr. connor? mr. connor votes yes. châteauguay and to me? charlotte votes yes. miss acosta cortez? miss across the cortez but yes. miss porter? miss porter votes yes. miss bush?
charlotte's bush votes yes. miss brown? miss brown votes yes. mr. gomez? charlotte mr. gomez votes yes. miss stansbury? chiraz mr. garcia? mr. garcia votes yes. mr. frosts? mr. frosts votes yes. miss ballot? miss ballor votes yes. honestly? to mislead votes yes. mr. saar? mr. gosar votes yes. miss crockett? charlotte to miss crockett but yes. mr. coleman? mr. moskowitz? mr. moskowitz votes yes. mister chairman?
>> all right. the amendment fails. a recorded vote has been requested for raskin's amendment number two and the clerk will call the roll. >> did you say raskin -- mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes no. mr. turner? mr. gosar? miss fox? ms. fox votes no. mr. grossman? mr. grothman votes no. mr. palmer? mr. palmer votes no. mr. higgins? mr. higgins votes no. mr. sessions?
mr. sessions votes no. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes no. ms. mace? ms. mace votes no. mr. laturner? mr. liu votes no. mr. fallon? mr. fallon votes no. mr. donald's? mr. donald's votes no. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. mr. perry? mr. perry votes no. mr. timmins? mr. timmons votes no. mr. risch etched? mr. birch it? ms. green? ms. green votes.
no ms. maclean? maclean votes? no ms. boebert? ms. boebert votes no. mr. fry? mr. fry votes no. ms. luna? >> no. >> ms. luna votes no. mr. edwards? mr. edward edwards votes no. mr. langworthy? mr. langworthy votes no. mr. burlison? mr. burlison votes no. mr. raskin? >> aye. >> mr. raskin votes. no >> ms. norton? >> aye. >> ms. votes yes. mr. lynch. mr. lynch votes yes. mr. connally? >> aye. >> mr. krishnamoorthi? mr. krishnamoorthi votes yes.
mr. khanna? aye. >> mr. kwisi mfume? -- >> you ms.? >> aye. >> ms. acosta cortez votes. yes >> ms. porter. -- ms. brown votes yes. mr. gomez? mr. gomez votes yes. miss stansbury? mr. garcia? mr. garcia votes yes. mr. frost? mr. frost boasts yes. ms. balint? ms. balint votes yes. ms. lee? ms. lee votes yes. mr. coast guard?
>> aye. >> mr. you qatar votes yes. >> ms. crockett? >> aye. >> ms. a crockett votes yes. mr. moskowitz? mr. moskowitz votes yes. mister chairman -- >> i vote no. does any other member seek to be recognized to vote? if not, the clerk will report the tally. >> 23 knows, 19 yes is. >> the amendment fails. so, a recorded vote has been requested for the lynch amendment and the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. jordan?
mr. turner? mr. gosar? ms. fox? >> no. >> ms. fox votes no. >> mr. grothman? mr. grothman votes no. mr. palmer? mr. palmer votes no. mr. higgins? mr. higgins votes no. mr. sessions? mr. sessions votes no. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes no. ms. mace? ms. mace votes no. mr. laturner? mr. laturner votes no? mr. fallon? mr. fallon votes no. mr. donald. 's >> no. >> mr. donald's votes no. mr. armstrong?
mr. armstrong votes no. mr. perry? mr. perry votes no. mr. timmins? mr. timmons votes no. mr. burkett? ms. green? ms. green votes no. ms. mcclain? ms. mcclain votes no. miss boebert? miss boebert votes no. mr. fry? mr. fry votes no? miss luna? they >> know. >> ms. luna votes no. the nestor edwards? mr. edwards votes. no mr. langworthy? >> no. >> mr. burlison? they >> know. >> mr. the burlison votes no?
the >> mr. raskin. yeah -- >> ms. norton votes yes. >> mr. lynch? mr. lynch votes yes. >> aye. >> mr. connally votes yes. >> mr. krishnamoorthi? mr. krishnamoorthi votes yes. -- mr. khanna votes. yes >> mr. kwisi mfume? >> aye. -- ms. reporter? >> aye. >> ms. porter votes yes. -- ms. brown votes yes. mr. gomez? mr. gomez votes yes.
ms. stansbury? mr. garcia. >> aye. you >> mr. garcia votes yes. -- ms. balint votes yes. ms. lee? ms. lee votes yes. mr. qatar? -- gosar? -- mr. goldman? mr. moskowitz? >> yes. >> mr. moskowitz votes yes. mister chairman? >> the chairman votes no. >> how has mr. burchett been recorded? >> he is not recorded. >> mr. burchett votes no. >> mr. burchett votes no.
>> has any other member not been recognized for a vote? can the clerk please report the tally? >> 23 noes and 19 yes. >> the amendment 23 no, 19 yes. >> the amendment fails. now that a recorded vote has been requested for the mfume amendment, the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. jordan? mr. turner? mr. gosar? ms. fox? >> no. >> ms. fox votes no. >> mr. grothman votes no. mr. palmer?
when >> no. >> mr. palmer votes no. -- mr. sessions votes no. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes no. ms. mace? ms. mace votes no. mr. laturner? mr. laturner votes no. mr. fallon? mr. fallon votes no. mr. donalds? >> no. >> mr. donald's votes no. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. mr. perry? mr. perry votes no. but mr. timmons? i >> know. mr. burchett? mr. burchett votes no. ms. green? ms. green votes no.
-- ms. boebert? >> no. >> ms. boebert votes no. mr. fry? mr. fry votes no. i mean luna? ms. luna votes no. mr. edwards? mr. edwards votes no. mr. langworthy? mr. langworthy votes no. mr. burlison? >> no. you >> mr. burlison votes no. >> aye. >> mr. raskin votes. no >> ms. norton? >> mr. lynch? -- >> mr. connally? >> aye. >> mr. krishnamoorthi? >> aye.
mr. costar votes yes. mr. goldman? -- mr. moskowitz? mr. moskowitz votes yes. mister chairman? >> the chairman votes now and how has mr. jordan been recorded? >> mr. jordan has not been reported. mr. jordan votes. now >> has mr. fallon been recorded? >> yes, mr. fallon votes no. any other member seek recognition? seeing none, the clerk will record the tally. 24 no's, 19 yes. >> the amendment fails. a recorded vote has been requested for the porter amendment. the clerk will call the roll.
>> mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes no. mr. turner? mr. gosar? ms. fox? >> fox votes no. >> ms. fox votes no. -- mr. palmer? >> no. >> mr. palmer votes no. -- mr. sessions? -- mr. sessions votes no. mr. bags? mr. biggs votes no. ms. mace? ms. mace votes no? mr. laturner? mr. laturner votes no. mr. fallon? >> -- >> mr. fallon votes no.
mr. donalds? mr. downes votes no. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. mr. perry? mr. perry votes no. mr. timmons? mr. timmons votes no. mr. burchett? >> burchett! >> no, he's not, he's messing with. you stop, it's fine. [laughter] >> ms. green? -- ms. mcclain votes no. ms. boebert? >> -- >> mr. fry? mr. fry votes no. ms. luna?
ms. luna votes no. mr. edwards? mr. edwards votes no. mr. langworthy? mr. langworthy votes no. mr. burlison? >> no. >> mr. burlison votes no. -- ms. norton? >> yes. >> ms. norton votes yes. mr. lynch? mr. lynch votes yes. mr. connally? >> aye. >> mr. connally votes yes. mr. krishnamoorthi? >> aye. >> mr. krishnamoorthi votes yes. >> mr. khanna? >> yes. -- ms. ocasio-cortez?
>> i aye. -- >> ms. porter votes yes. mrs. bush? mrs. bush votes yes. ms. brown? ms. brown votes yes. mr. gomez? mr. gomez votes yes. ms. stansbury? mr. garcia? mr. garcia votes yes. mr. frost? >> aye. >> mr. frost votes yes. >> ms. balint? to balint votes yes. ms. lee. ms. lee votes yes. -- ms. crockett? >> aye. >> mr. goldman?
mr. moskowitz? mr. moskowitz votes yes. mister chairman? >> i vote no. does any other member but -- wish to vote? seeing none, the clerk will report the tally. >> 24 no, 19 yes. >> the porter amendment fails. the recorded vote has been requested for the crockett amendment. the clerk will now call the roll. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes no. mr. turner? mr. gosar? >> i read that -- okay. >> ms. fox?
>> ms. norton votes yes. mr. lynch? >> aye. -- mr. krishnamoorthi? >> it's burchett. a >> aye. >> [laughter] >> you must are krishnamoorthi votes yes. mr. khanna? -- mr. mfume? -- mr. kazuo cortez? >> ocasio-cortez? -- mrs. bush? ms. bush votes yes. ms. brown? ms. brown votes yes. mr. gomez? mr. gomez votes yes. ms. stansbury?
mr. garcia. mr. garcia votes yes. mr. frost? >> aye. >> mr. frost votes yes. >> ms. a. balint? -- i -- ms. li lee votes yes? -- mr. goldman? mr. moskowitz? >> yes. r ecorde>> mr. moskowitz votes ye. -- i vote no. how is mr. perry been recorded? >> mr. perry has not been recorded. mr. perry votes no. >> do have any other members not been recorded? seeing none, the clerk will
please report the tally. >> 24 no's, 19 yes. >> the crockett amendment fails. since we've -- since we've concluded our votes on the amendments, i move that the proposed rules be adopted as rules of the committee on oversight and accountability for the 118 congress. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. all opposed say no? >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. -- >> a recorded vote has been requested. will the clerk please call the roll? >> mr. jordan? -- mr. jordan votes yes. mr. turner? mr. gosar? ms. foxx? >> yes. --
>> mr. grothman? mr. growth and votes yes. mr. palmer? mr. palmer votes yes. mr. higgins? mr. higgins votes yes. mr. sessions? >> aye. >> mr. sessions votes yes. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes yes. ms. mace? ms. mace votes yes. mr. laturner? >> aye. -- >> mr. fallon votes yes. mr. donald's? mr. donald votes yes. mr. armstrong. mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. perry? i. we mr. perry votes yes.
mr. burchett? -- ms. grain? >> aye. i >> ms. green votes yes. ms. mcclain? miss mcclain votes yes. ms. boebert? ms. boebert votes yes. mr. fry? mr. fry votes yes. ms. luna? >> aye. -- >> mr. edwards votes yes. mr. langworthy? mr. langworthy votes yes. mr. burlison? mr. -- >> aye. >> mr. burlison votes yes. -- >> --
>> no. >> mr. lynch votes no. >> mr. connally? >> nay. >> mr. connally votes no. >> mr. krishnamoorthi? >> mr. krishnamoorthi votes no. >> mr. khanna? >> no. >> mr. connor votes no. >> mr. mfume? >> no. >> mr. and who may votes. no >> ms. ocasio-cortez? >> no. >> ms. ocasio-cortez votes no. -- ms. bush? -- mr. gomez votes no? ms. stansbury? mr. garcia? >> no.
>> mr. garcia votes no. mr. frost? mr. frost votes no. ms. balint? ms. balint votes no. ms. lee? ms. lee votes no. mr. costs are? mr. costar votes no. -- mr. goldman? mr. moskowitz? mr. moskowitz votes no. mr. chairman? >> yes. does any member need to vote? everybody voted? will the clerk please report the tally? >> 24 yes, 19 no. >> the rules are adopted. and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house rules, the
rules adopted by the committee on oversight and accountability for the 118th congress will be published and in the congressional record and made available to all members and the public on the committee's website. before we conclude the organizational meeting i want to yield to our ranking member raskin for some closing remarks. >> mister chairman, thank you very much. i just want to briefly return to something you mentioned at the start of the meeting. our staff have been working hard to updated bipartisan agreement that outlines how we will jointly handle certain issues, such as maintaining whistleblower protection for witnesses, the use of committee records, committing to not investigate each other staff, our security clearance policy and several other such items of agreement based on community precedent. it's intended to facilitate bipartisan cooperation, transparency and fairness to the committee can conduct its mission as efficiently and effectively and as a united way as possible. i hope we can continue our productive conversations and
appreciate your continuing thoughtful consideration in this regard and i yield back. >> i just love this newfound willingness for bipartisanship. i think we are going to get along just fine. so, this concludes today's organizational meeting. without objection, committee staff are authorized to make technical and conforming changes to reflect the action of the committee in adopting the resolution embodying our rules. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. >> all right. >> mister chairman? >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> on wednesday, attorney general merrick garland testifies for the first time before the 118th congress. he is expected to be asked about the recent indictment of a former fbi official, as well as several other ongoing justice department investigations. watch live coverage of the senate judiciary committee hearing at 10 am eastern, on
c-span 3. , you can also watch on our free mobile video app, c-span now or online at c-span.org. >> since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat of how issues are debated and decided, with no commentary, no interruptions and completely unfiltered. c-span -- your unfiltered view of government. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including mediacom. >> at media come, we believe that