Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the vice ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Democratic leader of the House.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this so-called resolution of insistence is being rushed to the floor as an emergency measure. There are many emergencies facing the United States at this hour. The subject matter of this resolution is not among them. This resolution is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, wrong on the rules, and a dangerous precedent to set for the House of Representatives. First, the resolution is riddled with inaccuracies. Taking this document at face value, you might think that the Department of Justice had not already sent us hundreds of thousands of documents, many of which the sponsors of this resolution delight in leaking to the public. It also relies heavily on the March 22 subpoena issued by Chairman Goodlatte, a subpoena that was not issued in compliance with House rules, and that, according to past House counselors with whom we have consulted, likely cannot be enforced. Second, this resolution is premised on a demand for documents to which Congress is not entitled and which the Justice Department cannot give. To be clear, I firmly believe that when the House Judiciary Committee asks the executive branch for information, our committee is entitled to that information in almost every case. But we are not entitled to information that goes to the core of an ongoing criminal investigation. This prohibition is both a matter of constitutional law, as it falls to the executive branch to enforce the law, and a matter of basic fairness. It is wrong to inject politics into criminal proceedings. I suspect that the sponsors of this resolution already know this. They are asking for documents that they know they will probably never receive, and they likely view this impossible request as a win-win proposition. If they somehow bully the Department of Justice into turning over materials that go to the core of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, that information could be and probably would be shared with the subject of the investigation, namely, President Trump. Indeed, Mayor Giuliani has hinted exactly that. Based on past precedent, that information would next be shared with anybody watching FOX News. If they do not pry these documents from the Department, they will use that fact to further smear the special counsel, the Deputy Attorney General, and anyone else investigating the President. They have even suggested impeaching the Deputy Attorney General, a proposal that is both without historical precedent and patently ridiculous. The real purpose of this resolution, and of this whole attempt, is to cast aspersions, is to defame the special prosecutor, the special counsel, and the people associated with him, the Deputy Attorney General. Finally, voting on this resolution today sets a dangerous precedent. The majority will, in effect, have shown the American people that pure politics is more important than the facts and more important than the law. And for what? You can force this fight with the leadership of the Department of Justice. You can demand documents that the Department cannot give us, and to which we are not entitled. You can attack the character of lifelong public servants like Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller. You can burn bridges with your colleagues to speed this resolution to the floor. But you cannot stop the special counsel's investigation. Before Members vote today, we must ask: When the special counsel's work is complete, when the enormity of what he has found has been laid bare, how will the American people judge the House's actions here today? I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless, dangerous measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield further time, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 970, which is before us now, includes a reference to a document unilaterally issued by the House Judiciary Committee on March 22, 2018. It is my understanding that the issuance of this purported subpoena is defective because it did not comply with committee rules providing that: At least two business days before issuing any subpoena, the Chair shall consult with the Ranking Member, and the Chair shall provide a full copy of the proposed subpoena. While, in this instance, the chairman did provide me, as ranking member, with a copy of a proposed subpoena on March 19, the document the chairman issued on March 22 was substantively and materially different from the document that was shared on March 19, in abrogation of committee rules. My parliamentary inquiry is whether these circumstances would have any bearing on consideration of this resolution, H. Res. 970, and, absent that, whether the defective nature would have any bearing on any future attempts by the House to enforce the supposed subpoena?

Mr. NADLER. Could the Chair repeat that last sentence? I couldn't hear.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, in that case I will include in the Record a copy of a letter that I sent to the chair dated June 21, 2018, detailing the facts and background concerning the defective nature of the subpoena purportedly issued on March 22. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, June 21, 2018. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I am writing to inform you that the subpoena you issued to the Department of Justice on March 22, 2018 does not comply with Committee rules and is therefore not a valid subpoena under the Rules of the House. On March 22, 2018, you issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice ``seeking documents related to [the Majority's] ongoing investigation regarding charging decisions in the investigation surrounding former Secretary Clinton's private email server in 2016.'' House Republicans have repeatedly accused Department officials of failing to comply with this subpoena--and even threatened some of those officials with contempt of Congress and impeachment proceedings. As you know, if you choose to issue a subpoena unilaterally--instead of putting the proposed subpoena to a vote of the Committee--our rules require you to ``consult'' with me in advance. Specifically: At least two business days before issuing any subpoena pursuant to subsection (a), the Chair shall consult with the Ranking Member regarding the authorization and issuance of such subpoena, and the Chair shall provide a full copy of the proposed subpoena, including any proposed document schedule, at that time. As we discussed on at least one other occasion, our ``consultation'' is not complete--and the subpoena may not issue--until you have transmitted a full copy of the subpoena to my office. On March 19, 2018, we met to discuss a subpoena for documents related to the Department of Justice's handling of the Clinton investigation. At that time, you provided me with a document that describes 14 different categories of information sought from the Department and the FBI. I have enclosed a copy of this document for your convenience. The subpoena you issued on March 22 is substantively and materially different from the document you shared with me on March 19. The subpoena requests nine categories of information, not 14. It is also significantly different in scope than the document you shared with me at our meeting. Our Committee rules prevent the Majority from making substantive changes to a proposed subpoena without appropriate notice to the Minority. Because you did not provide me with a copy of the subpoena that actually issued, the subpoena that you eventually issued would be unenforceable as a matter of law. Although you certainly have the option to issue another unilateral subpoena to cure this defect, I would urge you to consider a more bipartisan response. As you know, we recently changed our rules to give the Chairman the option of issuing a subpoena without first putting the proposal to a vote of the Committee. We agreed to this change based largely on your guarantee that you would only use the unilateral subpoena power ``during periods of recess'' or in ``extraordinary circumstances.'' This Congress, you have proposed to issue a unilateral subpoena on three occasions. I have objected each time, on the grounds that the circumstances did not meet your own standard and that the full Committee should have an opportunity to debate the wisdom of using our time and resources in this manner. I am similarly concerned about your refusal to include Democrats in discussions of what documents the Committee should request and which individuals should be interviewed and when meeting with Department of Justice officials to negotiate how they will respond to Committee requests. On a broader level, I hope that this defective subpoena will give the Majority an opportunity to reassess its priorities. I believe that other work should take precedence over this largely unproductive investigation. Foreign adversaries continue to threaten our elections, the President has created an immigration crisis at our borders, gun violence plagues our schools and our homes, and the Trump Administration continues to disregard even the most basic ethics rules. Surely any one of these topics, each one squarely within the Committee's jurisdiction, is more important than the unending hunt for Hillary Clinton's email. Sincerely, Jerrold Nadler. Enclosures. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, March 22, 2018. Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Rosenstein: Four months have passed since Chairman Gowdy and I, along with Representatives Jordan, Meadows, Buck, and Ratcliffe, wrote you seeking documents related to our ongoing investigation regarding charging decisions in the investigation surrounding former Secretary Clinton's private email server in 2016. To date, the Department has only produced a fraction of the documents that have been requested. In addition, in early February, I wrote the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking documents related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. No documents have been provided to the Committee in response to this request. Given the Department's ongoing delays in producing these documents, I am left with no choice but to issue the enclosed subpoena to compel production of these documents. Moreover, since our requests for documents related to the Clinton email server investigation were made, it has come to light that the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility recommended the dismissal of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. This recommendation appears to be based, at least in part, on events related to the investigation surrounding former Secretary Clinton's private email server. Accordingly, the subpoena additionally covers all documents and communications relied upon by FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility in reaching its decision to recommend the dismissal of former Deputy Director McCabe. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. If any part of the production has been designated as classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526, please contact Committee majority staff so that arrangements may be made to ensure that the documents are handled appropriately within the House. Sincerely, Bob Goodlatte, Chairman. Enclosure. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN18.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN18.002 Schedule In accordance with the attached instructions for responding to Judiciary Committee document requests, you are required to produce the following documents in unredacted form: 1. All documents and communications provided to or obtained by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding the FBI's decision-making with respect to the FBI's investigation of former Secretary Clinton's private email server; 2. Documents sufficient to show the names, titles, and business addresses of all personnel who participated in deliberations concerning the decision whether to charge Clinton. In lieu of documents, you may provide a list of the requested information; 3. The document referenced by James Rybicki during his January 18, 2018 interview with the Committee referring or relating to court cases or judicial decisions used in considering, justifying, or communicating possible charges against, or decisions not to charge, Clinton; 4. All documents and communications relied upon by FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility in reaching its decision to recommend the dismissal of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; 5. All documents and communications with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (``FISC'') referring or relating to any Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (``FISA'') applications associated with Carter Page or individuals on President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign or part of the Trump administration; 6. All documents and communications referring or relating to FISC hearings and deliberations, including any court transcripts, related to any FISA applications associated with Carter Page or the Trump campaign or Trump administration; 7. All documents and communications referring or relating to internal Department of Justice or FBI management requests to review, scrub, report on, or analyze any reporting of FISA collection involving, or coverage mentioning, the Trump campaign or Trump administration; 8. All documents and communications referring or relating to defensive briefings provided by the Department of Justice or FBI to the 2016 presidential campaigns of Clinton or President Trump; and, 9. All documents and communications referring or relating to proposed, recommended, or actual FISA coverage on the Clinton Foundation or persons associated or in communication with the Clinton Foundation. Responding to Judiciary Committee Document Requests In responding to the document request, please apply the instructions and definitions set forth below:

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking member of the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Wilsar Johnson for her dedicated service to the House of Representatives. As the Judiciary Committee's Democratic Digital Director, she kept us current through extensive social media engagement, creative branding, and storytelling. Wilsar is a first generation Sierra Leonean-American immigrant and is also a proud recipient of the Diversity Visa Lottery program. Wilsar spent her formative years in Camden, New Jersey, and is a graduate of Georgian Court University. As the Judiciary Committee's Democratic Digital Director, she kept us current through extensive social media engagement, creative branding and storytelling. She oversaw the minority's social media platforms and multimedia portfolio, including video production, live broadcasts, graphic design and photography. Wilsar is a founding Member of the first ever Congressional Democratic Digital Communications Staff Association, where she provides coaching and professional development to other Hill staff. In addition to the Judiciary Committee, Wilsar has served in the offices of Representatives Karen Bass of California, Rush Holt of New Jersey, and Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey. Wilsar's charismatic attitude and dedication have made her an integral member of our team. I thank her for her service and wish her the best of luck as she starts a new journey in the upper body.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 4760. This legislation is nothing more than a wish-list of the far right anti-immigrant fringe. It would do nothing to solve the real problems plaguing our immigration system, while causing untold suffering for millions of people. The world has watched President Trump create a family separation crisis out of thin air. I personally met with fathers whose children had been ripped from their arms, who have no idea when, or if, they will ever see their children again. One father I spoke to was promised he would be kept with his young child, only to have officers enter his room in the middle of the night and forcibly take away his young daughter. We have all seen the anguished faces of the parents separated from their children, and listened to the desperate cries of sobbing children screaming for their parents. This is government-sponsored child abuse. This bill does absolutely nothing to solve the crisis. The President, after falsely claiming that he had no choice but to enact this cruel and brutal policy, now says he will end it, proving that he and his administration were lying all along. But it is not clear that yesterday's executive order immediately ends family separation. It also puts our country on a dangerous path to prolonged detention for parents and children. The Keeping Families Together Act, which I introduced this week, along with virtually every Democratic Member, would actually prevent children from being separated from their parents, except in extraordinary circumstances. We could vote on that legislation today. But instead, we have this bill before us now. This bill turns all undocumented immigrants into criminals. It takes particular aim at families, children, workers, businesses, public safety, and our fundamental values as a nation, all at once. It is almost impressive how many bad ideas have been crammed into one comprehensive package. For example, it eliminates most visa categories that promote family reunification, as well as the diversity visa program, which provides residents of many countries the only method of immigrating to the United States. It removes critical protections for unaccompanied children, and it does away with other important safeguards for children traveling with their parents. It would decimate the agriculture community by requiring employers to use the E-Verify employment verification system without fixing the underlying immigration system. And it would undercut American workers by importing guestworkers at drastically depressed wages. It would also undermine our asylum system, breaking with our proud tradition of being a beacon of hope and freedom for the oppressed. In exchange for all these harsh, anti-immigrant provisions, it offers the most minimal protections to Dreamers, creating a renewable temporary status with no path to citizenship, leaving them in perpetual limbo, and unable to become full members of society in the only country they have ever known. This is an act of extortion we cannot abide. This bill fails to repair our broken immigration system and, indeed, in many ways, makes it even worse, and all without substantially helping the Dreamers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining, please?

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).