[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.

                          ____________________