tv House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Mueller Report CSPAN May 5, 2019 10:36am-12:02pm EDT
groups, we don't always know that those stereotypes are influencing what we are doing, treating or evaluating someone. >> watch this weekend, on "book ," on c-span 2. >> the c-span buses headed across the country to meet and award the winners of our studentcam competition. recently in rhode island we met with our second prize winners. >> it was very exciting, this was our first time entering and we put in a lot of hours and it was a long journey, we were very excited and happy and we look forward to participating again next year. >> with all honesty, we couldn't believe it. front.ar we are coming >> for sure. >> in terms of our first year entering something, we didn't
really think of it. we just entered to see how far we could go. to think that we got second place on our first try, it blows my mind. of the winning entries from this years studentcam contest, go to studentcam.org. >> and on wednesday, the day before attorney general william barr was scheduled to testify before the judiciary committee on the mueller report, the panel met to consider several motions additional hour of questioning. afterwards, the attorney general announced that he would not appear before the committee, citing a disagreement over how he would be questioned.
mr. nadler: the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the u.s. department of justice report by special counsel robert mueller iii on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. >> motion pursuant to permit an additional hour of questioning equally divided between the majority and minority for any full committee hearing entitled oversight -- >> without objection, the motion is considered. rank and open for amendment at any point. i will now recognize myself for
an opening statement. by motion is simple and straightforward. it would permit an additional hour of questioning equally of the and at the end regular round of questioning with the attorney general, where we will discuss the report on russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. in 2016 our democracy was attacked by a russian government intent on undermining the integrity in favor of donald trump. the mueller report is a detailed 400 and 40 page document around the two-year investigation on the attack subsequent to that investigation. it is imperative given the subject matter that the committee not limit itself to the rule. granting additional time will allow the committee to engage the attorney general on an in-depth discussion regarding the results of the crucial
investigation and permit the committee to examine the fact transparencytailed on the findings of the report. for example, in the 2007 hearing related to the investigation into the politically motivated firings of several u.s. attorneys, then chairman john conyers and ranking member lamar smith agreed to additional time for extended questioning. last night under a makeup -- majority they read for special time to question peter strzok as part of the joint oversight hearing regarding his 2016 residential election. and these are just examples, there are other examples. lastly i want to be clear that this filed in conjunction with
the one after this one will give the minority flexibility to decide how to use additional time. in other words they will have the option to designate members extendedto conduct the questioning and enclosing, providing additional time to question it witness, even if the witness is the attorney general, is consistent with both house rules, prior house present -- president, and committee best practices. it is my hope that we can agree that given the seriousness of the subject matter to the nation the committee should not hamstring its ability to question the attorney general in the most thorough manner available to it. i now recognize the ranking member of the fishery committee, mr. collins, for his opening statement. >> this could have been handled with a request beforehand. issued inever been
the five-minute rule for oversight. both majority and minority. of the motion is not come you know, anything that we have objected. like i said, this is not even a need to have this motion, you and i could have agreed on this when we sat down the day of. the concern will come in a few moments, when we try to make this into something that it's not. this is something that we can move forward on if we get to the real problematic issues as we go forward with this one. you and i could have handled this one. i yield back. >> at think we will handle this at least expeditiously. any amendments to the motion for an additional hour of questioning with a full committee hearing? i will bother reading the title of it -- tomorrow? the gentleman from florida? >> moved to strike the last word.
>> recognized. >> i would say that i appreciate the recognition of the limitations of the five-minute rule and i intend to support the motion because the five-minute rule sucks. we are never able to get deeply into the issues that come before agreementm in violent with the chairman on the subject and i yield back. >> i appreciate the agreement from the gentleman and his use of colloquial phraseology that seems to be appropriate. are there any other discussions? ok. ok then. a reporting quorum being present, the question is on the adoption of the motion pursuant to house rule 11. those in favor? those that oppose? the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. i moved to the motion,
that the committee adopt a motion to permit committee staff as designated by the chair and ranking member to question the ,itness for an additional hour equally divided between the majority and minority of any full committee hearing entitled oversight of the u.s. department of justice report by robert mueller the third and investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters. the clerk will report the motion. >> the motion offered by jerrold 11ler pursuant to house rule to permit committee staff as designated by the chair and ranking member to question the witness for an additional hour equally divided between the majority and minority. >> i object to consideration of the motion. readingan object to the , waving that reading, you can't object to the consideration. >> point of order. >> the clerk will continue
reading in accordance with the gentleman's objection. meeting,ll committee reports by robert s mueller the third on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters. ask mr. chairman, i reject to consideration of the motion now. >> the gentleman will state the grounds of the objection? >> i don't believe it's proper that the committee should even talk about doing something so unprecedented. >> that is not a proper objection. you don't like it, you are entitled not to like it. >> i appeal the decision of the chair. parliamentary inquiry, there's nothing to appeal. >> i appeal the decision of the chair, ruling the question of consideration out of order. >> what consideration did i rule out of order? >> considering the motion that was just read by the clerk.
are -- the gentle -- ok, the gentleman raised the russian of consideration, which is not debatable. the question is, does the committee wish to consider the motion? all of those in favor, say i. all of those opposed? in the opinion of the chair -- can we have a call? >> the question is agreed to. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nadler? >> aye? ms. lofgren -- >> ms. lofgren? ms. jackson lee? esther:? mr. johnson of georgia question mark mr. johnson of georgia avoid -- votes aye. mr. deutsch? miss batch? miss batch votes i. mr. jeffries? .r. jeffries votes aye mr. cicilline?
.r. cicilline votes aye mr. swallow? mr. lou? mr. raskin? votes aye. miss jayapal? mr. carreño? missarreño votes aye scanlan? .iss scanlan votes aye ms. garcia? mr. negus? mr. negus votes aye. miss mcbath votes aye. mr. stanton votes aye miss dean? .iss dean votes aye .r. carson powell votes aye escobar?
collins? collins votes no. stenson burner? mr. stenson burner votes no. mr. shallots? no.shabbat votes mr. gomer? >> is this tabling or appealing the ruling of the chair? oh, ok. no. mr. gomer vote -- >> mr. gomer devotes no. mr. jordan? mr. buck? mr. buck votes no. mr. radcliffe? miss robie? miss robie votes no. mr. gates? mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. biggs? mr. biggs votes no. mr. mcclintock? mr. mcclintock -- sorry, ms. lesko? ms. lesko votes no. mr. rosenthal are?
mr. klein? mr. klein votes no. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. mr. stewie? mr. stewie votes no. are there other members who wish to vote that haven't voted yet? the gentleman from tennessee? >> aye. >> mr.: votes aye. >> the young lady from texas question mark >> garcia votes aye. ms. jayapal votes aye. miss escobar votes aye. >> california? >> mr. lou votes aye. -- wish tolse with vote? i know we are waiting for somebody. the gentleman from florida?
>> mr. chairman, there are 22 .yes and 13 knows >> the question of consideration is adopted. the -- ok, i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. this motion is similar to my previous motion, differing only in that it would permit committee staff as designated by the chair and ranking members to question attorney general barr for the additional hour, equally divided between the majority and minority following the end of memo -- member questions at tomorrow's hearing. to be clear, this is intended to be concurrent with the additional hour provided for, not an extra hour only for committee staff. at his april 18 press conference he attorney general publicly committed to providing the greatest agreed possible concerning the
special counsel investigation consistent with the law. permitting committee staff to question the attorney general for extended time after members spend the opportunity to question him is an important means by which this committee can hold the attorney general to that pledge and can get more information. last night we learned that the special counsel mueller wrote a letter objecting to attorney general barr's march 24 characterization of the report because it "did not fully capture the context, nature, and ,"bstance of the investigation and requested that the attorney general release the information and this morning we received a copy of the letter and i asked her unanimous consent or it to be in the record and i would point out that essentially the letter says that he attorney general misled the public as to the contents of the report. according to the special counsel letter, the attorney general's mischaracterization of the report before releasing it to created confusion
about critical aspects of the results of the investigation. the special counsel went on to write that this threatened to undermine the essential purpose to which the department appointed the special counsel to assure public confidence in the outcome of the investigations and in light of the news it was particularly critical that we question the attorney general on the committee's terms. committee staff questioning has long been an important if underutilize asked active congressional oversight and complete accordance with house rules. as judiciary committee staff has been permit us to question witnesses and the staff on democratic republican majorities are in public and private transcribed interviews. for example, the committees that participate in questioning witnesses during impeachment inquiries into president nixon, clinton, and thomas. thelast congress, during republican led investigation and the fbi handling of the clinton
he investigation, committee staff set -- question several officials, including andrew mccabe, james comer dachshund comey, and loretta lynch. some have expressed the concern that it is somehow inappropriate for committee staff to question a sitting attorney general. fore is ample precedent addressing committee officials in hearing. the most salient was in 1987, during the house and senate hearings on the iran contra scandal, committee staff questioned then it's sitting attorney general ed meese. committee staff also questioned georgeweinberger and schultz. i would also note that in 1997, under a republican majority at a hearing held before the house oversight committee with the attorney general, jenna reno and louis freeh, that committee agreed to proceed under the rules to permit the chairman and the ranking member to allocate
time to committee counsel as deemed appropriate for extended questioning. on a final note, the reports of the attorney general -- there are reports that the attorney general may refuse to appear tomorrow. in spite of all the precedent i have cited, i would note that congress does not just the need -- need to justify to the attorney general, department of justice, or any part of the executive branch the manner in which it chooses to conduct its own proceedings. an attempt by the executive to dictate this is an obstruction of congress. no witness can sip the dictate to this committee the manner in which he or she discretions in which they are fully in accordance with house rules. the attorney general publicly committed to being transparent around the investigation. he should welcome the opportunity to speak candidly and i should add that he publicly committed to coming to the hearing, he should welcome the public opportunity to speak candidly before the house judiciary committee and the
american people. i don't know what he's afraid of from questioning by staff counsel. rankingcognize the member of the judiciary committee, the joe mcknight are, mr. collins, for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. before i begin, i have to make a verification that these are not concurrent motions. they cannot be concurrent. they cannot run together. according to the rules of the house, they cannot run concurrent. i'm just making the statement based on your opening statement that these cannot run concurrent. that has been discussed this week and i want to make it very clear to the committee that these cannot run concurrent. these are two separate hours that we are discussing. they are not concurrent. they are not concurrent. are awareness here, these two more hours we are adding on to this committee. we had no problem with it and i want to make it point out that
it is not concurrent as we go forward. with that, last week while we were off. annual training, part of my annual trading in the air force. i look ahead of my schedule, could be a good week. we will have markups and do what we are supposed to be doing. if you were here yesterday it went well, we did something that helped the american people. that was a good thing. it was a great day. even today, even in a bill that i disagree with, but that's part of congress, that's part of the debate and the negotiation, there's a bill that we are going to eventually markup i'm assuming that will go forward. that's a good thing. that's of this committee is supposed to do. thursday we were finally going to get tomorrow to talk to the attorney general and ask questions. even to the point of making sure that both sides had as much time
as we could get to do whatever we needed to do. and then over the weekend it was discussed and leaked to the press that we are deciding to now add in something that is not precedent it. it's not precedent did not because doug collins or any republican said so, it's unprecedented based on a fact check by cnn. it has not been a precedent for this committee to use staff in a full hearing in the judiciary. in fact, everything that was just laid out by the chairman a few moments ago, he listed two incidence of impeachment, the select committee, which is different rules, and he listened listed dan burton that is not the judiciary committee. he did list some events that took place in transcripts that were not public testimony. now my problem here is this, bill barr so far, and we can have disagreements, you can disagree with him and do whatever but it was amazing that
until a few -- a few weeks ago he was a good man. until a few weeks ago people thought he was a good attorney and that bob mueller was a top-notch investigator and then the report came out and didn't say what you wanted it to say and at this point in time the so-called attorney general, it's amazing to me the words that have been set at this point. there are two reasons for this motion. two reasons and one that i will focus on independently. that is that the chairman has this -- chairman have decided along with the majority that they want to appear as if they are doing impeachment because the president for staff questioning is impeachment. bringoblem is they can't themselves to bring impeachment. they can't bring themselves to take one of the resolutions already addressed on the democratic side to bring to this committee and open impeachment of that's what they want to do. open it up, we didn't go to the separate battles and we begin the process and instead we want the appearance of impeachment to talk to others, to impugn the
integrity, to do whatever so that we can smear the president ahead of the 2020 election. there is no precedent we are at to say this, we simply want to do it. but another area really bothers me here because i have had the privilege of sitting on this committee for six years and i have watched on the other side the -- some very good members ask questions. steve cohen from tennessee, i have watched him blister witnesses. mr. raskin from maryland, i have watched him ask questions right wouldn't want to be on the other side. mr. cicilline, mr. jeffries. i have been impressed with our new members on the committee. you can do this. why would you want to say something to pass that a staff member could do better? if a staff member wants to ask questions, run for congress. your money down, take a test, run for congress. i was told earlier this week that they were doing staff
questioning because it streamlines questioning and saves time. wrong. it adds another hour. it can't streamline questioning because at the end, really, let's be honest with lawyers in a room, what we are trying to do is but a staff member at the end to catch the attorney general in saying something that he can the -- he can then be asked about later. all this is. so if we go forward here, i believe bill barr did what he is going to do, released a report, saying the findings of the report, even the chairman said that they were concerned about context and nowhere did it say that mueller disagreed with the findings. that's not true. he said he wanted to get the report out as soon as possible. what we have here is simply another opportunity to sidetrack and have a serial sideshow of stepping on our own -- this may be the whitaker model. maybe this is what we are dealing with.
the motion this morning and then hope and hope and hope that no bar will say i don't want to come and then we will offer no staff and maybe he will come tomorrow. maybe that's the model we're looking at here. but at the end of the day this is not how the committee should operate. this is something that all of the should be able to -- every member here who ran for office whether you agree with the president or like the president -- president, didn't matter. --tead of putting pozen poison pills and here to say -- now we're going to have a sideshow, now we will have something how right now folks, bill barr is testifying before the senate judiciary committee, no theatrics except questions about the report. why is that so hard for us? lower one, we wanted to look like impeachment because democrats are in the majority. we wanted it to look like impeachment because we don't like the results. there is no precedent that actually applies here. as i have told the chairman before, as we go down this road, this will slow down a
lot of stuff. the good things that we can do in this community. the crisis on our porter. the intellectual property issues. everything else we can do will fall victim to a stunt. called victim to a play. if i was a part of the majority at this point in time, i would think my staff to help me ask good questions. undoubtedly that's not what it is. they want to throw something up to make it look like an impeachment hearing when it's don't have theey ability or want to to put an impeachment inquiry out there. you take from, if something simple and mess it up you are either intentional or you are just not sure what you are doing. at this point, we had the chance to have the attorney general here tomorrow and do away with this and get onto the markup of a real bill. instead we will spend a while talking about a theatrics than. but just in case, we do have the popcorn machine now because as i said a few months ago this has
become nothing but theater and with that i yield back. >> other any amendments to the motion to question the witness for an additional hour equally divided between the majority and minority of the committee entitled oversight of the department of justice? report from robert mueller the unrelated matters? >> mr. chairman question mark -- chairman? >> the gentlelady from texas. the lady is recognized. >> mr. chairman, we have served on this committee with a number of our committee members for a long time. colleagues and even friends on a number of issues that we have worked on. i say that to the ranking member , we have had an opportunity to extensively on
pass legislation and i would correct the record to indicate that every single member on this committee has been profound in their questioning and have articulated pointed and direct questioning to witnesses that have been representative of the history of the judiciary committee that i have served on. i am proud of them and i respect their intellect and their ability. this motion has nothing to do with members asking questions because as you read the motion, to my good friend, it is that every member will ask it russian , and then counsel will so ask. democrats have no fear of the word impeachment and this is not an impeachment light proceeding. our friendsear that on the other side would relish an immediate jump to a process of which we are smarter than that. because what we are doing is
andstigating for the truth investigating to edify the american people. if you want to know why the chairman and i don't pretend to speak for him in the entirety, but i would offer to say that this letter, dated march 27 that veryfrom mueller, is the foundation upon which we need to proceed in the way that we are proceeding. his last sentence indicated in the body of it that accordingly vehicle -- and closed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and department policies, letter dated march for a seventh. i think that today happens to be the in the month of may and we are now on may 1. i'm requesting that you provide these materials to congress and authorize the public release at this time. summary letter that the department sent to congress, mr. mueller speaking, releasing to
the public on march 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office is working conclusion. we communicated that concern to the department on the morning of march 25. there is no public confusion about the critical aspects of the results of our investigation , threatening to undermine a central purpose which the department appointed that special counsel and goes on to say -- release it, release it. i think the format that has been established is one geared directly to securing the truth and is supported by previous when lawyers or staff have been able to ask questions. in fact, i have been in classified closed-door proceedings when our staff has asked questions along with the staff of the oversight. let us not pretend that this is something that has just dropped from a foreign sky.
the narrative that has been created by the administration the the question of adding additional inquiry by staff, which is now being allowed for the minority. and then to answer the question for someone who had the privilege of serving on this committee for a while, and some members can join me in their thoughts, know that if a document had come out like a volume one and volume two under the previous administration, impeachment would have started before the documents even came to the doj. i am not fooled by this. , in their essence of justice and equity, are simply seeking to say to the american people that there is no fear here, but a respect and dignity to the process by which we have to engage.
so, i would rise to support the underlying motion and i would say to my good friends, including the ranking member, as he will knows, we have passed legislation together. we have traveled to different cities on the police working group and a bipartisan manner. there is no hesitancy to be part -- to be bipartisan on this committee and none by democrats. we ask you to join us in voting on this motion the does nothing but give you extra time and the ability for your lawyers to ask questions, but we will not be fooled into moving on any than the ones that we feel are guided by thoughtful deliberation and the quest, the thisng quest for truth for . with that, i yield back. >> thank you, the gentleman in florida is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. let me say this, there is one at the desk and we have an important built a consider and
we won't spend a lot of time on this motion and after this amendment we will go to a vote on the met -- the motion. the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> i moved to table the recognized. >> the gentleman from -- is not recognized. the gentleman from florida is recognized as amendment. privileged motion once made after being recognized. the gentleman who is offering the amendment. >> that's not true. >> we are not good on that. >> we will go to your dq quick enough, but we won't go down that line. >> chairman, i moved to table the resolution. [mumbling] notion.the motion tabled as an debatable. have it. >> rollcall. >> the clerk will call the roll.
>> mr. nadler. >> no. mr. nether votes no. ms. lofgren votes no. miss jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen votes no. mr. johnson of georgia? mr. deutsch? ms. bass? mr. richmond? mr. jeffries? mr. jeffries votes no. mr. cicilline? no.cicilline votes mr. swallow? mr. lou? mr. lou votes no. mr. raskin? mr. raskin votes no. miss jayapal paul votes no. ms. dem ex? miss them a quotes no. .r. koran? mr. koran votes no miss scanlan? miss scanlan votes no. ms. garcia? miss garcia votes no. thosegus? mr. negus of no. miss mcbath?
miss mcbath votes no. mr. stanchion? no.stanchion votes ms. deeds? misdeeds votes no. miss powell? miss powell votes no. miss escobar? miss escobar votes no. mr. collins? .r. collins votes aye mr. stenson burner votes aye. mr. schappert's votes aye. mr. gomer? votes aye. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. book aye votes. mr. radcliffe? miss robie? miss robie votes aye. .r. gates votes aye mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. johnson of louisiana votes aye. mr. biggs votes aye. mr. mcclintock?
miss lesko? ms. lesko votes aye. mr. reginald faller votes aye. mr. klein votes aye. mr. armstrong votes yes. .r. stu b votes aye >> has everyone from florida who wishes to vote? gentleman from florida? >> mr. deutsch votes no. >> florida? -- georgia? >> votes no. >> california? >> ms. bass votes no. >> anyone else? clerk will report. what should we do now? >> again. >> ok.
adoption of the motion pursuant to the house, those in favor say aye. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> the ayes. have it. >> i seek recognition. will you recognize members of the committee that want to the gun this motion? >> does anyone wish to ask a recorded vote? >> i have asked for recognition. >> the clerk will report -- >> if you are not republican to meet the motion? >> record here. we ought to be going by the rules and giving people a chance to debate. no wonder the ag doesn't want to come here and testify when you are running things without regard for debate. >> gentleman unfair. waxman level of. >> mr. chairman? >> hold on a second. >> the clerk will report the role.
parliamentary entertained after the clerk reports the result. >> mr. chairman. >> the clerk will report the result and then we will -- >> the eyes have it. >> you want to call the role? >> we have artie asked for it. >> fiu recognized the gentleman from florida for an amendment. >> you said you were going to recognize them for a minute. >> moved to table. >> i moved to amend. >> imovie to adjourn. >> we are in the middle of a role. >> no, we were in the middle of debate. you ended it without the question being called. >> mr. chairman, i moved to adjourn. >> regular order. >> regular order. that's a privileged motion. >> adjourn. >> motion to adjourn. >> the motion to adjourn is not in the order of the middle of the rollcall. >> we were in the middle of the
debate and you didn't allow it. >> i was in the middle of offering an amendment. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> mr. nadler? >> the results. >> you recognized the man from florida. next the clerk will report the results. >> the motion to -- --there were 15 ayes >> eye appeal. >> finished. >> that was on the table. >> clerk will report the results. >> we can sit here and ram this through. >> mr. chairman, there were 16 nos on theand 22 motion to table. >> the motion to table is not adopted. >> we didn't even get the results of the earlier vote. >> we just did. >> the one before that. >> the motion to table not adopted. >> mr. chairman? >> the next
item on the agenda was mr. gates. >> i need to apologize, gentleman. >> for an amendment. >> the motion to table was not adopted. >> i have an amendment. >> to table what? to table what? >> i reserve a point of order on the amendment. >> way a minute. mr. gates is offering an amendment, correct? >> i reserve a point of order, mr. german. >> the point of order is reserved and the clerk will appoint the amendment. ask the amendment to the motion offered by chairman nadler and mr. gates of florida, amend the motion to read as follows, motion to remove attorney general william barr as on the may 2, 2019 full committee hearing entitled oversight of the u.s. to permit a justice report by special counsel robert -- robert s mueller
the third on investigation into the interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters special counsel .ueller at the hearing >> does the gentleman insist on his point of order? >> is not germane and changes completely or purpose of the motion. >> mr. chairman, am i able to introduce -- >> the gentleman from rhode island is explaining his point of order. the gentleman will continue. >> mr. chairman, the motion before the committee is to extend the questioning of a witness requested to appear for an additional hour by staff. this motion before us is to change the witness before us. >> mr. chairman? >> on the point of order. >> the debate, excuse me, the gentleman from rhode island is making a point of order and i'm going to rule.
the point of order is not in order at this point. >> on the current point of order. >> does the gentleman was to be heard? >> yes, i do. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> the subject matter of the hearing was a report on the special counsel investigation. all of that this motion does is change the witnesses. it does not change the subject matter of the hearing. it continues to be on the investigation by the special counsel. and what the gentleman from florida is proposing to do is merely to change the name of the witness. that means it is germane. because the topic of the hearing is not going to be changed. that remains exactly the way it was announced by the chair in his notice of the hearing tomorrow. the point of order that is not germane should be held not well taken. >> the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
the points made by the gentleman from wisconsin are irrelevant because the amendment is not to the hearing notice. it would be on germane to that -- un germane to that also. the motion is to permit scaffold -- permit staff and counsel to question the witnesses. that is the motion before us. the amendment talks about who the witness is, not about the procedure for questioning the witness, which is what the .otion is about it is beyond the scope of the motion, totally on germane -- un germane. the gentleman appeals the ruling of the chair. there's a motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. all in favor of the motion to table? opposed? a rollcall vote is requested in the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. the clerk will call the role.
>> mr. nadler? .> table it? aye >> ms. lofgren? ms. jackson lee? .s. jackson lee votes aye mr. phelan? mr. johnson of georgia? ayejohnson of georgia votes . ms. bass? mr. richmond? mr. jeffries? mr. cicilline? .r. cicilline votes aye mr. swallow? mr. lou? mr. lou votes aye. mr. raskin? mr. raskin votes aye. miss jaya paul? miss jayapal votes aye. ms. dennings votes aye. mr. koran votes aye.
miss scanlan votes aye. ms. garcia? .iss garcia votes aye mr. negus? mr. negus votes aye. miss mcbath? ms. mcbath votes aye. mr. stanton votes aye. miss jean votes aye. miss mcardle powell? ms. mcardle powell votes aye. ms. escobar? ms. escobar votes aye. mr. collins? mr. collins votes no. mr. sensenbrenner votes no. mr. shot as? mr. shot as votes -- shot as votes in the -- mr. chavez votes no. mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes no. mr. book? mr. book votes no. mr. radcliffe? ms. robie?
ms. robie votes no. mr. gates? gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. big? mr. big votes no. mr. mcclintock? ms. lesko? ms. lesko votes no. mr. rosenthal are? mr. rosenthal or votes no. mr. klein? mr. klein votes no. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. mr. stewie? mr. stewie votes no. ms. lofgren, you are not recorded. miss lofgren votes i. mr. cohen votes i. ms. bass votes i -- aye.
table istion to approved. is there an amendment at the desk? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentlelady from arizona is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> we know that. >> i reserve a point of order. >> the gentleman reserves a point of order. the gentlelady will explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. share. the amendment says they will strike the words committee staff and insert committee staff holding a valid election certificate to the united states house of representatives. it made me laugh when i thought about it, too. members of congress can ask whatever questions they want. we already agreed to the motion thehe chairman to extend amount of time for another hour. so, there is no rule that says
attorney for the democratic staff can't stand right behind a member of congress and hand them the exact question that they want to ask. so i see no reason why -- for a staff member to be able to be requested to ask a question of the witness when members of congress can do so and we already passed a motion that said we would give an extra hour to do so and that again, if the committee staff member holds a certificate of election for the united dates house of representatives, then they can ask questions, otherwise they should not. >> does the gentleman insist on this point of order? chairman, do the house rules provide percent questioning? is notion that this is some unprecedented move of the judiciary committee trying to find the truth and find the
facts is sort of -- >> will the gentleman yield for a question? >> it's stunning to me, but i think it basically makes the -- it eviscerates the underlying motion. but i withdraw my challenge, germane as it -- >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman? >> will the gentle and yield? >> i yield to the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much, mr. cicilline, but i want to add a couple of points to what you just said. the first thing is that it would of course be illegal for a member of the house of representatives to be on the committee staff and that is -- if that is the intention of it, the premise of this amendment is ilk on an impossibility. ok? unless when you use the word or when your staff uses the word holding a certificate, that means in their hands. i will yield to you to mean -- the purpose for which they hold it in their hand question mark is that what your staff meant
when they wrote this question mark >> i would like to respond. recognized. >> i meant that this is just as ridiculous to ask members of the staff to be up to question for next row or. again -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. i got you. , you knowchairman that the distinguished ranking member of the committee started off by saying that we should get to the work of the american people and that we have a very important piece of legislation we are trying to get to. yet all we are getting are these obstructionist legislative -- >> will the gentleman yield? i is some i time to yield and will might yield for a second. i want to make the point that this is all a major distraction from one of the most extraordinary pieces of correspondence in the history of the department of justice that was just made available to members of the committee. somebody put it on my desk and i want to state what this is. an extraordinary letter written
to william barr by the special counsel robert mueller. march the 27th. what it details, mr. chairman, attorney general barr was given a special counsel's report on the investigation into the events surrounding the 2016 campaign and russian influence. that was on march the 22nd. two days later, attorney general barr sent out the four page letter to congress, stating he needed all of this time in order to redo the redaction sprint it was a complicated process. the next day, special counsel letter dated the 25th, which according to this letter on the 27th enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the report marked with reductions to remove any information that
could be protected by federal procedures. mueller did the work. attorney general barr said he had to do it. all of the deletions i had already been made that involves decisions. materialng case and the need to be removed. all of that had already been done. we also had additional two sentences for review. march 25.n there were two sentences that need to be reviewed. attorney general barr held up the report for the next three and a half weeks. on march 27, apparently the special counsel was so incensed he sent another letter stating all of this and saying we have confirmed these sentences can be released publicly. they can be released to the public consistent with legal
requirements and department policy. i am requesting you provide these materials to congress and authorize their public release at this time. that was on march 27. mr. chairman, the attorney general did not release the redacted report until 22 days later, april 18. this was a pattern of obstructionism. we see this on hand. -- i yield back to the chairman. those remarks from the gentleman from maryland, the gentlelady from arizona will draw so we need to the truth. >> i will not withdraw. >> the gentleman has withdrawn.
the gentleman has withdrawn his point of order. i will recognize myself for five minutes. the amendment is frankly ridiculous. the amendment is ridiculous because it says in effect we disapprove of the motion. you vote against the motion. you don't have an eminent to say you don't like the motion. let's be real about what is going on here. the attorney general of the united states is afraid to subject himself to questioning for more than five minutes at a time by a lawyer in front of this committee.
why is he afraid? maybe because he clearly misrepresented and has been dishonest with the american people. been. chairman, that has -- that has not been stated. >> that is my speculation. the facts are what they are. for whatever reason he is afraid, he apparently does not want to answer questions. the committee wants them to answer questions. the committee is entitled to have its procedures. is minority on the committee -- can oppose the manner of asking questions part that motion -- that is their opposition to the motion before us. however, this motion is a simple motion. to permit questioning by staff. you are either for it or against it. to an important
piece of legislation. the ranking member told us in his opening statement he would engage in tactics. instead of opposing the motion, which they are entitled to do -- >> we will debate the motion. >> a point of order. instead of just opposing the motion and explaining, they are instead offering, frankly, silly amendments to waste time. and wedebate the motion will debate the motion. we will get to a vote on the motion within a half-hour. we have to go to newport deal. the motion is simple. either you propose to allow staff to question the witness or you don't. the motion does not need a lot of amendments. that is simply dilatory in this asmittee cannot function
members seek to waste as much time as possible. that is not a legitimate tactic or opposition. we are debating the amendment -- line >> mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from wisconsin. chairman, if the majority was so hot to get to the next bill that could have supported the motion to table and we could have started on the next bill and half-hour ago. they chose not to do so. what is going on here? i have never seen this. i have been on my committee over 40 years. seen, no matter how partisan a matter has become, an attempt to actually railroad changes to procedure. i want to talk about the changes of procedure.
it goes to who can ask questions. said, and i am somewhat paraphrasing them, there are some instances the staff has been able to ask questions. they talked about richard nixon and bill clinton impeachment inquiries. the chairman has repeatedly said this is not an impeachment inquiry, it is oversight. you are trying to have it both ways over on the majority side. you are trying to use the procedures of an impeachment committee in doing oversight. that is not fair to the witness and is not fair to members of the committee or the american public. there have been staffers outside of formal public hearing committee processes that have interviewed and asked questions of cabinet officials. job if thet of the
cabinet officials want to do that. it is up to the cabinet official to decide to do that. we have never in the 40 years that i had been on this interview or staff ask questions of a cabinet official during a public hearing. what the chairman is proposing to do is unprecedented. he talks a little bit about what happened in the iran-contra hearings in a 1987. i was around here, i was not on the committee but i was around here. the washington post reported a committee aide told the post there was an agreement that if members of the cabinet would be byfronted, it should be done senators and congressmen, not the staff. toy were referring directly secretary of state george schultz and attorney general edwin meese at the time.
one of the reasons during my chairmanship in the last decade is this committee operated so 115ciently that there was judiciary committee bills that were passed by both houses and signed into law by the president of the united states. we did not get involved in what is going on now. if the chairman wants to keep on going through with this, there is no justice in the judiciary committee that is something that will permanently scar this committee and set a precedent that will last for a long time. long after all of us leave the congress and maybe long enough were all of us have passed on to our great rewards. i would implore the chairman to think about what he is doing, to think about what the president he is setting, there has to be justice in this committee and where there has to be justice is to the minority party in this
committee. throughout the last four or five decades has stood up for justice in minority in the society. we have passed landmark civil rights -- if we got involved in this kind of debate over procedure and shutting out contrary views, which is what is being proposed here. those laws never would have made it on the books at the time that they were actually passed. our country would have been worse off for it. this is more than whether attorney general barr will be questioned by the staff. this has consequences far beyond that. , would ask the majority party in particular the chairman to step back and think about the consequences and what happens long after this controversy is over with. long after the presidential election of 2020 has come and
gone because people around here have a long memory and a bad aye willand a bad precedent last for a long time. >> the chatham from arizona. >> i am troubled from the proceedings today. the gentlelady from texas mentioned attorneys and counsel as a result will be the ones -- if this motion passes -- the chairman's motion -- will be the ones asking the question but that is not so because the language in this motion says a staff. the chairman himself said during his explanation of this would be concurrent to the additional hour under the previous motion, but that is not accurate, either.
there is no mention of concurrency in this motion, vis-a-vis the previous motion. additionally, we have heard extensively in the defense of opposing the lesko motion and supporting the dabbler motion referenced to the letter. -- the nadler motion. if you want to talk about something that is irrelevant and not germane to the motion, is the argument this letter out here. the real question is whether you are going to make this a pseudo-impeachment hearing by allowing staff to ask the questions, which is unprecedented and with that i would ask for unanimous consent datedit this cnn article tuesday, april 30, 2019.
i think the fact that someone made a motion to table in the chairman referred to this dilatory indicates this to normal hostility procedure that we are today. i view this as nothing more than a trial run for impeachment. having said that, mr. chairman, i moved to table the lesko amendment. a motion is made to table lesko amendment. all those in favor, say aye. the lesko amendment is tabled. >> i moved to adjourn. >> who moved to adjourn? motion to adjourn takes precedence. who made the motion? >> i did. >> you did. >> we will call the roll to
adjourn, which is not the middle. all in favor of the motion to adjourn? opposed? we will call the roll on the motion to adjourn. >> mr. nadler? >> no. >> mr. nadler about snow. -- mr. nadler votes no. >> missus jackson lee votes no. mr. johnson of georgia votes no. mr. richmond? >> mr. jeffries? mr. jeffries votes no. >> mr. cicilline? mr. atkins?
mis-direction votes no. miss demings? miss demings votes no. missus scanlon? missus scanlon votes no. miss mcbath? this mcbath votes no. mr. stanton? mr. stanton votes no. miss escobar? >> no. >> miss escobar votes no. >> mr. collins? aye >> mr. collins votes aye. mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes yes. mr. bux? mr. buck votes aye.
>> the motion is not debatable. >> point of order. >> point of order is not recognized. >> the previous question on what? the bill has been tabled. >> that is correct, mr. chairman. >> the underlying nadler motion has been just tabled. >> i am happy to make my point of order formal. >> we tabled the left go amendment. >> we voted to table. say when of the house the proposed amendment is stable, the pending measure also goes to the table. >> a motion to table what? thehat a proposed -- pending measure also goes to the table. very well. the motion is tabled. i offer the motion again.
i offer the same motion. >> point of order. >> the same motion. >> motion to adjourn. >> the previous question is called, the motion is not debatable. all those in favor of the previous question say aye. all opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> the motion was not red, mr. chairman. you never asked for consent. weyou can't do a motion if are not ready. >> point of order, we are in the middle of a vote. motion thation on a is not before the committee -- >> the clerk will call the role.
-- call the roll. reintroduced was and no one timely interject. >> we all object. >> we cannot have people shouting over each other. house rule 11, i now move that the committee adopt the motion to permit committee staff designated by the chair and drinking member to question the witness for additional hour. on the investigation into a russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. offered i chairman
jerrold nadler. motion pursuant to house rule 11 to remit committee staff designated by the chair and wrecking never to question the witness for additional hour equally divided between the majority and minority at any committee hearing titled oversight of the u.s. department of justice report by special counsel robert mueller on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters. >> the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. >> i move the previous question. >> i will take notice of the fact that the ranking member shouted in my ear that no notice was given. no notice is required. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for it -- recognized. >> the motion is not debatable. .ll those in favor will say aye
although supposed say no. chair, theion of the ayes have it. the clerk will call the roll on the previous question. >> mr. nadler votes aye. ms. jackson lee? .r. cohen votes aye mr. johnson of georgia? miss bass? miss bass votes aye. mr. jeffries votes aye. mr. cicilline votes aye. lou votes aye. mr. raskin votes aye. votes aye.
mr. buck? mr. buck votes no. miss robie votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. mcclintock? ms. lesko? miss lesko votes no. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
mr. gates, what was your vote? >> aye. mr. chairman, there are 23 nos.and 13 >> the motion of the previous question is adopted. >> i move to reconsider. from florida -- no. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for it >> i moved to reconsider. >> it is not recognized. >> how can i get recognized? why can't we recognize the motion to reconsider? he has not been recognized.
>> so we are not quick to recognize anyone? interestingve an point that we just discussed and i object -- the question is we have had two misconstruing of your motions. one thing was concurrent that is clearly not. the other thing is this applies to any hearing in the future in which it is entitled oversight of the department justice i special counsel robert mueller into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters print a relates to any hearing. >> i will ensure the gentleman that the motion is intended for tomorrow. if we intend to do it again, we will bring another motion. we vote on words on paper. words on paper say this is forever.
you are not even recognize emotions print >> the question is on the adoption of the motion of house rule 11. >> how do i get recognition? nobody has asked for a roll call. have it. .he clerk will call the roll >> mr. nadler votes aye. .iss jackson lee votes aye mr. johnson of georgia? mr. deutsch? mr. richmond? mr. jeffries? mr. cicilline? mr. cicilline votes aye.
mr. jordan votes no. mr. buck votes no. miss robie? this robie votes no. mr. cates? mr. gates votes no. mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. johnson of louisiana votes no. mr. mcclintock? mr. mcclintock votes no. missus lesko? missus lesko votes no. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no. mr. armstrong? be votes no. mr. cohen votes aye. >> the gentleman from florida.