Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. House Of Representatives House De

May consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Himes madam chair, i rise in support of the amended resolution which demands rovision to the congressional Intelligence Committees of a whistleblower complaint which withheld. D. N. I. Has the law, however, required the submit it to to the committees. This is a serious matter, madam i. C. For whistleblowering, congressional oversight and the rule of law. It, let me ing to express my deep gratitude for he actions of a courageous and anonymous individual in the Intelligence Community. That person wanted to report allegations of serious wrongdoing and did the trickeding by acting in ccordans to proper whistleblower procedures. This will protect National Security. That mechanism, in august, the whistleblower made a complaint to the inspector Intelligence Community. According to the Justice Departments legal opinion complaint, which it today released to the public, the whistleblowers allegations content of a telephone call between President Trump and a foreign leader. Inspector general determined the complaint to be urgent, matter that the meant met important statutory the allegations appeared to be credible. The Inspector General months ater would write that the complaints allegations not only fell, quote, within the d. N. I. s jurisdiction, unquote, but that they, quote, relate to one of and ost important significant responsibilities to unquote. Can people, that is protecting the united interferenceoreign elections. N strict accordans to the statutory rules, they passed his determination to the acting director of National Intelligence. Acting director was obligated, was obligated to material to the congressional intelligence ommittees within seven days of receipt. But in controvention of the law, that. Used to do there can be no misreading of he provision imposing that obligation. Shall, that the d. N. I. Shall forward the materials to the House Intelligence Committee to our colleagues at the senate Intelligence Committee. Shall, of course, means shall. It does not mean, can if you want to. Despite this unambiguous categorical directive, the trump interfered with the timetested process for i. C. Blowing. Whistleblowing. As public reports suggested, the potentially had the of power by buse President Trump, which the public learned this morning. Wont detail this episode, but released today plainly shows the president of the United States shaking down ukrainian counterpart for a, quote, favor. Ukraines ation by authorities with close oordination by Rudy Giuliani and attorney general bill barr vice he son of former president joe biden. The former Vice President for lf, being a candidate the u. S. Presidency. So the administration got the of ice Departments Office Legal Counsel involved. T got the white House Counsel involved. And without invoking National Security or making a claim of privilege, it managed to get a staggeringly flawed egal opinion from the department of justice. The opinions reasoning is face. Us on its according to the department of justice, the whistleblower apply to the t complaint and the complaint, therefore, did not have to be orwarded to the committees because the complaints llegations do not relate to an urgent concern, meaning, the funding, administration, or peration of an intelligence activity under the d. N. I. s authority and responsibility. D. O. J. Regard, the observed that the alleged conduct was committed by the president who is outside of and above the i. C. I point out that is irrelevant under the statute. All that is required is that the allegation relate to an intelligence activity within the d. N. I. s purview. The d. O. J. Also faulted the i. C. I. G. , Inspector General, for not citing a statute or policy that gave the d. N. I. The responsibility to look into foreign interference in our elections. Think about t having in mind what our country went through in 2016, when russia under took covert as well as overt measures president ial s. Election and to sew discord which the Trump Campaign welcome with open arms. With that history and nothing about the rules on the books, we can easily dispose of the claim that the Intelligence Community as captained by the acting d. N. I. Has no operational role in keeping adversary governments from meddling in our democratic processes. That assertion is ignorant, it is wrong, and it bespeaks a serious misunderstanding about the d. N. I. s authorities and activities of the United States Intelligence Community. The d. O. J. s cramp viewed would come as news to President Trump, i suspect, given the executive order he issued in september of 2018 regarding foreign interference in our elections, which requires the d. N. I. After every federal election in this country, to assess whether such interference has taken place. And to report his assessment to the rest of the executive branch. That sounds a lot like a serious role for the d. N. I. To me. I immammingin the department of justices view would also come as a shock to the acting d. N. I. Himself. After all, by statute, the d. N. I. Is the head of the u. S. Intelligence community and the principle intelligence advisor to the president and the National Security counsel, among other things. As the Inspector General correctly noted, one mission of the Intelligence Community among its Core Missions is to protect the United States against hostile intelligence activities directed against it. That would include any hostile foreign intelligence activities associated with efforts by foreign adversaries to interfere in our elections. So i am stunned that the acting d. N. I. Would accept legal advice like this. Which strains to minimize or ignore the functions and responsibilities that the d. N. I. Carries out or at least i hope, routinely. M also stunned that the odni would acquiesce an advice that if permitted to stand would do such extraordinary damage. By conferring on the d. N. I. The discretion to opt out of what is plainly mandatory, the department of justice neutered a statute governing Intelligence Community whistle blowing. Overturned years of consistent practice, and most damaging of all, called into doubt important protections from reprisal on which this whistleblower relied and other lawful whistleblowers in the i. C. Have relied. I can only imagine the Chilling Effect that the department of justices approach will have on lawful i. C. Whistle blowing and thus on the Intelligence Committees ability to conduct oversight of intelligence activities. Madam speaker, let me end with a note about the state of play, which is fluid to say the least. I understand that the executive branch may make some of the whistleblowers materials available to the committee this afternoon, but the Details Remain sketchy and the committee may not yet receive a complete and unredacted form all the information that the acting d. N. I. Is obligated to funnish by law and that we have sought by subpoena. The committee will settle for nothing less. However the situation is resolved, madam speaker, the house has no choice but to denounce the extraordinary lengths to which the white house and Justice Department have gone to cover up and obstruct. I strongly support the resolution as amended and i urge my colleagues to join me. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from california madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. I rise today the speaker pro tempore the gentleman will suspend. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the president. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Nunes thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in support of h. Res. 576 as amended. This resolution which mirrors a resolution passed by the senate yesterday expresses the sense of the house that the whistleblower complaint received by the Intelligence Community Inspector General should be immediately transmitted to the congressional Intelligence Committees. Madam speaker, this complaint has given rise to fevered speculation and frenzied media reporting, much of which is based on the transcript of the president s phone call released today. It appears to be exaggerated, misleading, or out right false. Its also serving as a linchpin of a longstanding attempt by the democrats to impeach President Trump. And finally, achieve their goal of overturning the results of the 2016 election. The Media Coverage and democrats hysterical and politicized response to it is reminiscent of countlets episodes during the course of the russia collusion hoax. Thus republicans look forward to actually reading the material and which on which the democrats from a position of ignorance are basing their unrestrained accusations, and i should make the house aware that its roughly 3 00 in the afternoon here in washington, d. C. And at 4 00 this afternoon, in fact the d. N. I. Is going to transmit the complaint to the Intelligence Committee spaces where all the Intelligence Committee members will have an opportunity to read it. So therefore we have to did ourselves why are we voting on a resolution that is asking for the very documents that are being sent over that are probably on their way right now, if they are not already here. With that i guess it gives an opportunity for the democrats to come down and bash the president , which i know they enjoy doing. But in the meantime we have no h. Res. 576, asis amended. We appreciate the majority accepting our amendment so that it mirrors exactly what the Senate Passed last night. In the meantime i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from connecticut. Mr. Himes madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that mr. Schiff of california control the remainder of the time. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman from california. Mr. Schiff madam speaker, im proud to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. Sewell. The speaker pro tempore the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. Ms. Sewell madam speaker, this is a sobering moment in our nations history when the rule of law and constitutional duty requires congress to move swiftly to protect our National Security and the integrity of our democracy. In my time on the House Intelligence Committee, i have been amazed and grateful for the work of our Intelligence Community performing every day. We hold these men and women accountable to the rule of law and expect them to adhere to the principles of our constitution. In return, those great americans expect their elected leaders to be held accountable to the same standards. Above all, their commander in chief. President trumps refusal to adhere to the whistleblower statute and his unwarranted attacks against one ever these professionals flies in the face of that compact. The statute is clear, madam speaker. The director of the National Intelligence shall provide the Intelligence Community committee with all whistleblower complaints, especially those that the i. G. Finds credible and of urgent concern. It should not take this resolution or the threat of impeachment to convince the president to uphold the law he swore to obey. I urge my colleagues to support h. R. 576 resolution and honor our oaths and do the right thing. Yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman from california. Mr. Nunes i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from ohio, dr. Wenstrup, control the remainder of the time. The speaker pro tempore without objection. The gentleman from ohio. Mr. Wenstrup thank you, madam chair. I appreciate this. Im glad we are having the opportunity to bring this resolution the speaker pro tempore yield him does the gentleman yield himself time . Mr. Wenstrup as much time as i may consume. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Miss wenstrup im pleased we are going to be able mr. Wenstrup im pleased we are going to be able to get to the documents requested in this resolution. If there is going to be a resolution, that it is the one the senate put forward in a bipartisan fashion. This is what we asked for in rules last night and im glad that it has come forward today. The question in hand, we have heard lots of comments, some of it rehashing old history, some of it rehashing history that it was disproven by the Mueller Report, but at the same time we are questioning what the d. N. I. s authority is in this situation according to statute. It should be discussed. In this situation why the d. N. A. Determined that this did not that this should not be sent to congress, it also did not end the review of the complaint because the complaint was given to d. O. J. For appropriate review. D. O. J. Officials reviewed the complaint, in light of legal issues identified by the icig and his cover letter and determined no further action was warranted. Tomorrow we are going to hear from the d. N. I. In the Intelligence Committee, which i think is appropriate. As i pointed out last night in rules, i dont think that the other side would be happy if we only heard from the d. N. I. And not the i. G. So it is appropriate that we do that. Talk about the timely fashion of it. Well, i think it is appropriate that you go through the department of justice make sure that you are doing everything right. D. N. I. To hear from the tomorrow. We also have received the transcripts of the conversation between the president of the ukraine and the president of the United States. The president made supposedly and is being accused of making mysterious promise to zelensky in return for ukraine reviving and investigation against joe biden and his son. The fact there was no such promise. The president wanted allegations of corruption potentially involving an american official to be investigated. What i see in this transcript is the president of one country speaking to a president of another country about trying to eliminate corruption within their governments. The other comment that had been made is the president offered a quid pro quo related to military aid for ukraine. There is no quid pro quo in that conversation. There is no mention of aid package to ukraine at all. Its not in there at all. So while one might want to deep saying that keep saying that, its not in there. Another myth, the president urged president zelensky to work with Rudy Giuliani to investigate bidens involvement in securing the firing of a ukrainian prosecutor eight times. Fact, the president mentioned Rudy Giuliani in that conversation only after zelensky mentioned him first. And referred to biden in only one exchange. I, myself, have some confusion on what the rules are within the Intelligence Community and involving the executive branch. A couple years ago in an open hearing when we were discussing with john brennan, this is in an opening hearing, former c. I. A. Director, an expert in intelligence, when i asked him about the conversation between president obama and president medvedev, whether it was caught on tape, he said ill have more flexibility after my reelection. And medvedev said ill stand with you and let president putin in a moment i asked him if that was a red flag. His answer was, im not going to comment on a private conversation between two heads of state. So since that time i have wondered what the rules are within the Intelligence Community. Are conversations between two heads of state completely off limits within the i. C. . I dont know. And i have asked that will question time and time again and i have asked some people, high ranking officials that should know the answer to that and i have gotten no answer. What i heard in the testimony here today, i heard someone say, quote, favor. Quote, favor. In response to potential of this president asking for a favor. I did not see that, and i dont know who made the quote. I would like some clarification on that. But where we stand right now is kind of a recurring playbook. Its always moving the goal posts. We want to see these documents, ok. President s giving you the documents. Ok. We are going to see what the whistleblower had to say. And now what do we hear . Well, im concerned that there may be more out there that we are not getting. Always moving the goal posts. I sneak in favor of this resolution. We should get i speak in favor of this resolution. We should get to it. Move on to the business of the country. At this time i reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from california. Mr. Schiff madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that