[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 109 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5827-H5846]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INSISTING DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMPLY WITH REQUESTS AND SUBPOENAS
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 971, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 970) insisting that the Department of Justice
fully comply with the requests, including subpoenas, of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and the subpoena issued by the
Committee on the Judiciary relating to potential violations of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personnel of the Department of
Justice and related matters, and ask for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 971, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 970
Whereas ``the power of the Congress to conduct
investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That
power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the
administration of existing laws as well as proposed or
possibly needed statutes [and] comprehends probes into
departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption,
inefficiency or waste.'' (Watkins v. United States (354 U.S.
178, 187));
Whereas a necessary corollary of Congress's oversight and
investigative authority is the power to issue and enforce
subpoenas. The ``[I]ssuance of subpoenas . . . has long been
held to be a legitimate use by Congress of its power to
investigate.'' (Eastland v. U.S. Serviceman's Fund (421 U.S.
491, 504));
Whereas Chairman Devin Nunes of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives
requested information on potential abuses of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act in a March 8, 2017, letter to
the Department of Justice;
Whereas the Committee reviewed responsive documents on
March 17, 2017, but thereafter the Department of Justice
refused to make the documents available;
Whereas Chairman Nunes issued a subpoena on August 24,
2017, to include the documents sought on March 8, 2017;
Whereas the Department of Justice came to substantially
comply with the subpoena 10 months after the subpoena and
more than one year from the original request;
Whereas Chairman Nunes sought documents related to 9
current or former Department of Justice personnel in a March
23, 2018, letter;
Whereas the Department of Justice complied with the request
relating to one individual on May 8, 2018, but has yet to
fully comply with the other requests;
Whereas Chairman Nunes sent a letter classified ``SECRET''
on April 24, 2018, followed by a subpoena on April 30, 2018,
which demanded the production of all documents related to the
issue identified in the earlier letter;
Whereas compliance with this letter and subpoena has to
date been limited to briefings and access to supporting
documents, which have not been provided to all of the Members
and cleared staff of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence;
Whereas the exclusion of the Members and cleared staff from
access to these briefings and supporting documents amounts to
non-compliance with the April 30 subpoena;
Whereas, on October 24, 2017, the Committees on the
Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform opened a joint
investigation into the decisions made by the Department of
Justice in 2016 and 2017 related to its handling of the
investigation of the emails of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton;
Whereas, on November 3, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman
Gowdy, and four Members of Congress sent a letter to Attorney
General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
requesting 5 specific categories of documents;
Whereas, on December 12, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman
Gowdy, and other Members sent a letter emphasizing the
expectation that the Department of Justice provide all
requested documents as well as a privilege log;
Whereas, on February 1, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte sent a
letter requesting documents related to potential Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses;
Whereas the Department of Justice has missed document
production deadlines, produced duplicative pages of
information, and redacted pages to the point where they
contain no probative information;
Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary issued a subpoena to
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein on March 22, 2018, which
compelled him to produce, among other things--
(1) all documents and communications referring or relating
to internal Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of
Investigation management requests to review, scrub, report
on, or analyze any reporting of Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act collection involving, or coverage
mentioning, the Trump campaign or the Trump administration;
(2) all documents and communications referring or relating
to defensive briefings provided by the Department of Justice
or the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the 2016
presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton or President Trump;
and
(3) all documents and communications referring or relating
to proposed, recommended, or actual Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act coverage on the Clinton Foundation or
persons associated or in communication with the Clinton
Foundation; and
Whereas the Department of Justice has failed to comply with
the March 22 subpoena by failing to substantially comply with
the demand for the production of all of these categories of
documents: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives insists that,
by not later than July 6, 2018, the Department of Justice
fully comply with the requests, including subpoenas, of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the subpoena
issued by the Committee on the Judiciary relating to
potential violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act by personnel of the Department of Justice and related
matters.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Meadows) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
General Leave
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and add
extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a resolution that literally
is about this institution. And when we look at this, it is about the
Department of Justice and the FBI giving documents to this institution
so that they can conduct proper oversight.
We have had months and months go by with multiple requests where
those requests have been largely ignored by the Department of Justice.
It is time that the American people actually have the transparency
that they deserve in being able to see these documents and let them
judge for themselves what did or did not go on within the Department of
Justice and FBI.
Mr. Speaker, Lady Justice should have a blindfold, and that means
that justice should not be meted out to those that are well connected
or well financed. It should be even in all regards.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and, more
importantly, for this resolution.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 28, 2018, on page H5827, the following appeared: Mr.
MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. JORDAN). Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and, more importantly, for this resolution.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. Speaker, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. JORDAN). Mr.
JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and, more
importantly, for this resolution.
========================= END NOTE =========================
This is real simple. It is about our branch of government, the
legislative branch, getting the information we are entitled to get as a
separate and coequal branch of government to do our constitutional duty
of oversight.
We have requested information from DOJ. They haven't given it to us.
We have issued subpoenas. They haven't complied with subpoenas.
We have caught them hiding information. They redacted the fact, tried
to hide the fact that Peter Strzok, a key player in both the Clinton
investigation and Russian investigation, was friends with one of the
FISA court judges. That was redacted for no other reason than it was
embarrassing.
And, of course, we know that the deputy attorney general threatened
staff members on the House Intelligence Committee.
[[Page H5828]]
So this is real simple. Enough is enough. Give us the documents we
are entitled to have. Let's have the full weight of the House behind a
resolution saying you have got 7 days to get your act together.
Let me just say one other thing. When have you ever seen an agency
where the top people who ran the Clinton investigation and the Russian
investigation have had this happen to them: James Comey has been fired;
Deputy Director Andy McCabe fired, lied three times under oath, faces a
criminal referral; Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki has resigned; General
Counsel Jim Baker demoted, then left the FBI; Lisa Page, FBI counsel,
demoted, then left the FBI; Peter Strzok, deputy head of
counterintelligence, demoted, and was escorted out of the FBI just days
ago.
When have you ever seen that happen? And they won't give us the
information we are asking for.
Something is going on over there. This is a resolution that is
needed, because it, again, will be the full House of Representatives
saying enough is enough. Give us the information so we can do our job
and get answers for the American people.
That is why I applaud the gentleman's efforts and support this
resolution, and encourage every single Member of this body, as an
institution, to vote for this resolution.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this so-called resolution of insistence is being rushed
to the floor as an emergency measure.
There are many emergencies facing the United States at this hour. The
subject matter of this resolution is not among them.
This resolution is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, wrong on the
rules, and a dangerous precedent to set for the House of
Representatives.
First, the resolution is riddled with inaccuracies. Taking this
document at face value, you might think that the Department of Justice
had not already sent us hundreds of thousands of documents, many of
which the sponsors of this resolution delight in leaking to the public.
It also relies heavily on the March 22 subpoena issued by Chairman
Goodlatte, a subpoena that was not issued in compliance with House
rules, and that, according to past House counselors with whom we have
consulted, likely cannot be enforced.
{time} 1030
Second, this resolution is premised on a demand for documents to
which Congress is not entitled and which the Justice Department cannot
give.
To be clear, I firmly believe that when the House Judiciary Committee
asks the executive branch for information, our committee is entitled to
that information in almost every case. But we are not entitled to
information that goes to the core of an ongoing criminal investigation.
This prohibition is both a matter of constitutional law, as it falls
to the executive branch to enforce the law, and a matter of basic
fairness. It is wrong to inject politics into criminal proceedings.
I suspect that the sponsors of this resolution already know this.
They are asking for documents that they know they will probably never
receive, and they likely view this impossible request as a win-win
proposition.
If they somehow bully the Department of Justice into turning over
materials that go to the core of Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation, that information could be and probably would be shared
with the subject of the investigation, namely, President Trump. Indeed,
Mayor Giuliani has hinted exactly that. Based on past precedent, that
information would next be shared with anybody watching FOX News.
If they do not pry these documents from the Department, they will use
that fact to further smear the special counsel, the Deputy Attorney
General, and anyone else investigating the President. They have even
suggested impeaching the Deputy Attorney General, a proposal that is
both without historical precedent and patently ridiculous.
The real purpose of this resolution, and of this whole attempt, is to
cast aspersions, is to defame the special prosecutor, the special
counsel, and the people associated with him, the Deputy Attorney
General.
Finally, voting on this resolution today sets a dangerous precedent.
The majority will, in effect, have shown the American people that pure
politics is more important than the facts and more important than the
law. And for what?
You can force this fight with the leadership of the Department of
Justice. You can demand documents that the Department cannot give us,
and to which we are not entitled. You can attack the character of
lifelong public servants like Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and
Special Counsel Mueller. You can burn bridges with your colleagues to
speed this resolution to the floor. But you cannot stop the special
counsel's investigation.
Before Members vote today, we must ask: When the special counsel's
work is complete, when the enormity of what he has found has been laid
bare, how will the American people judge the House's actions here
today?
I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, dangerous measure, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would make one comment. It is interesting, when the gentleman
opposite, Mr. Speaker, is talking about motives and what is designed by
this when we have not had a conversation about that.
It is also interesting, when we talk about those very motives about
an ongoing investigation, part of this request is asking for 10,000
pages of documents on an investigation that is already complete. I
would think we would have the ability to get those from the Department
of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for
yielding time to me.
You know, an old Arizona farmer told me that when you put up a fence,
the cow almost always goes over and leans on the fence to see how
strong that fence is, because the cow wants to get to the other side.
If the fence is strong, then it moves away, and you don't have that
problem. But if your fence is a little bit loose in the wiring, it is
going to go over, and that cow is going to get on out. And that is what
has happened here.
What has happened here is we have had a loose fence. We have failed
to demand the requirements be met as we have requested. It is not
bullying. It is not bullying to request documents. It is not bullying
to subpoena and use the right that we have to subpoena. That is not
bullying anybody.
But I will tell you what the problem is--this resolution gets at the
heart of it. It says that we are going to give you an extra 2 weeks.
That is rebuilding the fence a little bit. That is rebuilding that
fence a little bit and saying: We have oversight authority. You need to
comply with that oversight authority.
So we are going to rebuild the fence. And I fully support this
resolution, Mr. Speaker. But I will tell you what, I would
enthusiastically support a resolution for contempt, because there has
not been compliance, nor has there been adequate reason given for
noncompliance.
So, I support this resolution 100 percent. I am going to be voting
for it. I have cosponsored it. But I will tell you what, we need to be
holding a resolution of contempt, because this body and its authority
have been held in contempt.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on
this particular issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished ranking member of the Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for
yielding, and certainly, let me thank my good friend from North
Carolina.
I think the Nation should understand that we have these stark
political differences. We have these stark legal differences. But there
is nothing that can undermine the rule of law and the truth.
[[Page H5829]]
My good friend who just spoke earlier wants to go to the extreme of
holding the Nation's professional law enforcement officers in contempt
for doing their job. What I hold in my hand is from the Office of
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, issued in June 2018.
Besides these pages, Mr. Speaker, there are eons and eons of documents.
Right now, in the Judiciary Committee, Deputy Attorney General
Rosenstein is there voluntarily. We have Director Wray there. Even if
there was a subpoena, they have come. Both of them indicated that they
canceled important trips to be here before the United States Congress.
I asked in that hearing: What was the reason for the emergency
hearing? What was the good cause? And I don't know if my colleagues
heard it. I could not decipher any good cause of why we are now thrown
into this hearing room.
The reason I say that, which speaks to this particular resolution, is
the fact that we have had now, under the Presidency of Mr. Trump,
almost 2 years, and the Judiciary Committee has not answered one single
inquiry offered by the Democrats. We have not had one legitimate
hearing on the Russian collusion to have violated and made vile the
2016 election.
I do not speak to the results. I speak to the impact on the integrity
of the election by the American people. We have not had one hearing.
Now we are in a rush to continue to reinvestigate and reinvestigate
the findings of the inspector general and the investigators who
indicated that they investigated this and, in essence, found no
criminal behavior; that this is Secretary Clinton's email.
I think it is public knowledge that the item that she was being
looked at for was the misuse of classified data. Minimal, at best. We
don't want that to happen. She did not want it to happen. But she was
cleared of any criminal intent or criminal actions by people that we
would normally trust.
I believe in oversight. I don't want scandals at the Department of
Justice. I want the Civil Rights Division to work well. Maybe somebody
should ask the question why the Civil Rights Division is understaffed
and barely working. Maybe somebody should ask the question why the
Trump administration switched from being supportive of anti-voter ID
laws that were discriminatory but did not.
So this resolution is redundant. It goes in the face of those who are
already performing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it goes in the face of those who are
already performing.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has already produced about
850,000 documents at the request of this group of folk from Oversight
and Judiciary. They are complying.
Why are we on the floor taking a hammer to a flea? That is
unnecessary. Why are we not in the Judiciary Committee, probing the
individuals who are now appearing?
I want the American people to understand this is a resolution that
has nothing to do with the crux of protecting the November 18, 2018,
elections, and it has nothing to do with reality. We have finished our
work, and we need to go on to protecting the United States of America
against bogus elections.
I feel like Yogi Berra--I have deja vu all over again.
In just the last week or so, we have had three hearings related to
the actions of the Department of Justice and the FBI in the run-up to
the 2016 election.
Over the course of that last week or so, the country has watched as
thousands of children have been separated from their parents.
The Supreme Court has seen the resignation of the Court's swing vote.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court thought it wise to uphold a travel ban
on nationals from Muslim majority countries.
And yesterday, the Supreme court gutted the labor rights of public
sector employees.
With all of these pressing issues for this august body to determine,
what are we talking about?
We're talking about Hillary Clinton's Emails.
Why are we talking about Hillary Clinton's emails?
We're here because one week after the Intelligence community briefed
then president-elect Trump, that the Russians had interfered with the
election to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.
At best, the timing of the announcement was done to draw a false
equivalence between the actions of career law enforcement in
investigating the Clinton email server and what would later become the
Special Counsel's investigation; at worst, it suggests using the levers
of law enforcement for political ends.
We are here well after the fact that the Special Counsel
investigating Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 election and the
extent to which associates of the Trump Campaign were complicit in this
endeavor. The Special Counsel has already secured 23 indictments
against companies and individuals, some of whom are Americans.
This includes the President's campaign manager, who is currently
sitting in jail awaiting charges in two judicial districts.
This is after the Special Counsel has secured guilty pleas, including
from:
The President's National Security Advisor;
A lawyer with ties to the President's former campaign manager;
The President's former Foreign Policy Advisor; and
The President's former deputy campaign manager.
All the while, while the Special Counsel was doing this report, the
House GOP was salivating for this report to be released.
And then the OIG promulgated the report.
And after the OIG promulgated that report, the House GOP was
disappointed, because they did not like what the independent
investigation found: that the decisions by the DOJ and the FBI in the
days and preceding the 2016 were not tainted by political bias.
Because the OIG's report does not conform with the House's GOP
narrative, the House GOP has to muddy the waters, even if that means
interfering with an active counterintelligence investigation.
But, before this tea party resolution, let's just recall what has the
House Freedom Caucus so upset.
And now, they want information that is at the heart of an active
counterintelligence criminal investigation.
And in an effort to aid their allies in the White House, the House
GOP has gone to extraordinary effort to alchemize its oversight
responsibilities into a line of information to the White House.
While this has happened over the year, the OIG has been preparing its
report--and it was released earlier this month.
The OIG Report concludes that while former Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey was insubordinate in the
manner and content of his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton in
her use of a private server, the decision was not done with political
bias.
This conclusion definitely reignited strong emotions, but a clear eye
focused on all operative facts supports the inference that the actions
taken by federal law enforcement, out of an abundance of caution, had
the effect of conferring significant advantage on the Trump Campaign.
I am a strong supporter of law enforcement.
They do a tough job under difficult circumstances.
This was no less true in the weeks and months preceding the 2016
election.
The confluence of facts and the public statements of then-candidate
Trump likely complicated law enforcement's difficult job.
``From the outset, nothing in this report calls into question or
undermines the Special Counsel's investigation into Russian
interference into the 2016 election and whether and to what extent this
endeavor was aided by associates of the Trump Campaign.
Next, while the OIG report released today concludes that former FBI
Director Comey was insubordinate in the breadth and depth of his July
2016 press conference declining prosecution of Secretary Clinton, the
decision was not done for political purposes or colored with political
bias.
``Third, any suggestion that the actions of law enforcement in the
second half of 2016 were done to support the Hillary Clinton Campaign
to the detriment of the Trump Campaign is belied by the fact that both
the decision to editorialize the declination of prosecution in July
2016 and the decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation in
October 2016, eleven days before the election, revealed a double
standard favorable to Trump and prejudicial to Clinton.
This is because that while the country was debating Secretary
Clinton's judgment in setting up a private server for her emails,
associates of the Trump Campaign were engaging in questionable--and
possibly criminal--behavior with agents of the Russian government.
This disjunction undoubtedly benefitted Trump, however
unquantifiably.
``Fourth, while the president may tout this report as supportive of
his decision to terminate Comey from his position as FBI Director,
[[Page H5830]]
nothing in this report changes two facts: first, after the FBI reopened
the investigation into the Clinton email issue in the waning days of
the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Trump applauded Comey's announcement.
Given his tact at the time, and his change of heart now and his
reasons for doing so, only one conclusion is supportable: that Trump's
concern after the election for Comey's decision is more disingenuous
than not.
Moreover, to the extent that the president tries to claim that his
reasons for firing Comey were consistent with the findings of the OIG
report, the president revealed his true motives for firing Comey in an
interview with Lester Holt: that it was done because of the Russia
investigation.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The reality of this is the very document that the gentlewoman from
Texas put up, that 500-page report, is actually investigative
conclusions based on 1.2 million documents, of which this body--this
body--has received less than 24,000 pages of the same documents that
she mentions. So all we are asking for is for us, the legislative body,
and the American people, to be able to get the very same documents the
Department of Justice has.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today in insisting that
the Department of Justice fully comply with Congress and provide the
requested documents, including subpoenas related to the potential FISA
abuse.
The Department of Justice has done nothing but divert and block
Congress from documents that are well within our rights to receive.
They have repeatedly insisted that they have complied with the document
request when they clearly have not.
The Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has
been the major player in stonewalling Congress. The longer they stall
this process, the more the American people lose faith in our justice
system. That is a threat to our country's future.
I stand here today calling for transparency, answers, and
accountability so that we can get to the truth. The American people
deserve the accountability. The time to act is now.
If the DOJ fails to comply, then we will be forced to take it to the
next level, to hold Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in contempt,
as my previous speaker has spoken, or even to impeach, which would be
my preferred course of action right now.
It is very simple. Comply with the law, do your job, or get out.
I support this resolution.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
and tenacious spirit on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield further time, I have a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 970, which is before us now,
includes a reference to a document unilaterally issued by the House
Judiciary Committee on March 22, 2018. It is my understanding that the
issuance of this purported subpoena is defective because it did not
comply with committee rules providing that:
At least two business days before issuing any subpoena, the Chair
shall consult with the Ranking Member, and the Chair shall provide a
full copy of the proposed subpoena.
While, in this instance, the chairman did provide me, as ranking
member, with a copy of a proposed subpoena on March 19, the document
the chairman issued on March 22 was substantively and materially
different from the document that was shared on March 19, in abrogation
of committee rules.
My parliamentary inquiry is whether these circumstances would have
any bearing on consideration of this resolution, H. Res. 970, and,
absent that, whether the defective nature would have any bearing on any
future attempts by the House to enforce the supposed subpoena?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is currently considering H. Res.
970. The Chair cannot separately comment on committee proceedings. That
is a matter for debate on the resolution.
Mr. NADLER. Could the Chair repeat that last sentence? I couldn't
hear.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Certainly. The House is currently
considering H. Res. 970. The Chair cannot separately comment on
committee proceedings. That is a matter for debate on the resolution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in that case I will include in the Record a
copy of a letter that I sent to the chair dated June 21, 2018,
detailing the facts and background concerning the defective nature of
the subpoena purportedly issued on March 22.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 21, 2018.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing to inform you that
the subpoena you issued to the Department of Justice on March
22, 2018 does not comply with Committee rules and is
therefore not a valid subpoena under the Rules of the House.
On March 22, 2018, you issued a subpoena to the Department
of Justice ``seeking documents related to [the Majority's]
ongoing investigation regarding charging decisions in the
investigation surrounding former Secretary Clinton's private
email server in 2016.'' House Republicans have repeatedly
accused Department officials of failing to comply with this
subpoena--and even threatened some of those officials with
contempt of Congress and impeachment proceedings.
As you know, if you choose to issue a subpoena
unilaterally--instead of putting the proposed subpoena to a
vote of the Committee--our rules require you to ``consult''
with me in advance. Specifically:
At least two business days before issuing any subpoena
pursuant to subsection (a), the Chair shall consult with the
Ranking Member regarding the authorization and issuance of
such subpoena, and the Chair shall provide a full copy of the
proposed subpoena, including any proposed document schedule,
at that time.
As we discussed on at least one other occasion, our
``consultation'' is not complete--and the subpoena may not
issue--until you have transmitted a full copy of the subpoena
to my office.
On March 19, 2018, we met to discuss a subpoena for
documents related to the Department of Justice's handling of
the Clinton investigation. At that time, you provided me with
a document that describes 14 different categories of
information sought from the Department and the FBI. I have
enclosed a copy of this document for your convenience.
The subpoena you issued on March 22 is substantively and
materially different from the document you shared with me on
March 19. The subpoena requests nine categories of
information, not 14. It is also significantly different in
scope than the document you shared with me at our meeting.
Our Committee rules prevent the Majority from making
substantive changes to a proposed subpoena without
appropriate notice to the Minority. Because you did not
provide me with a copy of the subpoena that actually issued,
the subpoena that you eventually issued would be
unenforceable as a matter of law.
Although you certainly have the option to issue another
unilateral subpoena to cure this defect, I would urge you to
consider a more bipartisan response. As you know, we recently
changed our rules to give the Chairman the option of issuing
a subpoena without first putting the proposal to a vote of
the Committee. We agreed to this change based largely on your
guarantee that you would only use the unilateral subpoena
power ``during periods of recess'' or in ``extraordinary
circumstances.'' This Congress, you have proposed to issue a
unilateral subpoena on three occasions. I have objected each
time, on the grounds that the circumstances did not meet your
own standard and that the full Committee should have an
opportunity to debate the wisdom of using our time and
resources in this manner. I am similarly concerned about your
refusal to include Democrats in discussions of what documents
the Committee should request and which individuals should be
interviewed and when meeting with Department of Justice
officials to negotiate how they will respond to Committee
requests.
On a broader level, I hope that this defective subpoena
will give the Majority an opportunity to reassess its
priorities. I believe that other work should take precedence
over this largely unproductive investigation. Foreign
adversaries continue to threaten our elections, the President
has created an immigration crisis at our borders, gun
violence plagues our schools and our homes, and the Trump
Administration continues to disregard even the most basic
ethics rules. Surely any one of these topics, each one
squarely within the Committee's jurisdiction, is more
important than the unending hunt for Hillary Clinton's email.
Sincerely,
Jerrold Nadler.
Enclosures.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, March 22, 2018.
Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein,
Deputy Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Rosenstein: Four months have passed since Chairman
Gowdy and I, along
[[Page H5831]]
with Representatives Jordan, Meadows, Buck, and Ratcliffe,
wrote you seeking documents related to our ongoing
investigation regarding charging decisions in the
investigation surrounding former Secretary Clinton's private
email server in 2016. To date, the Department has only
produced a fraction of the documents that have been
requested. In addition, in early February, I wrote the
Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking
documents related to potential abuses of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. No documents have been
provided to the Committee in response to this request.
Given the Department's ongoing delays in producing these
documents, I am left with no choice but to issue the enclosed
subpoena to compel production of these documents.
Moreover, since our requests for documents related to the
Clinton email server investigation were made, it has come to
light that the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility
recommended the dismissal of former FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe. This recommendation appears to be based, at
least in part, on events related to the investigation
surrounding former Secretary Clinton's private email server.
Accordingly, the subpoena additionally covers all documents
and communications relied upon by FBI's Office of
Professional Responsibility in reaching its decision to
recommend the dismissal of former Deputy Director McCabe.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important
matter. If any part of the production has been designated as
classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526, please contact
Committee majority staff so that arrangements may be made to
ensure that the documents are handled appropriately within
the House.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
Enclosure.
[[Page H5832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN18.001
[[Page H5833]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN18.002
[[Page H5834]]
Schedule
In accordance with the attached instructions for responding
to Judiciary Committee document requests, you are required to
produce the following documents in unredacted form:
1. All documents and communications provided to or obtained
by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) regarding the FBI's decision-making with
respect to the FBI's investigation of former Secretary
Clinton's private email server;
2. Documents sufficient to show the names, titles, and
business addresses of all personnel who participated in
deliberations concerning the decision whether to charge
Clinton. In lieu of documents, you may provide a list of the
requested information;
3. The document referenced by James Rybicki during his
January 18, 2018 interview with the Committee referring or
relating to court cases or judicial decisions used in
considering, justifying, or communicating possible charges
against, or decisions not to charge, Clinton;
4. All documents and communications relied upon by FBI's
Office of Professional Responsibility in reaching its
decision to recommend the dismissal of former FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe;
5. All documents and communications with the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISC'') referring or
relating to any Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(``FISA'') applications associated with Carter Page or
individuals on President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign
or part of the Trump administration;
6. All documents and communications referring or relating
to FISC hearings and deliberations, including any court
transcripts, related to any FISA applications associated with
Carter Page or the Trump campaign or Trump administration;
7. All documents and communications referring or relating
to internal Department of Justice or FBI management requests
to review, scrub, report on, or analyze any reporting of FISA
collection involving, or coverage mentioning, the Trump
campaign or Trump administration;
8. All documents and communications referring or relating
to defensive briefings provided by the Department of Justice
or FBI to the 2016 presidential campaigns of Clinton or
President Trump; and,
9. All documents and communications referring or relating
to proposed, recommended, or actual FISA coverage on the
Clinton Foundation or persons associated or in communication
with the Clinton Foundation.
Responding to Judiciary Committee Document Requests
In responding to the document request, please apply the
instructions and definitions set forth below:
INSTRUCTIONS
1. In complying with this request, you should produce all
responsive documents in unredacted form that are in your
possession, custody, or control or otherwise available to
you, regardless of whether the documents are possessed
directly by you.
2. Documents responsive to the request should not be
destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made
inaccessible to the Committee.
3. In the event that any entity, organization, or
individual named in the request has been, or is currently,
known by any other name, the request should be read also to
include such other names under that alternative
identification.
4. Each document should be produced in a form that may be
copied by standard copying machines.
5. When you produce documents, you should identify the
paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) in the Committee's request to
which the document responds.
6. Documents produced pursuant to this request should be
produced in the order in which they appear in your files and
should not be rearranged. Any documents that are stapled,
clipped, or otherwise fastened together should not be
separated. Documents produced in response to this request
should be produced together with copies of file labels,
dividers, or identifying markers with which they were
associated when this request was issued. Indicate the office
or division and person from whose files each document was
produced.
7. Each folder and box should be numbered, and a
description of the contents of each folder and box, including
the paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) of the request to which the
documents are responsive, should be provided in an
accompanying index.
8. Responsive documents must be produced regardless of
whether any other person or entity possesses non-identical or
identical copies of the same document.
9. The Committee requests electronic documents in addition
to paper productions. If any of the requested information is
available in machine-readable or electronic form (such as on
a computer server, hard drive, CD, DVD, back up tape, or
removable computer media such as thumb drives, flash drives,
memory cards, and external hard drives), you should
immediately consult with Committee majority staff to
determine the appropriate format in which to produce the
information. Documents produced in electronic format should
be organized, identified, and indexed electronically in a
manner comparable to the organizational structure called for
in (6) and (7) above.
10. If any document responsive to this request was, but no
longer is, in your possession, custody, or control, or has
been placed into the possession, custody, or control of any
third party and cannot be provided in response to this
request, you should identify the document (stating its date,
author, subject, and recipients) and explain the
circumstances under which the document ceased to be in your
possession, custody, or control, or was placed in the
possession, custody, or control of a third party.
11. If any document responsive to this request was, but no
longer is, in your possession, custody, or control, state:
a) how the document was disposed of;
b) the name, current address, and telephone number of the
person who currently has possession, custody, or control over
the document;
c) the date of disposition; and
d) the name, current address, and telephone number of each
person who authorized said disposition or who had or has
knowledge of said disposition.
12. If any document responsive to this request cannot be
located, describe with particularity the efforts made to
locate the document and the specific reason for its
disappearance, destruction, or unavailability.
13. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this
request referring to a document, communication, meeting, or
other event is inaccurate, but the actual date or other
descriptive detail is known to you or is otherwise apparent
from the context of the request, you should produce all
documents that would be responsive as if the date or other
descriptive detail were correct.
14. The request is continuing in nature and applies to any
newly discovered document, regardless of the date of its
creation. Any document not produced because it has not been
located or discovered by the return date should be produced
immediately upon location or discovery subsequent thereto.
15. All documents should be Bates-stamped sequentially and
produced sequentially. In a cover letter to accompany your
response, you should include a total page count for the
entire production, including both hard copy and electronic
documents.
16. Two sets of the documents should be delivered to the
Committee, one set to the majority staff in Room 2138 of the
Rayburn House Office Building and one set to the minority
staff in Room 2142 of the Rayburn House Office Building. You
should consult with Committee majority staff regarding the
method of delivery prior to sending any materials.
17. In the event that a responsive document is withheld on
any basis, including a claim of privilege, you should provide
a log containing the following information concerning every
such document: (a) the reason the document is not being
produced; (b) the type of document; (c) the general subject
matter; (d) the date, author, and addressee; (e) the
relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and
(f) any other description necessary to identify the document
and to explain the basis for not producing the document. If a
claimed privilege applies to only a portion of any document,
that portion only should be withheld and the remainder of the
document should be produced. As used herein, ``claim of
privilege'' includes, but is not limited to, any claim that a
document either may or must be withheld from production
pursuant to any statute, rule, or regulation.
(a) Any objections or claims of privilege are waived if you
fail to provide an explanation of why full compliance is not
possible and a log identifying with specificity the ground(s)
for withholding each withheld document prior to the request
compliance date.
(b) In complying with the request, be apprised that (unless
otherwise determined by the Committee) the Committee does not
recognize: any purported non-disclosure privileges associated
with the common law including, but not limited to, the
deliberative-process privilege, the attorney-client
privilege, and attorney work product protections; any
purported privileges or protections from disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act; or any purported contractual
privileges, such as non-disclosure agreements.
(c) Any assertion by a request recipient of any such non-
constitutional legal bases for withholding documents or other
materials shall be of no legal force and effect and shall not
provide a justification for such withholding or refusal,
unless and only to the extent that the Committee (or the
chair of the Committee, if authorized) has consented to
recognize the assertion as valid.
18. If the request cannot be complied with in full, it
should be complied with to the extent possible, which should
include an explanation of why full compliance is not
possible.
19. Upon completion of the document production, you must
submit a written certification, signed by you or your
counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been
completed of all documents in your possession, custody, or
control which reasonably could contain responsive documents;
(2) documents responsive to the request have not been
destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made
inaccessible to the Committee since the date of receiving the
Committee's request or in anticipation of receiving the
Committee's request, and (3) all documents identified during
the search that are responsive have been produced to the
Committee, identified in a log provided to the Committee, as
described in (17) above, or identified as provided in (10),
(11), or (12) above.
20. When representing a witness or entity before the
Committee in response to a document request or request for
transcribed
[[Page H5835]]
interview, counsel for the witness or entity must promptly
submit to the Committee a notice of appearance specifying the
following: (a) counsel's name, firm or organization, and
contact information; and (b) each client represented by the
counsel in connection with the proceeding. Submission of a
notice of appearance constitutes acknowledgement that counsel
is authorized to accept service of process by the Committee
on behalf of such client(s) and that counsel is bound by and
agrees to comply with all applicable House and Committee
rules and regulations.
DEFINITIONS
1. The term ``document'' means any written, recorded, or
graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless of how
recorded, and whether original or copy, including but not
limited to, the following: memoranda, reports, expense
reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports,
working papers, records, notes, letters, notices,
confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets,
magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, interoffice and intra-
office communications, electronic mail (``e-mail''), instant
messages, text messages, calendars, contracts, cables,
notations of any type of conversation, telephone call,
meeting or other communication, bulletins, printed matter,
computer printouts, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses,
returns, summaries, minutes, bills, accounts, estimates,
projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press
releases, circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions,
offers, studies and investigations, questionnaires and
surveys, power point presentations, spreadsheets, and work
sheets. The term ``document'' includes all drafts,
preliminary versions, alterations, modifications, revisions,
changes, and amendments to the foregoing, as well as any
attachments or appendices thereto.
2. The term ``documents in your possession, custody or
control'' means (a) documents that are in your possession,
custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or
present agents, employees, or representatives acting on your
behalf; (b) documents that you have a legal right to obtain,
that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access;
and (c) documents that have been placed in the possession,
custody, or control of any third party.
3. The term ``communication'' means each manner or means of
disclosure or exchange of information, regardless of means
utilized, whether oral, electronic, by document or otherwise,
and whether in an in-person meeting, by telephone, facsimile,
email (desktop or mobile device), text message, instant
message, MMS or SMS message, regular mail, telexes, releases,
or otherwise.
4. The terms ``and'' and ``or'' should be construed broadly
and either conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to
bring within the scope of this request any information which
might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. The
singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The
masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders.
5. The terms ``person'' or ``persons'' mean natural
persons, firms, partnerships, associations, limited liability
corporations and companies, limited liability partnerships,
corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, joint
ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, other legal, business
or government entities, or any other organization or group of
persons, and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions,
departments, branches, and other units thereof.
6. The terms ``referring'' or ``relating,'' with respect to
any given subject, mean anything that constitutes, contains,
embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals
with, or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to that
subject.
7. The terms ``you'' or ``your'' means and refers to you as
a natural person and the United States and any of its
agencies, offices, subdivisions, entities, officials,
administrators, employees, attorneys, agents, advisors,
consultants, staff, contractors, or any other persons acting
on your behalf or under your control or direction; and
includes any other person(s) defined in the document request
letter.
8. The term ``administration'' means and refers to any
department, agency, division, office, subdivision, entity,
official, administrator, employee, attorney, agent, advisor,
consultant, staff, or any other person acting on behalf or
under the control or direction of the Executive Branch.
[[Page H5836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN18.003
[[Page H5837]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN18.004
[[Page H5838]]
SCHEDULE
In accordance with the attached instructions for responding
to Judiciary Committee document requests, you are required to
produce the following documents in unredacted form:
1. All documents and communications referring or relating
to the investigation into former Secretary Clinton to or from
the FBI's Office of the Director and the FBI's Office of the
Deputy Director between January 1, 2016, and November 8,
2016;
2. All documents and communications referring or relating
to the decision or recommendation not to charge former
Secretary Clinton dated, created, or modified between January
1, 2016, and November 8, 2016, including copies of the
documents posted or referenced on the FBI's Electronic FOIA
Library on October 16, 2017, titled Drafts of Director
Comey's July 5, 2016 Statement Regarding Email Server
Investigation;
3. All documents and communications referring or relating
to former Director Comey's decision to appropriate, from the
Department of Justice, the decision whether to charge former
Secretary Clinton;
4. All documents and communications referring or relating
to former Director Comey's decision to make a public
statement on July 5, 2016;
5. All documents and communications referring or relating
to former Director Comey's decision to inform Congress
regarding the status of the Clinton entail server
investigation on October 28, 2016, and November 6, 2016;
6. A list of all personnel who participated in
deliberations concerning the decision whether to charge
former Secretary Clinton;
7. All documents and communications the Department of
Justice has provided to its Office of the Inspector General
for the Inspector General's investigation into the FBI's
decision-making in the FBI's investigation of former
Secretary Clinton's private email server;
8. The document of court cases used in considering various
possible charges against former Secretary Clinton referenced
by James Rybicki during his January 18, 2018 interview with
the Committee;
9. All documents and communications relied upon by FBI's
Office of Professional Responsibility in reaching its
decision to recommend the dismissal of former FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe:
10. All FBI and Department of Justice documents and
communications with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court (``FISC'') related to any Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (``FISA'') applications associated with
individuals on President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign
or part of the Trump administration;
11. All documents of FISC hearings and deliberations,
including any court transcripts, related to any FISA
applications associated with the Trump campaign or Trump
administration;
12. All documents and communications relating to internal
Department of Justice or FBI management requests to review,
scrub, report on, or analyze any reporting of FISA collection
against, or coverage mentioning, the Trump campaign or Trump
administration;
13. All documents and communications concerning defensive
briefing provided by the Department of Justice or FBI to the
2016 presidential campaigns of former Secretary Clinton or
President Trump; and,
14. All documents and communications concerning proposed,
recommended, or actual FISA coverage on former Secretary
Clinton, her associates, or associated organizations.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking member of the
Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time.
What we are experiencing here in this moment in this Chamber is the
greatest tribute to Federico Fellini that could ever be produced in
this House. It is a theater of the absurd. It is a ruse on the American
people and an attempt to defeat justice that will go back and expose
activities involving Russia and participants in the 2016 election that
resulted in the election of Donald Trump.
{time} 1045
The fact is there is a special counsel investigating that, one of the
most distinguished Americans ever, a Purple Heart recipient who went in
the Marines because one of his friends was killed; and he volunteered
to go to Vietnam, received a Purple Heart and other commendations, and
then came back here and didn't practice law and make money and get
greedy on 5th Avenue, but he pursued justice, and he put Gotti away,
and he put Noriega away.
He has dealt with some of the worst people in this world, and it is a
perfect calling for him to stand for the Constitution and for our
country and for the rule of law and investigate possible collusion with
Russia in our 2016 election and other activities.
The campaign manager for President Trump is in jail right now
because, while out on bond, he did acts that the judge couldn't
countenance and couldn't count on him not to engage in again, so she
had to put him in jail.
There have been indictments. There have been guilty pleas by people
close to the President.
The President is feeling the heat, and his acolytes here in the House
of Representatives, rather than operating as a check and balance on the
administration and protecting the flag, the Constitution, and doing
their duty and their oath of office, are producing this ruse to make
the American public think there is something wrong with our Justice
Department, our FBI, and our special counsel, going after Mr. Mueller,
a registered Republican; Mr. Rosenstein, a Republican appointed by Mr.
Trump; and Mr. Wray at the FBI, a Republican appointed by Trump.
As we are here on this floor, the Judiciary Committee is having a
sham hearing with Rosenstein and Wray, Republicans fighting Republicans
to get information. But it is not Republicans fighting Republicans. It
is Republicans fighting for Trump, who has taken over this party, a
party that once proudly stood for people like Ronald Reagan and Dwight
Eisenhower and George Bush and George H.W. Bush and even Abraham
Lincoln, who most people know was a Republican.
What we are seeing is the takeover of our democracy, and this is the
theater of the absurd. These documents should not be turned over, and
the Justice Department doesn't turn them over because it would reveal
sources and it would imperil an investigation.
God bless the United States, and may we protect Robert Mueller. I
reiterate my oath to defend the Constitution.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my good friend.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, the very things that my colleagues across the aisle are
arguing could have been argued back in Watergate days and they would
have kept Richard Nixon in office.
Some of us on this side of the aisle don't care about party as much
as we do about justice and the truth. And what we have found is that
leading intelligence people and Justice people were lying.
Clapper has been found to have been a liar, perjured himself; so has
Brennan.
And then we get more information that has been objected to, redacted,
and we find out, whoa. These guys said this was for national security,
and it turns out, when we get the information, actually, it was because
it was embarrassing to the people objecting.
Oversight is absolutely critical, and the last administration didn't
have enough oversight, and, in fact, they obstructed. They were able to
drag things out, so we never got to the bottom of things like Fast and
Furious, when one of our own precious American agents was killed. There
were no answers, and they are trying it again.
But now we have this obligation to make sure that these documents
that have been hidden are brought forward.
And, yes, we have Mr. Rosenstein, who actually was involved in an
investigation of Russia trying to get, illegally, U.S. uranium, and he
worked with a guy named Mueller, who hired a guy named Weissmann to
help in that investigation. And they have hidden what went on there and
even forced a witness to sign a nondisclosure agreement--unheard of in
that situation.
It is imperative that we bring these things out. We have too many
people in the Justice Department--I watched one of them named Strzok
yesterday, and I can't go into what he said, but I was going: Wow. We
know that is a lie, what he just said. He is so good.
And then I realized he must have said, straight-faced, to his wife
100 times about: Oh, no, there is nothing going on with me and Ms.
Page.
There are too many people in the Justice Department who have gotten
too good at lying. We need these documents to see what is the truth.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to
this
[[Page H5839]]
resolution, which is a Republican attempt to delay and derail the
Mueller investigation.
Mr. Speaker, what we have today is a Republican President who is
under criminal investigation. We have a Republican-led House of
Representatives that is doing its best as a cult following for the
President to help him thwart the investigation, help him stop the
investigation.
So what this is all about today is to pass a resolution that would
result in the Justice Department, which is conducting the investigation
of the President, to turn over documents that go to the heart of the
investigation.
Now, why do they want the Department of Justice to turn that
documentation over to them? Well, so that it can be leaked, leaked to
FOX News, get back to the President, and then the President will be in
a much better position to do what he does when it comes to being
investigated criminally. And what it all adds up to, ladies and
gentlemen, is politics trumping justice.
You never investigate an investigation that is ongoing. You wait
until that investigation is over, then you judge the investigation as
to whether or not it was fair.
So everything that the Republicans are doing here today is against
justice; it is against the rule of law; it is against the Constitution;
and it is against the America that we all hold dear.
This is a stretching, a warping of the power of the legislative
branch. They are seeking to use their power to put their heavy thumb
and hand on the scale of justice.
I heard one of my colleagues say that justice should be blind, and,
yes, Lady Justice does have a blindfold on so that she cannot see. What
these Republicans are trying to do today, ladies and gentlemen, is to
remove the blindfold on Lady Justice to let Lady Justice reveal an
injustice, to let this President use Lady Justice, as he has used women
in the past, to take away the sanctity of this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, this is hurtful to our Nation. I would ask my colleagues
on the other side to please think about what they are doing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I might remind the Speaker and all those
who are in this Chamber today that this is about this very fundamental
principle of this institution being able to do oversight.
Since when is it not a good idea to have the documents from all
agencies brought forth to this body so that the American people can
judge for themselves?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Speaker, it is one of my great pleasures to educate
young people about the United States Constitution.
I find myself in an interesting position today because the people
that I am educating aren't that young. One of my colleagues said that
we are requesting documents to which we are not entitled. Checks and
balances, anyone? We are entitled to whatever we ask for from agencies
we established and fund and oversee.
Someone also said we are showing that politics is bigger than the
law. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is the law.
This should have never come to this point that we should need a
resolution of the House of Representatives to indicate that an
executive branch entity that is funded by, established by, and overseen
by this very House of Representatives should be compelled to give to us
that to which we are entitled.
The next vote is a symptom of a much greater disease. We have a
petulant Department of Justice defended by a petulant minority party.
Article I, section 8, Necessary and Proper Clause: It is the power of
the legislature to establish comprehensive entities, to oversee such
executive entities, and to fund such executive entities.
Mr. Speaker, we just witnessed a vote where 224 people, along party
lines, voted to compel an executive branch entity established and
funded by this body to do its job; and 182, along party lines, voted
against having them be responsive to the checks and balances
established in the Constitution of the United States.
There shouldn't even need to be a vote. Have the ``nays'' not read
the Constitution? or do they just not care?
We established the DOJ. They refuse the oversight like a petulant
child by withholding documents. Perhaps the time has come to look at
our third responsibility, and that is the money.
If President Trump won't compel disclosure, if DOJ won't comply with
the instruction of the body that established them and funds them,
perhaps it is time to dock this petulant child's allowance. The power
of the purse is ours.
In a perfect world, DOJ would never face such sanctions. But as the
vote that we just witnessed has indicated, we don't live in a perfect
world.
So as I see it, there are two options: DOJ can do their job and turn
over the documents, or I and others of like mind can demand that we
began to stop funding this petulant child who flaunts its ridiculous
unissued power in the face of those who understand the Constitution and
the citizens of the United States.
It is unconstitutional; it is arrogant and insubordinate; and it
should stop; and any ruse of legality that is delightfully tap danced
on by those who conveniently use the Constitution when it suits and
then pervert it when it does not is not the direction this country
needs to go if our tomorrows shall be as prosperous as our yesterdays.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the vice ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Judiciary Committee and a
professor of constitutional law, I rise against this uncommonly silly
and unprecedented so-called resolution of insistence.
We have already received hundreds of thousands of documents from the
Department of Justice, and yet now they want to subpoena information
relating directly to an ongoing criminal and counterintelligence
investigation which the majority knows full well the Department of
Justice cannot and will not release to us.
And why are they doing it? Well, presumably it is all to manufacture
a constitutional crisis so somebody can get fired over there, so they
can impeach Rosenstein, as they are talking in the Judiciary Committee,
so they can sack the Attorney General, so they can get rid of Mueller,
or whatever.
Do your jobs. Look what is going on in America. We have got more than
2,000 kids who are separated from their families by the policy of this
administration. Their parents don't know where they are. Let's do our
job. Let's reunify those kids with their parents.
We saw the Parkland massacre. We saw the Las Vegas massacre. We saw
the massacre in San Bernardino County. We have not had one hearing on a
universal criminal and mental background check that is desired by 97
percent of the American people--not one hearing. Instead, we are caught
up in this nonsense because they can't get over Hillary Clinton's
emails.
Enough. Get over it. Do your jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona says there is a loose fence
in America. There is a loose fence. Fifteen U.S. intelligence agencies
told us in January of 2017 that Russian agents had engaged in active-
measure campaigns to undermine the American election. They had a
propaganda campaign to put poison on the internet through Facebook and
through other social media. They directly conducted a campaign of cyber
espionage and sabotage against the Democratic National Committee, and
they tried to break in to our election systems in more than 20 States.
And what have they done with the loose fence? Nothing. They have helped
to open the gates.
That is what we should be talking about today, not this ludicrous,
absurd resolution.
{time} 1100
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Speaker if he would remind others that are in
this well, that if they are really concerned about family
reunification, I have a bill--and the gentleman opposite is certainly
welcome to come in and cosponsor that bill--to reunify those.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Griffith), my good friend.
[[Page H5840]]
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate the
time.
I would say that that is a good bill, and I am glad to have been an
original cosponsor with the gentleman from North Carolina on the bill
related to making sure that families are not separated.
Now, the previous gentleman also said for us to do our jobs. It is
curious, because, as I understand it, part of our job is to make sure
that we are overseeing the Federal Government. Our Founding Fathers
created something that had never been created before, a checks-and-
balance system.
There was supposed to be a natural tension between the various
branches, and Congress is supposed to be an equal branch with the power
of oversight over the administrative branch to make sure that they are
following the laws and to make sure that they are meting out justice
evenhandedly. That is what this resolution is about.
But Congress too often sits back and does not do anything. It just
says: Oh, well, we can't get that information. We are so sorry. This
resolution points out that we have been patiently waiting for some of
these documents for years, for months, for weeks, for the
administrative branch of government to respond to its coequal branch,
the United States Congress, and they have refused to do so.
I would submit that this is a very measured resolution; that it does
not immediately call for holding somebody in contempt, or holding
somebody to find that somebody should be impeached. It says, instead:
Here is the deadline. What we are trying to seek here are the facts. If
you are afraid of the facts, then, yes, you stand up on the floor and
you rail about all other kinds of issues. But the facts, the truth,
needs to come out for the American people.
So I would submit that this resolution is very reasonable and ought
to be passed. Because if there is not a response, it is our duty to
hold those who do not respond properly in contempt.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, it is our duty, as this Congress, to find
and to hold in contempt those people who do not respond, and then to
take their persons into possession and have them explain to a judge how
it is that they plan to purge themselves of that contempt.
It is reasonable that we give them notice before such action is
taken.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished ranking member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. If
this was oversight, I would be in strong support of any effort to seek
production, but it is not.
This is not oversight. It is collaboration with the Executive
masquerading as oversight. Or if this is oversight, it is oversight of
the most obsequious kind.
It is oversight in the nature of: How may we serve you, dear
President? It is oversight that asks: What is your will, dear
President? It is oversight that says: We are not worthy, dear
President.
It is oversight that says: We shall seek, but you shall find, Mr.
President, because what we obtained we shall provide to your legal
defense team, or we shall selectively leak or misrepresent in your
service.
It is oversight in the nature of not desiring an outcome, not
desiring the production of documents, but, rather, the production of a
fight, the production of a pretext to give the dear President a pretext
to fire Rod Rosenstein or Bob Mueller.
I have served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now
for almost a decade, and while I cannot disclose the number of FISA
applications during the course of those 10 years, I can tell you the
number of times that my Republican colleagues have sought the
underlying investigatory materials behind a specific FISA application,
and that number is one. That case is this case, and that case just
happens to implicate our dear President.
It is not that there are no areas that call out for oversight right
now. There are too many to count. Why is it that after sanctioning ZTE
for violating Iran sanctions and violating North Korea sanctions, the
President abruptly changed course out of an ostensible concern for
Chinese jobs? Is it because the Chinese invested $500 million in a
Trump-branded property? That is worthy of oversight.
Is the First Family seeking to do business with Gulf or other allies
while making U.S. policy? Is U.S. policy for sale? That is worthy of
oversight.
Is the President seeking to raise postal rates on Amazon to punish
The Washington Post and suppress the freedom of press? That is worthy
of oversight.
But none of this is oversight. Speaker Boehner recently said that the
Republican Party was off taking a nap somewhere. If that is so, then
despite the best efforts of our capable ranking member, Elijah
Cummings, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee that should be
doing this oversight is in the midst of the deepest slumber.
Wake up, my colleagues, and do your jobs. Wake up and end this
duplicitous attack on the Department of Justice and the FBI and our
special counsel because this is surely not oversight. It is not what
oversight looks like. But it is what an attack on the rule of law looks
like. It is what happens when we whittle away our democracy one piece
by terrible piece.
When this chapter of our history is written, it will condemn the
actions of a President who little understands or respects the
institutions of our democracy. But it will reserve some of the harshest
criticism for this Congress that enabled him, this Congress that knew
its responsibility but failed to live up to it.
Wake up, Republican Party. Wake up, my colleagues. The country needs
you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Wake up, my colleagues. True oversight, when the
President occupies the same party as the majority in Congress, requires
that majority to put country over party. It is incompatible with the
corrupting principle of party over everything else.
Wake up, my colleagues, and do your jobs.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying
to do our job, and the gentleman opposite makes an eloquent speech
about doing our job of proper oversight.
I can tell you, I have served on the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee for 6 years. And in that 6 years, not only have we been
tenacious in getting documents, but we have also had a responsive
dialogue back and forth with many in the executive branch.
At what point do you do oversight if you can't get the very documents
that we request? My friends on the other side of the aisle many times
will talk about getting documents when it serves a particular political
purpose that they want to espouse. And, yet, when we are talking about
the fundamentals of this country, Lady Justice, and meting out justice
without any favoritism, indeed, that is why we need the documents. That
is why we are trying to do our job, and that is why this resolution is
so critical.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Jody B. Hice), my good friend.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate my good
friend from North Carolina for affording me the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when those from the other
side have an empty argument, their answer is to yell loud and to rail
on issues that are unrelated to that which we are currently discussing.
Mr. Speaker, our Founders made it very clear when they drafted the
Constitution that we have a system of government that keeps each branch
accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law. For nearly 18
months now, the Department of Justice has attempted to shield itself
from the legislative branch's duty to conduct oversight. That is, and
ought to be, both alarming and absolutely unacceptable.
[[Page H5841]]
Mr. Speaker, we know clearly from the IG report here recently, text
after text, email after email, that there were a number of FBI agents
who were extremely biased against the Trump administration, the Trump
candidacy, and in favor of Hillary Clinton. We know that bias existed.
We also know that many of them were willing to use their position,
their status, to try to influence the election. These are things that
we know. And we, as a legislative body, have not only the
responsibility to do oversight, but we have got to have the information
in order to do that oversight.
That is what this resolution is all about. I think it is important
for all of us to come back to the understanding, the realization, that
oversight is necessary to prevent corruption. That is what this is all
about.
The American people, not just Members of Congress, have the right to
get answers to the questions that are before us. This is all for the
purpose of preventing corruption that may exist and to prevent it from
going further.
This resolution is a clear message to the Department of Justice that
the U.S. House of Representatives is determined to get the documents
that have been requested. Even a single page from these missing
documents could be critical to the overall congressional investigation
that is underway. It is all necessary.
There are irrefutable facts, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Justice
is accountable to Congress. Another fact: They are hiding documents.
They are refusing to cooperate. We have, even beyond that now, the
chilling reports that the Deputy Attorney General personally threatened
staff members on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This
is unacceptable.
So under this resolution, the full force of the House is being
brought to light, Mr. Speaker. We have got to get to the bottom of
this.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader of the
House.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
thank him for his extraordinary leadership in articulating what is
right, what honors our oath of office to protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States, the separation of power contained
therein, and the integrity of our judicial system.
I also thank our distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Schiff, for his leadership, his courage,
and his beautiful and inspirational statement this morning, full of
facts, but also full of values.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as leader, but also as one who has
served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as a member,
as a ranking member, and as an ex officio since the early 1990s. And I
can say, while I have seen a lot in that time, I have never seen
anything that has stooped so low on the part of the Republicans as what
they are doing today.
It is just as if they have said, you take an oath of office to the
Constitution. We took an oath of office to Donald Trump. It is
shocking. And many of these are lawyers. I don't know how they justify
or reconcile that.
And so it is with great dismay that I see them doing violence to this
body, to this Constitution, to this judiciary system, and to this
country.
They are so curious about prying into a legal case, but they don't
have the faintest interest in looking into what the Russians did to
disrupt our elections. Not one hearing, nothing. No oversight, nothing.
{time} 1115
Why is that? Why is that?
Now they are saying they must, they have a right to know this, that,
and the other thing. They have no right to do that. So I am not going
to take up any more time. I said my piece on this.
But I do want to acknowledge that Mr. Schumer and I, as well as Mr.
Schiff and Senator Warner, the ranking member on the Senate side, sent
a letter to the Honorable Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, and
to Christopher Wray, the Director of the FBI, saying to them: Please,
please, do not yield on any of this. Your role in preserving the
integrity and, most importantly, our justice system has become ever
more vital.
First of all, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I hope that some Republicans
will do what is right and urge a ``no'' vote on this. This is taking us
into very dangerous territory. If the Democrats wanted power, I would
say the same thing. We wouldn't want to have this access. You shouldn't
have this access. This is wrong.
Again, if you are honoring your salute and your oath of office to
Donald Trump, then vote ``yes.'' If you are honoring your oath of
office to the Constitution of the United States, then vote ``no.''
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2018.
[Unclassified]
Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein,
Deputy Attorney General of the United States, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Wray,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Director Wray:
Earlier this month, you provided important verbal assurances
in response to our June 5, 2018 letter to you. In that
letter, we expressed deep and ongoing concern about President
Donald Trump and his legal team's persistent efforts to
interfere with the Special Counsel's ongoing investigation
and undermine your agencies' lawful and appropriate
activities. In particular, we underscored that, if fulfilled,
demands by the President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,
that the White House and the President's lawyers be given
access to classified information and investigatory material
of the utmost sensitivity--including information related to
the Special Counsel's ongoing investigation that implicates
the President's own campaign and his associates--would
grossly violate our system of checks and balances, long-
standing, well-founded, and established procedure, and
fundamental norms.
You confirmed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will not provide the
White House or any of the President's attorneys with access
to such sensitive information. You also assured that
briefings and materials related to this matter would not be
shared with others in Congress beyond the ``Gang of 8.''
Unfortunately, it appears that part of this assurance has
already been breached. As of June 20, 2018, the Department
has made available to a wider group of Members and staff
materials directly related, and similar in kind, to the
information that was supposed to be restricted to the ``Gang
of 8.'' This followed recent pressure from House and Senate
Republicans on DOJ and FBI not to adhere to ``Gang of 8''
restrictions on access to and dissemination of information
that can implicate sources and methods and/or ongoing
investigations.
The Department and Bureau's departure in this matter from
longstanding policy and precedent governing your agencies'
relationship with Congress risks a repeat of similar mistakes
that the DOJ Office of the Inspector General recently
identified in his review of the Clinton ``Midyear''
investigation.
In 2016, DOJ broke with past practice by making
investigative files in the Clinton investigation available to
Congress, while the Bureau, in the name of ``maximal
transparency,'' publicly disclosed information related to the
investigation at key junctures. In his June 2018 report, the
DOJ Inspector General correctly criticized this sharp
deviation from DOJ and FBI guidelines:
``The Department and the FBI do not practice ``maximal
transparency'' in criminal investigations. It is not a value
reflected in the regulations, policies, or customs guiding
FBI actions in pending criminal investigations. To the
contrary, the guidance to agents and prosecutors is precisely
the opposite--no transparency except in rare and exceptional
circumstances due to the potential harm to both the
investigation and to the reputation of anyone under
investigation.''
This harmful cycle is now repeating itself with respect to
the criminal and counterintelligence investigation into
Russia's 2016 election interference and any links and/or
coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Trump. The
President's congressional allies are applying growing
pressure on your agencies, in line with the President's
improper demand for ``total transparency,'' to disclose
sensitive information and material that is not usually shared
with Congress and that relate directly to the ongoing
investigation into President Trump, his own campaign, and his
associates.
Unfortunately, DOJ and FBI are increasingly bowing to this
pressure, despite the corrosive implications. Unlike the
Clinton investigation, your agencies are disclosing sensitive
material to Congress even though the Russia investigation is
ongoing under the leadership of the Special Counsel and your
oversight. And given the pending nature of the Special
Counsel's investigation, these persistent and unrelenting
document requests are not for legitimate oversight purposes.
Rather, time and again, sensitive information shared with
Congress has been selectively and misleadingly seeded into
the public domain to advance the President and his legal
team's strategy of undermining
[[Page H5842]]
public trust in DOJ and the FBI and attacking the legitimacy
of the Special Counsel and his ongoing investigation. Every
such disclosure to Congress, moreover, has and will continue
to result in demands for more information about the ongoing
investigation, which the Department and the Bureau will be
unable to satisfy without further contravening its own
policies and norms.
With every disclosure, DOJ and FBI are reinforcing a
precedent it will have to uphold, whether the Congress is in
Republican or Democratic hands, of providing materials in
pending or closed cases to the legislative branch upon
request.
As the attacks on the Special Counsel intensify, it is
imperative that you withstand pressure on DOJ and FBI to
violate established procedures and norms. Your role in
preserving the integrity of the Special Counsel's
investigation and, most importantly, our justice system has
become even more vital.
We would appreciate your written reply and your
confirmation of this understanding.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives.
Adam B. Schiff,
Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Charles E. Schumer,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate.
Mark R. Warner,
Vice Chairman, U.S. Senate, Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, obviously, the gentlewoman from California
lays out an unbelievable claim that this is the lowest of low that has
ever been seen in this body. I find that just remarkable that that
statement could even be made.
The other issue is we are not asking for any special counsel
documents. We are not asking for sources and methods. We are asking for
the documents that we have a right, as this body, to see.
Transparency is a good thing, Mr. Speaker. Transparency is what the
American people deserve. When we are talking about what it will do and
what it will not do, yes, when we get these documents, we believe that
it will do away with this whole fiasco of what they call the Russian-
Trump collusion, because there wasn't any.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I will applaud former Speaker Pelosi for
her consistency. She seems to have uniformly supported the executive
branch ignoring subpoenas and perhaps destroying evidence in failing to
comply with the rule of the House, with a subpoena being issued by the
House, with the important precedent of the Constitution.
So this really isn't about the Russia investigation or about the
specifics of this case. So, frankly, I find it appalling that Attorney
General Sessions would ignore these activities in the Department of
Justice. The reality is this is a question of, Shall the executive
branch comply with a subpoena from the legislative branch?
We don't know what the contents are because they are redacted and
they are being withheld. This has gone on for a long time. And if we
are to keep our Republic, the principle has to be resolved to where the
legislative branch, being coequal, very much shall have access to this
information--and not just a privileged few, not just a few who keep it
withheld from the rest of the body, but the whole body.
Since last year, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has
investigated potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act by the Department of Justice and our intelligence community.
Previously, our colleague, Mr. Schiff, was a strong supporter for FISA
reform and proposed numerous bills. So that is where our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle are not consistent.
FISA has been abused. We have seen one of the most blatant examples
of that with the activities and things that have already been made
public, which has led to this line of inquiry. Americans should be
concerned that the Federal Government may abuse its capacity to gather
foreign intelligence by spying on our fellow Americans. Without serious
reforms to FISA, the Fourth Amendment will exist as nothing more than a
distant memory or a notation with an asterisk ``except in these
cases.''
This resolution insists that the Department of Justice fully comply
with requests, including subpoenas, of the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and Judiciary Committees relating to
potential violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Unless we support and defend our Constitution, we will not keep our
Republic, we will further embolden and empower the executive branch,
and we will weaken our country. This bill will help reform FISA and
help defend our Constitution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
close. I am not going to repeat what I said before. I will summarize.
The request being made here is for information that the Department of
Justice cannot provide because it relates to an ongoing criminal
investigation and because some of it would identify informants. The
motive is probably simply to politically embarrass the Department and
provide a means of embarrassing and defaming the special prosecutor and
the people associated with him in the Department.
I will read from a letter that the Deputy Attorney General sent to
Senator Grassley and the Speaker of the House yesterday.
He quotes the following: ``Throughout American history, wise
legislators have worked with Department officials to limit oversight
requests in order to respect the Department's duty to protect national
security, preserve personal privacy, and insulate investigations from
the appearance of interference. For instance, the Department sent a
letter to a House committee chair in 2000 describing the Department's
policies on responding to congressional oversight requests. The letter
explains:''--I am now quoting from the 2000 letter--``Such inquiries
inescapably create the risk that the public and the courts will
perceive political and congressional influence over law enforcement and
litigation decisions. Such inquiries also often seek records and other
information that our responsibilities for these matters preclude us
from disclosing.''
That is the end of the quote from the 2000 letter.
``The letter quotes President Ronald Reagan, who wrote that a
`tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of
resolving conflicts between the branches.' Regardless of whether an
interbranch information request is made by letter or subpoena, the
relationship between the branches gives rise to `an implicit
constitutional mandate,' to `reach an accommodation short of full-scale
confrontation.'''--quote from President Reagan.
``It must not be the case that the Department is required to risk
damage to reputations, put cases and lives at risk, and invite
political interference by opening sensitive files to congressional
staff without restriction.''--from the letter from Deputy Attorney
General Rosenstein.
That is exactly what these requests would do. They would risk damage
to reputations, put cases and lives at risk--already two people, two
informants, have had their identities outed--and invite political
interference by opening sensitive files to congressional staff without
restriction.
We ought to let the special counsel complete his work without
hindrance. We ought to see whatever the special counsel finds, react to
it as appropriate, and perhaps hold hearings into the findings when we
see them. All we know about the special counsel so far--unlike all the
allegations against him and his investigation, it is a witch hunt, it
is this, and it is that. All we really know is that there are 20
indictments, five guilty pleas, and we know what he has pleaded in
court.
There have been leaks, so you can't really say anything about the
investigation other than, in this time period, they have already gotten
20 indictments, five guilty pleas, including from some of the closest
people to the President in his administration and in his campaign. We
will see where it goes from there.
These requests are an attempt to sabotage the investigation, and we
should not go along with it.
[[Page H5843]]
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of the Deputy Attorney General,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2018.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley: Thank you for your letter of May
17, 2018, and for meeting with me last Thursday, along with
Ranking Member Feinstein. I appreciate your commitment to
allow the Special Counsel investigation ``to follow the facts
wherever they lead without any improper outside
interference.''
I know that you and Ranking Member Feinstein share my
commitment to protecting the integrity of federal
investigations. Agents and prosecutors must base each
decision on neutral standards and credible evidence. As we
seek to do in all cases, the Department of Justice will
complete the Special Counsel investigation as promptly as is
feasible. When the investigation is finished, I anticipate
that any objective and nonpartisan review will conclude that
the Department consistently sought to make reasonable
decisions and to comply with applicable laws, regulations,
policies, and practices.
Legal, ethical, and policy obligations often prevent
prosecutors from responding to criticism. As Attorney General
Robert Jackson observed in 1940, prosecutors have a duty ``to
face any temporary criticism'' and ``maintain a
dispassionate, disinterested, and impartial enforcement of
the law.'' The Inspector General's report addresses the
consequences of trying to preempt criticism by disregarding
principles that prohibit public statements, leaks to the
media, and improper disclosures to the Congress about
criminal investigations. Department officials must defend
those principles in order to ensure that all investigations
remain independent of partisan politics. We do not compete to
win the hourly news cycle.
Special Counsel Appointment and Authority
Your May 17 letter asks a series of questions concerning
the scope of the Special Counsel's authority. The current
Special Counsel differs from an ``independent counsel'' and
some previous ``special counsels,'' because Special Counsel
Mueller was appointed by the Department of Justice and
remains subject to ongoing supervision.
The Attorney General retains the general authority to
designate or name individuals as ``special counsels'' to
conduct investigations or prosecutions of particular matters
or individuals on behalf of the United States. Under
regulations issued by the Attorney General in 1999, the
Attorney General may appoint a ``special counsel'' from
outside of the Department of Justice who acts as a special
employee of the Department of Justice under the direction of
the Attorney General. The Attorney General, however, may also
appoint an individual as a special counsel, and may invest
that individual with a greater degree of independence and
autonomy to conduct investigations and prosecutions,
regardless of any ``special counsel'' regulations, as
Attorneys General did in 1973, 1994, and 2003.
What a prosecutor is called--including ``independent'' or
``special''--is a separate question from whether that
prosecutor is subject to supervision by the Attorney General.
Under the terms of his appointment, both by statute and by
regulation, Special Counsel Mueller remains accountable like
every other subordinate Department official.
Special Counsels have been appointed for a variety of
matters throughout history. For example, Attorney General
William Barr appointed three Special Counsels from outside
the Department of Justice during his 14-month tenure: (1)
Nicholas Bua to investigate an array of allegations related
to the ``Inslaw Affair,'' on November 7, 1991; (2) Malcolm
Wilkey to investigate the House Bank controversy, on March
20, 1992; and (3) Frederick Lacey to investigate the Bush
Administration's handling of a bank fraud case involving
loans to Iraq, on October 17, 1992.
Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske as a
Special Counsel to investigate the Whitewater land deal and
other matters on January 20, 1994. Mr. Fiske explained that
the appointment order was ``deliberately drafted broadly . .
. to give me total authority to look into all appropriate
matters relating to the events . . . .'' For example, Mr.
Fiske investigated a suicide in order to determine whether it
might involve a crime related to his investigation--it did
not--and prosecuted a fraud case with no obvious connection
to Whitewater. Federal agents and prosecutors already were
investigating crimes when Mr. Fiske was appointed, but the
appointment order did not mention the crimes. When asked
about supervision of Mr. Fiske, Attorney General Reno said,
``I do not expect him to report to me, . . . and I do not
expect to monitor him.'' That is not true of Special Counsel
Mueller.
Then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey took a different
approach in 2003, when he invoked his authority as Acting
Attorney General to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as a special
prosecutor to investigate the Valerie Plame matter. Mr. Comey
did not make that appointment under the Department's Special
Counsel regulation. Instead, he delegated to the special
prosecutor ``all the authority of the Attorney General . . .
independent of the supervision or control of any officer of
the Department.'' Mr. Comey followed up with a letter
reinforcing that his delegation was ``plenary.'' That is not
true of Special Counsel Mueller's appointment.
The Ethics in Government Act allowed several statutory
Independent Counsels to be appointed in the absence of
probable cause that a crime had occurred, and some of those
appointments were not publicized. Even under the Act, when
prosecutors were under much less supervision than Special
Counsels are under the Department's regulation, Congress did
not interfere in the investigations. The statute required the
Independent Counsel to submit an annual report to the
Congress, but it allowed him to ``omit any matter that in the
judgment of the independent counsel should be kept
confidential.''
Because the Attorney General's authority over Independent
Counsels was limited, the judicial orders appointing them
were a principal way to cabin their jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, appointments often were made with ``a broadly
worded charter.'' For example, the appointment order for
Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr gave him
authority to investigate ``whether any individuals or
entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal
law . . . relating in any way to James B. McDougal's,
President William Jefferson Clinton's, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham
Clinton's relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan
Assn., Whitewater Development Corp., or Capital Management
Services Inc.'' McDougal owned and managed Madison Guaranty,
so that charter provided vast discretion to investigate
essentially any crime committed by any person that involved
the savings and loan association. The Independent Counsel
identified other unrelated matters of investigative interest,
and he obtained orders from the court expanding his mandate,
including ``Travelgate,'' ``Filegate,'' and the Lewinsky
matter. The Attorney General did not supervise or control the
Independent Counsel's decisions about which crimes and
subjects to investigate within his broad mandates, or which
persons to prosecute.
When the Independent Counsel statute expired, the
Department adopted the current Special Counsel regulation as
an internal policy concerning the appointment and management
of Special Counsels. The regulation provides for
congressional notification when an appointment is made and
when it concludes. At the conclusion of the investigation, it
requires notification to Congress of instances when the
Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by the
Special Counsel should not be pursued. The regulation
contemplates ongoing consultation with Department components
and continuing oversight by the Attorney General (or the
Acting Attorney General), who remains accountable as in all
other cases handled by the Department of Justice. The
regulation achieves the objective of conducting an
independent investigation while following normal Department
policies, including supervision by a Senate-confirmed
officer.
There is no statutory requirement to identify criminal
violations before appointing a Special Counsel from outside
the Department, and there is no requirement to publicize
suspected violations in the appointment order under the
Special Counsel regulation. Only one previous Special Counsel
was appointed under the current regulation: John Danforth, to
investigate the Waco matter, on September 9, 1999. As with
Special Counsel Mueller, Mr. Danforth's appointment order did
not publicly specify a crime or identify anyone as a subject.
Special Counsel Mueller's Appointment and Delegated Authority
I determined that the appointment of Special Counsel
Mueller to take charge of criminal matters that were already
under investigation by federal agents and prosecutors was
warranted under the Special Counsel regulation. The
appointment order mentions 28 C.F.R. 600.4 to 600.10 because
they bear on the authority and duties of the Special Counsel.
The public order did not identify the crimes or subjects
because such publicity would be wrong and unfair, just as it
would have been wrong and unfair to reveal that information
prior to Special Counsel's appointment, and just as it would
be wrong and unfair in other cases handled by a U.S. Attorney
or Assistant Attorney General.
So long as the Attorney General or the Acting Attorney
General remains accountable, there is federal statutory and
regulatory authority to assign matters to a Special Counsel,
just as the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General
(even when the Attorney General is not recused) have
authority to assign matters to an Acting U.S. Attorney or any
other Department official. The U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia recognized as much in its opinion in
Manafort v. United States.
When Special Counsel Mueller was appointed, he received
comprehensive briefings about the relevant allegations and
documents that described them in considerable detail, as with
previous special counsel appointments. Some of the FBI agents
who were investigating those matters continued to do so. The
Department assigned a team of career and non-career officials
to provide supervision and assist the Acting Attorney General
in determining which leads should be handled by the Special
Counsel and which by other Department prosecutors, and to
review any proposed indictments in conjunction with
Department components that ordinarily would review them.
The regulation states that the Special Counsel has the
powers and authority of a
[[Page H5844]]
U.S. Attorney (who may or may not be Senate-confirmed) and
must follow Department policies and procedures. Under those
policies and procedures, the Department should reveal
information about a criminal investigation only when it is
necessary to assist the criminal investigation or to protect
public safety.
In August 2017, Special Counsel Mueller received a written
internal memorandum from the Acting Attorney General. The
memorandum eliminated the ability of any subject, target, or
defendant to argue that the Special Counsel lacked delegated
authority under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 515 to represent the United
States. The names of the subjects were already in Department
files, but we did not publicly disclose them because to do so
would violate the Department's confidentiality policies.
Many of the questions raised in your letter concern the
distinction between a counterintelligence investigation and a
criminal investigation. The primary goal of a
counterintelligence investigation is to protect against
national security threats by, among other things, collecting
intelligence information and disrupting foreign influence
operations. The goal of a criminal investigation is to
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a
criminal suspect in federal court. There was a ``wall''
between the two prior to September 11, 2001. There is no
longer a wall, but agents and prosecutors are mindful that
counterintelligence investigations may be broader than any
criminal prosecutions that they generate.
The public announcement of the Special Counsel's
appointment purposefully included no details beyond what
Director Comey had disclosed at a public House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on March 20, 2017.
Director Comey revealed that:
the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is
investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere
in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes
investigating the nature of any links between individuals
associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian
government, and whether there was any coordination between
the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any
counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an
assessment of whether any crimes were committed. Because it
is an open, ongoing investigation, and is classified, I
cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we
are examining. At the request of congressional leaders, we
have taken the extraordinary step . . . of briefing this
Congress's leaders, including the leaders of this Committee,
in a classified setting, in detail about the investigation.
As is now publicly known, the Department of Justice and the
FBI were conducting several investigations with potential
relevance to Russian interference in the 2016 election when
Special Counsel Mueller was appointed in May 2017. The public
order explained that the Special Counsel will ``ensure a full
and thorough investigation of the Russian government's
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.''
Special Counsel Mueller is authorized to investigate
potential criminal offenses. Counterintelligence
investigations involving any current or future Russian
election interference are not the Special Counsel's
responsibility.
Congressional Oversight Requests
Department of Justice and FBI personnel are working
diligently and in good faith to provide an unprecedented
level of congressional access to information that members of
Congress believe may be relevant. Our responses to the many
related and overlapping congressional inquiries are
consistent with longstanding best practices. We respond as
quickly as possible to the inquiries and accommodate requests
when possible. We cannot fulfill requests that would
compromise the independence and integrity of investigations,
jeopardize intelligence sources and methods, or create the
appearance of political interference. We need to follow the
rules.
In 2016 and 2017, then-Director Comey made disclosures to
the public and to Congress that he has acknowledged would not
have been appropriate under regular order. He maintains that
his 2016 statements to the public and to the Congress about
the Hillary Clinton email investigation were justified by
unique circumstances comparable to a ``500-year flood.'' He
further believes that his 2017 disclosures about the
investigation of alleged links between the Russian government
agents who interfered in the election and persons associated
with the Trump campaign were an ``extraordinary step''
justified by ``unusual circumstances.''
It is important for the Department of Justice to follow
established policies and procedures, especially when the
stakes are high. It may seem tempting to depart from
Department policies and traditions in an effort to deflect
short-term criticism, but such deviations ultimately may
cause a loss of public confidence in the even-handed
administration of justice. We should be most on guard when we
believe that our own uncomfortable present circumstances
justify ignoring timeless principles respected by our
predecessors. I urge you and your colleagues to support us in
following the rules.
At my confirmation hearing, I promised that Department
employees would conduct ourselves ``with deep respect for the
institution and employees of the Department of Justice, with
acute understanding of our role in the constitutional
structure, and with profound appreciation of our weighty
responsibilities. My commitment to the Department's
longstanding traditions carries with it an obligation to
ensure that we keep pending law enforcement matters separate
from the sphere of politics and that there be no perception
that our law enforcement decisions are influenced by partisan
politics or pressure from legislators.
Regardless of political affiliation, thoughtful former
Department leaders recognize that departures from our
confidentiality policies pose an extraordinary threat to the
Department's independence and integrity. Former Deputy
Attorneys General Larry Thompson and Jamie Gorelick explained
that the Department of Justice ``operates under long-standing
and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of
ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress. .
. . These traditions protect the integrity of the department.
. . .'' Violating those policies and disclosing information
about criminal investigations constitutes ``real-time, raw-
take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of
reality TV of federal criminal investigation'' that is
``antithetical to the interests of justice.''
Punishing wrongdoers through judicial proceedings is only
one part of the Department's mission. We also have a duty to
prevent the disclosure of information that would unfairly
tarnish people who are not charged with crimes. In 1941,
Attorney General Robert Jackson explained that disclosing
information about federal investigations to Congress could
cause ``the grossest kind of injustice to innocent
individuals,'' and create ``serious prejudice to the future
usefulness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.'' It is
useful to quote at length from the Attorney General's letter:
[W]e have made extraordinary efforts to see that the
results of counterespionage activities and intelligence
activities of this Department involving those elements are
kept within the fewest possible hands. A catalogue of persons
under investigation or suspicion, and what we know about
them, would be of inestimable service to foreign agencies;
and information which could be so used cannot be too closely
guarded.
Moreover, disclosure of the reports would be of serious
prejudice to the future usefulness of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. As you probably know, much of this information
is given in confidence and can only be obtained upon pledge
not to disclose its sources. A disclosure of the sources
would embarrass informants--sometimes in their employment,
sometimes in their social relations, and in extreme cases
might even endanger their lives. We regard the keeping of
faith with confidential informants as an indispensable
condition of future efficiency.
Disclosure of information contained in the reports might
also be the grossest kind of injustice to innocent
individuals. Investigative reports include leads and
suspicions, and sometimes even the statements of malicious or
misinformed people. Even though later and more complete
reports exonerate the individuals, the use of particular or
selected reports might constitute the grossest injustice, and
we all know that a correction never catches up with an
accusation.
In concluding that the public interest does not permit
general access to Federal Bureau of Investigation reports for
information by the many congressional committees who from
time to time ask it, I am following the conclusions reached
by a long line of distinguished predecessors in this office
who have uniformly taken the same view. . . .
Since the beginning of the Government, the executive branch
has from time to time been confronted with the unpleasant
duty of declining to furnish to the Congress and to the
courts information which it has acquired and which is
necessary to it in the administration of statutes.
Attorney General Jackson's letter mentioned that the
pending congressional request was ``one of the many made by
congressional committees.'' He understood the profoundly
harmful consequences of proceeding down a road that would
empower congressional members and staffers to choose which
federal investigations should be publicized.
Congressional leaders respected Attorney General Jackson's
obligation to do the job he swore an oath to perform--``well
and faithfully execute the duties of the office'' --by
preserving the independence of federal law enforcement and
protecting it from political influence. President Eisenhower
later agreed, finding that ``it is essential to the
successful working of our system that the persons entrusted
with power in any of the three great branches of government
shall not encroach upon the authority confided to the
others.''
Requiring the Department of Justice to disclose details
about criminal investigations would constitute a dangerous
departure from important principles. Criminal prosecutions
should be relatively transparent--because the public should
know the grounds for finding a citizen guilty of criminal
offenses and imposing punishment--but criminal investigations
emphatically are not supposed to be transparent. In fact,
disclosing uncharged allegations against American citizens
without a law-enforcement need is considered to be a
violation of a prosecutor's trust. As stated in the
Department's Principles of Federal Prosecution:
In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors
should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation
interests of uncharged third-parties. In the context of
public plea and sentencing proceedings, this
[[Page H5845]]
means that, in the absence of some significant justification,
it is not appropriate to identify (either by name or
unnecessarily-specific description), or cause a defendant to
identify, a third-party wrongdoer unless that party has been
officially charged with the misconduct at issue. In the
unusual instance where identification of an uncharged third-
party wrongdoer during a plea or sentencing hearing is
justified, the express approval of the United States Attorney
and the appropriate Assistant Attorney General should be
obtained prior to the hearing absent exigent circumstances. .
. . In other less predictable contexts, federal prosecutors
should strive to avoid unnecessary public references to
wrongdoing by uncharged third-parties. With respect to bills
of particulars that identify unindicted co-conspirators,
prosecutors generally should seek leave to file such
documents under seal. Prosecutors shall comply, however, with
any court order directing the public filing of a bill of
particulars.
As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily ``no
legitimate governmental interest served'' by the government's
public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and
this is true ``[r]egardless of what criminal charges may . .
. b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney
against the [third-party] for the future.'' In re Smith, 656
F.2d 1101, 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1981). Courts have applied this
reasoning to preclude the public identification of unindicted
third-party wrongdoers in plea hearings, sentencing
memoranda, and other government pleadings. . . .
In most cases, any legitimate governmental interest in
referring to uncharged third-party wrongdoers can be advanced
through means other than those condemned in this line of
cases. For example, in those cases where the offense to which
a defendant is pleading guilty requires as an element that a
third-party have a particular status (e.g., 18 U.S.C.
203(a)(2)), the third-party can usually be referred to
generically (``a Member of Congress''), rather than
identified specifically (``Senator X''), at the defendant's
plea hearing. Similarly, when the defendant engaged in joint
criminal conduct with others, generic references (``another
individual'') to the uncharged third-party wrongdoers can be
used when describing the factual basis for the defendant's
guilty plea.
Even when we file federal charges, Department policy
strongly counsels us not to implicate by name any person who
is not officially charged with misconduct.
The recent Inspector General report emphasizes the solemn
duty of federal law enforcement officials to defend the
confidentiality of federal investigations. I hope you and
your colleagues in the Senate and House will support us in
restoring those principles. The Department of Justice must
not proceed along the unhappy road to being perceived as a
partisan actor, deciding what information to reveal and what
information to conceal based on the expected impact on the
personal or political interests of its temporary leaders and
congressional allies.
The current investigation of election interference is
important, but there are also thousands of other important
investigations pending in the Department of Justice and the
FBI. Every investigation is important to the persons whose
reputations may be irreparably damaged or whose careers may
be permanently disrupted. No matter who an investigation
involves--an ordinary citizen, a local or state politician, a
campaign official, a foreign agent, or an officer of the
federal legislative, executive, or judicial branch--agents
and prosecutors are obligated to protect its confidentiality
and preserve the Department's independence from political
influence.
Throughout American history, wise legislators have worked
with Department officials to limit oversight requests in
order to respect the Department's duty to protect national
security, preserve personal privacy, and insulate
investigations from the appearance of interference. For
instance, the Department sent a letter to a House committee
chair in 2000, describing the Department's policies on
responding to congressional oversight requests. The letter
explains:
Such inquiries inescapably create the risk that the public
and the courts will perceive undue political and
Congressional influence over law enforcement and litigation
decisions. Such inquiries also often seek records and other
information that our responsibilities for these matters
preclude us from disclosing.
The letter quotes President Ronald Reagan, who wrote that a
``tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary
means of resolving conflicts between the Branches.''
Regardless of whether an inter-branch information request is
made by letter or subpoena, the relationship between the
branches gives rise to ``an implicit constitutional
mandate,'' to ``reach an accommodation short of full-scale
confrontation.'' It must not be the case that the Department
is required to risk damage to reputations, put cases and
lives at risk, and invite political interference by opening
sensitive files to congressional staff without restriction.
Tension between Congress's oversight interests and the
Department's solemn responsibility to protect law enforcement
information is unavoidable. In 1989, then-Assistant Attorney
General William Barr wrote that misunderstandings often arise
because congressional investigations, by their nature, are
usually adversarial and unbounded by the rules of evidence.
In another 1989 opinion, the Department's Office of Legal
Counsel explained that ``the executive branch has . . .
consistently refused to provide confidential information'' to
``congressional committees with respect to open cases.''
Sometimes there is a strong temptation to seek short-term
benefit at the cost of long-term values. But departures from
Department traditions contribute to a loss of public
confidence. We can build public confidence if we stick to the
principle that the prosecutor is ``the servant of the law,
the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape nor
innocence suffer.''
Approval of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Applications
Finally, you asked whether I delegated approval authority
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such
approval authority is not delegable beyond the approving
officials designated in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. FISA affidavits are written and sworn under oath by
career federal agents who verify that they are true and
correct. They are reviewed by investigative agency
supervisors and attorneys, and by Department of Justice
attorneys and supervisors. Before filing, they must be
approved by an intelligence agency leader, usually the FBI
Director, and by either the Attorney General, the Deputy
Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the
National Security Division. In every case, the ultimate
decision on whether to allow surveillance is made by a
federal judge who independently determines whether the
evidence provided under oath by the federal agent meets the
requisite legal standard.
Conclusion
I hope that you find this information helpful. I regret
that the many duties of my office preclude me from responding
personally to every congressional inquiry. I am deeply
grateful to have the support of a talented and dedicated team
that understands our obligation to work cooperatively with
the Congress to protect the American people and preserve the
rule of law.
Sincerely,
Rod J. Rosenstein.
Deputy Attorney General.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Zeldin).
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res.
970.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Mark Meadows and
Jim Jordan.
First off, from my conversations with members of the Justice
Department, I have been very impressed with their feedback of seeing
just how high morale has gone over the course of the last year and a
half because they are able to do their jobs again.
You were seeing prosecution numbers and certain metrics in these
different U.S. Attorney Offices going down. Their hands were being tied
behind their back. We talked about the military having their hands tied
behind their back, the rules of engagement. We saw our Justice
Department, our U.S. attorneys, and our FBI with their hands tied
between their back. And their morale is going up.
Now, I'm not going to subscribe to those in this Chamber and in this
country who want to resist, oppose, obstruct, and impeach this
President on everything and anything. That is their top priority in
life; that is not mine. My priority is, when I see that there is
misconduct at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the
FBI, as a Member of Congress, taking my oath seriously to my own
constituents and to this country, I demand answers. It is about
transparency and it is about accountability.
I have a 12-page resolution that we introduced, H. Res. 907. It has
up to 33 cosponsors. What is interesting about this resolution is it is
12 pages outlining and detailing all this misconduct, calling for a
second special counsel, and not one person has been able to poke any
hole and a single bullet in this entire 12-page document.
I have a problem with it when those in the Justice Department say
that they can't provide a document because it risks national security.
You read the document and find that nothing in there risks national
security. Actually what the problem was is that it might cause
embarrassment to someone in the DOJ and the FBI. That is why it wasn't
provided.
I don't like it when you see FISA abuse that results in a United
States citizen being spied on: going to a secret court with secret
documents to get a warrant without due process and providing the full
story.
It is all about justice, transparency, and accountability. Mark
Meadows has been leading the fight to get more documents. I support him
with it. The Justice Department needs to comply.
[[Page H5846]]
We have an oversight function, and I do not subscribe to those in
this Chamber who want to oppose, obstruct, resist, and impeach. That is
not the path forward for America.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I think I made the case clear. I think Mr.
Zeldin has added nothing to the debate that I have to refute.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman opposite for his impassioned
arguments and debate on this issue. I thank all of those who have come
down to the floor today to stand up for this institution's right to
provide proper oversight and conduct it according to the Constitution,
but, more importantly, for good transparency. Transparency is a good
thing, and I think it is high time that we do it.
For 8 months, Mr. Speaker, we have made a request of the Department
of Justice. They have not fully complied. On March 22, 99 days ago, we
sent a subpoena giving them 14 days. They did not comply. Two weeks
ago, the Speaker of the House actually reached out and said, ``You have
another week.'' They did not comply.
This is our last attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt that
they have nothing to hide. They need to start acting like it, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance
of my time
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 971, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution and on the preamble.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 306]
YEAS--226
Abraham
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--183
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Amash
NOT VOTING--17
Aderholt
Black
Costello (PA)
Crowley
Ellison
Eshoo
Grijalva
Grothman
Jones
Labrador
Luetkemeyer
Pelosi
Speier
Thompson (MS)
Tsongas
Walz
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1154
Mr. BUCSHON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________