Insisting that the Department of Justice fully comply with the requests, including subpoenas, of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the subpoena issued by the Committee on the Judiciary relating to potential violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by personnel of the Department of Justice and related matters.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. I am not going to repeat what I said before. I will summarize.

The request being made here is for information that the Department of Justice cannot provide because it relates to an ongoing criminal investigation and because some of it would identify informants. The motive is probably simply to politically embarrass the Department and provide a means of embarrassing and defaming the special prosecutor and the people associated with him in the Department.

I will read from a letter that the Deputy Attorney General sent to Senator Grassley and the Speaker of the House yesterday.

He quotes the following: ``Throughout American history, wise legislators have worked with Department officials to limit oversight requests in order to respect the Department's duty to protect national security, preserve personal privacy, and insulate investigations from the appearance of interference. For instance, the Department sent a letter to a House committee chair in 2000 describing the Department's policies on responding to congressional oversight requests. The letter explains:''--I am now quoting from the 2000 letter--``Such inquiries inescapably create the risk that the public and the courts will perceive political and congressional influence over law enforcement and litigation decisions. Such inquiries also often seek records and other information that our responsibilities for these matters preclude us from disclosing.''

That is the end of the quote from the 2000 letter.

``The letter quotes President Ronald Reagan, who wrote that a `tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the branches.' Regardless of whether an interbranch information request is made by letter or subpoena, the relationship between the branches gives rise to `an implicit constitutional mandate,' to `reach an accommodation short of full-scale confrontation.'''--quote from President Reagan.

``It must not be the case that the Department is required to risk damage to reputations, put cases and lives at risk, and invite political interference by opening sensitive files to congressional staff without restriction.''--from the letter from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.

That is exactly what these requests would do. They would risk damage to reputations, put cases and lives at risk--already two people, two informants, have had their identities outed--and invite political interference by opening sensitive files to congressional staff without restriction.

We ought to let the special counsel complete his work without hindrance. We ought to see whatever the special counsel finds, react to it as appropriate, and perhaps hold hearings into the findings when we see them. All we know about the special counsel so far--unlike all the allegations against him and his investigation, it is a witch hunt, it is this, and it is that. All we really know is that there are 20 indictments, five guilty pleas, and we know what he has pleaded in court.

There have been leaks, so you can't really say anything about the investigation other than, in this time period, they have already gotten 20 indictments, five guilty pleas, including from some of the closest people to the President in his administration and in his campaign. We will see where it goes from there.

These requests are an attempt to sabotage the investigation, and we should not go along with it.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of the Deputy Attorney General,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2018.

Hon. Charles Grassley,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Grassley: Thank you for your letter of May

17, 2018, and for meeting with me last Thursday, along with

Ranking Member Feinstein. I appreciate your commitment to

allow the Special Counsel investigation ``to follow the facts

wherever they lead without any improper outside

interference.''

I know that you and Ranking Member Feinstein share my

commitment to protecting the integrity of federal

investigations. Agents and prosecutors must base each

decision on neutral standards and credible evidence. As we

seek to do in all cases, the Department of Justice will

complete the Special Counsel investigation as promptly as is

feasible. When the investigation is finished, I anticipate

that any objective and nonpartisan review will conclude that

the Department consistently sought to make reasonable

decisions and to comply with applicable laws, regulations,

policies, and practices.

Legal, ethical, and policy obligations often prevent

prosecutors from responding to criticism. As Attorney General

Robert Jackson observed in 1940, prosecutors have a duty ``to

face any temporary criticism'' and ``maintain a

dispassionate, disinterested, and impartial enforcement of

the law.'' The Inspector General's report addresses the

consequences of trying to preempt criticism by disregarding

principles that prohibit public statements, leaks to the

media, and improper disclosures to the Congress about

criminal investigations. Department officials must defend

those principles in order to ensure that all investigations

remain independent of partisan politics. We do not compete to

win the hourly news cycle.

Special Counsel Appointment and Authority

Your May 17 letter asks a series of questions concerning

the scope of the Special Counsel's authority. The current

Special Counsel differs from an ``independent counsel'' and

some previous ``special counsels,'' because Special Counsel

Mueller was appointed by the Department of Justice and

remains subject to ongoing supervision.

The Attorney General retains the general authority to

designate or name individuals as ``special counsels'' to

conduct investigations or prosecutions of particular matters

or individuals on behalf of the United States. Under

regulations issued by the Attorney General in 1999, the

Attorney General may appoint a ``special counsel'' from

outside of the Department of Justice who acts as a special

employee of the Department of Justice under the direction of

the Attorney General. The Attorney General, however, may also

appoint an individual as a special counsel, and may invest

that individual with a greater degree of independence and

autonomy to conduct investigations and prosecutions,

regardless of any ``special counsel'' regulations, as

Attorneys General did in 1973, 1994, and 2003.

What a prosecutor is called--including ``independent'' or

``special''--is a separate question from whether that

prosecutor is subject to supervision by the Attorney General.

Under the terms of his appointment, both by statute and by

regulation, Special Counsel Mueller remains accountable like

every other subordinate Department official.

Special Counsels have been appointed for a variety of

matters throughout history. For example, Attorney General

William Barr appointed three Special Counsels from outside

the Department of Justice during his 14-month tenure: (1)

Nicholas Bua to investigate an array of allegations related

to the ``Inslaw Affair,'' on November 7, 1991; (2) Malcolm

Wilkey to investigate the House Bank controversy, on March

20, 1992; and (3) Frederick Lacey to investigate the Bush

Administration's handling of a bank fraud case involving

loans to Iraq, on October 17, 1992.

Attorney General Janet Reno appointed Robert Fiske as a

Special Counsel to investigate the Whitewater land deal and

other matters on January 20, 1994. Mr. Fiske explained that

the appointment order was ``deliberately drafted broadly . .

. to give me total authority to look into all appropriate

matters relating to the events . . . .'' For example, Mr.

Fiske investigated a suicide in order to determine whether it

might involve a crime related to his investigation--it did

not--and prosecuted a fraud case with no obvious connection

to Whitewater. Federal agents and prosecutors already were

investigating crimes when Mr. Fiske was appointed, but the

appointment order did not mention the crimes. When asked

about supervision of Mr. Fiske, Attorney General Reno said,

``I do not expect him to report to me, . . . and I do not

expect to monitor him.'' That is not true of Special Counsel

Mueller.

Then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey took a different

approach in 2003, when he invoked his authority as Acting

Attorney General to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as a special

prosecutor to investigate the Valerie Plame matter. Mr. Comey

did not make that appointment under the Department's Special

Counsel regulation. Instead, he delegated to the special

prosecutor ``all the authority of the Attorney General . . .

independent of the supervision or control of any officer of

the Department.'' Mr. Comey followed up with a letter

reinforcing that his delegation was ``plenary.'' That is not

true of Special Counsel Mueller's appointment.

The Ethics in Government Act allowed several statutory

Independent Counsels to be appointed in the absence of

probable cause that a crime had occurred, and some of those

appointments were not publicized. Even under the Act, when

prosecutors were under much less supervision than Special

Counsels are under the Department's regulation, Congress did

not interfere in the investigations. The statute required the

Independent Counsel to submit an annual report to the

Congress, but it allowed him to ``omit any matter that in the

judgment of the independent counsel should be kept

confidential.''

Because the Attorney General's authority over Independent

Counsels was limited, the judicial orders appointing them

were a principal way to cabin their jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, appointments often were made with ``a broadly

worded charter.'' For example, the appointment order for

Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr gave him

authority to investigate ``whether any individuals or

entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal

law . . . relating in any way to James B. McDougal's,

President William Jefferson Clinton's, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham

Clinton's relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan

Assn., Whitewater Development Corp., or Capital Management

Services Inc.'' McDougal owned and managed Madison Guaranty,

so that charter provided vast discretion to investigate

essentially any crime committed by any person that involved

the savings and loan association. The Independent Counsel

identified other unrelated matters of investigative interest,

and he obtained orders from the court expanding his mandate,

including ``Travelgate,'' ``Filegate,'' and the Lewinsky

matter. The Attorney General did not supervise or control the

Independent Counsel's decisions about which crimes and

subjects to investigate within his broad mandates, or which

persons to prosecute.

When the Independent Counsel statute expired, the

Department adopted the current Special Counsel regulation as

an internal policy concerning the appointment and management

of Special Counsels. The regulation provides for

congressional notification when an appointment is made and

when it concludes. At the conclusion of the investigation, it

requires notification to Congress of instances when the

Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by the

Special Counsel should not be pursued. The regulation

contemplates ongoing consultation with Department components

and continuing oversight by the Attorney General (or the

Acting Attorney General), who remains accountable as in all

other cases handled by the Department of Justice. The

regulation achieves the objective of conducting an

independent investigation while following normal Department

policies, including supervision by a Senate-confirmed

officer.

There is no statutory requirement to identify criminal

violations before appointing a Special Counsel from outside

the Department, and there is no requirement to publicize

suspected violations in the appointment order under the

Special Counsel regulation. Only one previous Special Counsel

was appointed under the current regulation: John Danforth, to

investigate the Waco matter, on September 9, 1999. As with

Special Counsel Mueller, Mr. Danforth's appointment order did

not publicly specify a crime or identify anyone as a subject.

Special Counsel Mueller's Appointment and Delegated Authority

I determined that the appointment of Special Counsel

Mueller to take charge of criminal matters that were already

under investigation by federal agents and prosecutors was

warranted under the Special Counsel regulation. The

appointment order mentions 28 C.F.R. 600.4 to 600.10 because

they bear on the authority and duties of the Special Counsel.

The public order did not identify the crimes or subjects

because such publicity would be wrong and unfair, just as it

would have been wrong and unfair to reveal that information

prior to Special Counsel's appointment, and just as it would

be wrong and unfair in other cases handled by a U.S. Attorney

or Assistant Attorney General.

So long as the Attorney General or the Acting Attorney

General remains accountable, there is federal statutory and

regulatory authority to assign matters to a Special Counsel,

just as the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General

(even when the Attorney General is not recused) have

authority to assign matters to an Acting U.S. Attorney or any

other Department official. The U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia recognized as much in its opinion in

Manafort v. United States.

When Special Counsel Mueller was appointed, he received

comprehensive briefings about the relevant allegations and

documents that described them in considerable detail, as with

previous special counsel appointments. Some of the FBI agents

who were investigating those matters continued to do so. The

Department assigned a team of career and non-career officials

to provide supervision and assist the Acting Attorney General

in determining which leads should be handled by the Special

Counsel and which by other Department prosecutors, and to

review any proposed indictments in conjunction with

Department components that ordinarily would review them.

The regulation states that the Special Counsel has the

powers and authority of a

U.S. Attorney (who may or may not be Senate-confirmed) and

must follow Department policies and procedures. Under those

policies and procedures, the Department should reveal

information about a criminal investigation only when it is

necessary to assist the criminal investigation or to protect

public safety.

In August 2017, Special Counsel Mueller received a written

internal memorandum from the Acting Attorney General. The

memorandum eliminated the ability of any subject, target, or

defendant to argue that the Special Counsel lacked delegated

authority under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 515 to represent the United

States. The names of the subjects were already in Department

files, but we did not publicly disclose them because to do so

would violate the Department's confidentiality policies.

Many of the questions raised in your letter concern the

distinction between a counterintelligence investigation and a

criminal investigation. The primary goal of a

counterintelligence investigation is to protect against

national security threats by, among other things, collecting

intelligence information and disrupting foreign influence

operations. The goal of a criminal investigation is to

determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a

criminal suspect in federal court. There was a ``wall''

between the two prior to September 11, 2001. There is no

longer a wall, but agents and prosecutors are mindful that

counterintelligence investigations may be broader than any

criminal prosecutions that they generate.

The public announcement of the Special Counsel's

appointment purposefully included no details beyond what

Director Comey had disclosed at a public House Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on March 20, 2017.

Director Comey revealed that:

the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is

investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere

in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes

investigating the nature of any links between individuals

associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian

government, and whether there was any coordination between

the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any

counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an

assessment of whether any crimes were committed. Because it

is an open, ongoing investigation, and is classified, I

cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we

are examining. At the request of congressional leaders, we

have taken the extraordinary step . . . of briefing this

Congress's leaders, including the leaders of this Committee,

in a classified setting, in detail about the investigation.

As is now publicly known, the Department of Justice and the

FBI were conducting several investigations with potential

relevance to Russian interference in the 2016 election when

Special Counsel Mueller was appointed in May 2017. The public

order explained that the Special Counsel will ``ensure a full

and thorough investigation of the Russian government's

efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.''

Special Counsel Mueller is authorized to investigate

potential criminal offenses. Counterintelligence

investigations involving any current or future Russian

election interference are not the Special Counsel's

responsibility.

Congressional Oversight Requests

Department of Justice and FBI personnel are working

diligently and in good faith to provide an unprecedented

level of congressional access to information that members of

Congress believe may be relevant. Our responses to the many

related and overlapping congressional inquiries are

consistent with longstanding best practices. We respond as

quickly as possible to the inquiries and accommodate requests

when possible. We cannot fulfill requests that would

compromise the independence and integrity of investigations,

jeopardize intelligence sources and methods, or create the

appearance of political interference. We need to follow the

rules.

In 2016 and 2017, then-Director Comey made disclosures to

the public and to Congress that he has acknowledged would not

have been appropriate under regular order. He maintains that

his 2016 statements to the public and to the Congress about

the Hillary Clinton email investigation were justified by

unique circumstances comparable to a ``500-year flood.'' He

further believes that his 2017 disclosures about the

investigation of alleged links between the Russian government

agents who interfered in the election and persons associated

with the Trump campaign were an ``extraordinary step''

justified by ``unusual circumstances.''

It is important for the Department of Justice to follow

established policies and procedures, especially when the

stakes are high. It may seem tempting to depart from

Department policies and traditions in an effort to deflect

short-term criticism, but such deviations ultimately may

cause a loss of public confidence in the even-handed

administration of justice. We should be most on guard when we

believe that our own uncomfortable present circumstances

justify ignoring timeless principles respected by our

predecessors. I urge you and your colleagues to support us in

following the rules.

At my confirmation hearing, I promised that Department

employees would conduct ourselves ``with deep respect for the

institution and employees of the Department of Justice, with

acute understanding of our role in the constitutional

structure, and with profound appreciation of our weighty

responsibilities. My commitment to the Department's

longstanding traditions carries with it an obligation to

ensure that we keep pending law enforcement matters separate

from the sphere of politics and that there be no perception

that our law enforcement decisions are influenced by partisan

politics or pressure from legislators.

Regardless of political affiliation, thoughtful former

Department leaders recognize that departures from our

confidentiality policies pose an extraordinary threat to the

Department's independence and integrity. Former Deputy

Attorneys General Larry Thompson and Jamie Gorelick explained

that the Department of Justice ``operates under long-standing

and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of

ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress. .

. . These traditions protect the integrity of the department.

. . .'' Violating those policies and disclosing information

about criminal investigations constitutes ``real-time, raw-

take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of

reality TV of federal criminal investigation'' that is

``antithetical to the interests of justice.''

Punishing wrongdoers through judicial proceedings is only

one part of the Department's mission. We also have a duty to

prevent the disclosure of information that would unfairly

tarnish people who are not charged with crimes. In 1941,

Attorney General Robert Jackson explained that disclosing

information about federal investigations to Congress could

cause ``the grossest kind of injustice to innocent

individuals,'' and create ``serious prejudice to the future

usefulness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.'' It is

useful to quote at length from the Attorney General's letter:

[W]e have made extraordinary efforts to see that the

results of counterespionage activities and intelligence

activities of this Department involving those elements are

kept within the fewest possible hands. A catalogue of persons

under investigation or suspicion, and what we know about

them, would be of inestimable service to foreign agencies;

and information which could be so used cannot be too closely

guarded.

Moreover, disclosure of the reports would be of serious

prejudice to the future usefulness of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation. As you probably know, much of this information

is given in confidence and can only be obtained upon pledge

not to disclose its sources. A disclosure of the sources

would embarrass informants--sometimes in their employment,

sometimes in their social relations, and in extreme cases

might even endanger their lives. We regard the keeping of

faith with confidential informants as an indispensable

condition of future efficiency.

Disclosure of information contained in the reports might

also be the grossest kind of injustice to innocent

individuals. Investigative reports include leads and

suspicions, and sometimes even the statements of malicious or

misinformed people. Even though later and more complete

reports exonerate the individuals, the use of particular or

selected reports might constitute the grossest injustice, and

we all know that a correction never catches up with an

accusation.

In concluding that the public interest does not permit

general access to Federal Bureau of Investigation reports for

information by the many congressional committees who from

time to time ask it, I am following the conclusions reached

by a long line of distinguished predecessors in this office

who have uniformly taken the same view. . . .

Since the beginning of the Government, the executive branch

has from time to time been confronted with the unpleasant

duty of declining to furnish to the Congress and to the

courts information which it has acquired and which is

necessary to it in the administration of statutes.

Attorney General Jackson's letter mentioned that the

pending congressional request was ``one of the many made by

congressional committees.'' He understood the profoundly

harmful consequences of proceeding down a road that would

empower congressional members and staffers to choose which

federal investigations should be publicized.

Congressional leaders respected Attorney General Jackson's

obligation to do the job he swore an oath to perform--``well

and faithfully execute the duties of the office'' --by

preserving the independence of federal law enforcement and

protecting it from political influence. President Eisenhower

later agreed, finding that ``it is essential to the

successful working of our system that the persons entrusted

with power in any of the three great branches of government

shall not encroach upon the authority confided to the

others.''

Requiring the Department of Justice to disclose details

about criminal investigations would constitute a dangerous

departure from important principles. Criminal prosecutions

should be relatively transparent--because the public should

know the grounds for finding a citizen guilty of criminal

offenses and imposing punishment--but criminal investigations

emphatically are not supposed to be transparent. In fact,

disclosing uncharged allegations against American citizens

without a law-enforcement need is considered to be a

violation of a prosecutor's trust. As stated in the

Department's Principles of Federal Prosecution:

In all public filings and proceedings, federal prosecutors

should remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation

interests of uncharged third-parties. In the context of

public plea and sentencing proceedings, this

means that, in the absence of some significant justification,

it is not appropriate to identify (either by name or

unnecessarily-specific description), or cause a defendant to

identify, a third-party wrongdoer unless that party has been

officially charged with the misconduct at issue. In the

unusual instance where identification of an uncharged third-

party wrongdoer during a plea or sentencing hearing is

justified, the express approval of the United States Attorney

and the appropriate Assistant Attorney General should be

obtained prior to the hearing absent exigent circumstances. .

. . In other less predictable contexts, federal prosecutors

should strive to avoid unnecessary public references to

wrongdoing by uncharged third-parties. With respect to bills

of particulars that identify unindicted co-conspirators,

prosecutors generally should seek leave to file such

documents under seal. Prosecutors shall comply, however, with

any court order directing the public filing of a bill of

particulars.

As a series of cases makes clear, there is ordinarily ``no

legitimate governmental interest served'' by the government's

public allegation of wrongdoing by an uncharged party, and

this is true ``[r]egardless of what criminal charges may . .

. b[e] contemplated by the Assistant United States Attorney

against the [third-party] for the future.'' In re Smith, 656

F.2d 1101, 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1981). Courts have applied this

reasoning to preclude the public identification of unindicted

third-party wrongdoers in plea hearings, sentencing

memoranda, and other government pleadings. . . .

In most cases, any legitimate governmental interest in

referring to uncharged third-party wrongdoers can be advanced

through means other than those condemned in this line of

cases. For example, in those cases where the offense to which

a defendant is pleading guilty requires as an element that a

third-party have a particular status (e.g., 18 U.S.C.

203(a)(2)), the third-party can usually be referred to

generically (``a Member of Congress''), rather than

identified specifically (``Senator X''), at the defendant's

plea hearing. Similarly, when the defendant engaged in joint

criminal conduct with others, generic references (``another

individual'') to the uncharged third-party wrongdoers can be

used when describing the factual basis for the defendant's

guilty plea.

Even when we file federal charges, Department policy

strongly counsels us not to implicate by name any person who

is not officially charged with misconduct.

The recent Inspector General report emphasizes the solemn

duty of federal law enforcement officials to defend the

confidentiality of federal investigations. I hope you and

your colleagues in the Senate and House will support us in

restoring those principles. The Department of Justice must

not proceed along the unhappy road to being perceived as a

partisan actor, deciding what information to reveal and what

information to conceal based on the expected impact on the

personal or political interests of its temporary leaders and

congressional allies.

The current investigation of election interference is

important, but there are also thousands of other important

investigations pending in the Department of Justice and the

FBI. Every investigation is important to the persons whose

reputations may be irreparably damaged or whose careers may

be permanently disrupted. No matter who an investigation

involves--an ordinary citizen, a local or state politician, a

campaign official, a foreign agent, or an officer of the

federal legislative, executive, or judicial branch--agents

and prosecutors are obligated to protect its confidentiality

and preserve the Department's independence from political

influence.

Throughout American history, wise legislators have worked

with Department officials to limit oversight requests in

order to respect the Department's duty to protect national

security, preserve personal privacy, and insulate

investigations from the appearance of interference. For

instance, the Department sent a letter to a House committee

chair in 2000, describing the Department's policies on

responding to congressional oversight requests. The letter

explains:

Such inquiries inescapably create the risk that the public

and the courts will perceive undue political and

Congressional influence over law enforcement and litigation

decisions. Such inquiries also often seek records and other

information that our responsibilities for these matters

preclude us from disclosing.

The letter quotes President Ronald Reagan, who wrote that a

``tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary

means of resolving conflicts between the Branches.''

Regardless of whether an inter-branch information request is

made by letter or subpoena, the relationship between the

branches gives rise to ``an implicit constitutional

mandate,'' to ``reach an accommodation short of full-scale

confrontation.'' It must not be the case that the Department

is required to risk damage to reputations, put cases and

lives at risk, and invite political interference by opening

sensitive files to congressional staff without restriction.

Tension between Congress's oversight interests and the

Department's solemn responsibility to protect law enforcement

information is unavoidable. In 1989, then-Assistant Attorney

General William Barr wrote that misunderstandings often arise

because congressional investigations, by their nature, are

usually adversarial and unbounded by the rules of evidence.

In another 1989 opinion, the Department's Office of Legal

Counsel explained that ``the executive branch has . . .

consistently refused to provide confidential information'' to

``congressional committees with respect to open cases.''

Sometimes there is a strong temptation to seek short-term

benefit at the cost of long-term values. But departures from

Department traditions contribute to a loss of public

confidence. We can build public confidence if we stick to the

principle that the prosecutor is ``the servant of the law,

the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape nor

innocence suffer.''

Approval of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Applications

Finally, you asked whether I delegated approval authority

under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such

approval authority is not delegable beyond the approving

officials designated in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Act. FISA affidavits are written and sworn under oath by

career federal agents who verify that they are true and

correct. They are reviewed by investigative agency

supervisors and attorneys, and by Department of Justice

attorneys and supervisors. Before filing, they must be

approved by an intelligence agency leader, usually the FBI

Director, and by either the Attorney General, the Deputy

Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the

National Security Division. In every case, the ultimate

decision on whether to allow surveillance is made by a

federal judge who independently determines whether the

evidence provided under oath by the federal agent meets the

requisite legal standard.

Conclusion

I hope that you find this information helpful. I regret

that the many duties of my office preclude me from responding

personally to every congressional inquiry. I am deeply

grateful to have the support of a talented and dedicated team

that understands our obligation to work cooperatively with

the Congress to protect the American people and preserve the

rule of law.

Sincerely,

Rod J. Rosenstein.

Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think I made the case clear. I think Mr. Zeldin has added nothing to the debate that I have to refute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I hardly know where to begin. With all that is going on in the country and in the world--we have children being ripped apart from their families at the border; we have Republicans working with the White House trying to take away healthcare protections for the American people; and we have a President who seems unhinged--with all that is happening, this is what we are dealing with today on the House floor this morning. Basically, it is a resolution to try to undermine the Mueller investigation, which is investigating potential Russian involvement and collusion in our election.

That is a big deal. We should all want to get to the bottom of this. We should all want the truth. Instead of wanting to get to the truth, my Republican friends throw roadblocks in the way, one after another after another, to try to get people to try to discredit the investigation and to try to derail the investigation. It is unbelievable to me.

The President this morning tweeted that Russia continues to insist they had nothing to do with meddling in our election. I can't believe the President of the United States is tweeting that. What is wrong with him?

Every single intelligence agency in our government says that the Russians meddled in our election, and we have the President of the United States this morning tweeting that Russia says they didn't do it, so we have got to believe Russia.

I don't know how my friends can defend this. At some point, you have to say, ``Enough.''

I get it. Republicans want to constantly circle the wagons around the President with every outrageous thing he says and does, but this is about a foreign power--an adversary--meddling in our elections.

What is the response? Let's try to disparage the investigation. Let's try to undermine the investigation.

It is unreal that we are going through this exercise today, but I guess we have come to expect this.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, also, that the process in this House that got us here today to debate this resolution was a disgrace and an affront to the way this Chamber is supposed to conduct business. In all my time here, I haven't seen a committee minority of either party treated as disrespectfully as Democrats were on Tuesday. That is when the Judiciary Committee considered this resolution of inquiry.

Democrats showed up on time and sat patiently waiting for this hearing to begin--and they waited, and they waited, and they waited because the Republican majority gaveled the hearing to order more than an hour after it was supposed to begin. They didn't even have the courtesy to tell the minority about the delay.

Things got only worse from there. When the hearing actually got underway, Democrats were cut off at every turn. The Republican majority moved the previous question, cutting off debate and preventing consideration of Democratic amendments. They blocked parliamentary inquiries and a unanimous consent request. Committee Republicans even took the extraordinary step of overruling their chairman after an amendment was ruled out of order. It was heavy-handed, and it was undemocratic.

My Republican colleagues should be ashamed of the way they conducted themselves. Maybe they are, because the chairman of the committee appeared to hide in the hallway during the vote until he was called by another Member, and when he did vote, he voted ``present.'' So did the Acting Chair.

Mr. Speaker, were they unwilling to stand up to the more conservative elements of their caucus? or did they condone what went on?

I don't see how anybody in this Chamber could endure such an embarrassing process. It is unfortunate that the majority of the Rules Committee essentially enabled it by using emergency procedures to quickly move this resolution.

This is a new low for a majority that has already turned this Congress into the most closed Congress in history. There have already been 89 closed rules this Congress, and it is only June. There has not been a single open rule under Speaker Ryan--not one.

It is fitting that this measure from the Judiciary Committee is being considered under the majority's 90th closed rule because the Judiciary Committee is now the second most closed committee in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, what does the majority have to show for this bad process? We have another bad product here, this time a partisan measure meant to undermine the Russia investigation.

Now, we know this isn't a serious attempt at oversight because the Republican majority apparently doesn't believe in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities to begin with. Republicans have refused, for example, to examine foreign payments to the Trump organization. They refuse to examine extravagant travel by members of the administration. They refuse to examine HUD Secretary Carson's $31,000 dining set.

Who buys a $31,000 dining set? Where do you find a $31,000 dining set?

They refuse to investigate the use of private email by administration officials, including Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller, and countless other scandals involving EPA Administrator Pruitt.

The list goes on and on and on and on. We actually have a long list here, Mr. Speaker, of what we should be investigating. If my Republican colleagues would like a copy, I am happy to provide it to them. But suffice it to say, there is no oversight with regard to the misdeeds of this administration.

Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Republicans' zeal for oversight? Former Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Issa subpoenaed the Obama administration more than 100 times in just a 4- year span. I didn't always agree with him on his investigations, but at least the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was performing some oversight.

Republicans today are completely missing in action under President Trump. This is an administration that has been embroiled in one scandal after the next. It is an administration dripping with corruption. This makes the Nixon administration look like Common Cause. I have never seen anything like it. Apparently, the Republicans only believe in oversight if it involves President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

Let me remind my Republican colleagues that there wasn't a single scandal in President Obama's 8 years in office that implicated him: no Cabinet official was forced to resign in scandal; no senior White House official had to leave in the face of wrongdoing. Only with the Trump administration can you have one scandal start at breakfast only to have another one by the time you sit down for dinner.

We should be doing our job--getting to the bottom of what is happening and holding people accountable--but instead we are throwing sand in the gears of the Russia investigation. This is crazy.

Now, let me remind everyone of what Special Counsel Mueller's investigation has yielded so far.

Twenty people and three companies have either been indicted or pled guilty. That includes George Papadopoulos, foreign policy adviser on President Trump's campaign, who pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI; Michael Flynn, the President's former National Security Advisor, who also pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI.

Paul Manafort, his former campaign chair, was indicted on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, and making false statements. He was later also charged with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges. He is sitting in jail today. As we have this debate right now, Paul Manafort is in jail.

Rick Gates, the President's campaign aid, was also indicted on similar charges.

That is just a small sample based on what we know today. We will see what else the Special Counsel's investigation finds.

So this goes beyond your basic policy disagreements. This is about whether the minority in this Congress is allowed to do the job they were elected to do--not just this Democratic minority, but any minority, because we have seen and we could see again this year just how quickly power shifts in Congress. This is about whether this Congress is going to fulfill its oversight responsibilities or sweep possible wrongdoing under the rug.

Now, we have a chance today to demand better from this majority, so we should vote against this rule and demand a better process. That is the only way we are going to see a better product.

Just one final thing before I reserve my time. I say to my Republican friends: Look at what you are doing to this institution. You are destroying it. Not only the closed process, the most closed Congress in the history of our country, but the way you move legislation forward. The way Democrats in the Judiciary Committee were treated on this resolution, in all my years here, I have never seen anything like it.

I get it. We have a President who wants to behave like a king and who thinks, when he speaks, everybody should sit up to attention just like they do when Kim Jong-un speaks. But this is supposed to be the people's House, and you are diminishing this institution. This has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, there are a whole bunch of troubling things happening in our country today. The Supreme Court's Janus decision was just yet another very disturbing development that really attacks working men and women.

Mr. Speaker, a union's ability to collectively bargain benefits both its members and nonmembers alike. Unions are responsible for many of the worker protections Americans enjoy today, and they continue to fight for fair pay and good working conditions, including for 17.3 million public employees.

We have unions to thank for our weekends, for paid vacations, for overtime pay, for the 8-hour workday, for child labor laws, for pensions, for the minimum wage, for sick leave, for Social Security, for parental leave, for holiday pay, and the list goes on and on and on.

However, yesterday, the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to hardworking employees, the unions that represent them, and the protections they provide us. In a 5-4 ideological decision, the Court invalidated the laws of 22 States and undermined public sector unions. This decision enables free-riding by those who benefit from union agreements but do not want to help cover the costs of collective bargaining and enforcement.

Unions fight for every single worker. Therefore, every worker should pay their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Cartwright's legislation, H.R. 6238, the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. This bill protects the rights of State and local government employees to join unions and collectively bargain.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) to discuss his proposal.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman how many more speakers he has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, there are lots of things that we should be doing oversight on and that they we are not.

The Oversight Committee has chosen not to look into all the scandals in this White House. They have chosen instead to look the other way.

I mentioned EPA Administrator Pruitt. He has demonstrated over and over that he has no regard for taxpayer money. He is living a lifestyle of the rich and famous at EPA. He has no respect for his position and no desire to follow our ethics law. His many abuses of his position demand that we fully investigate his actions.

For example--I love this--he spent $43,000 on installing a soundproof booth in his office. Who does that? GAO stated that he was required to notify Congress before spending more than $5,000 on office improvements, but he goes ahead and spends $43,000 on a soundproof booth, I guess to make private phone calls. He racked up nearly $200,000 flying first class and luxury aircraft on the taxpayers' dime. One of those trips was to Italy. It cost $30,000. He rented an apartment from an energy lobbyist for $50 a night here in Washington. He enlisted an aide to help find his wife a job.

You can't make this stuff up. And crickets from the Oversight Committee and my Republican friends in Congress.

Congress needs to investigate the alarming drug price trends in this country. This is an emergency, a life or death issue for our constituents. Because of high drug prices, one in four Americans cannot afford to fill a prescription. These high drug prices are not due to foreign markets, but they are due to our unfair pricing system.

We issue patents to drug companies, allowing them to have exclusive rights on drugs. Make no mistake, patents are important for incentivizing and rewarding innovation. However, drug companies found ways to game the system by prolonging their patents and continuing their tight hold on lifesaving medications.

A study by UCLA found that 74 percent of new patents from 2005 to 2015

went to drugs that already existed. Patents allow these drug companies to charge patients unfair prices without facing competition. That is just unacceptable.

But I guess we shouldn't be surprised that there is no investigation, because my Republican friends are working with this White House to undue patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. They are even trying to take away preexisting condition protections.

Right now, because of the law, if you have a preexisting condition, an insurance company cannot discriminate against you and demand that you pay more. They have to give you the insurance. They want to take that away. This is unbelievable. We should be investigating this stuff.

I could go on and on and on, but we are not doing that. What we are doing is, we are bringing a resolution that has been put forward by some who are trying to undermine the Mueller investigation and who do not want the American people to focus on the involvement between Trump operatives and the Russians.

When I would go up to Massachusetts on the weekends, it used to be that people would ask me who in the Trump administration met with the Russians. Now the question is: Who in the Trump administration didn't meet with the Russians?

What I love about the people who are testifying before the Mueller committee, they now are getting in trouble because they are realizing that, if you lie, there is a consequence, so they all have amnesia. They met with Russian operatives time and again, and they forget. They mysteriously remember when they are confronted with the evidence.

We all should be shocked by this. A foreign adversary interfered in our election. Every single intelligence agency in our government confirms that. And yet you have the President of the United States today tweeting: Oh, Russia insists they didn't meddle in our election.

Oh, my God, I can't believe this. The President of the United States is tweeting that today. It is shameful. Stop defending this unacceptable behavior, and stop defending a process that is unacceptable as well.

I mentioned the terrible treatment Democrats received in the Judiciary Committee when this thing was reported out. I have never seen anything like that in my life. Democrats waited for an hour and they were just shut out of any opportunity to amend the measure or even speak.

Welcome to the United States Congress. This is supposed to be the people's House. This is supposed to be the shining example of democracy, and you get people who have questions or who have ideas who are shut down in committee.

Then we bring it to the floor after going through the Rules Committee last night, and it comes to the floor under a closed process. This is the most closed Congress in history. This is the 90th closed rule.

What does that mean? It means that this legislation cannot be amended. There is limited debate. You have to vote for it up or down, my way or the highway. Everybody, Democrats and Republicans, are blocked from offering any of their ideas or any of their potential improvements to this bill. Nothing.

This is the 90th closed rule, completely closed rule, in this Congress, the 90th bill that has come before us where neither Democrats nor Republicans can offer anything.

It is frustrating beyond words to be here today. The system here is rigged. This is going to pass on a party-line vote, I guess. But this is not the way the people's House should be run. This is disgraceful. At some point, my Republican friends who care about this institution have to say enough is enough. They have to demand a more open, more transparent system here. This cannot stand.

So, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so we can address the terrible impacts of the Supreme Court decision in the Janus case and vote ``no'' on the rule. We should not be doing this today. We should not be engaged in an attempt to try to defend the indefensible or undermine an important investigation into Russia's meddling in our election.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 971 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 971, under current consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 970, which insists that the Department of Justice comply with the request of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from Congressman Jim Jordan, a fellow Judiciary Committee member, as well as Ranking Member Jerry Nadler. We also heard from Congressman Mark Meadows and Congressman Scott Perry and engaged in a vigorous discussion that lasted a while in the Rules Committee yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, oversight of the executive branch is one of the House's most important responsibilities and authorities. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Justice and the FBI, it is a responsibility that I take very seriously.

I believe the administration has an obligation to comply with the committees of jurisdictions' legitimate oversight requests and subpoenas. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has not fully complied with numerous of these requests, many of these which stretch back several months. To illustrate this, let me lay out a timeline for you.

On November 3, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy, along with additional Members, sent a letter to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, requesting five specific categories of documents. The deadline listed in the letter was November 17, 2017. That deadline was not met.

On December 12, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, and additional Members sent a letter reiterating the expectation that the Department of Justice provide the requested documents. The deadline listed in that letter was December 19, 2017. Again, the deadline arrived, and again, the deadline was not met.

On February 1, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte sent a third letter requesting documents relating to potential abuses under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

On March 22, 2018, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein compelling him to produce documents and communications referring to internal DOJ or FBI management requests to review, scrub, report on, or analyze any FISA collection involving the Trump campaign or the Trump administration.

It also compelled the production of communications relating to defensive briefings provided by the Department of Justice or the FBI to the 2016 Presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Finally, he compelled production of all documents and communications referring to proposed, recommended, or actual FISA coverage on the Clinton Foundation or persons associated or in communication with the Clinton Foundation. The deadline for this subpoena was April 5, 2018. The Department of Justice is in the process of complying with this subpoena, but complete compliance has not yet occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in regard to the subpoena, the Department of Justice is trying to comply and is in the process of doing so but, yet, has not at this point.

I also share the frustration of my colleagues and the American people that this process is taking way too long. We need the answers, and we need transparency. It is our duty to conduct oversight. The law charges us with shining light where the government has fostered shadows instead of providing answers. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to produce these documents and yet has not made them available.

The resolution provided for by this rule speaks to the core of our democracy, the inherent tension between branches of government that our Founders intended and our responsibility as a coequal branch to act as a check upon the other branches.

Could this debate not happen at a more appropriate time as we look toward the Fourth of July and our country's founding? This is why we were set up the way we were.

The inherent tension has arisen most recently out of the Department of Justice's failure to timely comply with congressional oversight. Some of the documents this body seeks relate to congressional inquiries that have extended almost the length of the 115th Congress. They deal with some of the most pressing issues in our government today.

Has the Department of Justice abused its FISA authority?

Was an investigation of national importance affected by bias?

I believe that these investigations need to play out, but I also believe they can't last forever. I also believe that evidence of bias, a library of extremely troubling texts, and key personnel removals at the FBI illustrate the heightened need for robust congressional oversight.

As James Wilson, an architect of the Constitution and Associate Justice on the first Supreme Court so eloquently stated: ``The House of Representatives . . . form the grand inquest of the state. They will diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things.'' As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will continue to take that charge seriously.

Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee considered a similar resolution. Today, the whole House has a chance to responsibly exercise its oversight responsibility and reiterate to the Department of Justice the need to fully comply with our legitimate requests.

It is important to note that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been similarly stymied by delays to requests for information and that certain documents have been provided to only select members of that committee.

This resolution insists that the Department of Justice comply with the requests, including subpoenas, of these committees--one of which I proudly serve on--so that the American people can get answers and we can exercise our proper constitutional duties. The American people demanded answers, and that is why Congress, Representatives of the American people who answer to the American people, are demanding that the DOJ answer to us.

Let this also serve as a reminder to the Department of Justice that the U.S. Congress was created by our Founders, and its authority and responsibility arise directly from Article I of the United States Constitution.

The Department of Justice, on the other hand, was created by Congress. Its powers arise from those given to it by Congress. And just as those powers are given by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that they are not abused; and, if necessary, it is Congress' responsibility to limit these powers.

Woodrow Wilson, who was among the first to use the term ``oversight'' in reference to the investigation of the executive branch, stated:

Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of

the administration.

Today, we show that we are taking oversight of the executive branch seriously, particularly the Department of Justice, and we are working to prevent bias in government. We demand accountability because the American people deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this point in time, as the gentleman from Massachusetts and I have discussed many times--and he has his opinions on things and process; I have mine as well--we can agree and disagree. But I think one thing is let's take a step forward today.

This is a process of what we are doing forward. We are warning and requiring

from an Article I to an Article II agency. Let's do that and continue that process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. If the gentleman is ready to close, I will be as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we can discuss this and continue to discuss it, as we have.

I respect my friend from Massachusetts and his opinion and the issues of transparency. I want to see that same transparency. I want to see us work. And I think we have an opportunity to do that. By saying that we bring this rule and this resolution here today, to disparage this institution, when we are asking for what we are required and can't get, I am not sure how that is.

Now, we can discuss other issues you want to investigate and other areas you want to go to, and you can do that and we can discuss things, but there is nothing undermining the investigation. The Mueller investigation is still going on, the FBI investigation. All of that is still going on. Nothing is undermining it except the DOJ that has had obvious issues of telling the truth and obvious issues of not giving us the documents we have requested. This is Article I, Article II.

We can have discussions about everything else. And I know if I were in a position on the other side, I would want everything investigated, because when you have seen what we have been able to do in the last year and a half with the economy, with jobs, with regulations, with small business, when you start looking at that, I would yell at everything else, too, Mr. Speaker, because the President has done what he said he was going to do. And our economy is better, our jobs are better, and we are working toward a system in which America is safer.

But I would also want to investigate everything else, too, because if I was going into a cycle, I would want to throw off and look other places and tell the American people things aren't really right when they know that it is.

Also, the American people, when I go back home to Georgia, want to know: If the Congress asks an agency for documents, why do they not get to produce them?

And don't go to the fact, well, it is classified.

We have SCIFs up here. We have got classified areas up here. What is problematic here is we are hiding behind the fact of things that look like--after they are produced, after they are compelled to produce--it looks like they are just trying to keep it from us to hide embarrassment, and that is not a reason to hide documents.

So we have a simple proposal here. Do what you are required to do. Let Congress be the oversight that it is supposed to be, and we can discuss whatever else we want to for oversight. That is the part of two parties working.

But in this one, this is pretty simple. You can vote ``no'' and say no, Congress shouldn't do that, in an area in which we have responsibility and oversight protection. If you want to do that, go right ahead.

Again, when you want to throw off everything else in the world--I think it is when you look at the President and you look at the administration and you look at what we have done in the last 18\1/2\ months, you see a light at the end of a tunnel, you see an economy coming back, you see a good thing for businesses and small businesses.

When people get up and do not care, Mr. Speaker, what happens on this floor. They really don't. All they want to do is get up in the morning, get their families ready, pay their bills, get a good job, have a possibility of a promotion, or go start that business they want to have. We have provided that.

Now, up here, in the internal workings of government, in the mesh of web that is inside this beltway, when you have got a government agency and government employees who do not want to do what they are supposed to do, it is time for Congress to act. That is exactly what we are doing today.

John Stuart Mill stated: ``The proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government, to throw the light of publicity on its acts, to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable.''

Today the Republicans in the House are doing that, Mr. Speaker. We are taking our oversight responsibilities seriously. We are abiding by the checks

and balances of the Constitution to ensure that the government is acting appropriately to ensure that the American people--who, by the way, we represent--have the answers that they deserve, one way or the other.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding, and certainly, let me thank my good friend from North Carolina.

I think the Nation should understand that we have these stark political differences. We have these stark legal differences. But there is nothing that can undermine the rule of law and the truth.

My good friend who just spoke earlier wants to go to the extreme of holding the Nation's professional law enforcement officers in contempt for doing their job. What I hold in my hand is from the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, issued in June 2018. Besides these pages, Mr. Speaker, there are eons and eons of documents.

Right now, in the Judiciary Committee, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is there voluntarily. We have Director Wray there. Even if there was a subpoena, they have come. Both of them indicated that they canceled important trips to be here before the United States Congress.

I asked in that hearing: What was the reason for the emergency hearing? What was the good cause? And I don't know if my colleagues heard it. I could not decipher any good cause of why we are now thrown into this hearing room.

The reason I say that, which speaks to this particular resolution, is the fact that we have had now, under the Presidency of Mr. Trump, almost 2 years, and the Judiciary Committee has not answered one single inquiry offered by the Democrats. We have not had one legitimate hearing on the Russian collusion to have violated and made vile the 2016 election.

I do not speak to the results. I speak to the impact on the integrity of the election by the American people. We have not had one hearing.

Now we are in a rush to continue to reinvestigate and reinvestigate the findings of the inspector general and the investigators who indicated that they investigated this and, in essence, found no criminal behavior; that this is Secretary Clinton's email.

I think it is public knowledge that the item that she was being looked at for was the misuse of classified data. Minimal, at best. We don't want that to happen. She did not want it to happen. But she was cleared of any criminal intent or criminal actions by people that we would normally trust.

I believe in oversight. I don't want scandals at the Department of Justice. I want the Civil Rights Division to work well. Maybe somebody should ask the question why the Civil Rights Division is understaffed and barely working. Maybe somebody should ask the question why the Trump administration switched from being supportive of anti-voter ID laws that were discriminatory but did not.

So this resolution is redundant. It goes in the face of those who are already performing.

Mr. Speaker, it goes in the face of those who are already performing.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has already produced about 850,000 documents at the request of this group of folk from Oversight and Judiciary. They are complying.

Why are we on the floor taking a hammer to a flea? That is unnecessary. Why are we not in the Judiciary Committee, probing the individuals who are now appearing?

I want the American people to understand this is a resolution that has nothing to do with the crux of protecting the November 18, 2018, elections, and it has nothing to do with reality. We have finished our work, and we need to go on to protecting the United States of America against bogus elections.

I feel like Yogi Berra--I have deja vu all over again.

In just the last week or so, we have had three hearings related to the actions of the Department of Justice and the FBI in the run-up to the 2016 election.

Over the course of that last week or so, the country has watched as thousands of children have been separated from their parents.

The Supreme Court has seen the resignation of the Court's swing vote.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court thought it wise to uphold a travel ban on nationals from Muslim majority countries.

And yesterday, the Supreme court gutted the labor rights of public sector employees.

With all of these pressing issues for this august body to determine, what are we talking about?

We're talking about Hillary Clinton's Emails.

Why are we talking about Hillary Clinton's emails?

We're here because one week after the Intelligence community briefed then president-elect Trump, that the Russians had interfered with the election to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.

At best, the timing of the announcement was done to draw a false equivalence between the actions of career law enforcement in investigating the Clinton email server and what would later become the Special Counsel's investigation; at worst, it suggests using the levers of law enforcement for political ends.

We are here well after the fact that the Special Counsel investigating Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 election and the extent to which associates of the Trump Campaign were complicit in this endeavor. The Special Counsel has already secured 23 indictments against companies and individuals, some of whom are Americans.

This includes the President's campaign manager, who is currently sitting in jail awaiting charges in two judicial districts.

This is after the Special Counsel has secured guilty pleas, including from:

The President's National Security Advisor;

A lawyer with ties to the President's former campaign manager;

The President's former Foreign Policy Advisor; and

The President's former deputy campaign manager.

All the while, while the Special Counsel was doing this report, the House GOP was salivating for this report to be released.

And then the OIG promulgated the report.

And after the OIG promulgated that report, the House GOP was disappointed, because they did not like what the independent investigation found: that the decisions by the DOJ and the FBI in the days and preceding the 2016 were not tainted by political bias.

Because the OIG's report does not conform with the House's GOP narrative, the House GOP has to muddy the waters, even if that means interfering with an active counterintelligence investigation.

But, before this tea party resolution, let's just recall what has the House Freedom Caucus so upset.

And now, they want information that is at the heart of an active counterintelligence criminal investigation.

And in an effort to aid their allies in the White House, the House GOP has gone to extraordinary effort to alchemize its oversight responsibilities into a line of information to the White House.

While this has happened over the year, the OIG has been preparing its report--and it was released earlier this month.

The OIG Report concludes that while former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey was insubordinate in the manner and content of his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton in her use of a private server, the decision was not done with political bias.

This conclusion definitely reignited strong emotions, but a clear eye focused on all operative facts supports the inference that the actions taken by federal law enforcement, out of an abundance of caution, had the effect of conferring significant advantage on the Trump Campaign.

I am a strong supporter of law enforcement.

They do a tough job under difficult circumstances.

This was no less true in the weeks and months preceding the 2016 election.

The confluence of facts and the public statements of then-candidate Trump likely complicated law enforcement's difficult job.

``From the outset, nothing in this report calls into question or undermines the Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election and whether and to what extent this endeavor was aided by associates of the Trump Campaign.

Next, while the OIG report released today concludes that former FBI Director Comey was insubordinate in the breadth and depth of his July 2016 press conference declining prosecution of Secretary Clinton, the decision was not done for political purposes or colored with political bias.

``Third, any suggestion that the actions of law enforcement in the second half of 2016 were done to support the Hillary Clinton Campaign to the detriment of the Trump Campaign is belied by the fact that both the decision to editorialize the declination of prosecution in July 2016 and the decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation in October 2016, eleven days before the election, revealed a double standard favorable to Trump and prejudicial to Clinton.

This is because that while the country was debating Secretary Clinton's judgment in setting up a private server for her emails, associates of the Trump Campaign were engaging in questionable--and possibly criminal--behavior with agents of the Russian government.

This disjunction undoubtedly benefitted Trump, however unquantifiably.

``Fourth, while the president may tout this report as supportive of his decision to terminate Comey from his position as FBI Director,

nothing in this report changes two facts: first, after the FBI reopened the investigation into the Clinton email issue in the waning days of the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Trump applauded Comey's announcement.

Given his tact at the time, and his change of heart now and his reasons for doing so, only one conclusion is supportable: that Trump's concern after the election for Comey's decision is more disingenuous than not.

Moreover, to the extent that the president tries to claim that his reasons for firing Comey were consistent with the findings of the OIG report, the president revealed his true motives for firing Comey in an interview with Lester Holt: that it was done because of the Russia investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership in articulating what is right, what honors our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the separation of power contained therein, and the integrity of our judicial system.

I also thank our distinguished ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Schiff, for his leadership, his courage, and his beautiful and inspirational statement this morning, full of facts, but also full of values.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only as leader, but also as one who has served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as a member, as a ranking member, and as an ex officio since the early 1990s. And I can say, while I have seen a lot in that time, I have never seen anything that has stooped so low on the part of the Republicans as what they are doing today.

It is just as if they have said, you take an oath of office to the Constitution. We took an oath of office to Donald Trump. It is shocking. And many of these are lawyers. I don't know how they justify or reconcile that.

And so it is with great dismay that I see them doing violence to this body, to this Constitution, to this judiciary system, and to this country.

They are so curious about prying into a legal case, but they don't have the faintest interest in looking into what the Russians did to disrupt our elections. Not one hearing, nothing. No oversight, nothing.

Why is that? Why is that?

Now they are saying they must, they have a right to know this, that, and the other thing. They have no right to do that. So I am not going to take up any more time. I said my piece on this.

But I do want to acknowledge that Mr. Schumer and I, as well as Mr. Schiff and Senator Warner, the ranking member on the Senate side, sent a letter to the Honorable Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, and to Christopher Wray, the Director of the FBI, saying to them: Please, please, do not yield on any of this. Your role in preserving the integrity and, most importantly, our justice system has become ever more vital.

First of all, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I hope that some Republicans will do what is right and urge a ``no'' vote on this. This is taking us into very dangerous territory. If the Democrats wanted power, I would say the same thing. We wouldn't want to have this access. You shouldn't have this access. This is wrong.

Again, if you are honoring your salute and your oath of office to Donald Trump, then vote ``yes.'' If you are honoring your oath of office to the Constitution of the United States, then vote ``no.''

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2018.

[Unclassified]

Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein,

Deputy Attorney General of the United States, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Hon. Christopher Wray,

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Washington, DC.

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Director Wray:

Earlier this month, you provided important verbal assurances

in response to our June 5, 2018 letter to you. In that

letter, we expressed deep and ongoing concern about President

Donald Trump and his legal team's persistent efforts to

interfere with the Special Counsel's ongoing investigation

and undermine your agencies' lawful and appropriate

activities. In particular, we underscored that, if fulfilled,

demands by the President's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,

that the White House and the President's lawyers be given

access to classified information and investigatory material

of the utmost sensitivity--including information related to

the Special Counsel's ongoing investigation that implicates

the President's own campaign and his associates--would

grossly violate our system of checks and balances, long-

standing, well-founded, and established procedure, and

fundamental norms.

You confirmed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will not provide the

White House or any of the President's attorneys with access

to such sensitive information. You also assured that

briefings and materials related to this matter would not be

shared with others in Congress beyond the ``Gang of 8.''

Unfortunately, it appears that part of this assurance has

already been breached. As of June 20, 2018, the Department

has made available to a wider group of Members and staff

materials directly related, and similar in kind, to the

information that was supposed to be restricted to the ``Gang

of 8.'' This followed recent pressure from House and Senate

Republicans on DOJ and FBI not to adhere to ``Gang of 8''

restrictions on access to and dissemination of information

that can implicate sources and methods and/or ongoing

investigations.

The Department and Bureau's departure in this matter from

longstanding policy and precedent governing your agencies'

relationship with Congress risks a repeat of similar mistakes

that the DOJ Office of the Inspector General recently

identified in his review of the Clinton ``Midyear''

investigation.

In 2016, DOJ broke with past practice by making

investigative files in the Clinton investigation available to

Congress, while the Bureau, in the name of ``maximal

transparency,'' publicly disclosed information related to the

investigation at key junctures. In his June 2018 report, the

DOJ Inspector General correctly criticized this sharp

deviation from DOJ and FBI guidelines:

``The Department and the FBI do not practice ``maximal

transparency'' in criminal investigations. It is not a value

reflected in the regulations, policies, or customs guiding

FBI actions in pending criminal investigations. To the

contrary, the guidance to agents and prosecutors is precisely

the opposite--no transparency except in rare and exceptional

circumstances due to the potential harm to both the

investigation and to the reputation of anyone under

investigation.''

This harmful cycle is now repeating itself with respect to

the criminal and counterintelligence investigation into

Russia's 2016 election interference and any links and/or

coordination between the Russian government and individuals

associated with the campaign of President Trump. The

President's congressional allies are applying growing

pressure on your agencies, in line with the President's

improper demand for ``total transparency,'' to disclose

sensitive information and material that is not usually shared

with Congress and that relate directly to the ongoing

investigation into President Trump, his own campaign, and his

associates.

Unfortunately, DOJ and FBI are increasingly bowing to this

pressure, despite the corrosive implications. Unlike the

Clinton investigation, your agencies are disclosing sensitive

material to Congress even though the Russia investigation is

ongoing under the leadership of the Special Counsel and your

oversight. And given the pending nature of the Special

Counsel's investigation, these persistent and unrelenting

document requests are not for legitimate oversight purposes.

Rather, time and again, sensitive information shared with

Congress has been selectively and misleadingly seeded into

the public domain to advance the President and his legal

team's strategy of undermining

public trust in DOJ and the FBI and attacking the legitimacy

of the Special Counsel and his ongoing investigation. Every

such disclosure to Congress, moreover, has and will continue

to result in demands for more information about the ongoing

investigation, which the Department and the Bureau will be

unable to satisfy without further contravening its own

policies and norms.

With every disclosure, DOJ and FBI are reinforcing a

precedent it will have to uphold, whether the Congress is in

Republican or Democratic hands, of providing materials in

pending or closed cases to the legislative branch upon

request.

As the attacks on the Special Counsel intensify, it is

imperative that you withstand pressure on DOJ and FBI to

violate established procedures and norms. Your role in

preserving the integrity of the Special Counsel's

investigation and, most importantly, our justice system has

become even more vital.

We would appreciate your written reply and your

confirmation of this understanding.

Sincerely,

Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives.

Adam B. Schiff,

Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence.

Charles E. Schumer,

Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate.

Mark R. Warner,

Vice Chairman, U.S. Senate, Select Committee on

Intelligence.