|
Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following opening statement, as prepared, for the markup on the motion to permit Committee staff to question Attorney General William Barr following the end of Member questioning at tomorrow's oversight hearing of the Department of Justice:
"This motion is similar to my previous motion, differing only in that it would permit Committee staff, as designated by the Chair and Ranking Member, to question Attorney General Barr for the additional hour, equally divided between the Majority and Minority, following the end of Member questioning at tomorrow’s hearing. To be clear, this motion is intended to be concurrent with the additional hour of questioning provided for under the previously adopted motion. It is not an extra hour only for Committee staff.
"At his April 18 press conference, Attorney General Barr publicly committed to providing ‘the greatest degree possible of transparency concerning the special counsel's investigation, consistent with the law.’Permitting Committee staff to question Attorney General Barr for an extended period of time after Members have had the opportunity to question him is an important means by which this Committee can hold the Attorney General to that pledge.
"Last night, we learned that Special Counsel Mueller wrote a letter objecting to Attorney General Barr’s March 24th characterization of the Report because it ‘did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of the investigation,’ and requested the Attorney General to release the introductions and summaries prepared by the Special Counsel’s team. This morning, we received a copy of that letter and I ask unanimous consent to enter it into the Record.
"According to the Special Counsel’s letter, the Attorney General’s mischaracterization of the Report before releasing it to the public, created ‘public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.’ The Special Counsel went on to write that ‘this threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.’ In light of this news, it is critical that we question the Attorney General on the Committee’s terms.
"Committee staff questioning has long been an important, if underutilized, aspect of Congressional oversight that is in accordance with House rules and past precedent. The House Judiciary Committee has permitted Committee staff to question witnesses in the past, under both Democratic and Republican majorities, during both public hearings and private transcribed interviews.
"For example, Committee staff participated in questioning witnesses during impeachment inquiries into President Nixon, President Clinton, and Judge Thomas Porteous. And last Congress, during the Republican-led investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, Committee staff questioned several FBI and DOJ officials, including then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI Director James Comey, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
"Some have expressed the concern that it is somehow inappropriate for Committee staff to question a sitting Attorney General. There is ample House precedent, however, for Committee staff to question sitting cabinet level and Senate-confirmed officials during a hearing.
"The most salient precedent for this occurred in 1987, during the House and Senate Hearings on the Iran Contra scandal, when Committee staff questioned sitting Attorney General Ed Meese. Committee staff also questioned Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz.
"I would also note that in 1997, under a Republican Majority, at a hearing held before the House Oversight Committee with Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh that Committee agreed to proceed under the rules to permit ‘the chairman and ranking minority member [to] allocate time to committee counsel, as they deem appropriate, for extended questioning.’
"On a final note, there are reports that the Attorney General will refuse to appear tomorrow if this Committee proceeds with staff questioning. In spite of all the precedent I have cited, I would note that Congress does not need to justify to the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, or any other part of the Executive Branch the manner in which it chooses to conducts its own proceedings. And no witness can simply dictate to this Committee the manner in which he or she is questioned when it is fully in accordance with House rules.
"Attorney General Barr publicly committed to being transparent regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation. He should welcome the opportunity to speak candidly and at length before the House Judiciary Committee and the American people."
|