Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

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.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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).

Mr. NADLER. And fourth, the Department of Justice commentary interpreting the special counsel regulations.

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. 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.

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 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. 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. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee.

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 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. 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.

Mr. NADLER

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.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 183, which condemns anti-Semitism unambiguously, as well as anti-Muslim bigotry and all forms of prejudice against minorities, as contrary to fundamental American values and principles. This resolution makes clear that we condemn anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racism no matter where on the political spectrum they may emanate from, right, left, or center. This resolution is a statement of our values as a Nation. While it focuses on concerns raised in the last few weeks regarding anti- Semitism and Islamophobia, it addresses those noxious forms of bigotry in the context of our broader concern with all forms of bigotry and hatred in our country. Bigotry against members of minority groups based on their actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, race, or national origin are among the cardinal sins of our Nation. As the resolution notes, tolerance and religious freedom are among our country's fundamental principles, so much so that they are enshrined in the very First Amendment to the Constitution. Sadly, without constant vigilance, our Nation has seen darker moments where religious and other forms of hate have reared their ugly heads. Often, our Nation has fallen short of its ideals when they succumbed to the demagoguery of bigots. Indeed, one of the biggest problems facing our country today, and one that has bedeviled it in the past, is the fact that white supremacists have weaponized bigotry and hatred to achieve political gains. They do so by stoking hatred and division among Americans based on religion, race, ethnicity, or other characteristics. To combat this, it is imperative that all of us--but especially those of us in public life--speak out against such hate. Unfortunately, sometimes the perpetrators of religious and other forms of bigotry are themselves public figures and even, distressingly, Members of this House. Indeed, in the last few weeks, comments have been made by some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that can fairly be characterized as anti-Semitic, and I have condemned these remarks. Anti-Semitism is among the most ancient of prejudices and is associated with pernicious stereotypes, including the claim that Jews exert control over the government and the global political and financial systems, that they are obsessed with money, and that their loyalty to their home countries is somehow in question. Assertion of these beliefs does not constitute merely making statements of political or policy positions. Rather, propagation of these beliefs has, throughout history, resulted in harassment, discrimination, violence, and murder against Jews. While anti-Semitism is an ancient prejudice, its effects are not ancient history. Less than 6 months ago, a gunman murdered 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, reportedly stating that he ``wanted all Jews to die.'' Nearly 2 years ago in Charlottesville, Virginia, white supremacists chanted, ``Jews will not replace us.'' Despite this ugly history, Members on both sides have questioned the loyalty and patriotism of Members of this House. The trope that support for Israel, particularly among Jewish Americans, is the result of a ``dual loyalty'' to Israel and the United States is deeply offensive to me. What I find equally despicable is a somewhat analogous ``dual loyalty'' trope increasingly deployed against Muslim Americans. This includes the recent implication by one of our colleagues that another colleague is a spy and a State Republican poster in the West Virginia State capitol that implied an association between that same colleague and the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York. Indeed, statements have repeatedly been made in the recent past by public officials, including the President, which can fairly be characterized as anti-Muslim more generally. Particularly since the September 11 attacks, Muslim Americans have faced a gauntlet of prejudice alleging that they are inherently violent, disloyal, and foreign, and this has led to hate-motivated violence. In 2017, for example, at least five mosques were bombed or burned in various cities around the country. Efforts to question the loyalty or patriotism of anyone in this country based on their religion or on any innate characteristic is completely out of bounds. It is my fervent hope that this resolution will be a chance for us, both as an institution and also as a Nation, to remind ourselves of what we all believe in, and to come together and heal. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, listening to the gentleman from Georgia, I think I heard him say that he and his colleagues were going to vote for this resolution. I am glad to hear that, especially since I noted that after the march in Charlottesville and the murder in Charlottesville when a censure resolution was brought up, the Republicans, who were then in control of the House, refused to bring it to the floor. So I am glad that they are willing to vote for this resolution today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria).