mr. nadler: dohe

mr. chairman? mr. nadler: i oppose the amendment. the gentlelady from texas, for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? i yield to the gentlelady from texas. >> i'd like to say a couple of things about these databases. an experience we have had in my district in el paso as c.b.p. have continued to separate families, they have used these databases as a resource and as the information found in them as a reason to separate children from parents. we have had case work that has demonstrated the flaws in these -- some of these databases where a father has been accused of being a gang member and we have discovered after much time spent with lawyers, actually the lawyers and lawyers have discovered problems with identity, confusion, similar names, people who have been denied their children as a result of this. ms. escobar: i would just urge the committee, i know members of the committee like to use these databases as a resource, i am telling you based on experience in my district they should not be held up as a reliable resource.

mr. nadler: the bill is adopted. [applause] mr. nadler: the ayes have it. the bill is amended and reported favorably to the house. members will have two days to submit views and will be reported as a and without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes. pursuant to notice, i now call up h.r. 1236, the extreme risk protection order act of 2019 for purposes of markup and move the committee report the bill avorably on the house. i will suspend for a moment while the house is out. mr. nadler: with would like to move on to these bills. people who are coming in, the same. you purpose to notice, i know call up h.r. 120, extreme risk protection order act of 2019. for purposes of markup and i move the committee report the bill favorably on the house. the clerk: h.r. 1236 to support state, local and tribal access from individuals who are a danger to themselves or others pursuant to court orders for this purpose. mr. nadler: without objection, the bill is considered read and open for amendment. i recognize myself for an opening statement

mr. nadler: i don't know. i'm not prepared to accept it at this point. >> i'll withdraw it because we've been here for umteen hours anyway. mr. nadler: i appreciate the gentleman's action. we will be working on. this are there any other amendments? the gentleman from california. . >> i move to amend by striking the last word. mr. nadler: i couldn't hear. >> move to strike the last word. mr. nadler: the gentleman moves to strike the last word. the gentleman is recognized. >> i think it's ironic that the previous bill on binding arbitration it was argued that trial by jury is so important it should be provided even when both parties waived that right in a contract. then we immediately turn around and consider this bill which argues that we should deny first and second amendment rights without a jury. mr. mcclintock: i do believe the underlying premise of this bill s is sound. believe if someone gos out of their way to warn us they want to kill a bunch of people we ought to take them at their word and that's what

mr. nadler: thank you, mr. collins. without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. are there any amendments to the resolution? for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. mr. nadler: the clerk will report the amendment. the gentlelady reserves a point of order, a quorum is not present. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. buck of colorado. to a resolution for investigative procedures offered by chairman nadler. on page 4, beginning on line 97, strike the following-- or committee. mr. nadler: the gentleman is recognized to explain my amendment. >> i withdraw my point of order. mr. nadler: the gentlelady withdraws her point of order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. buck: my amendment is simple. it strikes the word subcommittee from the first procedure of this investigation. impeachment is a serious matter, mr. chairman. the american people deserve to have these proceedings play out in the full committee where we can more fully examine the evide

mr. nadler: thank you, mr. collins. without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. are there any amendments to the resolution? for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. mr. nadler: the clerk will report the amendment. the gentlelady reserves a point of order, a quorum is not present. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. buck of colorado. to a resolution for investigative procedures offered by chairman nadler. on page 4, beginning on line 97, strike the following -- or committee. mr. nadler: the gentleman is recognized to explain my amendment. >> i withdraw my point of order. mr. nadler: the gentlelady withdraws her point of order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. buck: my amendment is simple. it strikes the word subcommittee from the first procedure of this investigation. impeachment is a serious matter, mr. chairman. the american people deserve to have these proceedings play out in the full committee where we can more fully examine the evid

mr. nadler: will the gentleman yield? mr. cline: i yield back. i yield. mr. nadler: thank you. i agree with what i said 20 years ago. i yield back. mr. cline: i yield back, mr. chairman. mr. nadler: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. who else seeks recognition? the gentleman from california. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> to strike the last word. mr. nadler: the gentleman is recognizesed. >> mr. chairman, as i understand, the chair's opening comments, it was in essence, since the rules are silent, that gives us the ability to make them up as we go along. well, no. when the rules are silent, precedent governs. mr. mcclintock: and the precedent's clear, as my colleague from arizona pointed out. in the 206 years that this committee has sat, it has never conducted an impeachment proceeding without first being authorized to do so by a vote of the full house. that's because the power of impeachment belongs to the whole house and the whole house has not delegated that power to any of its committees. it must first make that delegation and to th

>> mr. chairman. mr. nadler: the gentleman from olorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with the chairman and certainly oppose this amendment, i believe the amendment undermines and ultimately weakens the underlying bill. but i again want to go back to the core of why we're here and why we ought to work together to pass this important proposal. there's a gentleman in my state of colorado by the name of tom sullivan. tom sullivan tom sullivan is a state representative who represents his district-able in colorado. he also -- district honorably in colorado. he also happens to be someone whose family has been directly impacted by gun violence. in 2012, on july 20, tom lost his son, alex, in the aurora theater shooting. alex turned 27 that evening. and tom and his wife lost him forever. i know that i can't begin to fathom, to describe the agony that they have experienced as a family at the loss of alex. but they, like our colleague, representive mcbath, who continues to inspire so many of us, they turned that sorrow and that anguish into action. and tom over the cours

mr. nadler: the gentleman yields back. are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. lofgren: i would like to strike the last word. support this bill and the substitute that you have just introduced. as the chair of the california democratic delegation, we are aware in the state of california that california has taken relief in so many gun violence in measures, one of which is the so-called red flag bills. and we know just from the statistics in law enforcement that there are people who really were in a bad place who shouldn't have been armed and the state procedures were used and the public safety was protected. so that's really important thing. we passed bills already and sent them to the senate. no one measure is going to solve every problem. but if we take a number of sensible steps, it will make people safer. and i think that's very important. i wanted to say a word about mr. cash hall, because he took the lead to offer this bill. he

chairman nadler: mr. burke is recognized for 30 minutes. >>. >> mr. chairman, i move to adjourn. >>. >> motion to adjourn is not debatable. chairman nadler: the clark will call the role. -- will call the roll. clerk: mr. nadler? chairman nadler: no. clerk: mr. lofgren votes no. miss jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen votes no. mr. votes no. ms. bass. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. cicilline votes no. mr.wallwell. mr. lieu votes no. mr. raskin votes no. ms. jayapal votes no. miss deming votes no. mr. corea votes no. miss scanlan votes no. . miss garcia votes no. mr. neguse votes no. missmcbath votes no. mr. stanton votes no. ms. dean votes no. ms. mcursel-powell votes no. miss escobar votes no. mr. collins -- [indiscernible] >> motion to adjourn. mr. collins votes aye. mr. sensenbrenner. mr. chavis. mr. gomert. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. buck. mr. radcliffe. ms. robie. mr. gates. mr. johnson of louisiana votes yes. mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. ms. lesko. mr. rpsenthaler. mr. armstrong votes

chairman nadler: mr. burke is recognized for 30 minutes. >> mr. chairman, i move to adjourn. >> motion to adjourn is not debatable. chairman nadler: the clark will call the roll. clerk: mr. nadler? chairman nadler: no. clerk: mr. lofgren votes no. miss jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen votes no. mr. votes no. ms. bass. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. cicilline votes no. mr. liu votes no. mr. raskin votes no. ms. jayapal votes no. miss deming votes no. mr. corea votes no. miss scanlan votes no. miss garcia votes no. mr. neguse votes no. miss mcbath votes no. mr. stanton votes no. ms. dean votes no. ms. mcursel-powell votes no. miss escobar votes no. mr. collins -- [indiscernible] >> motion to adjourn. mr. collins votes aye. mr. sensenbrenner. mr. chavis. mr. gomert. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. buck. mr. radcliffe. ms. robie. mr. gates. mr. johnson of louisiana votes yes. mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. ms. lesko. mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. steubie. mr. gates, you are not recorded. mr. gates vo

mr. nadler's a master of the constitution. congresswoman waters, a strategic thinker, and has her ase before the courts now, the deutsche bank case, along with mr. schiff in that case. chairman neal with his case in the courts on the president's taxes. mr. engel, part of the foreign affairs committee which has jurisdiction in terms of this telephone call as well. but it is an intelligence matter and it is focused in the intelligence committee. i just want to say again on whistleblowers. whistleblowers are important in intelligence -- and intelligence communities specifically have publicly recognized the importance of whistleblowering in pointing out wrongdoing and the importance of protection of

because mr. nadler hasn't even thought when he is going to bring mr. horowitz in to ask our questions he'd rather subpoena you even though you're willing to come voluntary that's the problem thank you for vaelding i yield. >> i yield back mr. kmarm. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman rhode island. >> in between the first meeting on second meet meeting with the president on july 19ing you went on vacation and during that time there was public are the rowing about the trump tower meeting, correct, this is on page 92. >> if it's in the report i believe it to be accurate. >> july 19th when the president for a second time asked you to deliver the meng to sessions you said -- i quote wsh the message would be delivered soon, page 93, correct? >>> page 93. >> but you didn't -- you didn't call jeff sessions didn't try to meet with him. the president asked you twice in the oval office to deliver a secret message to the attorney general of the united states and a message that you quickly wrote down word for word at the president's direction, correct? >>

mr. nadler, you're recognized. mr. nadler: thank you. i will comment on the obvious distraction of the guam case which has nothing to do with what we are talking about and was pretty egregious. let me ask mr. ho. i'm hearing last week in memphis the minority witness suggests that congress was restrained in its ability to adopt legislation to reinvigorate section 53 clearance. essentially because the current level of discrimination is not severe enough, in his opinion, to justify interference in state and local elections and because congress looks at discriminatory effect and not just discriminatory purpose. what is your response? is it not within congress's broad constitutional authority under the reconstruction amendments to determine the existence of discrimination and to assess where discrimination is severe so as to apply a federal legislative response? mr. ho: thank you for that question, chairman nadler. i think congress has the authority in light of current conditions to reinvigorate the voting rights act. the security in city of

chairman nadler: mr. burke is recognized for 30 minutes. >> mr. chairman, i move. >> to adjourn. >> motion to adjourn. >> is not debatable. chairman nadler: the clark will call the role. roll.l call the clerk: mr. nadler? chairman nadler: no. no.k: mr. lofgren votes miss jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen votes no. no. votes ms. bass. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries. mr. cicilline votes no. .r.swallwell no.lieu votes mr. raskin votes no. ms. jayapal votes no. miss deming votes no. mr. corea votes no. .iss scanlan votes no miss garcia votes no. . mr. neguse votes no. no. mcbath votes mr. stanton votes no. ms. dean votes no. mcursel-powell votes no. miss escobar votes no. -- [indiscernible] >> motion to adjourn. mr. collins votes aye. mr. sensenbrenner. mr. chavis. mr. gomert. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. buck. mr. radcliffe. ms. robie. mr. gates. mr. johnson of louisiana votes yes. mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintock votes aye. ms. lesko. mr. rpsenthaler. mr. armstrong votes yes. bie.steu mr. gates, you are not recor

mr. nadler: mr. chair, we have a bedrock principle in this country, and that is that all americans deserve their day day in court. we make a mockery of this principle when individuals can be stripped of this fundamental right and be forced into private arbitration proceedings without the safeguards our initial system affords. we make a mockery of this right not only when individuals can be stripped of this right, but when almost all americans are stripped of this fundamental right and are forced into private arbitration proceedings without the safeguards our judicial system affords. we heard the statistics cited by the gentleman which come from the chamber of commerce and mr. cicilline show how wrong those statistics were. the real point is under this bill if a plaintiff thinks can he get a better deal under arbitration, then the arbitration is available, voluntarily. as it should be. what this bill sooks to ban -- seeks to ban is individuals, almost all americans involuntarily giving up their sacred

the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nadler. >> aye. >> mr. nadler votes aye. ms. lofgren votes aye. ms. jackson lee votes aye. mr. cohen? mr. cohen votes aye. mr. johnson of georgia? mr. johnson of georgia votes aye. mr. deutsche? mr. deutsche votes aye. ms. bass? mr. richmond? mr. richmond votes aye. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries votes aye. mr. swalwell? mr. swalwell votes aye. mr. liu? mr. liu votes aye. mr. raskin? mr. raskin votes aye. ms. demmings? ms. demmings votes aye. ms. scanlon? ms. scanlon votes aye. ms. garcia? ms. garcia votes aye. ms. mcbath? ms. mcbath votes aye. mr. stanton? mr. stanton votes aye. ms. steen? ms. steen votes aye. ms. powell votes aye. ms. escobar? ms. escobar votes aye. mr. collins? >> no. >> mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner? mr. sensenbrenner votes no. mr. gomert? mr. gomert votes no. mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes no. mr. buck? mr. buck votes no. mr. ratcliffe? mr. ratcliffe votes no. ms. roby. ms. roby votes no. mr. gates? mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs? mr. biggs vot

the clerk will call the role >> mr. nadler. >> no. >> miss jackson lee. votes no mr. cohen. >> so it sounds like everything that nadler is is going to say or ask for, someone is going to b object to. thai going to challenge it nadler is going to call for a voice vote it's going to sound like the voice vote is in favor of whatever nadler does because the democrats are on the majority of the panel. so now we're in our second role call in the last ten minutes so this is, this a piece of parliamentary procedure which could cause this to be a, an extremely long year. now calling for the adjournment of the hearing >> how would you describe this hearing in a word? >> oh, i don't think it's a polite word, stephanie a zdisaster so far i don't think this is going the way democrats intended for it to go they should have been prepared for this sort of procedural maneuvering by him he always intended coming in making a mockery of this hearing. that was evident from his tweets this morning democrats need to really take control of the situation now >> joyce >> absolutely none of wha

mr. nadler, you're recognized. thank you. i will comment on the obvious distraction of the guam case nothing to do with what we are talking about and was pretty egregious. ask mr. ho. memphising last week in the minority witness suggest that congress was restrained in its ability to adopt legislation o reinvigorate section 5-3 clearance. essentially because the current level of discrimination is not his opinion, in to justify interference in state and local elections and because at discriminatory effect and not just discriminatory purpose. what is your response? it not within congress's broad constitutional authority nder the reconstruction amendments to determine the existence of discrimination and discrimination is severe so as to apply a federal legislative response? that : thank you for question, chairman nadler. think congress has the authority in light of current conditions to reinvigorate the voting rights act. security in city of burney creates aecision that rule if congress wants to exercise its 14th amendment there

. >> mr. nadler? >> no. >> mr. nadler votes no. >> miss lofgren? >> no. >> miss lofgren votes no. miss jackson lee? miss jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen? mr. johnson of georgia votes no. mr. deutsch? mr. deutsch votes no. miss bass? miss bass votes no. mr. richmond? mr. jeffries? mr. sicilini? >> no. >> mr. sicilini votes no. mr. swalwell? >> no. >> mr. swalwell votes no. miss stemmings? mr. corea? miss scanlon? miss scanlon votes no. miss garcia? >> no. >> miss garcia votes no. mr. nagoose? >> no. >> mr. naguse votes no. miss mcbath? votes no. mr. stanton votes no. miss dean? no. >> miss powell votes no. miss escobar? >> no. >> mr. collins? >> aye. >> mr. collins votes eye. >> mr. sensenbrennor? mr. sensenbrenner votes aye. mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes yes. mr. buck? >> aye. >> mr. buck votes aye plchlt radcliff? mr. radcliff votes yes. miss roby? miss roby votes aye. mr. gates votes eye. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes aye mr. mcclintock votes aye. miss lesko votes aye. mr. rushinthaler? mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. stube votes yes. mr. cohen, you are not recorded. mr. cohen votes no

chairman nadler: mr. lewandowski will answer all questions if he has a legitimate privilege to assert. he may assert the legitimate privilege. other than that he is under subpoena and will answer all questions. this is being done pursuant of the committee's rules. if his counsel does not like it, you cannot interpret our rules, with all due respect. >> these are unauthorized questions. burke is recognized for 30 minutes. >> mr. lewandowski, did you ever become concerned that the president had asked you to do something that could expose you to criminal liability? did you ever become concerned that the president of the united states had asked you to do something that could expose you to criminal liability? mr. lewandowski: was i concerned that the president asked me to do something? not to the best of my knowledge. >> were you ever concerned that the president had asked you to do something that had put you in harm's way? made you feel that you were in trouble? mr. lewandowski: i think i have answered that q

chairman nadler: does the gentleman yield back? >> not quite yet, mr. chairman, is that is all right. i have to reject the notion that the thoughts in the mind of anyone that would commit heinous acts greeted any less by consequence of who they were shooting. i think about the kids in parkland, and i don't think they were targeted by virtue of their identity, but the person who killed them was no less evil than the person who committed those mortars in texas -- those mortars in texas. texas.e murders in >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe this legislation is flawed. as a former prosecutor, i am concerned about the effect it would have on the judicial system. my first concern is that the legislation is unconstitutional. this bill looks backwards to long past convictions in order to impose additional legal consequences on misdemeanor offenders who have already paid their debt to society and in many cases rejected hateful ideology. this is the very definition of a next host factor law for him but a constitution. the fact that this deal applies retroactiv

my vote is no. >> mr. nadler votes no. ms. jackson lee? ms. jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen? mr. cohen votes no. >> harris: we are watching now former campaign manager corey lewandowski for the trump campaign on capitol hill, and a point of process that is happening. in the middle of that hearing, which already has been pretty contentious. i want to bring in chris stirewalt, fox news political editor. what would you say about what's happening right now? >> "woof, close it would be the word i think that comes to mind. this is why congressional earring seldom yield things of interest. lewandowski is not going to tell them anything. he went to every length that he could possibly go to make asking even the first question, like breaking rocks. he's not going to come off of that. he's going to stay right in that space. that's why having hearings -- i understand the polygonal necessity of having this hearing and undertaking this process for nadler and the democrats. they have to have an answer for the numbers of the conference who want action. they've got to do something, they have to u

mr. nadler is a master of the constitution. congress woman waters is a strategic thinker and has her case before the court's now. the deutsche bank case. with his case on the president's taxes. the form affairs committee which has jurisdiction in terms of this telephone call as well. it is an intelligence matter and is focused in the intelligence committee. are important in the intelligence community specifically, publicly recognize the importance of whistleblowing in pointing out wrongdoing and the importance of protection of whistleblowers. here we are with another example of violations of the constitution on the part of the president. a continuing discussion we have been having with him, i was pleased that the senate voted to takese their decision to $3.6 billion from military construction and spend it on his wall. we will have that vote today and our caucus for the reversal of that decision. continueforward and with our day-to-day work, we had toig rally, we wore black mourn those lost to gun violence. we asked the presiden

i think if i were mr. nadler right now, i would be slapping mr. lewandowski with an inherent contempt order and calling him in front of the house of representatives and fining him. because he is a key witness. because in the mueller report there were ten incidents where mr. mueller said, but for the department of justice decision, the guidance that they would not file an action against the seated president, that there would not be an indictment made, this is one of the key elements that shows the president was attempting to obstruct justice by giving corey lewandowksi a script that he was supposed to turn over to then jeff sessions, the attorney general, to stop the mueller investigation. >> so congresswoman, that kind of feeds into the next question i have, which is i've seen a lot of critics saying that house democrats are too timid when it comes to dealing with the trump administration that you're never going to get them to cooperate until you start treating them with the same hard ball tactics they treat you. you say that you think jerry nadle

mr. nadler's a master of the constitution. congresswoman waters, a strategic thinker, and has her ase before the courts now, the deutsche bank case, along with mr. schiff in that case. chairman neal with his case in the courts on the president's taxes. mr. engel, part of the foreign affairs committee which has jurisdiction in terms of this telephone call as well. but it is an intelligence matter and it is focused in the intelligence committee. i just want to say again on whistleblowers. whistleblowers are important in intelligence -- and intelligence communities specifically have publicly recognized the importance of whistleblowering in pointing out wrongdoing and the importance of protection of whistleblowers. so here we are with another example of violations of the constitution on the part of the president, of continuing discussion that we've been having with him. and i was very pleased that the senate voted to reverse their ecision to take $3.6 billion from military construction and spending it on his wall. we will have tha

the clerk will call the role. >> mr. nadler. >> no. >> mr. laufkrin -- >> jackson lee? votes no. mr. cohen votes no. mr. johnson of georgia? mr. johnson -- >> this is devolving, this hearing into a circus. there is a vote right now. we are going to keep an eye on this, get in a quick break and be right back. >> in sicilini? >> no. one more mile look reply all look own your look... ...with fewer lines. there's only one botox® cosmetic. it's the only one... ...fda approved... ...to temporarily make... ...frown lines.... ...crow's feet.... ...and forehead lines... ...look better. the effects of botox® cosmetic, may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. do not receive botox® cosmetic if you have a skin infection. side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow, eyelid drooping, and eyelid swelling. tell your doctor about your medical history, muscle or nerve conditi

mr. nadler's a master of the constitution. congresswoman waters, a strategic thinker, and has her case before the courts now, the deutsche bank case, along with mr. schiff in that case. chairman neal with his case in the courts on the president's taxes. mr. engel, part of the foreign affairs committee which has jurisdiction in terms of this telephone call, as well. but it is an intelligence matter and it is focused in the intelligence committee. i just want to say again on whistleblowers. whistleblowers are important and intelligence communities specifically have publicly recognized the importance of whistleblowing in pointing out wrongdoing and the importance of protection of whistleblowers. so here we are with another example of violations of the constitution on the part of the president, of continuing discussion that we've been having with him. and i was very pleased that the senate voted to reverse their decision to take $3.6 billion from military construction and spending it on his wall. we will have that vote today in ou

now mr. nadler is back to the old standard of arguing that mr. trump is enriching himself out of office and this is likely to go anywhere either and here is mr. nadler on cnn on friday discussing the distance between about it impeachment investigation and inquiry. >> it is not necessarily called impeachment inquiry but that they made up term without legal significance. it is, however, what we are doing what we are conducting an investigation with the purpose among other things of determining whether to report articles of impeachment to the house and that's exactly what we're doing and whether you want to call it impeachment investigation or inquiry or anything else i'm not interest interested. eric: as you said, speaker pelosi has been putting up walls against this but finally do you think she slow walking this so that they will premiere this during in the middle of the presidential election this next year? >> absolutely. they are using impeachment language so they can go to court to get secret grand jury testimony that if they want to drag this

no. >> the roll call is requested. >> mr. nadler. >> no. >> mr. nadler votes no. mrs. lofgren. >> no. >> ms. lofgren votes no. >> mrs. jackson leigh. mr. cohen. no johnson of georgia. mr. johnson of georgia votes no. mr. deutsche. mr. deutsche notes no. mrs. bass. ms. bass votes no. mr. richmond. mr. richmond votes no. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries notes no. mr. sis leany notes no. mr. swalwell. mr. lu votes no. mr. raskin votes no. ms. demmings. ms. demmings votes no. mr. corea votes no. ms. scan lon votes no. ms. garcia votes no. ms. mcbeth votes no. mr. stanton votes no. ms. dean votes no. ms. mccarsle powell votes no. ms. es co bar votes no. mr. collins votes yes. mr. sensenbrenner votes aye. mr. chabot votes aye. mr. gomer votes aye. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. buck votes aye. mr. ratcliffe. ms. robe votes aye. mr. gates votes aye. mr. johnson of louisiana. mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintic votes aye. ms. lesco votes aye. mr. cline votes aye. mr. armstrong votes yes. mr. stubey votes yes. >> the gentlelady from texas. >> no. >> ms. jackson-lee votes no. mr. cohen vote

nadler for opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, let me express my appreciation to you for hosting us at hearing on voting rights in memphis last week, since the supreme court's decision shelby county versus holder, voting rights act of 1965, preclearance requirement, you have seen a troubling trend, localities in particular those who were formerly subject to preclearance requirement have enacted or engaged in voter suppression tactics such as burdensome proof of citizenship laws, closures, voter roles, restrictions in absentee ballots, difficult to restore the voting rights of formerly incarcerated individuals, the crimes with voting restrictions have negative impact, racial and language minority voters, in contrary to what we just heard, impact is very, very much a very useful tool, in the most recent elections in november 2018, voters across the country experienced various barriers to voting because state and local laws and circumstances that made it harder even impossible to vote. for example, we heard last week during

nadler when we might expect an pportunity to the inspector general, mr. horowitz, when ask him about his report, nadler says i don't know. i haven't thought about that. stop and think about that. this is the chair of the judiciary committee with its history and the house of representatives defending basic rules, basic procedure and rights and that's the response we get from him. exactly ity leader is right what a contrast between what democrats have done this saw on election night with a big win in north so i appreciate the leadership of the leader, and congratulate dan and welcome him to the podium, judiciary ber of the committee, mr. collins. >> it's been one of those days, one long great week. congratulations. we know what's happening. this is one of the things that we're seeing. those of us who travel the country, once you got outside of washington, d.c. it was not amazingly gloom and doom. everywhere else there seems to be optimism, jobs, and people are excited about that. me touch base really on what happened this morning which was of what's nuance

nadler's district, too. you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman nadler, chairman cohen, ranking member johnson, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. and thank you chairman for your leadership in calling this hearing to restore the voting rights act. the vra is considered one of the most successful pieces of civil lights legislation in our history. not long ago just in 2006, this very body reauthorized the vra with sweeping bipartisan support. but in 2013, five justices of the supreme court gutted the vra's most powerful provision, the section five preclearance system. section five enabled the federal government to block proposed preclearances in places with voting discrimination. based on race and language. when i served in the justice department we relied on section two of the vra to help mitigate the dodge done by the shelby county decision. we challenged discriminatory laws passed in north carolina and texas in the immediate aftermath of the decision. a

nadler. >> i think the crime subcommittee chair and collect from california karen bass for holding this important hearing on this special issues related to women and girls in the criminal justice system. in recent years there's been a growing consensus that our nations google justice system must be substantially reform. one critical element of the special conversation that is been largely absent its consideration of the unique experiences and needs of women and girls in the system, , and that responsibility to develop creative ways to address those issues. it is particularly urgent we do so because women are the fastest going segment of our nations incarcerated population. our recent efforts of reform the criminal justice system are at least partly responsible for slight reductions in the rate of incarceration overall, but for women it is steadily rising. this disturbing trend must be examined. we should also consider whether the reforms are already institute across the country are appropriate designed to address the issues faced by women and girls in the criminal justice system. these

thank you, mr. chairman. chair nadler: thank you. mr. yoes. mr. yoes: good morning. chairman nadler, ranking member collins, distinguished members of the committee. i thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and speak on behalf of the nearly 350,000 members of the fraternal order of police. just over a month ago i was elected president of the national fraternal order of police. we were the nation's oldest and largest law enforcement organization. my testimony has been submitted for the record and with the chairman's permission i would like to summarize it. my profession is evolving. some of these changes are driven by technology. others by society. and of course by our own internal efforts to improve public safety and the services we provide to the communities. as the law enforcement officer i spent 35 years of my career answering calls for help. i'm here today to let you know that the fraternal order of police is ready to sit with anyone who generally wants to work collectively to help improve policing in this country. today we are calling on you for your

mr. nadler. ms. lofgren and mr. collins of georgia. from the committee on natural resources for consideration of 6001, s 314, 2812, 2814, 6020, subtitle z of title 67, section 8524, part one of subtitle bmbing of title 85, sections 8554 and 571 of the senate bill and sections 330-g, 094, 1099-d, 1099-f, 1099-u, 2851, subtitle f, of title 28, sections 2876 and 2880 of the house amendment and modifications committed to conference. mr. grijalva. ms. pl holland. mr. bishop of utah. from the committee on oversight and refrm for consideration of sections 218, 5 30, 559, 1081, 1082, title 11, sections 580 , 6012, subtitle b of title 65, 9311, 9313,4, 9307, 10-434, 03, 10432, 0601, 1060 through 05, 10612, 10741 and 10742 of the senate ill and sections 212, 239, 5550-o, 629, 633rks084, 829, 884, 1, 8 2, 877, 883, 8991, 5, 899-e, 899-h, 1064, 1085, 1099-b, title 11, section 1704, 1711, 1713 through 16, and 3127 of the house amendment and modifications committed to conference. lynch, president connolly and green. 6006, s 219, 1612, 6001, 8524, 00

. >> mr. nadler? >> no -- mr. nadler votes no. [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] [ roll call ] >> motion to adjourn. >> mr. collins votes aye. [ roll call ] mr. johnson of louisiana. >> yes. >> mr. johnson of louisiana votes yes. mister mcclintock. mister mcclintock votes aye. mr. klein. >> aye. >> mister armstrong. mister armstrong votes yes. mr. stuebe. mr. gates, you are not recorded. mr. gates votes aye. >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there are eight aye's and 20 nose. >> the motion to adjourn is not a grade 2. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. >> who has a point of parliamentary inquiry? the gentleman will state his point of parliamentary inquiry. >> thank you, mister chairman. this relates to the rule we changed last week where we mentioned staff conducting questioning and it has been expanded to include consultants today. my question is, did we contemplate the distinction between independent contractors, such as -- >> i couldn't hear you, what? >> did we contemplate individual contracto

chairman nadler of new york chairs the committee. mr. nadler: the judiciary committee will please come together. present, without objection, the chair will time.e for recess at any the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any matter or adopting amendments for which the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to notice, i call the chair's resolution for procedures fo

congressman jerry nadler. mr. nadler: thank you very much. we talk about a climate crisis and indeed it is a climate crisis. the people have no idea how great a crisis it is or how pressing it is. people think well, the sea levels are rising. it will cost us $100 billion to relocate, few million people will drown in bangladesh and india. but it's much, much worse. much, much worse. i have a 13 month old granddaughter and i look at her, i get terrified because i don't know if human life will survive 50 years. we may face the climate scientists tell us that we may face the mass distinction in the history of the globe. theye oceans acidify which are beginning to do, it will destroy the entire food chain and all that will be left will be bacteria and maybe some plants. and none of us, none of our children, no mammals, no animals except ameba. this is what the scientists tell us we face in the next 50 years. we have to stop this. the green new deal, absolutely. we have to do that. [cheers and applause] mr. nadler: i'm glad to see all of you here t

comey --t of two days ago when i asked mr. nadler when we would -- when we get an opportunity to question him and ask him about his report, jerry nadler says, i don't know. i haven't thought about that. stop and think about that. this is the chair of the judiciary committee. with a storied history in the house of representatives of defending basic rules, basic procedures, and basic constitutional rights and that's the response we get from him. so the minority leader is exactly right when he says, what a contrast between what democrats have done this week and what we saw on election night with a big win in north carolina. so i appreciate the leadership of the leader and, again, congratulate dan. i'll welcome him to the podium, the ranking member of the judiciary committee, mr. collins. mr. collins: well, it's been one of the days again in judiciary committee. it's been one great week, though. congratulations. we know what's happening. this is one of the things that we're seeing -- for those of us who travel the country and thos

ongressman jerry nadler. mr. nadler: thank you very much. we talk about a climate crisis and indeed it is a climate crisis. the people have no idea how reat a crisis it is or how pressing it is. people think well, the sea levels are rising. it will cost us $100 billion to relocate, few million people will drown in bangladesh and india. but it's much, much worse. much, much worse. have a 13 month old granddaughter and i look at her, i get terrified because i don't know if human life will survive 0 years. we may face the climate scientists tell us that we may face the mass distinction in the history of the globe. if the oceans acidify which they are beginning to do, it will destroy the entire food chain and all that will be left will be bacteria and maybe some plants. and none of us, none of our children, no mammals, no animals except ameba. this is what the scientists tell us we face in the next 50 years. we have to stop this. the green new deal, absolutely. e have to do that. [cheers and applause] mr. nadler: i'm glad to see all of you here

if you don't have a lot of faith that mr. nadler is going to impeach the president, then you probably have to win. it seems like the only person on the hill who was betting on that is nancy pelosi who doesn't want to go ahead of that. but joe biden does not want to take, and go to these broader conventions or take the gloves off if any of these debates. elizabeth warren, and you look at senator kamala harris in this debate. >> it was brutal. so he has a lot to lose. he and still hold strong leads in the polls. but that does not last forever. >> to your point i think that's exactly why he has been more cautious, because i think he is concerned about the fact that any move that he makes could potentially jeopardize his front runner status. so i think it could be to his peril. >> i think -- it's not like he is coming to that conclusion with no experience. he lost running for president. >> you are right, he has been avoiding putting himself in the situation because every time he does it's a huge disaster. every single time he goe

. >> was that jerry nadler working things? >> i don't think magical mr. nadler is all of it. but this is significant. a lot of folks said this was all over and mueller was a great disappointment, but moment stomach shifting beneath the scenes. and adding emoluments, profiting off the presidency, other inquiries that are going to open. >> stormy daniels. they want the stormy daniels thing to be part of this. >> folks will say look the poll numbers aren't there. at 42% where it was earlier this summer, that's around the line where it was for nixon at the start of the process. well ahead of the 29% during the bill clinton impeachment. >> i'm going quote jeffrey toobin. or misquote him. he said the best way for congress to hold hearings is for congress to hold hearings. they've done a lot of talk about how they're going to do this without doing it. >> i don't know who he is, but i've heard about him. he sounds like a fine gentleman. he's right in this instance. the best way to start a goal is to start the actual goal. you have to do something about it. the problem is when you sai

. >> amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr-1423 offered by mr. nadler of new york. strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following. >> considered as read and shall be considered as base text for purposes of amendment. i will recognize myself to explain the amendment. this amendment makes no substantive changes to the bill. it simply makes a technical correction to the bill's short title. therefore i urge all members to support it. i yield back the balance of my time and recognize mr. collins for any comment os then amendment. >> i appreciate the amendment. the only question i go back on, again, is it worth throwing out everything to when we could fix what needs to be fixed seemingly to force folks out of the judicial system or actually into a -- where they can't get the help that they need? it is a balance that needs to be struck. this is going to be a good debate on that. hopefully we can find that. with that i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. what purpose is the gentleman from georgia recognition? >> move to strike the last word. >> gentleman is

. >> if i were mr. nadler right now, i would be slapping mr. lewandowski with a contempt order and calling him in front of the house of representatives and finding him. >> martha: what do you say to that? >> look, maybe that's happened before. i never heard of him but fined for going in front of congress. why don't you go and bring jim comey back, guido has perjured himself in front of congress? why don't you take the opportunity, michael horowitz, who wrote the inspect her general's report, why don't you fix the problem of illegal immigration, which is killing americans, because they're coming across the border illegally? these are actually the obligations of the house judiciary committee. instead, they want to bring me forward, jackie speier wants to find me? for what? coming to congress and testify in open congress, under oath? i'm happy to do that. >> bret: >> martha: this is when i presented about hakeem jeffries brought up the fact that you are interested in running for senate in new hampshire, and suggested that maybe that was why you we

. >> thank you, mr. nadler. before i begin, let me remind you, mr. lewandowski that this is not a primary campaign. you are not on the campaign trail yet. this is a house judiciary committee. act like you know the differenc difference. you never worked for the trump white house in any capacity, correct? >> that is right. >> but you do speak with president trump with some regularity, true? >> i think that is a fair statement. >> infect during the summer of 2017, according to testimony as special counsel, you are summoned to the white house by president trump on at least two occasions, correct? >> i don't believe the report says that, congressman, congressman. >> okay, you met with the president one-on-one june 19th, and then again july 19th 2017, correct? >> yes, i believe that that is accurate. >> let's get some clarity on what exactly you do for donald trump since you are not a government employee. you stated during the 2016 republican national convention that "i got the reputation as a tough guy. that is my reputation." to give recall making that s

>> thank you, mr. nadler. i'll never forget the first day in prison for a variety of reasons, one of the things that i i remember so clearly after the processed in by correctional officers and transformed, it was february i was being escorted up to the unit where i would live, the building that would house me, and there were a group of women standing outside the building and it was a woman who was very visibly pregnant. i learned she was eight months pregnant. and i remember just been so confused when i saw her. i was literally like this must be a mistake. it never occurred to me that there would be pregnant women in prison, and i am still deeply confused by that. i am deeply troubled by the fact that so many women into prison and, of course, they they've ge through an entire judicial process prior to incarceration, and that our choice as a society is to force them to go through the pregnancy and childbirth while under custody in the setting as ms. onwuka has pointed out, that is not appropriate for pregnant p