the disease they think differently. and i want to hear about the resources that our available what would have helped? >> as a social worker for madison central we had a student to is using drugs and her best friend saved her life. the student reported the situation to myself otherwise she was in great danger. >> with the relationship between the students and the

person who needed help did they suffer? >> not at all to receive the treatment was very eager revel and realize what was going on and they are still good friends. >> you describe the situation recourse son was socially using marijuana then dealing with anxiety. what would have helped or what could have someone done quite. >> if they brought it to our attention sooner we could have intervened and got him helpless quicker but after he was already out of high-school and having problems with the xanax he came to me and his dad he had just turned 19 that he

had a problem with pills and went check-in self-inflicted and he did. he did detox and at that age and we think ibm good i will be to this but he was still hanging around the same people doing the same things so had the same triggers. so he thought he was okay but not dealing with the underlying issues of. early in life and what best friends from the age of 13 he ended up overdosing on the pact he was 12 years old but his best friend was 13 we think at that point may have been the trigger that he needed counseling but he

never put itself into the room so we thought everything was okay hindsight bbv would question that to get them counseling for kobe that would prevent some of the rules was. >> you also mention that domenic did go into treatment to say have a problem that you retrieved and several times. it is important that it is hard once you get caught up in it and you want to get out but it takes several attempts this sounds like he did want to break this and

you also sought treatment several times were quick. >> with the research tells us about addiction a fancy word that people don't think they have a problem. did he speak to them directly they may justify or try to convince you don't have a problem but one of my friends had reached out to my family to suggest to have a problem because not only could i nouakchott for the underlying issues for the anxiety off on. >> i go to madison central how can you tell when somebody is abusing drugs?

>> that is a great question especially in light of thought question we just had. from the schools perspective and if you don't get the alert what are some of the things you was look for to see if the students had a problem greg. >> lot of times behavior changes or don't attend school like a used to make grades may drop to be no longer involved in school activities hanging out with people or attending parties. >> he was o outgoing and social after relearned of

the of heroin addiction redo everything we could. in some of those signs they have a nod that they are constructed and they may have a slower gait on it is tricky conceits to just be talking to me and his dad not slurring speech and go to his room and overdose just like that so that change in behavior it is the biggest because he stayed

away from been and his dad he would run not really quick then was right back but then spend a lot of time in the bathroom he comes out . were you doing in their? he was starting heroin. >> even though you look back now with you are describing could be invisible. >> now we know but carrying on a conversation the third time he overdosed i said he just talked to his dad no falling over or anything we get a call from a girlfriend in cannot wake up and was overdosing. >> with my personal

experience there is never enough money. i started to isolate socially to stop taking out with friends and then stopped enjoying those activities even after i was arrested and had the opportunity to play baseball in college i a didn't do it because that robbed me from the joy of playing sports. >> are we to the end of the questions do any head you know, anyone that has overdosed? did your friend survive in? fewer hands.

is this something you wish you could have stopped? i help mom we have given you things to think about to how to handle a situation which wildebeest terrifying and because sometimes it can be the first time but either way we hope we advocate in new information with the friends that you have right now or if anyone here is concerned or you are concerned go to your parents

are counselor or to a friend to say help me because that is what this is all about. we want you to still be here in this room six years from now to be on the stage talking to students about where they will go so with that i will thank every petty on stage for participating all of those who stood up in front of the huge crowd that represented so many questions that we've received that generated a lot of interest that isn't any easy thing to do. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> uh committee of government oversight and reform will reconvene as a continuation to examine the preservation of the state department federal records your schedule to have our

guests attend but to do his absence of a subpoena we attend -- intend to adjourn it reconvened a business meeting and hold him in contempt of congress. >> do have a restatement. i will just say that this is no surprise that in the attorney told us last week he would not be here they told us it would be an abuse to appear for a second time before congress and sent us another letter last night telling us the same thing so there is no question what is going on in we as of corresponded with you and

the committee's the past two weeks on the subject and the facts have not changed for gulf you in the committee have been told from the beginning that you continue to assert that the mentor rights to answer any questions by the committee. the letter explains of the rights before the bank gauzy select committee and should not be forced to do so a subpoena issued by congressional committee is required by law with the legislative purpose a man under the present circumstances with the rights in front of video cameras to pray a naked

political agenda. and aias couple consent that this letter from the attorney sent last night to the committee be part of the official record and i have nothing else. >> without objection so ordered. the hearing is adjourned. >> we will now come to order the committee announces of the proceedings today on any collection of adopting an amendment in without objection the chair ought is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we're looking at the report from the house of representatives to find right and pagliano in contempt of congress and refusal to comply to the

subpoena. first and only item for consideration is a resolution that the house find bright and pagliano in contempt of congress from the committee oversight of government reform. >> resolution recommending the house find bryan pagliano in contempt of congress of refusal to comply with the subpoena and duly issued on oversight for government reform. >> without objection we will call up the amendment and i will recognize myself for the underlying report. >> offered by the substitute for the house of representatives to find him in contempt of congress. >> and now recognize myself for five minutes for the

report today will consider a resolution being held in contempt of the house of representatives a subpoena is not optional as a crucial witness to this investigation with the use of private e-mail server the release of the federal records is the deep concern to the committee who has jurisdiction over federal records in national archives and jurisdiction of several places. with the course of the investigation we have learned about bryan pagliano end of both men to an originally he worked for secretary clinton for her presidential campaign. as he was closing our campaign equipment but

mr. cooper requested that he build a server for on mrs. clinton in 2009 as she started her job as secretary of state. several months later in the basement of the residents but bryan pagliano continued to monitor while secretary clinton was at the state department after he set up us server he joined secretary clinton fan off as the appointee their required to report to a position one but that made his employment ever arrangement unusual. they questioned the private e-mail server given the capacity is a full-time employee.

he left the state department figure 2013 the same month as secretary clinton even though he worked at the state department almost four years he is a lead people to have a handful of the males. their federal record just like secretary clinton and subject to the freedom of information act request the committee has jurisdiction of the federal records act and foia. the committee succeeded one dash such as the pinatubo bryan pagliano and he did not show up to the hearing. i explained he was uniquely qualified hough to help us understand the private e-mail server but this is the indisputable. to consider all options with the failure to appear including consideration in contempt of the committee

heard several hours of testimony and to his credit he did appreciate the participation to answer the questions he asked. was brought his testimony he referred to them as individual more proper it the new more about the of server that we needed to appear from bryan pagliano previous serve because his client took the fifth he should not be required to provide testimony to this committee. that is not a good faith argument. first and foremost, the jurisdiction is limited and in contrast it includes legislative and oversight

with the freedom of information act. they are well and outside the upper deal of this committee's investigation. bulky bills were subject to both wallace and he could explain what was told about the l. lott and add to whether or not they were considered by him brothers. bryan pagliano testimony could provide important information to have legislative reform so that this disaster never happens again. this is reform how he could grant the state department from locating e-mail's and had the benefit to review the testimony that he did provide with his interview during thought fbi with your retail where the of those that travel over the server with the spoke with him.

this committee is more informed than any that'd is unnecessary for their answering these questions that would never subjected to personal liability. confirming that he was granted immunity before he spoke and the director confirmed he was recommending no charges be involved against anyone and the attorney general knowledge accepted that recommendation some he has no fear of criminal liability before this committee recessed september 13 to give bryan pagliano another opportunity to justify to clear up any ambiguity whether his six lawyers could confirm that they refuse to do we have the u.s. marshal personally served him.

we continue the continuation of earlier hearings but he failed to show the committee cannot perform its duty if subpoenas are ignored severe left with no trace to recommend that bryan pagliano is held in contempt of congress i now recognize the ranking member mr. cummings. >> yesterday and our committee held a board hearing playing the very critical issue that matters to me and the american people of the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs . members of bull's-eye its of the aisle would examine these abuses in a truly bipartisan way that is exactly the kind of

investigation that our committee should be conducting that the american people would want us to conduct but today's spectacle is just the opposite nothing but a partisan public attack on the democratic candidate for president of the united states of america. it undermines the integrity of our committee and makes our constituents disgusted with congress and setter proud of our work. today is the fifth day of our'' mackie emergency" end quote. hillary clinton's e-mail's over the past three weeks the fifth day of the

emergency hearings in that . the chairman has issued an signed twill subpoenas that is more than one per day it is also more than one-third of the total number of subpoena issued in all of 2016 we have an emergency here. issued every single one unilaterally with no debate i asked the question are hillary clinton seem mills really worth that much attention? of course, not. and what exactly is the emergency? in is the election approaching in a few weeks i suppose republicans could

argue that hillary clinton that the american people should know everything. so i ask us simple question where is the investigation of donald trump? with the fraudulent business practices? the campaign potential election for russian actors. the charitable foundation in illegal donations to settle corporate debt the answer is obvious focusing exclusively on secretary clinton for political reasons. i do believe it is abuse of authority to tax payer dollars to affect the

presidential election but wine key factor everybody needs to understand that bryan pagliano has already asserted on this very topic in person not mentioned anywhere in the resolution you will not find it but it demonstrates there is no legislative purpose to enforce bryan pagliano for his human-rights and there is no legitimate purpose to

do so in public to do so open to the of floodgates the committee members may not know this but the chairman sent u.s. marshals into a bryan pagliano workplace to personally served the appearance before the committee. they sent to federal marshals but nothing but to intimidate mr. bryan pagliano. the chairman awarded this in secret. and they have any regency going on here.

secret. no consultation. no vote. secret emergency. this is the definition of abuse. and i believe they are unethical. and echo the passion of mr. lynch's spoken on this subject. and then try to force bryan pagliano with very serious constitutional concerns and should not be placed in any position to vote for resolution that subjects them or their staff.

the american bar association and of which i have been a member of since 1976 that prohibit attorneys to take actions to embarrass or to berger and private citizens. in his professional misconduct. to warn that no attorney should be compelled to appear in a congressional hearing when is known ended chance that no information will be obtained in the sole effect of the summons is exactly what we have a year. although republicans try to

argue bryan pagliano had immunity we had the opportunity to confirm that. budget is already dead ruled that he can continue to research privileges which he has done. what exposes the committees of uses for -- abuses? pdf . .

as i've said before, i believe it to be on ethical. although i strongly support the committee's authority and prerogatives of the house of representatives, i sadly cannot vote for resolution that is so unethical that it would subject members of this committee or our staff and for all of these reasons i urge you to vote no on this resolution and i yield back. >> i would like to ask consent to enter into the record all the correspondence we have had with mr. paglia knows attorneys. b. >> without objection so ordered. >> does anyone wish to speak. >> we recognize the next speaker

>> mr. chairman, this is a difficult situation when you have to hold someone in contempt but again i have to refer to my years on the panel, what we do here in this committee, ladies and gentlemen and my colleagues, one of the most important things that anyone has to do in our government, we all represent hundreds of thousands of incredible people who today are working, struggling to make a living, pay their taxes, raise their families and retire someday and they send us here to make certain that the constitution laws of the land are upheld and we have one of the most important responsibilities in this

committee to see that just that is done. our responsibility and authority under the constitution gives us the right to demand the appearance of any individual, particularly those who have been involved in government activity and legitimately ask questions of them. this gentleman was requested in a proper request to appear before us. we had others who came at that same hearing and came and they had the same opportunity. they exercised their fifth amendment right. they took the fifth amendment. this gentleman defied and was in contempt of this committee. we cannot make this government

work or function if people will not adhere to the constitution, the rules and the basic ability of the congress to talk to these people. he could have come here immunity, whether it's limited or not, it doesn't doesn't make any difference. he would not be denied his fifth amendment right. he could have expressed that here but you cannot have as an option, this will destroy this committee, it will destroy the congressional oversight process and whether it's a republican or democrat, or democrat, listen to this, it doesn't matter whether it's chairman cummings or another, we cannot have people come here and deny the right under the constitution for us to question them. they may not want to answer and they have that right under the

constitution just like we have the right to question them. this is very fundamental to the process. he acted in contempt. he thwarted the constitution of the laws and the procedures and if you continue that you destroy the whole basis of our government. that's the difference between our government and other governments. it's really the principal responsibility of this committee, though i tell you, this isn't a partisan issue, it's not a political issue. this is an issue that goes to the very core of the integrity of our democratic and constitutional processes. mr. chairman, i yield back back the balance of my time. >> thank you. we recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mr. lynch. >> it is my opinion, at least from the course of these

investigations that mr. pagliano has previously complied with the subpoena for the same information this committee seeks today. he has been given limited use immunity and in previous interviews, which would again expose him to possible prosecution if he were to -- i think it's reasonably be predictable that he would be subject to prosecution because the referral by this committee, on this matter in essence, what's going on here is we are engaging in a review.

a review of the decision by director company me not to. that's what were doing here. that's why the prosecutorial notes were requested by this committee and surrendered. that's why all of this is ongoing because this committee wishes to go beyond the legislative function we have and have a review of what the attorney general has dismissed and what the director of the fbi has refused to prosecute. i think especially this is a violation of the separation of powers clause in the constitution. i think what we are doing here today is something that is denied even to the judiciary. when a prosecutor looks at the

facts and this is an extensive interview process, a review process or investigation process, when they decide there are not sufficient facts to prosecute, then that is their decision. they can decide which statutes to prosecute under and whether to prosecute. that decision has been made. because of the nearness of the election, this committee is going where no committee has some before, to basically review the decision of the fbi not to prosecute in this manner. this particular hearing, to hold him in contempt really boils down to this, the chairman is saying that his role is that the witness has to come before the

committee and be subjected to what the witnesses were subjected to last week. that was total embarrassment, we had quotes of emails that were read and other evidence and forcing them to repeatedly declare their fifth amendment rights, being publicly embarrassed on tv. that is the chairman's role but that is not the law. we know because in previous hearings, mr. dowdy, and i give him credit, in compliance with the law brought that witness in and a closed hearing in an executive session and that witness exercised his fifth amendment rights. that was the decent and fair and legal thing to do. that's not what we are doing here. we are continuing to try to embarrass this particular

witness as other witnesses were embarrassed like mr. thorton last week. that is not necessary. i think it is beneath the dignity of this committee and as well i think violative of the constitutional rights of that witness. that is what this boils down to. i think this contempt proceeding will have sure truths in the district court. i don't like going anywhere and i take comfort in that fact because we are so far afield from the constitution again in this committee. not only the fifth amendment but also now the separation of powers where we try to take up a new, this matter that has been

settled by the fbi director and the attorney general. >> thank you german. >> we recognize the gentleman for five minutes, mr. dowdy. >> thank you, i am fairly certain how this committee will vote but i do want to talk for a second to the folks who may be following this back home just trying to figure out what these lawyers are arguing about. there are two separate issues at play. number one is whether or not you have to come when you have been issued a summons or subpoena. there are people sitting in jury rooms right now all across this country because they received a summons. they are not going to be called for jury service, they they may be excused, they may frankly be disqualified but you still have to come. there are subpoenas being issued all across this country, firefighters and ems and police

officers and doctors and everyone else who may have witnessed anything from a crime to a traffic accident. they may not get called as a witness but they have to come. issue number one is whether or not you have to come when you are issued legal process. the answer is yes. the witness himself or herself does not get to pick and choose which legal process you're going to follow in which one you're not or nobody would go to jury service. issue number one is do you have to come. issue number two is whether or not you have to talk. unless your name is jack bauer, you cannot force anyone to talk. now we can have a robust debate about whether or not this witness has been immunized. i read the immunity agreement. what i find interesting is the

doublespeak that i hear from some of my colleagues. you cannot, in in one sentence say doj has refused to prosecute and this is a nothing case and in the next sentence say you are worried that doj is going to prosecute. congress cannot prosecute anyone for anything. nothing. the only entity in this country that can level criminal charges is the executive branch. they have already said they're not going to do so. so where is his criminal exposure? where is it? in less he is going to say, mr. chairman, we are worried that he is going to make a false statement before congress. now that would be interesting if that's the argument. we are worried that this argument who cooperated with the fbi may tell congress something different. guess what, the agreement he has with the department of justice requires him to be truthful. you would want people to say the

same thing to congress that you say to the fbi. this is what i find most interesting of all. the department of justice is already said they will not prosecute any body for anything, this this matter is closed. nobody will be prosecuted. i will bet you that agreement allows for this witness to cooperate with other entities of government and back in the old days, it required that witness to cooperate with other entities of government. and i will tell you what, mr. chairman, i have sat with some of the very members of this room who provided oversight over the fbi over national security letters. they didn't give one with second thought about second-guessing the fbi in the issuing of national security letters. who else would provide oversight over the fbi if not for congress i listen to some of the very same members on this committee

provide oversight over the department of justice, over the prosecution of ted stevens. they have no problem providing oversight over the department of justice when they don't like feel outcome, but when they do like the outcome, we cannot second-guess. that. that is the one entity in this republic that can never be second-guessed is the fbi. i find that fascinating, particularly coming from as many defense attorneys we have on the other side who made a living questioning the fbi. that is how they made their living, second-guessing the fbi. but no, once you take the oath of office for congress, whatever they do, you don't want to prosecute them, were fine with that. you don't want to do anything about the people committed fraud during the housing crisis, were

fine with that. god forbid we asked the fbi anything. all i want to know is did you give immunity to the person who destroyed federal records after a subpoena was in place. that is a fair question and i think everyone in congress would like to know the answer. >> the gentleman's time is expired. we now recognize the next speaker - thank you, mr. chairman. my friend from south carolina wanted to help clarify for the folks back home what this is all about. i don't know if he did that, but certainly the rising tenor of his voice suggests outrage of something that has gone awry. let me take my crack and talk to the folks back home. what has gone awry is the trampling of your rights, our fellow americans. election is not going well, maybe we can take a piece out of hillary clinton and pagliano

might be the key to doing that. and so, were going to send marshall's, u.s. marshals to someone's office to degrade and humiliate him and overreach and were gonna do it without any consultation with this half of the committee. that kind of tells you they are up to something they don't quite want us to know about. my friend from south carolina says that's a double standard. i certainly supported the critique of the prosecutors that they overreached with ted stevens, it was wrong. in in my own home state of virginia, i don't applaud the actions of our former republican governor but i supported the supreme court ruling that it was prosecutorial overreach and that it was way too much ambiguity understanding what constituted

the quid pro quo. i was sensitive to their rights and my colleagues here, many of them shared that sensitivity and concern, but we also share concern about a broader principle than a short-term, political cheap shot. the fifth amendment rights of a u.s. citizen be damped. that's not right. after all of this, it's over. in this election cycle, the sad legacy of the expediency of dispensing with a constitutional right of every american to protect himself or herself against legal jeopardy to have a process that protects them from testifying if they choose not to

whether we like it or not. this is sadly not the first time we trampled on these rights. we self declared someone had given up fifth amendment rights even though she protested that was not true, even though her attorneys insisted that was not true and even though there are plenty of case law during the mccarthy era, ironically that clearly suggests that's not the standard. that didn't stop us. today we are going to vote on a partyline vote and we are going to further sully and degrade the reputation of congress in this committee. it ought to make every american tremble just a little bit because if we can do this to tran1, we can do it to you, and oh by the way, while we are at it, what other rights under the

constitution? we know not the second amendment because that's secret. that's not conditional in any way shape or form, but the first amendment, not so much. fifth amendment, apparently not, apparently not at all and we will get to the rest. if it politically serves our interest it's okay. when i took an oath for this job it wasn't too assist that they will humiliate mr. pagliano, it was to protect the constitutional rights of every american to the best of my ability and we are about to compromise those rights in this vote and that's wrong and that's a legacy none of us should be proud of. i yield back. >> thank you. does any another member wish to speak? ms. maloney, i think we need to go to ms. plaskett first.

>> thank you, mr. chairman my colleague from south carolina knows that not everybody on the side of the aisle is a criminal defense attorney. some of us were prosecutors and could never see themselves as a criminal defense attorney. i think going within the scope of the law extremely seriously and i'm very concerned about this being an unethical act on the part of this committee. my colleagues question that this is not about politics and this is not partisan, so i'm wondering what it is about. i think it's about an abuse of power and a waste of time. it's a waste of this committees time and it's destroying this committee, it's destroying the reputation of this committee because it's very clear what mr. pagliano would do if he came here. i think my colleagues believe they can break the man and take

away him asserting his fifth amendment rights when his attorneys have told us in writing, should he be brought here, he will assert his fifth amendment right to every question, so what's the point? what's the point of bringing him here and having him in contempt in front of the camera, except for the camera? because something we could do in closed-door under deposition and it would be on the record. his attorneys have been very clear, in writing if he came before this committee he would continue to assert his right to all questions and they offered to bring him to personally assert his rights in a closed session, but that's not good enough for this committee. that doesn't serve the purpose of what this committee wants. i thought my colleagues were interested in coming to the truth and finding out information that we hadn't already found out, that that is

the purpose of the oversight and government reform committee, but it seems really the name of this committee possibly should be changed to the abuse committee, the abuse of power committee, the committee that make likes to make sound bites, the committee that likes to be on cnn and msnbc and use it for whatever they need it for. that's the problem. it's also a problem because we are not protecting the attorneys that are on this committee because it's very clear, under legal ethics rules by the american bar a source association and the district of columbia bar that if we move forward on this, you are exposing the attorneys who practice or have decided they want to keep their bar standing or the staff attorney. i would like to ask the chair, are are we going to protect the attorneys that are here in contempt to be brought against them in a place they can actually have criminal charges,

that being a court all of law? is are in attempt to be in front of a camera so important that the staff that work for us should be put out on a limb for us to meet our expediency and our needs before november 8 or, as i understand from some of the assertions that have been made, maybe even after january 20 if it doesn't go the way they want to go. i posed that question this committee as to how far we are willing to go. are we going to expose the attorneys that are here and practicing and trying to uphold the law because we want to the edges a little bit for the expediency we need to move forward in this. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i want to thank you for raising the issue with regard to the ethical rules of the bar. i said a little bit earlier i have been the member of the

maryland bar inns 1976 and i worked hard to get that license. as a matter of fact, even though i'm not practicing now, i still pay my bar dues because i don't want anything to happen that license. i worked hard for that license and i've sworn to uphold the ethical rules of my profession just as i know you have, not just the letter of the law. in maryland, like d.c. there is a legal ethical rule that says, and this is the maryland rule, an attorney shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other to embarrass a third person. i see that to be the action of this committee regarding mr. pagliano doing anything other than that. that's why i'm voting against this. >> thankfully the time has expired.

>> gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you very much part i will be brief mr. chairman. i'm not concerned about voting for this. i'm a licensed attorney and i'm confident that any legislative action i take will be protected under the speech and debate clause of the united states constitution that says i shall not be questioned in any form for any activity i take as a legislator. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone else wish to speak? >> miss maloney from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. chairman, you have repeatedly claimed claimed on television and other places that this is," your words, one of the biggest security breaches in the history of the state department. now this claim is completely false, outlandish and frankly

unsubstantiated in any way shape or form. the fbi director has been on direct has said already and concluded, and i am quoting from the fbi director, we did not find evidence confirming that clinton's e-mail server system were compromised by cyber means. now the fbi is an independent agency, apolitical, nonpartisan whose purpose is to find the truth, protect the american people and protect our system of betterment government. they found this was totally unfounded and outlandish and untrue. what are we doing? the only person that is being hurt by this hillary rodham clinton.

the fbi has already said there's no case there. there was no harm there. in contrast, the official state department system was hacked in 2015 by a reported russian hacker and apparently was a terrible cyber intrusion against a federal agency and our country i would like to put this in perspective about what we are really talking about and some members of this committee may not remember that in the 1990s, this is exactly what the republican leadership did under former chairman dan burton who was chairman of this committee. they falsely accused, undisputedly, historically, they falsely accused the clinton white house of intentionally destroying e-mails to hide them and they launched hearings,

massive investigations and their claims turned out to be completely false, completely unsubstantiated just like these claims that they are putting forward now are unsubstantiated. then, just like today, a wildly exaggerated their claims. i want to read from the actual report that this committee put out under former republican chairman dan burton in october october 2000. they actually claimed that the fake scandal was bigger than watergate, and mad quote from their report, the email matter can fairly be called the most significant obstruction of congressional investigation in the united states history. while the white house obstruction in watergate related

only to the watergate break-in, the potential obstruction of justice by the clinton white house reaches much further. this was preposterous. i read last night, a report, and i asked unanimous consent to place in the record by the democrat minority at that time called on substantiated allegations of wrongdoing involving the clinton administration. i feel, may we put this in the record? >> without objection. >> thank you, i urge everyone to read it. what we have today is another déjà vu, a a repeat of the same false allegation and i would venture to say they are politically motivated. our independent fbi said there isn't a problem here, they they are trying to create one with

false allegation. here we are again in the same republican hysteria is now being thrown at another clinton, the same under chin unsubstantiated allegations, the same completely exaggerated false claims and i urge the listening public to read the report of the fbi on the current e-mail and to read the report on the prior hearings that serve to have no basis to truth and reality. my time has expired. >> gentleman your time has expired. >> i would like everybody to read the fbi report, unfortunately has not been released in its totality. we now recognize the gentleman

from north carolina. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your recognition. i would like to ask the gentlewoman from new york to remind her of the rules. >> members are advised to not address other members. they can address the chair but they cannot adjust other member. >> mr. chairman i would make a point of order that the debate here is getting to bring in personalities. we have rules in this committee where attacking members, either their motives or anything else is not to be done and so i would kindly ask the chair to remind members that if they are going to make personal attacks they need to keep those in a generic and non-specific form form. i yield back. >> before the gentleman. >> may i have appointed personal privilege since my name was mentioned. >> no. >> i was talking about not a member. >> i said no.

what the gentleman has yielded to me, members are advised, and i and i will read from what the parliamentarian gave me that they must observe the standard of the forum and debate in context and beak respectively and not use on parliamentary language such as words impugning the motives of other colleagues. so my point here is you can be disgusted by it and frustrated by it, there is a question, i don't think it's a partisan question when there is a duly issued subpoena, that person must appear. it is not an optional exercise. it's not want to dial it in by sending a letter from my attorney. no matter what side of the aisle you are on, if you believe in the rule of law, if you believe

in the morality of our constitution it requires people to obey the law. now non-attendance is not an option. i feel very strongly about that. mr. cummings talked about, in his statement, about speaker this in speaker that. i believe it should be as open and transparent. i don't think it should be done behind closed parts. i do think it should be open and transparent. that's the way the judicial branch operates. i think it's the way this committee should operate to the maximum extent possible i would like it to be as open and transparent as possible. i think we issued a subpoena and it is not an optional exercise. that is the question today because twice, i was pretty generous, twice twice we gave him an opportunity to show up and i wish we weren't here today.

we shouldn't have to be here today. but, that that is the choice we have to hold him in contempt because he violated the subpoena. >> certainly, i would just hope that mr. maloney, her name came up and i think she was just trying to take a moment to explain what she was trying to do and i asked that she be allowed to do that. >> the member was not supposed to. >> i'm reclaiming my time, i didn't mention anybody's name, i mention the gentlewoman from new york and specifically as it relates, the ranking member will know full well that this is something very personal to me because i came to his defense when someone on my side attacked him so it is important that we have debate, it is is important

that we do that without personalities involved and we must rise to the occasion to have differences without making personal attacks. i i yield back. >> point of personal privilege? >> no. i want to give members each an opportunity if they would like to speak. >> does anyone wish to speak. >> when i hear some of these things, i sat and listened to director comay and listen to reports, he did say that the fbi did not find evidence that secretary clinton's email system was hacked by foreign agents. the implication that was just made by the gentle lady is that did not in fact happen and that is not what he said. what he said was he would not be able to determine.

[inaudible] mike morel was actually supporting sec. clinton for president and said any good intelligence service would have anything on any classified system but particularly something that secretary clinton's e-mails, the issue that the subpoena is driving at is you have a lot of classified information on unclassified servers. you have people like pagliano who were involved in that and we have a fact pattern in which those e-mails were deleted after , not only being revealed publicly, not not only being after subpoenaed by congress but after they had a conversation with people affiliated with secretary clinton and then of course we now have these transcripts found by people online that someone with a

similar profile set i want to figure out how to strip a vip email address from a bunch of emails. once i became public it was deleted. there are just a lot of questions about how the it of side of this investigation was handled. whether the fbi pursued a case involving potential obstruction of documents and there are people like pagliano that are essential to that. people who know what been involved in the federal system, a lot of times if the fbi can't get you on a substantive offense they go after obstruction of justice or lying or destroying evidence and there didn't seem to be, from the reports we have read, that concerted of an effort to do that in this case. i am supportive of what the chairman is doing and i yield back. >> any other members who wish to speak on the anf.

>> thank you, mr. chairman i've been reluctant to speak on this but i feel compelled because i think this is bigger than the e-mail issue. it's bigger than the politics that our colleagues keep bringing up. i'm not the only one who feels that way. jonathan and others were widely recognized as law professors feel that the constitution is in grave danger. i think it's essential that we as a committee exercise the authority and responsibility invested in us by the constitution to protect the nation from abuse of power by the executive aunt branch and the justice department. clearly it is it against the law to destroy evidence and evidence was destroyed. it is clearly against the law to all altered documents and

documents were altered. it's against the law for people who are not authorized to handle classified information and be given classified information. it's our responsibility to protect the constitution and protect the nation against people who violate the law. it shouldn't matter what party is involved or who did it. that's our responsibility. it shouldn't matter which point we are in the election cycle. that's our responsibility. when you have law professors who testify in the senate judiciary hearing that we are watching a fundamental change in our constitutional system and a change in the way the framers want us to move away. i think this is bigger than the politics and the issue. it's about preserving the separation of powers in this committee, upholding its constitutional oath of office to do its duty. i yield back. >> thank you gentleman. are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of the

substitute? >> the question is now on the amendment in the nature of the substitute. those in favor say signal by saying i, those opposed they know. the eyes have it and the amendment is agreed to. bought the question is now on adoption and favorably reporting the attempt report and transmitting it as adopted for filing as a privilege report to the house of representatives. all those in favor signify by saying i, those opposed no. the pinion to share, the i has it. rollcall has been requested, the clerk will call the role. mr. micah, mr. micah bowtie.

mr. turner, mr. duncan votes i. mr. jordan boats yes. mr. walberg, mr. kosar, mr. dowdy votes yes. mr. meadows, mr. meadows votes yes, mr. desantis boats yes mr. buck, mr. walker boats yes

mr. bluhm mr. carter mr. hurd mr. hurd votes yes mr. palmer mr. palmer votes yes. mr. cummings, mr. cummings votes no. >> miss maloney miss maloney votes no. miss norton. mr. clay, mr. clay votes no. mr. lynch, mr. lynch votes no. mr. cooper, mr. connelly. >> never, know-how, no way, no. >> mr. connelly votes no.

>> miss kelly, ms. kelly votes no. miss lawrence, miss lawrence votes no. >> mr. lu, ms. watson coleman votes no. miss plaskett votes no mr. boyle, mr. boyle votes no. mr. welch, mr. welch votes no. miss grisham votes no. >> how is the number from the district from columbia reported? >> miss norton is not recorded. >> miss norton votes no. >> does any other member, have all members been recorded?

>> miss islamists is not recorded. >> miss lummus votes yes. >> have all members had an opportunity to vote? how is the member from michigan, mr. walberg recorded? >> mr. walberg is not recorded, he votes yes. >> are we good? anybody else? the clerk will report the tally. >> on this votes there are 15

yeas and 13 days. the members will have two days to cement their views and i ask unanimous consent of the staff be allowed to make necessary technical and conforming changes to the report order reported today subject to the approval of the minority. hearing the objections, there's no further objection and we are adjourned.

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> the cspan radio app makes it easy to follow the 2016 election

wherever you are. it is is free to download from the apple app store or google play. get audio coverage cspan radio and cspan television plus podcast times for our popular public affairs and book programs. stay up-to-date on all the election coverage. the radio app means you always have been on the go. >> is really prime minister benjamin netanyahu spoke before the un general assembly in new york city. he said israel was committed to a two state solution to the ongoing israeli-palestinian conflict. he called for more engaged diplomatic and trade relations with his country. this is 40 minutes. >> it is my pleasure in welcoming the prime minister of israel. i would like you to address the

general assembly. [applause] >> thank you mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, what i am about to say is going to shock you. israel has a bright future at the un. now i know that hearing that from me must surely come as a surprise, because year after year, i have stood at this very

podium and slammed the un for its obsessive bias against israel, and the un deserved every scathing word for the disgrace of the general assembly that last year passed 20 resolutions against the democratic state of israel, and a grand total of three resolutions against all the other countries on the planet. israel 20, rest of the world three. what about the joke called the un human rights council which each year condemns israel more than all the countries of the world combined.

as women are being systematically raped, murdered, sold into slavery across the world, which is the only country that the un's commission on women chose to condemn this year? you guessed it, israel. israel where women fly fighter jets, lead major corporations, head universities, preside over the supreme court and have served as speaker of the prime minister. this continues at unesco. unesco, the un body charged with person preserving world heritage. this is hard to believe, unesco

just denied the 4000 year connection between the jewish people and it's holiest site, the temple mount. that's just as absurd as denying the connection between the great wall of china and china. ladies and gentlemen, the un begun as a moral force and has become a moral farce, so when it comes to israel at the un you probably think nothing will ever change, right? well, think again. you see, everything will change and a lot sooner than you will think.

the change will happen in this hall because back home your governments are rapidly changing their attitudes towards israel and sooner or later, that will change the way you vote on israel at the un. more and more nations in asia and africa and latin america, more more nations see israel as a potent partner, a partner in fighting the terrorism of today, a partner in developing the technology of tomorrow. we should have diplomatic relations with 160 countries. countries. that's nearly double the number that we had when we served as ambassador some 30 years ago. those ties are getting broader and deeper every day.

we are leaders that increasingly appreciate that israel is a powerful country with one of the best intelligence services on earth. we have unmatched experience and proven capabilities in fighting terrorism. many of your governments seek our help in keeping your countries safe. many also seek to benefit from israel's ingenuity and agriculture and health and water and cyber and a diffusion of big data connectivity and artificial intelligence. that is fusion that is changing our world in every way. you might consider this, israel leads the world in recycling wastewater. we recycle about 90% of our wastewater. how remarkable is that.

given the next country on the list only recycles about 20% of its wastewater, israel is a global waterpower. if you have a thirsty world, and we do, there is no better ally than israel. how about cyber security? that is an issue that affects everyone. israel accounts for one tenth of 1% of the world population, yet last year, we attracted 20% of the of the global private investment in cyber security. i want you to digest that number in cyber, israel is punching a whopping 200 times above its weight. israel is also a global cyber power. its actors are targeting your

banks, your planes your power grids and just about everything else. israel can offer indispensable help. governments are changing their attitudes towards israel because they know israel can help them protect their people, help them beat them, and help them better their lives. this summer i had an unbelievable opportunity to see this change so vividly during an unforgettable visit to for african countries. this is the first visit to africa by an israeli prime minister in decades. later today i will be meeting with the leaders from 17 african countries. we will discuss how israel he technologies can help them transform their countries. in africa, things are changing.

in china, india, russia and japan, attitudes towards israel have changed as well. these powerful nations no that despite israel's small size, it can make a big difference in many, many areas that are important to them. now i am going to surprise even more. you see the biggest change in attitudes towards israel is taking place elsewhere. it's taking place in the arab world. our peace treaties with egypt and jordan are the anchors of stability and the volatile middle east. i have to tell you this, for the first time in my lifetime, many

other states in the region recognize that israel is not their enemy. they recognize that israel is their ally. our common enemies are iran and isis. our common goals are security, prosperity and peace. i believe in the years ahead we will work together to achieve these goals, work together openly. through israel's diplomatic relations, we are undergoing nothing less than a revolution, and in this revolution, we never forget that our most cherished alliance, our deepest friendship is with the united states of america, the most powerful and the most generous nation on

earth. [applause] our unbreakable bond with the united states of america transcends parties and politics. it reflects, above all else, the overwhelming support for israel amongst the american people, support which is at record high and for which we are deeply grateful. :

>> >> i believe the day is not far off when israel can rely on many, many countries to stand with us that the un. slowly but surely, surely, then-- when the u.n. ambassadors condemned israel , those days are coming to an end. ladies and gentlemen, today's automatic majority at the u.n. reminds me of the incredible story of a japanese soldier hiro in the

philippines in 1944 lived in the jungle and scavenged for food. he evaded capture eventually surrendered but that did not happen until 1974, 30 years after roe portended. for decades he really is to believe the war was over and hiding in the jungle japanese tourist where it american luxury hotels in nearby manila. personally his former commanding officer persuaded him to come out of hiding only then did he lay down his arms. ladies and gentlemen, distinguished delegates, i have one message for you today, laid

down your arms. the war against israel at the un is over. perhaps some of you don't know what yet but i confident that one day in the not too distant future we will get the message from your president or your prime minister informing you though war against israel and the united nations has ended. i know there may be a storm before the call and talk about ganging up on israel at the u.n. later this year. given the history of hostility towards israel israel, does anyone really believe that israel will lead to the u.n. determine our security and vital national interest? we will not accept any

attempt by the u.n. to dictate terms to israel. the road to peace and runs through jerusalem and ramada not through york. -- new york but regardless of have to no-confidence in the years ahead the revolution stands among the nation will penetrate the hall of nations and i have so much confidence that i predict one decade from now the israeli prime minister will stand right here and actually applied the u.n.. wide we have to wait a decade? like we keep the vilifying israel? perhaps because you don't appreciate it is in just a

problem for my country, but your country to. if the u.n. spends so much time condemning the only liberal democracy in the least, it has far less time to have war for disease or poverty or clementine them all other serious problems that plague the planet. half a million slaughtered syrians helped by air-conditioned x including a field hospital. when i then gaze hanging from great -- grades with the denigration? that is for the march proudly again our streets and serve in our parliament and even in my own party.

serving children in north korea those children are they helped by your humanization of israel? they're feeding the of concrete throughout the developing world. the sooner our obsession and a better. the better for the un itself. ladies and gentlemen,, if the habits die hard palestinian habits die even harder. and the belfort declaration to prepare a lawsuit against britain from 1917. almost 100 years ago.

talk about stuck in the past . the palestinians may as well sue ivory and. to rebuild the temple in jerusalem 2500 years ago. come to think of it why not a palestinian class action suit against abraham to buy that plot of land? you are not laughing. it is as absurd as that. to sue the british government for the bell for declaration? are you kidding? this is taken seriously over here? >> the right of the jewish

people and when they supported the establishment of the jewish state and recognized the rights of the homeland. but today nearly 70 years later the palestinians still refuse to recognize not our right to a homeland or a state and this is the true core of the conflict the palestinian refusal to recognize the jewish state with any boundary. this isn't about the settlements. it never was. the conflict raged for decades were they were all

in arab hands. west bank and gaza again and again and again. we did not get peace we got thousands of rockets this conflict rages forethought palestinians that it can and must be resolved with negotiation. but this conflict has never been about the settlement. it has always been about the existence of the jewish

state. ladies and gentlemen israel is ready in i.m. ready to negotiate all final status issues but one thing l. negotiate the one and only jewish state. [applause] >> sustained applause for their prime minister of israel in the general assembly? the change may be coming sooner than i thought. and saying yes to a jewish state there would have been

no war, no refugee, or no complex. and when they finally say yes we will be able to end the conflict once and for all. here is the tragedy. not only trapped in the past but the leaders are poisoning the future imagine a day in the life of a 13 year-old palestinian boy. waking up before school with the best possible for the murder of a of us live soldiers.

last year three israeli civilians were murdered. and then to look up at a towering statue with the palestinian authority with the center of jerusalem killing 15 israelis. when he gets home he turns on the tv and sees an interview with the senior palestinian official that if you have a nuclear bomb that very day. and then with the advisor to

slit the throats of the israelis wherever you find them. checking face book and scenes dash party calls for the massacre of the athletes at the unit the olympics and then to watch a clip on to say that we welcome every drop of blood is spilled in jerusalem. that is a direct quotation. he ask his mother what would happen if he killed age you and went to the israeli prison? she tells them he will be paid thousands of dollars each month by the palestinian authority. the more jews he would kill

the more money he would get. and when he gets out of prison and with those palestinian authorities, ladies and gentlemen, all this is real and happens everyday and all the time. sadly represents hundreds of thousands of palestinian children for every moment to read every hour this is child abuse. imagine your child undergoing this brainwashing and to break free, to. but far too many don't. how can you expect the young

palestinians to support peace when their leaders plays in their minds? and reeducated our children for peace. and launching a pilot program. so we can better understand each other to stand side-by-side in peace. but is our response to those french elements that makes the difference. take the tragic case, i will never forget visiting hours

after he was attacked. the of little boy perpetrated by jews to lay unconscious as israeli doctors work around-the-clock no words could bring comfort to the boy or to the family and i told his uncle this is not our people this is not our way. i then ordered extraordinary measures to bring assailants to justice into david jewish citizens of israel are in

jail awaiting trial for some the sides are equally responsible but what the story actually proofs is the other opposite with a profound difference as the israeli leaders as they celebrate terrorist well israel jailed those among us. the palestinians so you have the choice to make you can

still keep trade or you can finally confront hatred to establish peace between our two people ladies and gentlemen, i know that many of you have given up on peace i remain committed to a vision of peace based on two's states for two people had believed as never before that changes taking place offering a unique opportunity to read vance -- advance the president of

egypt for his efforts for stability in our region it welcomes the of spirit of a dialogue of arab states to expand a broader peace. and the palestinians have to be a part of it. not next week or tomorrow but today would net be better if instead of speaking pasticcio other we were speaking to one another? instead of railing against israel at at the united nations in new york come speak to the israeli people at the knesset in jerusalem

and i will gladly come to speak to the palestinian parliament. ladies and gentlemen, while israel seeks peace with our neighbors we also know that it has no greater enemy than that of forces of militant islam. the bloody trail runs through all the continents brussels and haddad and tele-tv and jerusalem. from sydney to stamper dino so many have suffered the savagery of christians and jews of the kurds and many many others.

the heaviest price of all has been paid by innocent muslims, hundreds of thousands slaughtered turning into refugees and tens of millions brutally subjugated the defeat of militant islam for all humanity but especially a victory for those muslims who seek a life without fear and now life without peace or hope but to defeat those forces of militant islam we must fight tremendously in the real world and in the virtual world and dismantle the networks this credit the ideology we can and will

defeat them. it is no match for maternity help the stronger than hate freedom is mightier than and fear. we can do this ladies and gentlemen, with the forces of militant islam everyday we keep our borders safe from myiasis of the game changing weapons with those palestinian attacks from the west bank into deterred of the celotex from cause of. that is the same organization that cruel the unbelievably refuses to return three of our suggestions in the bodies of fallen soldiers and his

parents are here with us today. one request to bury their beloved son in israel. all they ask for is one simple thing. to be able to visit the grave of their fallen son in israel. but how maas' refuses hamas refuses because they could care less. with all that is decent and the world, against the inhumanity of hamas for all that is indecent and barbaric. hamas breaks every

humanitarian role - - rule in the book. ladies and gentlemen, the greatest threat to my country or to our region or ultimately to our world, remains of militant islamic regime of firebrand that ultimately seeks the annihilation across the middle east this year to fire ballistic missiles in defiance of security council resolution and has expanded of aggression of iraq and syria and yemen. of the global terror networks. it now stands 500.

so the threat that iran poses to all of us is not behind us but before us. to have a sustained and united effort to push back against the aggression. with the nuclear constraints led me be clear. to allow the terrorist regime not now or not in a decade, not ever. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i

stand before you today at a time when israel's former president is fighting for his life. one of israel's founding fathers were the boldest statement i know you will join me and all the people of israel to wish him a speedy recovery. i always admired his boundless optimism and i am also filled with hope and and, because it can defend itself against itself by itself because our fighting men and women is second to none because i know the

forces of civilization will alternately triumph over the forces of terror i am filled with hope and because in the age of innovation israel, the innovation nation is thriving as never before and because it works tirelessly to would vance and equality for all citizens everyone and i am filled with hope because despite all the naysayers i believe in the years ahead israel will forge a lasting peace with all neighbors. [applause] >> ladies and gentleman, i am hopeful about what israel

can accomplish because i have seen what it has accomplished in 1948 our population was 800,000. our main export was oranges people said we were too small, it too weak and too isolated to demographically outnumbered the skeptics were wrong about is feel then and they are wrong now. israel's population has grown tenfold and our economy 40 fold. today our biggest export is technology to power the world's computers and sell phones and so much more ladies and gentlemen, the

future belongs to those who innovate and why it belongs to countries like israel who wants to be your partner so i call on all of you to embrace israel and dream with israel true of the future we can build to gather of profittaking progress prosperity and peace a future of hope for all humanity or even at the u.n. comment israel will finally, inevitably take its rightful place among the nation's. [applause] . .

the smithsonian -- will be live from the national mall at 10:00 a.m. eastern for the outdoor dedication ceremony.