[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 46 (Thursday, March 14, 2019)]
[House]
[Page H2723]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER
SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO CONGRESS
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 208, I call up
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 24) expressing the sense of
Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made
available to the public and to Congress, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 208, the
amendments to the concurrent resolution and the preamble, printed in
House Report 116-17, are agreed to, and the concurrent resolution, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution, as amended, is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 24
Whereas, on January 6, 2017, the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence released a report concluding that
``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election'',
that the goal of this campaign was ``to undermine public
faith in the US democratic process'', and that ``Putin and
the Russian Government developed a clear preference for
President-elect Trump'';
Whereas, on March 20, 2017, the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) testified that he was
authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the
FBI is investigating whether ``there was any coordination''
between individuals associated with the Trump presidential
campaign and the Russian Government;
Whereas part 600 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations,
as in effect on March 7, 2019 (in this resolution referred to
as ``Special Counsel Regulations''), provides for the
appointment of a Special Counsel when the Attorney General or
Acting Attorney General ``determines that criminal
investigation of a person or matter is warranted and--(a)
That investigation . . . by a United States Attorney's Office
or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would
present a conflict of interest for the Department or other
extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the
circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint
an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the
matter'';
Whereas the Special Counsel Regulations call for any
individual named as Special Counsel to be a ``lawyer with a
reputation for integrity and impartial decision making and
with appropriate experience to ensure that both the
investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and
thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial
decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of
the criminal law and Department of Justice policies'';
Whereas, on May 17, 2017, the Acting Attorney General
appointed former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to serve
as Special Counsel ``to ensure a full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to
interfere in the 2016 presidential election'', including an
examination of ``any links and/or coordination between the
Russian government and individuals associated with the
campaign of President Donald Trump'', ``any matters that
arose or may arise directly from the investigation'', and
``any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. 600.4(a)'';
Whereas the Acting Attorney General explained that he had
appointed Special Counsel Mueller because he ``determined
that it is in the public interest . . . to . . . appoint a
Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter . .
. based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest
requires [him] to place this investigation under the
authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence
from the normal chain of command . . . [and that] a Special
Counsel is necessary in order for the American people to have
full confidence in the outcome. Our nation is grounded on the
rule of law, and the public must be assured that government
officials administer the law fairly'';
Whereas Special Counsel Mueller has previously served in
the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, United States
Attorney, and Director of the FBI under both Republican and
Democratic administrations, and his selection as the Special
Counsel elicited bipartisan praise recognizing his reputation
for competence, fairness, and nonpartisanship;
Whereas the Special Counsel's investigation has thus far
resulted in the public indictment of 34 individuals and 3
companies, 7 guilty pleas, and 1 conviction following a jury
trial;
Whereas the Special Counsel Regulations provide that ``[a]t
the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall
provide the Attorney General with a confidential report
explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached
by the Special Counsel'';
Whereas, on January 15, 2019, at his confirmation hearing
before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Attorney
General William Barr testified ``I . . . believe it is very
important that the public and Congress be informed of the
results of the special counsel's work. For that reason, my
goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can
consistent with the law'';
Whereas, on February 22, 2019, the chairs of six committees
of the House of Representatives wrote to Attorney General
Barr to inform him of their expectation that he will make
Special Counsel Mueller's report public ``to the maximum
extent permitted by law'';
Whereas transparency is consistent with the overall purpose
and intent of the Special Counsel Regulations and the
accompanying Department of Justice commentary, which notes
the importance of ``ensur[ing] congressional and public
confidence in the integrity of the process'';
Whereas the need for transparency is most pronounced with
regard to investigations that involve the President or
individuals associated with his campaign as the President is
responsible for the appointment of the senior leadership of
the Department of Justice;
Whereas the Department of Justice's United States
Attorney's Manual indicates that in public filings and
proceedings, prosecutors ``should remain sensitive to the
privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-
parties'', that is, of persons who the Department considers
may be, but are not yet criminally charged;
Whereas this general nonstatutory policy of sensitivity to
the ``interests of uncharged third-parties'' should be
inapplicable to a sitting President because the Department of
Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has previously written that
``a sitting President is constitutionally immune from
indictment and criminal prosecution'';
Whereas the Department of Justice has on numerous recent
occasions provided investigatory information to Congress and
the public concerning investigations of high-level public
officials in both pending and closed cases;
Whereas in the only other instance where a Special Counsel
was appointed under the Special Counsel Regulations (in 1999,
concerning the 1993 confrontation in Waco, Texas), both the
interim and final reports, including findings, provided by
the Special Counsel were released to the public by the
Attorney General; and
Whereas the allegations at the center of Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation strike at the core of our democracy,
and there is an overwhelming public interest in releasing the
Special Counsel's report to ensure public confidence in both
the process and the result of the investigation: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) calls for the public release of any report, including
findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney
General, except to the extent the public disclosure of any
portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law; and
(2) calls for the full release to Congress of any report,
including findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the
Attorney General.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
____________________
[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 46 (Thursday, March 14, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2723-H2732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 24.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 24 expresses the sense of Congress that any
report Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivers to the Attorney General
should be released to the public and to Congress. This concurrent
resolution is important for several reasons.
First, transparency is fundamental to the special counsel process,
especially when dealing with matters of national security involving the
President.
In January 2017, the U.S. intelligence community unanimously reported
that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign
in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' and that ``Putin and
the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect
Trump.'' As a result of the importance of this charge and the clear
conflict of interest in a matter involving the President, Robert
Mueller was appointed as special counsel by the Acting Attorney General
``in order for the American people to have full confidence in the
outcome.''
This is why in the only other instance involving the appointment of a
special counsel under the regulations, concerning the Waco tragedy, the
special counsel's report was released in full by the Attorney General.
Second, this resolution is critical because of the many questions and
criticisms of the investigation raised by the President and his
administration. It is
[[Page H2724]]
important that Congress stand up for the principle of full transparency
at a time when the President has publicly attacked the Russian
investigation more than 1,100 times and counting. Among other things,
the President has repeatedly referred to the investigation as a ``witch
hunt'' and called it a ``hoax,'' ``rigged,'' and a ``scam.''
This resolution is also needed because high-ranking DOJ officials
have indicated that they may not release information about individuals
who are not indicted. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stated last
month that ``if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a
reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations
against American citizens.''
This normally salutary policy must not apply in the event the
Department adheres to its policy that it cannot indict a sitting
President. To maintain that a sitting President cannot be indicted no
matter how much evidence there is because he is a sitting President,
and then to withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the
President cannot be charged, is to convert DOJ policy into the means
for a coverup.
Third, releasing the Mueller report, even in its entirety, does not
absolve the Department of Justice of its obligation to provide Congress
with the underlying evidence uncovered by the special counsel. This
expectation is well grounded in precedent set by the Department just in
the last Congress in connection with three Republican-led
investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails, the dismissal of former
FBI Acting Director McCabe, and allegations of bias concerning the
Russian investigation.
With respect to the investigation involving Secretary Clinton's
emails, this included the Department of Justice releasing to Congress
more than 880,000 pages of documents regarding the FBI's
decisionmaking, identifying to Congress the names of career officials
involved in the charging decision, identifying to Congress specific
court cases relied on in the charging decision, and making numerous DOJ
and FBI personnel available to Congress for transcribed interviews.
With respect to the dismissal of former Acting Director McCabe, this
included releasing to Congress all documents relied on by the Office of
Professional Responsibility in making its decision.
With respect to claims of bias in the Russian investigation, this
included not only releasing to the public an otherwise classified
foreign intelligence application, but also releasing to Congress: one,
all underlying documents and communications involving the FISA
applications; two, four memos detailing the former FBI Director's
communications with the President; three, materials pertaining to
classified briefings involving the Trump and Clinton Presidential
campaigns; and four, making even more DOJ and FBI officials available
for a total of 21 transcribed interviews and hearings.
These precedents make clear the obligation of the Department of
Justice to release all evidence with respect to the Russian
investigation.
A vote for this resolution will send a clear signal to both the
American people and to the Department of Justice that Congress believes
transparency is a fundamental principle necessary to ensure that
government remains accountable to the public.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join
me in supporting this commonsense resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, but as a matter of
time and coming through this week, I have 30 minutes, so I might as
well talk about a resolution that is a restatement of the regulation. I
want to provide some background on the special counsel's regulations.
Special Counsel Mueller is operating under a different regulatory
framework from the independent counsel statute that gave us the Starr
report.
The Clinton administration Justice Department, which was led by
Attorney General Janet Reno, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, and
Neal Katyal, drafted the special counsel regulations in effect today.
They established a regulatory framework that gives the Attorney General
flexibility.
Attorney General Barr has a few options when he receives the
information from Mr. Mueller. He can give Congress the complete report
or a summary, or he can simply tell Congress that the Mueller
investigation has concluded.
The Clinton administration regulations do not require a full report
to Congress. However, during his confirmation, Attorney General Barr
said he wants to be ``transparent'' with Congress and the public
``consistent with the rules and the law.'' I have no reason to think
Attorney General Barr would back away from those statements he made
before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I believe he is truthful and will be truthful to his
word to make as much public as he possibly can.
The American people should not expect another Starr report. The
Clinton Justice Department made sure another President would not have
salacious stories aired before the American people. Janet Reno herself
testified before Congress in 1999 that it was a bad idea for
independent counsels to publish final reports.
Many Members of the Democratic majority in Congress today voted
against the public release of materials related to the Starr report.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a narrative related to a roll
call vote from the 105th Congress. For the Record, I note that the
following Democratic Members voted against the release of the Starr
materials: Speaker Pelosi, Majority Whip Clyburn, Chairman Nadler,
Chairman Cummings, Chairman Engel, Chairman Waters, Ms. Jackson Lee,
Mr. Markey, Chair Lofgren, and Chairman Neal, among others.
It is amazing that we have now changed our perspective on that, in
light of a Republican in the White House.
Again, this resolution simply, basically, restates the regulations
that are currently in place that were written under the Clinton
Department of Justice. It is going to go forward. The new Attorney
General has said he wants to make as much public to the American people
as he legally can.
I believe in transparency. I believe that there are many other things
we could be working on, but I am happy to support a resolution that is
actually just a restatement of the regulatory burden already placed
upon the Attorney General.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial
Services Committee.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 24, which expresses the
sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller
should be available to the public and to Congress.
Special Counsel Mueller has been appointed to ensure a full and
thorough investigation of the Russian Government's efforts to interfere
in the 2016 Presidential election and to examine any links and/or
coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated
with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
He has also been appointed with the authority to investigate and
prosecute Federal crimes committed in the course of and with the intent
to interfere with the investigation, including perjury, obstruction of
justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.
The gravity and magnitude of this investigation, given that it goes
straight to the heart of our democracy and involves the President of
the United States, requires the public release of the special counsel's
findings.
This is an investigation that affects each and every American,
whether it implicates or exonerates the President. Therefore, it must
be brought to light so that the American people can see for themselves
the findings and determinations made by an objective, impartial
investigator who has a reputation for integrity.
In addition, the report will provide valuable insight and information
for the important investigations being undertaken in the House,
including the
[[Page H2725]]
investigation being conducted by the Committee on Financial Services on
money laundering and the President's finances.
Special Counsel Mueller has been appropriately deliberate and
discreet in conducting this investigation. It is clear from the manner
in which the special counsel has approached this investigation that he
has taken it seriously and has not conducted what President Trump
refers to as a ``witch hunt.''
So far, the special counsel's investigation has resulted in 199
criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and five prison
sentences.
Whatever his prosecutorial decisions may be going forward, it is in
the public's interest to be given full transparency into those
decisions and the explanations behind them.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chair of the Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) for yielding and for his sponsorship of this important
legislation. I rise in strong support.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed in May 2017 to oversee
the ongoing criminal and counterintelligence investigation into
Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Over the nearly 2 years
since his appointment, the special counsel has indicted 34 individuals
and three companies, and secured guilty pleas or convictions from eight
individuals.
We do not know when the special counsel will complete his work, but
there are indications that it could occur in the near future.
Notwithstanding the overwhelming public interest in the special
counsel's report and findings, I am deeply concerned that Attorney
General Barr may attempt to withhold Mueller's full report from the
public and the underlying evidence from Congress and could instead seek
to provide only a CliffsNotes version of the report to Congress.
As this resolution makes clear, Congress will not accept any attempt
by Mr. Barr or the President to bury the report and the findings of the
special counsel. Withholding this information would be untenable in
light of the intense public interest and need for transparency, but
particularly so when the Department has provided voluminous production
to Congress at the demand of the previous majority, including sensitive
FISA materials and other classified and law enforcement-sensitive
materials related to the Mueller investigation and the Clinton email
investigation.
Last year, I repeatedly warned Department leadership that, in
providing these materials to Congress, they were establishing a
precedent and one that they would have to live with in the future. They
did so anyway.
While anonymous sources at the Department have attempted to publicly
blame James Comey for the provision of this information, in fact, the
Department has turned over more than 880,000 pages of documents from
the Clinton email investigation to Congress, all of them--all of them--
pursuant to congressional subpoenas issued after James Comey was fired.
They have produced highly sensitive records, including FISA materials,
directly related to ongoing investigations at the core of the special
counsel's charter.
To be sure, something far more serious than precedent is at stake.
Disclosure is uniquely imperative here because the special counsel
reportedly is investigating whether the President himself engaged in
misconduct. If the special counsel has indeed uncovered evidence of
serious wrongdoing on the President's part, then that evidence must be
furnished to Congress and ultimately to the American people.
Withholding the full report or underlying evidence would only
heighten concerns over a coverup or a pernicious or partisan double
standard.
The special counsel's regulations were written, above all, to ensure
public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.
That charge would be entirely vitiated by an attempt to cover up or
conceal Special Counsel Mueller's findings and report, whatever they
may be and whenever they are finalized.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of both parties to join me in supporting
this resolution and to make clear that anything less than full
transparency is unacceptable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
{time} 0930
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for
his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution requesting that
Special Counsel Mueller's report be made available to the public.
There are three reasons why this must happen.
First, the taxpayers paid for this report. The American people funded
this investigation. They have a right to see the contents of the report
of the investigation.
Second, internal bureaucratic Department of Justice policies do not
apply to Congress, especially on matters of national importance.
And third, if we don't get this report, it could amount to a cover-
up.
The United States Constitution does not say that a sitting President
cannot be indicted. There is nothing in the Constitution that would
prevent that.
Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has taken the policy
position that they are not going to indict a sitting President, which
means that the only institution that can hold the President accountable
is Congress. If we do not get this information, we cannot effectively
do our jobs, we cannot hold the President accountable, and it is
something that the American public wants to see.
Over 87 percent of respondents in a recent poll say that this report
should be made available to Congress and to the American public. If the
Department of Justice does not do this, we all need to ask: What are
they trying to hide?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and
for introducing this incredibly important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the investigation currently under way by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller is incredibly important: an open investigation into
incredibly serious allegations, potential obstruction of justice,
corruption, and possible links of coordination between President
Trump's Presidential campaign and the Russian Government, efforts to
meddle in our democratic process, and mislead and manipulate American
voters.
The allegations at the center of this investigation, as I said, are
serious, they are credible, and they are unprecedented. With 37
indictments and counting, it is of paramount importance that the
special counsel's report and the underlying evidence be made public for
the sake of transparency and trust in our government.
As a nation, as a Congress, and as a Republic, we need to know all of
the facts about this investigation and what unfolded between players in
the President's campaign and Russia in 2016. We must protect and
respect the work of Special Counsel Mueller, and his report must be
released, in full, for the Congress and for the American people to see.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the chairman for introducing this
resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing is one of the most
important documents that will ever be produced and given, potentially,
to Congress for the American people in
[[Page H2726]]
our modern history: a question of whether or not this administration
was involved with the Russian Government, our number one foreign enemy,
in influencing the outcome of our Presidential election, something
tantamount to treason.
The report needs to be made public because the American people have a
right to know. The American people, as Ronald Reagan, to paraphrase,
said: I paid for this microphone, the American people paid for this
report, they paid for the special counsel, they deserve to see the
fruits of his work and whether or not, as Richard Nixon said, their
President is a crook, they need to know that.
Unfortunately, as I sit here listening to this discussion, I feel
like I am thrown back into a time in the 1970s--I think it was 1977,
somewhere around there--in Kinshasa, Zaire, not in the Washington, D.C.
capitol. It is the Muhammad Ali-George Foreman fight, and the other
side, the Republicans, are playing the role of Muhammad Ali. Not the
``float like a butterfly, sting like a bee'' Muhammad Ali, but the
rope-a-dope, sit back, take the punches, let them swing, let them hit
you, because they know that eventually they will wear themselves out
and they know the outcome, because the fix is in.
There is a reason why the Attorney General was picked by this
President, and we will soon find out. But we need to pass this
resolution and show the American people that Congress is on the side of
transparency and are releasing this report and letting the American
public, who paid for this report, know the results of it and know what
needs to happen to protect our democracy and the rule of law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are, again, reminded that they
should refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how about engaging in
personalities against the sitting Attorney General? You are saying that
he was appointed for a reason.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Is it not also directed at the House to not
also impugn the integrity and the character of a sitting Cabinet
member?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this time, the gentleman from Georgia is
advised that the Chair will not issue an advisory opinion.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I wouldn't want to do it either, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not offer an advisory
opinion.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Offer? Can you offer it? You said you were
able to offer an advisory opinion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will once again advise that the
rule requires Members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward
the President.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue my parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I made a parliamentary inquiry concerning a
Cabinet member, not the President. I understand your advisory opinion
against the President. I fully agree with it. I am asking about a
member of the Cabinet.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that the rule does
not extend to a member of the Cabinet.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Wow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Those are the rules of the House. The
gentleman is advised.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Wow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for enlightening
us on that. It is okay, basically, if you impugn the integrity of a
sitting member of the Cabinet. I guess we just learned something new
today. That is encouraging. As far as Members of the House, I get that
it is not in the rules, but it also shouldn't be a part of this debate.
This is a simple resolution. It simply restates the regulation. Don't
make it any more or any less than what it is. That is why we are here.
We are going to approve this, we are going to vote for it, but let's
not make it any more than what it is. Let's continue on so we can get a
vote, everybody can go home, and maybe we will come back and actually
vote on legislation that actually matters.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res.
24, to express the sense of Congress that Special Counsel Mueller's
report be made available to the American people and to Congress. We
cannot impugn the integrity of the American people by keeping this
report silenced.
For nearly 2 years, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team have
investigated serious and credible allegations about obstruction of
justice and collusion at the highest levels of our government. To date,
Mr. Speaker, the investigation has led to the public indictment of
three companies and 34 individuals, including the indictment of
President Trump's former campaign manager and personal lawyer, seven
guilty pleas, and one conviction following a jury trial. The
allegations range from election interference, to lying to the FBI, to
conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. I
hope that my colleagues on the other side will understand that there
should be nothing to hide from the American people about this
investigation, a special counsel's investigation into whether there was
interference in our elections.
If my Republican colleagues have nothing to fear from this report, if
they are willing to stand up for the Constitution, if they are willing
to stand up for the American people and put that Constitution over
party, over any individual, including the one that sits in the White
House, then they, too, will join us in voting unanimously for this
resolution.
It is a big deal for the American people to maintain trust in our
democracy and in our government. They have to know the results of the
special counsel's report. This is, again, an American issue. It is
about doing our constitutional duty to protect our democracy.
I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to having a unanimous vote on this
resolution, passing it through and making it clear that we have nothing
to hide. It is our duty to the American people.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I don't know, maybe I need to
make the talking points to the other side clear. I agreed on Monday
that I was voting for this. We are not opposing this, because it is
simply a restatement of the regulation. I know that it is fashionable
to think that we are not. So, again, I am sorry, I could have maybe
made the talking points more clear at Rules that I was voting for this
so we could have saved extra time on some of the discussion here.
Mr. Speaker, again, we will continue to go through this, and, at this
point, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), the sponsor of this legislation to ensure that the
work of the special counsel is not suppressed and will offer valuable
assistance on today's resolution.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work on this.
Mr. Speaker, the relentless, baseless attacks on an American patriot,
Robert Mueller, and his team, have moved us ever so closer to a
constitutional crisis. Just as we cannot yield to Trump's attempt to
discredit this distinguished team of legal experts, neither can we let
them bury the results of this taxpayer-funded investigation.
Having nothing to fear means having nothing to hide. Those who seek
to hide this report, obviously, do not believe that the truth will set
them free. Rather, as it has for so many of Mr. Trump's sleazy cohorts,
they feel that the truth will lock them up. So many lies, so much daily
deceit. Already so much evidence of collusion and obstruction and, from
the organization's own former lawyer, evidence of an apparent criminal
enterprise that bears the name of the Trump organization.
If it is a witch hunt, Mr. President, it has more witches than a Mar-
a-Lago
[[Page H2727]]
Halloween party. And your witches' brew seems to have cast a spell over
many Members of this Congress who find themselves locked in continuing
silence or wishy-washy efforts to ignore and bolster your floundering
Presidency.
Today's resolution says to President Trump, who has shown some
consistent disregard for the rule of law: You cannot seize and secret
evidence of conduct that others need to see. Let the taxpayers see the
results of the investigation of the wrongdoing, which their dollars
have rightly funded.
Our congressional duty is to enforce the borders, to be Border Patrol
people, to see that this President, who is willing to cross every line,
every constitutional boundary, to see that he is contained within the
borders of the Constitution. For the rule of law to stand, the
administration cannot be allowed to sit on the special counsel's
report.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 26\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding. And I also thank the ranking member. I very much appreciate
his comments that he will support this concurrent resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I will just observe, as a member of the Intelligence
Committee, that we have seen our politics twisted into almost
unrecognizable form by the unprecedented attacks of the President on
the Department of Justice, on the FBI, on the investigation as a whole.
This report must see the light of day and must be made available to
the American public for a catharsis that will allow us to start with
the facts, to understand what happened and to rebuild the faith that
the American people did and should have in the Department of Justice,
in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the government in
general.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Congress, in strong,
bipartisan fashion, passing this bill so that the American people will
understand that the truth will be out there and it will help fix our
politics.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for
yielding.
I, too, add my appreciation to Mr. Collins' eagerness to adhere to
what I think is an appropriate policy that reasserts the article I
authority, if you will, of the Congress. And I think it is important
for my colleagues to recognize that Americans are wondering. They are
wondering. They have heard over and over again of Russian collusion.
They have heard the factual affirmation that the Russians did interfere
with the 2016 election and tried to interfere with the 2018 election.
Therefore, it is important for them, in their concern, to be informed.
They are taxpayers. We say this all the time.
{time} 0945
And it is important to note that, through this investigation, the
National Security Advisor and former foreign policy advisor and many
others have gone to court because of Mr. Mueller.
It is indeed important to know that we have learned much because of
his report, but we have not learned all. And we must overcome Attorney
General Barr's hesitation, because the American people have made the
point. The point is that 68 percent of them say that they would like to
see this report.
Now, we know that it has been bandied around that we cannot indict a
President. This is not about indicting a President. But assuming,
arguendo, that this regulation is correct, that someone thinks that
that is constant law and the President cannot be subjected to criminal
process and, therefore, cannot and should not be indicted, it is a
logical fallacy to say that because he cannot be indicted by virtue of
his office and because it is the Justice Department's regulation not to
reveal information about unindicted parties and individuals.
The Justice Department cannot reveal any information or potential
wrongdoing by the President and not reveal any information to the body
that possesses the constitutional responsibility for holding this
President accountable.
So let us follow good policy. Even the words of Attorney General Barr
that recognizes that the DOJ's purpose is to release investigations in
the public interest. This is in the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to all that we do this in a bipartisan
way to give to the American people what they deserve and what they
want.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on Judiciary, which
has oversight of the Department of Justice, and as a Senior Member of
the Committee on Homeland Security, which has oversight over our
election security infrastructure, I rise in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 24.
Mr. Speaker, I rise because I believe our nation will soon be at an
inflection point.
For many years now, Americans have wondered about the role of
Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether that crime was
aided and abetted by Associates of the Trump Campaign.
Americans have been concerned as we have watched a parade of
colleagues and contemporaries of the President hauled before court.
This includes the President's National Security Advisor, his longtime
confidante, his former foreign policy advisor, and yesterday his former
campaign manager and his former campaign manager.
Indeed, the future that awaits the President's former campaign
manager is bleak--he is facing 7.5 years in federal prison, and today a
16-count indictment was returned in Manhattan detailing residential
mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records.
Indeed, most if not all of what we have learned about those who
surround the president has been because of the work of the Special
Counsel, Robert Mueller.
It is important that whatever work Mr. Mueller has done, be shared by
the American people.
This is for any number of reasons.
First of all, broad swaths of the American people want this report
published.
The last public opinion poll conducted showed that 68% of Americans
want this Mueller report published.
Next, the entire purpose of appointing a special counsel was because
the president's first attorney General had to recuse himself because he
was found to be less-than-truthful about his contacts with Kremlin
officials during the 2016 campaign, on behalf of then Candidate Trump.
According to the former Acting Attorney General, the Special Counsel
was appointed in order for the American people to have full confidence
in the outcome of the investigation . . . the public must be assured
that government officials administer the law fairly.
And thus far, Mr. Mueller's investigation has revealed the public
indictment of 34 individuals, 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas and one 1
conviction following trial.
Through the work done by Mr. Mueller and his ``speaking
indictments,'' we learned that Russian military officials tried to wage
an active measures campaign.
We know that the Russians manipulated our social media systems.
They did this by turning our social media platforms like Twitter and
Facebook, into rowdy and unwieldy debates that turned Americans against
one another.
They did this by creating fake online social media accounts and
populated them on social media platforms.
After infiltrating the social media accounts of real Americans, these
fake accounts sought to sow discord in these online communities by
purposely exacerbating divisions within our nation and creating new
ones--all with the intent of pitting Americans against one another.
While they were distorting the social media landscape, they were also
selectively disseminating emails stolen from the Democratic National
Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton with the purpose of
timing the dissemination to maximize political damage on Secretary
Clinton's campaign.
All the while, the President was encouraging this behavior.
And, despite protestations by the President, this is not a witch
hunt--it has yielded the
[[Page H2728]]
public indictments of 34 individuals and 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas,
and 1 conviction.
The American people are watching and paying attention.
The most recent public opinion poll shows that a super majority of
Americans--a full 68%--wants the Mueller Report made public.
The Mueller Report is one unparalleled way in which Americans can
learn this information with confidence.
And, finally, we must tackle a serious issue that is being discussed
among elected officials and the Justice Department.
Over the past two years, we have been told that it is Justice
Department regulations that a sitting President cannot be indicted. I
will note that this principle has not been tested in court.
That regulation was implemented during the Watergate investigation,
under the theory that the President cannot be subjected to criminal
process.
But, assuming arguendo that this regulation is correct, and the
President cannot be subjected to criminal process and therefore cannot
and should not be indicted, it is a logical fallacy to say that because
he cannot be indicted by virtue of his office, and because it is
Justice Department regulation not to reveal information about
unindicted parties and individuals, the Justice Department cannot
reveal any information of potential wrongdoing by the President and not
reveal any information to the body that possesses the constitutional
responsibility for holding this president accountable.
For these reasons, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24, and
urge my colleagues to support it and urge passage so the American
people can learn how the 2016 election became a crime scene.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Nadler for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, my call today is for full transparency, with a clear
focus on the sinister motives of Russia's corrupt leaders. Their
interference in our 2016 elections has created confusion, anger,
bewilderment, and division--exactly what Russia wanted.
Today's resolution calls for the Department of Justice to make
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, along with any findings,
available to the public to the maximum extent permitted by the law and
to provide the report and its findings, in entirety, to the Congress of
the United States of America.
So whether you have used Special Counsel Mueller as a patriot
conducting a nonpartisan investigation into a foreign power's possible
influence in our elections or as a witch hunt, a full accounting and
public release of the findings is needed to heal our political
differences.
This is not about embarrassing President Trump. This is about closure
and full disclosure.
If there was no collusion, as the President has emphasized, then he
should want complete transparency. Mr. Speaker, the American people
deserve no less.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House passed H.R. 1, major
legislation to strengthen voter access, address the corrosive influence
of dark money in politics, institute national redistricting reform, and
hold public officials accountable to higher standards of ethics and
transparency.
Taking the next step, this week is sunshine week on the House floor.
The House has already passed several pieces of legislation this week to
modernize government and increase transparency, accountability, and
good governance. They include measures aimed at shining a light onto
Russia's malign activities around the world and the suppression of
democracy within its own borders.
The resolution we now have before us expresses the sense of Congress
that the American public ought to have transparency when it comes to
the investigation into Russia's interference in our elections and
efforts to undermine our democracy. It says that the special counsel's
report ought to be made public to the fullest extent of the law and
that Congress should see all of it.
Nearly 9 in 10 Americans believe the special counsel's report should
be made public, and we have heard that from Republicans in Congress as
well. I hope this will be a bipartisan vote to tell the American
people: You have the right to and ought to know the results of this
report.
One of my Republican colleagues, Representative Mike Turner from
Ohio, said in February the report has to be made public.
Susan Collins of Maine said: ``The American people deserve to know
what the findings are of Mr. Mueller.''
``I believe the report should be released,'' said Senator Collins.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, Mr. Nadler,
Republicans, and Democrats on supporting this resolution and in calling
for transparency. Let's come together in a bipartisan vote to make it
clear that the American people deserve to know the full extent of what
Russia--of what Russia--has done in the objective of subverting and
undermining our democratic institutions.
I thank the chair for bringing this resolution to the floor. I urge
all of us to support it. Let's send a unanimous message to the Russians
and to any other country or entity that would try to subvert our
democratic elections that that will not be tolerated.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 26\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said today, and it is interesting to me--I think
this is the funny part of this, because so many times we would come up
here and we retreat to our partisan sides and we say, I am going to be
a ``yes''; you are going to be a ``no.''
The sad part about it is the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), my
colleague, I said ``yes'' on Monday night. I said ``yes'' to the
resolution on Monday night. Yet it seems like somehow, through the
process: Well, we need everybody to come together.
We have talked about this. It is nothing but a restatement of the
regulation.
Attorney General Barr will follow the regulation. He has said so. He
has been in committee, and during his time of confirmation, he has said
so.
I think what we need to understand here, and maybe we also need to
throw this out here, and maybe this is something because I have heard a
lot of my colleagues across the aisle talk about what they believe
should be in this report. Well, maybe I have a problem and maybe a news
flash to give them: What happens when it comes back and says none of
this was true, the President did not do anything wrong? Then the
meltdown will occur.
I heard probably, earlier, just one of my colleagues actually on the
other side stated that the elections has thrown chaos into the system.
No, the reason the election has thrown chaos is because President Trump
won and the Democratic candidate didn't know where Wisconsin was. You
all remedied that this time, though. The Democratic candidate for
President will actually have been to Wisconsin by the election day next
time.
There are other reasons to do this. Transparency is good.
As we go forward, my hope would be, on this issue, let's let the
report be given to the Attorney General. Let's let the Attorney General
do the regulations and follow the regulations and give as much as he
has said in his confirmation hearing: that he wants to be transparent,
he wants to be a part, he wants this to come out, because he
understands the questions and the turmoil that this has caused.
So I have nothing to believe that this would not be true. There is
nothing that has been presented here today to think that it wouldn't be
true. That is what makes this resolution even more amazing to me:
Nothing has been presented that Mr. Barr would not do what the
regulations say.
Now, there may be more on it and everything else, but let's talk
about what actually the resolution says, and that is what it says.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the gentleman from Georgia implied a
few
[[Page H2729]]
minutes ago, that we shouldn't be wasting our time on this because it
only restates what the regulations require and the Judiciary Committee
ought to be spending its time more productively, I simply want to say,
first, that the Democratic House majority and the Judiciary Committee
are not focused on the President to the exclusion of our legislative
priorities.
In the 2 months since we organized, the Judiciary Committee has
passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, through
the House and has passed H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act
of 2019, through the House. H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2019, passed through the committee. We have
passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, through the House.
The Judiciary Committee has also held a hearing to begin the process
of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and held a hearing to examine
the state of competition in the healthcare industry, as well as the T-
Mobile-Sprint merger.
We have introduced H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 1327, the Never
Forget the Heroes: Permanent Authorization of September 11th Victim
Compensation Fund Act; and the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019,
the so-called Dreamers bill.
These are some of the things we have been doing besides looking into
the possible misconduct by the President.
In closing, I would like to include the following items in the
Record:
First, the U.S. Intelligence Community report concluding that
Vladimir Putin ordered a misinformation campaign directed against the
2016 Presidential election and displayed a clear preference for then-
candidate Donald Trump.
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections
(January 6, 2017)
key judgments
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential
election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's
longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal
democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a
significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and
scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an
influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential
election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in
the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and
harm her electability and potential presidency. We further
assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear
preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence
in these judgments.
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to
help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible
by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting
her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this
judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment;
NSA has moderate confidence.
Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign
based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of
the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that
Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian
influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her
future presidency.
Further information has come to light since Election Day
that, when combined with Russian behavior since early
November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of
Russian motivations and goals.
Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging
strategy that blends covert intelligence operations--such as
cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian Government
agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and
paid social media users or ``trolls.'' Russia, like its
Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert
influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that
have used intelligence officers and agents and press
placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to
the Kremlin.
Russia's intelligence services conducted cyber operations
against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential
election, including targets associated with both major US
political parties.
We assess with high confidence that Russian military
intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or
GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release
US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in
exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to
WikiLeaks.
Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to
elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS
assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or
compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
Russia's state-run propaganda machine contributed to the
influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin
messaging to Russian and international audiences.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-
ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to
future influence efforts worldwide, including against US
allies and their election processes.
Mr. NADLER. Second, I include a February 22, 2019, letter to the
Attorney General from six House committee chairs expressing the
expectation that the Mueller report will be made public and that the
Department will make the underlying investigative materials available
to committees upon request.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 22, 2019.
Hon. William P. Barr,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Attorney General: Recent reports suggest that
Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be nearing the end of his
investigation into ``any links and/or coordination between
the Russian government and individuals associated with the
campaign of President Donald Trump'' and other matters that
may have arisen directly from the investigation. As you know,
Department of Justice regulations require that, ``[a]t the
conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall
provide the Attorney General with a confidential report
explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached
by the Special Counsel.''
After nearly two years of investigation--accompanied by two
years of direct attacks on the integrity of the investigation
by the President--the public is entitled to know what the
Special Counsel has found. We write to you to express, in the
strongest possible terms, our expectation that the Department
of Justice will release to the public the report Special
Counsel Mueller submits to you--without delay and to the
maximum extent permitted by law.
There also remains a significant public interest in the
full disclosure of information learned by the Special Counsel
about the nature and scope of the Russian government's
efforts to undermine our democracy. To the extent that the
Department believes that certain aspects of the report are
not suitable for immediate public release, we ask that you
provide that information to Congress, along with your
reasoning for withholding the information from the public, in
order for us to judge the appropriateness of any redactions
for ourselves.
We also expect that the Department will provide to our
Committees, upon request and consistent with applicable law,
other information and material obtained or produced by the
Special Counsel regarding certain foreign actors and other
individuals who may have been the subject of a criminal or
counterintelligence investigation. This expectation is well-
grounded in the precedent set by the Department in recent
years. In other closed and pending high-profile cases
alleging wrongdoing by public officials, both the Department
and the FBI have produced substantial amounts of
investigative material, including classified and law
enforcement sensitive information, to the House of
Representatives.
Finally, although we recognize the policy of the Department
to remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests
of individuals who will not face criminal charges, we feel
that it is necessary to address the particular danger of
withholding evidence of misconduct by President Trump from
the relevant committees.
If the Special Counsel has reason to believe that the
President has engaged in criminal or other serious
misconduct, then the President must be subject to
accountability either in a court or to the Congress. But
because the Department has taken the position that a sitting
President is immune from indictment and prosecution, Congress
could be the only institution currently situated to act on
evidence of the President's misconduct. To maintain that a
sitting president cannot be indicted, and then to withhold
evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the President
will not be charged, is to convert Department policy into the
means for a cover-up. The President is not above the law.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rep. Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary.
Rep. Elijah Cummings,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Rep. Adam Schiff,
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Rep. Eliot Engel,
Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Rep. Maxine Waters,
Chairwoman, House Committee on Financial Services.
Rep. Richard Neal,
Chair, House Ways and Means Committee.
[[Page H2730]]
Mr. NADLER. Third, the introduction to the final report to the Deputy
Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mount Carmel
complex.
Introduction
This Report contains the findings of the Special Counsel in
response to the questions directed to him by Attorney General
Janet Reno in Order No. 2256-99, dated September 9, 1999. The
questions pertain to the 1993 confrontation between federal
law enforcement officials and the Branch Davidians at the Mt.
Carmel complex near Waco, Texas. The Report is issued
pursuant to Section (e) of Order No. 2256-99 which provides,
in relevant part, that the Special Counsel shall submit ``to
the maximum extent possible . . . a final report . . . in a
form that will permit public dissemination.''
The Office of Special Counsel has organized the Report in
the following format:
(I) a description of the Issues investigated by the Special
Counsel;
(II) the Conclusions of the Special Counsel;
(III) a description of the Investigative Methods used by
the Special Counsel;
(IV) a Statement of Facts relevant to the Special Counsel's
investigation;
(V) Exhibits to the text of the Report; and
(VI) Appendices that include a narrative summary of the
relevant beliefs and practices of the Branch Davidians, a
summary of expert findings, a chronological table of events,
and the reports of experts retained by the Office of Special
Counsel.
Mr. NADLER. And fourth, the Department of Justice commentary
interpreting the special counsel regulations.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
28 CFR Parts 0 and 600
[A.G. Order No. 2232-99]
Office of Special Counsel
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This order amends the Code of Federal Regulations
to provide regulations concerning Attorney General
appointment of Special Counsel to investigate and, when
appropriate, to prosecute matters when the Attorney General
concludes that extraordinary circumstances exist such that
the public interest would be served by removing a large
degree of responsibility for a matter from the Department of
Justice. These regulations replace the procedures for
appointment of independent counsel pursuant to the
Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATES: July 1, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Keeney, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-2621.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Attorney General is promulgating these regulations to
replace the procedures set out in the Independent Counsel
Reauthorization Act of 1994. These regulations seek to strike
a balance between independence and accountability in certain
sensitive investigations, recognizing that there is no
perfect solution to the problem. The balance struck is one of
day-to-day independence, with a Special Counsel appointed to
investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute matters when the
Attorney General concludes that extraordinary circumstances
exist such that the public interest would be served by
removing a large degree of responsibility for the matter from
the Department of Justice. The Special Counsel would be free
to structure the investigation as he or she wishes and to
exercise independent prosecutorial discretion to decide
whether charges should be brought, within the context of the
established procedures of the Department. Nevertheless, it is
intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how
it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General
(or the Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is
personally recused in the matter); thus, the regulations
explicitly acknowledge the possibility of review of specific
decisions reached by the Special Counsel.
The regulations also remove Sec. 0.14, setting forth
procedures for Special Independent Counsels for members of
Congress. The regulations in that section have been suspended
since April 19, 1989. 54 FR 15752.
Section-by-Section Discussion
Section 600.1. Grounds for Appointing a Special Counsel
``The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney
General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint
a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal
investigation of a person or matter is warranted and--
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or
matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating
Division of the Department of Justice would present a
conflict of interest for the Department or other
extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public
interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume
responsibility for the matter.''
Section 600.2. Alternatives Available to the Attorney
General
``When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney
General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a
Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
(a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
(b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of
such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney
General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better
inform the decision; or
(c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter,
the public interest would not be served by removing the
investigation from the normal processes of the Department,
and that the appropriate component of the Department should
handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this
conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be
taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal
of particular officials.''
Discussion:
There are occasions when the facts create a conflict so
substantial, or the exigencies of the situation are such that
any initial investigation might taint the subsequent
investigation, so that it is appropriate for the Attorney
General to immediately appoint a Special Counsel. In other
situations, some initial investigation, whether factual or
legal, may be appropriate to better inform the Attorney
General's decision. This provision is intended to make it
clear that a variety of approaches, even in cases that might
create an apparent conflict of interest, may be appropriate,
depending on the facts of the matter.
Section 600.3. Qualifications of the Special Counsel
``(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a
lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial
decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure
both that the investigation will be conducted ably,
expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and
prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed
understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice
policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside
the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree
that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take
first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may
be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation,
depending on its complexity and the stage of the
investigation.
``(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant
Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate
method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel
undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a
detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A
Special Counsel shall be appointed as a `confidential
employee' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).''
Section 600.4. Jurisdiction
``(a) Original Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special
Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The
Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual
statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction
of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to
investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the
course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special
Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of
justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of
witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter
being investigated and/or prosecuted.
``(b) Additional Jurisdiction. If in the course of his or
her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that
additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her
original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully
investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to
investigate new matters that come to light in the course of
his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the
Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the
additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction
or assign them elsewhere.''
Discussion:
Under these regulations, it is intended that a Special
Counsel's jurisdiction will be stated as an investigation of
specific facts. The regulations also recognize, however, that
accommodations can be made as necessary throughout the course
of the investigation, with the Attorney General's approval.
This provision establishes a protocol whereby Special
Counsels are provided with an appropriate description of the
boundaries of their investigation, with the full recognition
that adjustments to that jurisdiction may be required.
Paragraph (b) establishes a single procedure through which
a variety of different jurisdictional issues can be resolved.
For example, a Special Counsel assigned responsibility for an
alleged false statement about a government program may
request additional jurisdiction to investigate allegations of
misconduct with respect to the administration of that
program; a Special Counsel may conclude that investigating
otherwise unrelated allegations against a central witness in
the matter is necessary to obtain cooperation; or a Special
Counsel may come across evidence of additional, unrelated
crimes by targets of his or her investigation. Rather than
leaving the issue to argument and misunderstanding as to
whether the new matters are included within a vague category
of ``related matters,'' the regulations clarify that the
decision as to which component would handle such new matters
would be made by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel
would report such matters to the Attorney General, and the
Attorney General would decide whether to grant the Special
[[Page H2731]]
Counsel jurisdiction over the additional matters.
``(c) Civil and Administrative Jurisdiction. If in the
course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel
determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or
other governmental action outside the criminal justice system
might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the
Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to
take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have
civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted
such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.''
Discussion:
Paragraph (c) is intended to clarify that the Special
Counsel's jurisdiction will cover only the criminal aspects
of the matters within his or her jurisdiction, unless other
jurisdiction is specifically granted by the Attorney General.
Section 600.5. Staff
``A Special Counsel may request the assignment of
appropriate Department employees to assist the Special
Counsel. The Department shall gather and provide the Special
Counsel with the names and resumes of appropriate personnel
available for detail. The Special Counsel may also request
the detail of specific employees, and the office for which
the designated employee works shall make reasonable efforts
to accommodate the request. The Special Counsel shall assign
the duties and supervise the work of such employees while
they are assigned to the Special Counsel. If necessary, the
Special Counsel may request that additional personnel be
hired or assigned from outside the Department. All personnel
in the Department shall cooperate to the fullest extent
possible with the Special Counsel.''
Discussion:
This provision, providing for the assignment of appropriate
personnel to assist the Special Counsel, also includes
assignment of needed investigative resources from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. It is anticipated that most
personnel will be Department of Justice employees provided by
detail to the Special Counsel, although the regulation
provides for additional employment from outside the
Department when necessary.
Section 600.6. Powers and Authority
``Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs,
the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his
or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority
to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of
any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part,
the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what
extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or
others within the Department about the conduct of his or her
duties and responsibilities.''
Section 600.7. Conduct and Accountability
``(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules,
regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the
Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with
appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with
respect to established practices, policies and procedures of
the Department, including ethics and security regulations and
procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the
extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would
render compliance with required review and approval
procedures by the designated Departmental component
inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the
Attorney General.''
Mr. NADLER. I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that one reason
for this resolution, given the fact that Mr. Barr, the Attorney
General, has, in fact, said that he would want to release as much as
possible--and we appreciate that statement--but he and Mr. Rosenstein,
the Deputy Attorney General, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, have
both cited the Department policy not to comment on the conduct of
someone not indicted.
That leads us to expect that a misapplication of the normal
Department policy to a sitting President of not commenting on someone
who is not indicted, the application of that normally good policy to a
sitting President who the Department believes cannot be indicted
because he is a sitting President, would, in fact, greatly limit the
ability of the Department or the willingness of the Department to
release information in the report to the Congress and to the public.
One of the reasons for this resolution is that we want to say, no,
you cannot use that normally salutary policy to convert the
Department's policy of never indicting a sitting President into a
coverup that you can't comment or give to the Congress information
about that.
If you can't indict a sitting President and you can't give the
information to Congress, then you are holding the President above the
law, and you are frustrating Congress' ability to do its job of holding
an administration accountable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd).
{time} 1000
Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his
indulgence.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because I want the
whole truth and nothing but the truth to come to light in this matter;
I want to know what Vladimir Putin did to our electoral process; I want
to know the failures of the Obama administration in reacting to this
attack in real time; I want any Americans complicit to face severe
consequences; and I want the American people to know as much as they
can and see as much as they can.
As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
I support the efforts and the request for all information pertaining to
this investigation to be open to the public. That includes all witness
lists, every interview transcript, and every document provided.
The taxpayers paid millions for this information, and they should get
to see all of it and not just the assessment of one person.
This resolution should have been broader; it should have been deeper;
and it should have covered everything dealing with the investigation.
But it is a step in the right direction.
I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle accept the calls
for all the information to be made public because full transparency is
the only way to prevent future speculation. Full transparency is the
only way to prevent future innuendo.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say thank you to
the chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. Hurd was on his way over here. I did
my best song and dance. It didn't last long enough. I am from the
South. I am bad because I can't dance that well. So I appreciate the
gentleman giving him that moment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons stated by all the people who spoke
in favor of this resolution, myself and everyone else, I urge adoption
of the resolution. I urge everyone to vote for it. It is a very
important resolution to maintain the rule of law in this country
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 208, the previous question is ordered on
the concurrent resolution and preamble, as amended.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution will be followed
by a 5-minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the
Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 420,
nays 0, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 125]
YEAS--420
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cline
Cloud
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
[[Page H2732]]
Demings
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Ferguson
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Fulcher
Gabbard
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gooden
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Harris
Hartzler
Hayes
Heck
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Olson
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4
Amash
Gaetz
Gosar
Massie
NOT VOTING--7
Cleaver
Hastings
Lofgren
Marshall
McEachin
Ratcliffe
Schweikert
{time} 1030
Messrs. BRADY and BUCK changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Mr. GAETZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed votes on Thursday,
March 14, 2019. I had intended to vote ``yes'' on rollcall vote No.
125.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during
today's rollcall vote on H. Con. Res. 24. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 125.
____________________
