tv House Oversight Committee Votes on Subpoena for White House Records CSPAN July 25, 2019 9:00pm-10:23pm EDT
the house committee approved a subpoena for personal emails used by white house advisors ivanka trump and jared kushner. the vote in the oversight and reform committee came after they approved in number of other measures, including renaming several u.s. postal service locations. >> before we come to order, i wanted to welcome some student interns who are at johns hopkins university visiting my district.
welcome. we are pleased to have you. the committee will now come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time, pursuant to commit people five and house rule 11. the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter for adopting reit -- ant of a recorded vote. pursuant to notice, i call up the federal rotational cyber workforce program act of 2019. ,he clerk will report the bill
which was distributed in advance. the federal rotational workforce 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. , margaretry peters hassan, and ron johnson, for on the federal rotational cyber workforce program act of 2019. the bipartisan bill passed the senate by unanimous consent at the end of april, and 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 build -- fill agency skill gaps. requireslation would identifying cyber petitions -- positions eligible for rotation and report those to the office of personnel management. it would be required to distribute a list of the positions available for participation. the bill would require opm, officers andapital the department of homeland security to develop an operational plan for the program that includes a merit based selection process. details would be anda maximum of one year
they would be required to return to their employing agency to serve for the same length of time. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill. it is a good government bill. 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 every day that every time -- every time a child is born, is god saying that he wants the world to continue. mr. jordan. thank you, chairman. i appreciate those comments. added human capital management the list in 2001.
in 2003, they combined the issues. uslier this year, they told the same thing we have heard the last two decades. we have a cyber workforce 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, identified three drivers of modernization i.t., 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
a proposal to fix cyber work force issues, recruit new talent, re-skill 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 similar but slightly different program, the bill imposes new reporting requirements, new obligations on agencies in i am -- in the implementation 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 the text to make necessary changes before it goes to the floor to make sure it fully reflects the trump administration's initiatives. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. miss maloney. >> [inaudible] >> 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 homeland security recently testified in support of the measure. it is a federal agency that is 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 of such a program 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 to the bill prior to the floor 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. rep. cummings: yes. >> i would like to yield time 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 with this. we have got this report coming out the seventh. 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. rep. cummings: the gentleman yields? >> yes, sure. rep. cummings: we are certainly willing to work with you. i just think it is so important, with the shortage of cyber 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. rep. cummings: there being no further discussion, question now occurs on reporting favorably to the house. all those in favor, signal by saying aye. all those opposed, signify saying no. in the 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 up hr 3889, the ondcp technical corrections act. the clerk will report the bill , which was distributed in advance.
>> hr 3889 to amend the office of national drug control policy reauthorization act of 1998 to make technical corrections. rep. cummings: without objection, the bill is considered read and open to amendment at any time. i will recognize the sponsor of the bill, mr. ruda of california to speak on his legislation. i commend him for taking leadership on the issue. you have 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 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.
in 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. the support act included provisions to reauthorize and reform the office of national drug control policy a component , of the executive office of the president. it plays a critical role in the federal government's drug control efforts. however, there were several technical issues in the support act that must be fixed to ensure that ondcp can carry out these provisions as congress intended, and improve the federal government's 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 the effectiveness of grant programs. i would like to thank committee staff on both sides of the aisle for working to develop and advance this bill as well as congressman meadows for joining me as co-lead of the legislation. i look forward to the committee passing this bill today. there's much more to be done to address the addiction crisis. i look forward to working with all my colleagues on this important issue. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. rep. cummings: thank you very much. we yield to the ranking member, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill makes technical amendments to a law that was passed last congress to reauthorize the office. last year we moved quickly to reinvigorate the office and give the administration additional authorities to address the
opioid crisis, a 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 the ranking member meadows and the chairman, to revitalize with important changes for the opioid crisis and other issues is important. with that, i yield back. rep. cummings: thank you very much. i want to thank my colleagues, represent rouda and meadows for their collaboration and leadership on the ondcp act of 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 claimed 70,000 lives in 2017 alone. it is critical that ondcp can operate as effectively and evil as psible to combat the crisis -- as efficiently and effectively 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 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. >> [indiscernible] rep. cummings: 3889. >> [indiscernible] now, pursuant to notice, i call up the following
postal naming bills, which 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 -- >> 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. rep. cummings: let me just say this. we have so many heroes and sheroes in our country. i applaud members who 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 these postal naming bills. hearing no further discussion on the bills, i request unanimous
consent -- >> [indiscernible] rep. cummings: we're going to call the -- >> [indiscernible] rep. cummings: without objection, what we'll do is we will call the vote on block and take the yays and nays. all those in favor of the postal naming bills signify with aye. those opposed, no. it appears that the ayes have it. is there a 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 mr. grossman, not a blanket statement, i agree about recognizing individuals and their lives and what they've done, but i do agree with focus of those that served in the military, and some concern that we get loose with who we name after post offices. i associate myself with his remarks. rep. cummings: thank you very much. now pursuant to notice, i call up a resolution relating to investigation of the use of nonofficial electronic messaging accounts by non-career 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. rep. cummings: 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. rep. cummings: without objection, the amendment is considered read and will serve as base text for purposes of amendment. i now recognize myself for five 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 non-official 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 updating 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. 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 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 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 complete refusal to provide any documents whatsoer, 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 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 emas 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. 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 the -- 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. rep. jordan: yesterday in judiciary, democrats had bob mueller testify. they were hoping his testimony would help their crazy impeachment plans. instead it was a total bust. no new information. the democrats are no closer to the goal of impeaching the president. i think they're farther away. thank goodness for that. they don't waste any time. 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 subpoena 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 headlines 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 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 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 be able to see to determined 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, aside from wanting to pursue the emails of the president's daughter and son-in-law. this subpoena is inappropriate and abuse of the committee's authority. i urge my colleagues to vote no. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you very much. as we move to mr. raskin, i remind all members this is the law. >> it is indeed the law mr. chairman. yesterday, the committee heard from special counsel muller, a lifelong republican and decorated vietnam 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 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. i thought that was the whole basis of the hullabaloo about hillary clinton that she was using her personal email account. that is precisely what it sounds like 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, and 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 mcfarland as national security adviser conducted official business on her personal aol.com 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 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 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, but 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 yield back. rep. cummings: mr. jordan. rep. jordan: i would point out, did ivanka trump set up an unofficial server in her home exclusively to conduct all official business on?
>> is 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. -- rep. cummings: wait a minute. 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 thought i would ask them a question. rep. cummings: i am allowing you to do that, i just want one person speaking at a time, that's all. >> 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 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 administration. these are people that have access -- >> hold on. i will let you finish. we're talking about the daughter of the president who has access to information. rep. cummings: excuse me.
miss tlaib, he has the time. >> i'm going to let her back. i want to say what's unprecedented is the personal information it is going after. rep. cummings: let him finish, then he will yield. >> i yield now. rep. cummings: 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. 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. understanding that you are -- >> i will reclaim my time. this subpoena is for personal emails, who their domestic help is, that's ridiculous. that is completely off the table. rep. tlaib: one last point, ranking member, 30 seconds. it stopped being personal when they got access in the room, when they got security clearances, when they are in the room making decisions that impact the american people. they're sitting at the trump organization business table. remember that. d next toere is r or our name, remember that we have -- rep. jordan: i am going to
reclaim my time. this is so different than what happened with secretary clinton. the comparison is not in order. i yield back. rep. cummings: thank you very much. thate remind everybody this is about the official records. this is not about personal records. these are records that the law requires. >> [indiscernible] rep. cummings: let me finish. the law requires 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? rep. cummings: yes. >> 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. rep. cummings: 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? rep. cummings: that is absolutely, incredibly correct. >> so it's not some overly broad fishing expedition. it is quite specific. i thank the chair. rep. cummings: the other thing -- rep. jordan: mr. chairman. rep. cummings: wait a minute. i gave you extra 10 minutes. rep. jordan: no, you didn't. and i yielded it to three members of your side. i want to point to number two. all communications. not official communications. it says all communications. that's what your subpoena says. rep. cummings: 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 -- rep. jordan: would the chairman yield? rep. cummings: yeah. rep. jordan: you made my point. there is no qualifier. it says all communications. that includes personal, too. if it said all communications consistent with the presidential records act, that's one thing. that's not what it says. it says all communications. that is our concern. rep. cummings: let me say -- >> mr. chairman? rep. cummings: yes? >> at the appropriate time, i'd like to move to strike the last word.
rep. cummings: 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 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 a 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 is a law that the white house employees have 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 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 called hypocrisy and inconsistency. i wouldn't allow it with my own 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? rep. cummings: 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. the hypocrisy in here is pretty stunning. this committee has already asked for financial records already , asked for business records. this is going far beyond the 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. it is as obvious as it can be,
and with that, i will yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you for yielding. just a couple points. the gentlelady from florida talked about the clinton example and this example. i didn't bring up hillary clinton. the german did. chairman did. i didn't make that comparison. he did. i was just showing the big difference between the two. the chairman just mentioned the subpoena is 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. so we all know what this 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? rep. jordan: sure.
rep. schultz: 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 -- rep. jordan: 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 private server and -- >> will the gentleman yield? rep. jordan: you don't get to reclaim my time. rep. schultz: i'm not trying to reclaim. i'm asking you to yield. rep. jordan: 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 totally inappropriate. i yield back. rep. cummings: 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 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. did you hear that? with foreign individuals. we spent the entire day yesterday listening to special prosecutor mueller highlighting the threat the russian government posed to the 2016 and subsequent elections and we have a senior adviser to the president communicating with
foreign governments. you should be alarmed. you should be concerned. mr. kushner's attorney did not kushner'sther mr. communications 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. -- selective memory loss. what is going on? i would be concerned about the national security of this government and our elections. 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 systems by political appointees in the white house. the white house has not provided an answer to that letter. laws likean, we pass the presidential records act to protect this government. and to protect this nation. like it is just a total disregard for the law by this administration. i will yield to my friend. >> a question for my friend. assertions 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 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. i do yield. >> 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 an argument by making criticism of a third party. we made an argument about how the law is being violated and mr. jordan said, in an irrelevant distraction from the argument, 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. rep. cummings: 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? 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 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 her own private server. clearly, a violation of many laws. so, i think the hypocrisy here is just unbelievable. it's really about politics, it's pretty clear. and i think it was stated earlier by the ranking member here 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 playing politics before we go on the august recess to try to move this ahead especially after what happened yesterday. i will yield the rest of my time to the ranking member if he wants it. the think -- thank
gentleman for yielding. again, i didn't bring up clinton. the chairman did. 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 that press conference, too. i remember jim comey saying she did all these things wrong, but oh, by the way, 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 clinton. hillary clinton never complied with the law. when it was brought to ivanka trump's attention, she said sure. she turned over whatever was on 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. if we're going to have the comparison, let's talk about the facts. 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, i would say oh my goodness, too. >> would you concede that 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 -- you concede that even
if we are 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 i understand it, personal counsel for kushner and trump confirmed to this 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. 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 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.
and the presidential records act is basically saying once you step into a position of public trust, i.e. 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 anymore. 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. 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 back. >> with gentleman yield to me? yeah, i yield to -- thank you to the chairman. on december 19, 2018, former chairman trey gowdy -- remember him? and i met with mr. lowell along with the committee staff directed us to meet with mr. lowell at our requested -- as i 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, his client, uses messaging applications to conduct official business. mr. lowell told us mr. kushner preserved records of his, his messages, by taking screen shots of his conversations and then forwarding them to his official account. three months letter -- three months later, after i disclosed our conversation in a letter to the white house, mr. lowell claimed that my letter was, quote, "not 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 official business. mr. lowell himself stated in his letter, and i quote, "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 white house's use of personal emails. and we need subpoenas to get answers. i want to distinguish myself with mr. starbangs. i mean, 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. duh! come on, now. this is the law. we make the laws. and damn it if you -- excuse me. because i know that'll be on a front page somewhere. >> we heard that. >> i strike my word. that 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. >> mr. chairman, strike 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 -- acknowledging 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 2017 to present? when she's acknowledged this committee, we've had a window of time that she's got on the private servers turning that over when 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 actually looking for as an oversight body? >> would the gentleman yield? >> keeping my time. >> sure, 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, by the way, for personal records. >> mr. chairman, i can yield to the distinguished ranking member in a second. but i understand that. we should comply with the laws. my understanding is 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 that i think is critically important to this whole debate. why are we doing this? because they are working with us to comply with the law to follow what the chairman was just saying. 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 thousands of people poured across the boarder? -- have crossed our border? 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 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 nine to 14 on the line for day shift. they've added the horse patrol. they're 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 , alleging that we're trying to do that in complying with along -- 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 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. and you're going to have 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 phishing 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 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. >> good job. >> mr. connolly? >> i thank the chair. i thank the chair. i have a motion. i do want to just 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. >> i have the time. >> america deserves the time. >> for god's sake. >> america deserves better than what it's just heard from. 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. ok. 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 in favor signify by saying aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> we'll take a roll call now. >> 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. >> miss nortin votes aye. >> mr. clay? >> aye. >> mr. lynch? >> aye. >> mr. lynch votes aye. >> mr. connolly. >> aye. >> mr. connolly votes aye. mr. krishnamorthi? >> aye. >> mr. raskind. >> aye. >> mr. ruda? >> aye. >> miss hill? >> americans deserves an aye. >> miss hill votes aye.
>> miss wasserman schultz? >> aye. >> mr. sarbanes. >> aye. >> mr. welch? >> aye. >> miss spear? >> aye. >> miss kelly? >> aye. >> mr. desonya? >> aye. >> voting for my country, aye. >> miss plasket. mr. kana? >> aye. >> mr. gomez. >> aye. >> miss ocasio-cortez? >> aye. >> miss pressley? >> aye. >> miss taliblib? >> aye. >> mr. jordan? >> mr. jordan votes no. >> 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. armstrong boudinot. no.r. armstrong votes >> mr. stuvy? >> no. >> mr. keller? >> no. >> mr. chairman? 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. >> miss fox votes no. >> has everyone voted? the clerk will give us the tally. >> on this vote, we have 23 ayes and 16 no's. >> on this vote, there were 23 ayes and 16 no's. 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. [laughter] for a good discussion. and i really appreciate it. and now -- huh? the committee is adjourned. thank you. and have a good recess. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. -- let viewers make up their own minds.
c-span open the doors to washington policy making for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed but today, the big idea is more relevant than ever. lookn is your unfiltered so you can make up your own mind, brought to by your cable or satellite provider. journal,'s washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, we'll discuss the deal to increase federal spending and raise the government's borrowing limit with two members of the budget committee. first we talk with brendan boyle. then pennsylvania republican congressman dan meuser. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern friday morning. join the discussion. >>
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on