tv House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Mueller Report CSPAN June 10, 2019 10:08pm-11:20pm EDT
amendment is adopted. this and the original judicial markup. announcer: the house is now set resolution authorizing the committee chairman, jerry nadler to take action against attorney general william barr and white house counsel donald mcgahn. more coverage tomorrow here on c-span. a look at how this came to this. the house judiciary committee met to discuss how they would proceed with questioning the attorney general. the democrats wanted to have committee staff ask questions. here is that debate, starting with committee chair jerrold nadler.
rep. nadler: to be clear, this motion is not an extra hour only for committee staff. at his info 18 press conference, attorney general barr committed to providing the greatest degree possible transparency concerning the special counsel's investigation consistent with the law. permitting committee staff to question him after the members have had an opportunity to question him is an important means by which this committee can hold the attorney general to that pledge and get more information. last night, renowned that special counsel robert mueller wrote a letter objecting to the march 24 characterization of the report by attorney general barr because it quote " did not fully
capture the context, nature and substance of the investigation, and he requested the attorney general to release the introductory summaries resented by the special counsel and his team. we received a copy of that letter, and ask it be entered into record. essentially it says that the attorney general misled the public as to the contents of the report. according to the letter, the attorney general's mischaracterization of the report created confusion in the public. the special counsel and on to write that "this threatens to undermine the purposes of that appointment of a "pecial counsel. inlet of this news, it is critical that we question the attorney general on the committee? >>s terms. committee staff has always been important. it is in complete accordance with house rules and past
. precedent. for example, the committee staffer to submitting questioning witnesses during impeachment inquiries for president nixon, president clinton and judge thomas,. doing theess, republican-that investigation into the fbi's handling of the hillary clinton name of investigation, committee staff questioned several f.b.i. and d.o.j. officials including fbi director andrew mccabe, former fbi director james comey, and former attorney general, loretta lynch. some have expressed concern that it is appropriate for committee staff to question a sitting attorney general. there is ample precedent for committee staff to question cabinet level and senate confirmed officials.
the most recent occurred in the 1987 during the hearings on the iran-contra scandal, where the committee questioned the sitting attorney general aned meece. 1997ld also note that in under a republican majority,, without hearing with attorney general janet reno, the judiciary committee agreed to proceed with the roles permitting the chairman and ranking member to allocate time for counsel questioning. is a report that the attorney general may refuse to appear tomorrow. in spite of all the president i have cited, i note that congress does not need to have to justify to the attorney general, to the department of justice the matter for ways that it would choose is conduct its own proceedings.
is an obstruction of congress. no witness can dictate to the committee the manner in which he or she is questioned when it is fully in accordance with house rules. welcome the opportunity to speak candidly, and come to the hearing. he should welcome to the toortunity to speak candidly the american people and to the committee. i don't know if he is afraid of. i tell recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, mr. collins, for his opening statement. chairman.ou, mr. before i begin, i have to make a clarification. it violates the rules of the house, but these are not concurrent motions. they cannot be concurrent. they cannot run together. according to the was of the house, they cannot run concurrent. it is not in the motion.
i am just making the statement based on the opening statement. these cannot run concurrent. that has been discussed this week in depth. i want to make it clear to the committee. these are two separate hours we are discussing. they are not concurrent. they are not concurrent. an awareness year, this is two more hours we are adding on this committee. the first hour, we had no problem with it. the members can do that. but it is not part of the motion and it is not concurrent if we go forward. last week where we were off, i had to do my annual training in the air force. i looked ahead in my schedule and i got back in my room, i looked ahead and i said, this will be a good week in the judiciary committee. we will have markups. we will do what we are supposed to be doing. we actually did stuff to help the american people.
that was a good thing. and it was a great day. event with a bill i disagree with like today, that is part of congress, that is part of the , we will do a markup. then on thursday, we were finally going to get to talk to the attorney general and ask questions. even to the point of making sure timeboth sides had as much as they can get. then over the weekend, it was discussed and leaked to the press that we are deciding turnout now add in something recedentnot p not, because doug collins says so or anyone else says so, but because it was fact checked. foras not been a precedent this committee to use staff in a full hearing in the judiciary
committee. everything laid out by the chairman a few moments ago, he listed two incidence of impeachment, the impeachment of the select committee, and also dan burton in the house oversight committee, which come again, is not the judiciary committee. events that took place in transcript that were not public testimony. my problem here is this, bill barr so far, and you can disagree, but up until a few weeks ago, he was a good man. up until a few weeks ago, people thought he was a good attorney. f until a few weeks ago, robert mueller was the top investigator until the report came out and you didn't like what he had to say. it is amazing to me the words that have been said at this point. there are two reasons for this motion. one is that the chairman has decided along with the majority that they want to appear as if they are doing impeachment.
they want to have an impeachment-like inquiry. but the problem is they can't bring themselves to bring impeachment. they can't bring themselves to take one of the resolutions already addressed on the democratic side, to this committee and open impeachment and that is what they want to do. open it up. and we begin the process. but instead, they want the appearance of impeachment to talk to others, to impugn their integrity, so we can smear the president ahead of the 2020 election. there is no precedent. that says this, we just want to do it. another thing that bothers me here, i have sat on the committee for six years, i have watched on the other side some very good members ask questions. tennessee, i from watched him blister. .r. raskin from maryland
i'm impressed by the new members on the committee. you can do this. why would you want to say something that a staff member can do if you can do it better than you can? put your money down. run for congress. i was told earlier this week that we are doing staff questioning because it saves time. wrong. it adds another hour. it cannot streamline questioning because at the end, let us be honest, what we're doing is trying to put a staff member at the end to try and catch the attorney general in saying something that he can be asked about later. this is all this is. believee go forward, i bill barr has done exactly what he said he will do. he said he would release the
report. he said, these are the findings of the report. even in the letter he mentioned today, nowhere does it to the robert mueller disagreed with the findings. that is not true. he was wanting to get the report possible.n as what we have here is another opportunity to sidetrack. to have a sideshow of stepping on our own feet. maybe this is what we're dealing with, we will do the motion this morning, then we will hope and hope that bill barr, will say no, i don't want to come. then we offer him maybe tomorrow. meta-theatre of the day, that is not the way this -- but at the end of the day, this is not the way the committee should operate. whether you agree with the president or not, this was our chance to talk about some o best to talk about the mueller report. but now, we will have a
sideshow. bill barr is testifying before the senate judiciary committee. no theatrics, except questions about the report. why is that so hard for us? look likewe wanted to impeachment because democrats are in the majority. you wanted 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, if we are going down this road, this will slow down a lot of stuff. the good things we can do in this committee. the crisis in our border. the intellectual property issues. everything else we can do, will fall victim to a stunt. it will fall victim to a play. if our part of the majority at this time, i would have asked my staff to help me ask good questions. undoubtedly, that is know what it is. they want to make it look like an impeachment hearing when it is not, because they do have the
put an, or want to, impeachment inquiry after. where i am from, if you take something simple and miss it up, you are either intentional or you are not sure what you are doing. we had the chance to have the attorney general here tomorrow and do away with this and get onto a markup of a real feel. instead, we will spend in well talking about a theatrical stunt. nothing butome theater. with that, i yield back. mr. nadler >> are there any amendments? report by special counsel robert investigationhe
in russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. for what purposes does the gentle lady seek recognition? >> strike the last word. chairman, we have served here for a long time, and it would venture to say that we are colleagues and even friends on a number of issues we have worked on. and i say that to the ranking member. that we have had an opportunity to work extensively together. i would also corrected the record to indicate that every single member on this committee has been profound in their questioning and articulated, pointed and direct questioning 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 to lead motion has nothing to do with members asking questions.
if you read the question to my good friend, it is that every member will ask a question and .ounsel also ask democrats have no fear of the word impeachment. impeachment-like proceeding. is clear that our friends on the other side would relish an immediate jump to a process which we are smarter than that. because what we're doing is investigating for the truth and investigating to edify the american people. if you want to know why, the chairman and i don't pretend to speak to him and interrogate,, i would offer -- and i don't pretend to speak for him in their entirety, but i would, mention that this letter from robert mueller is a very profound way on which to proceed. in the body of the letter, it
says -- the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and department policy. letter dated march 27. ofhappens to be the month may. 1.are now on may i am requesting you provide these materials to congress and otherwise their public release at this time. the summary letter the department sent to congress, this is mr. mueller speaking, and released to the public much 24, did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office' workings and conclusionss. we communicated that to the department on the morning of march 25. there is now public confusion about the critical aspects of the investigation. this princeton to undermine the -- in thispose pretense to undermine the central purpose for which this department appointed a special
counsel. he goes on to say, release it. i think it is established to gear directly to the truth. it is supported by previous such session when lawyers for staff have been it were to ask russians. in fact, i have been in lots of proceedingsdoor when staff of asked questions along with the death of the oversight. that is not protected this is something just dropped from a foreign sky. the narrative created by the administration begs the question inquiryg the additional by staff, which is now being allowed for the minority. and then, to answer the question, for someone who has had the privilege of serving on this committee for a while, and some members can join me, note, if a document has come out, like
volume one and volume two, under the previous administration impeachment would have started before the documents even came to the d.o.j.. i am not fooled by this. but democrats, in their essence of justice and equity are simply seeking to say to the american people, there is no fear here, but there is a respect and dignity to the process in which we have to engage. so i would rise. to support the underlying motion. i would say to my good friends, including the ranking member, as he well knows, we have passed legislation together, we have traveled to different cities in the police working group in a bipartisan manner. there is no hesitancy to be bipartisan on this committee, and not by democrats. we ask you to join us in voting motion, that does nothing but giving asked her time as ability for your lawyers to ask weston's but we best to
ask questions. -- we will not be full giving you extra time and ability for your lawyers to ask questions. -- for the undying quest for truth. this. nadler: let me say there is one amendment at the desk. we have an important bill to consider. we will not spend a lot of time on this motion. after this amendment, we will vote on the motion. gentleman from florida is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i moved to table this. >> the gentleman from florida is not recognized. >> a privileged motion was made after being recognized. >> that is not true. it takes precedence. >> no. we are not going to go down the line. >> mr. chairman, i moved to
15 ayes and 22 nos. nadler: the motion is approved. the diamond from florida is recognized for the purpose of an amendment that the gentleman from florida is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. sorry, the question is on the adoption of the motion pursuant to -- [indiscernible] >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman? mr. chairman? i seek recognition. chairman nadler: the vote is agreed to. >> you will not recognize members of the committee who motion?speak on this mr. chairman, i have asked for recognition. chairman nadler: the clerk will now report --
[indiscernible] >> we ought to big limb by the rules and giving people a chance to debate. no wonder they attorney general doesn't want to come here and testify when you are running things without regard for debate. just chairman nadler: we are in the middle of about. the clerk will report on the result. >> point of inquiry. >> there will be entertained after a report of the results. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman. >> we have already asked for it. >> i thought he recognized the gentleman from florida for an amendment. >> mr. chairman, you said you would recognize -- >> mr. chairman, move to table. >> mr. chairman, i moved to amend.
>> mr. chairman, i moved to adjourn! [gavel bangs] >> we were in the middle of a debate and you ended it. >> mr. chairman, i moved to adjourn. chairman nadler: regular order! [gavel bangs] >> motion to adjourn. chairman nadler: the motion to adjourn is not in order during a rollcall. rollcall vote? can you report the results? the clerk will report the results. mr. chairman, i feel -- ayes and 22 were 15
nos. mr. chairman, there were 15 ayes, 22 nos on the motion to table. chairman nadler: the motion to table is not adopted. we didn't even, get the results of the earlier vote. chairman nadler: we just did. >> know, the one before that. chairman nadler: the table is not adopted. >> that was previous. chairman nadler: next item on the agenda was mr. gates. i need to apologize, gentlemen. chairman nadler: the motion to table is not adopted. >> i have an amendment. table what? chairman nadler: mr. gates is offering an amendment? >> yes. chairman nadler: clerk will
report. a point of order is reserved. the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to the motion offered by mr. gates of florida, amend the motion to read as follows. motion to remove attorney general william barr and the 2019ss on the may second full committee hearing entitled oversight over the u.s. department of justice, report by special counsel robert mueller, on the special counsel's investigation into russian interference in the 2016 residential election and related matters, and replace attorney general barr with special counsel mueller at the hearing. chairman nadler: does the gentleman insist on this point of order? >> yes. i don't think that mimicked his germane. a changes completely the point of the motion. >> mr. chairman, i am able to introduce my -- chairman nadler: the
gentleman is explaining his point of order. >> the motion before the committee is to extend the questioning of a week -- questioning of a witness who has been requested to appear. this motion is to change the witness so i believe it is not motion.to the >> mr. chairman, on a point of order. chairman nadler: excuse me, the gentleman from rhode island has made a point of order. i will now rule on that. . your point of order is not on the table at this point. does the gentleman wish to be heard? >> yes, i do. chairman nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. chairman, the subject matter of the hearing was the report on the special counsel's investigation. all this motion does is change the witnesses. who does not change the subject matter of the hearing. it continues to be an investigation by the special counsel.
what the gentleman from florida is proposing to do is merely to change the name of the witness. germane because of 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 it is not germane should be held not well taken. chairman nadler: the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the points made by the gentleman from wisconsin are irrelevant, because of the amendment is not to the hearing notice, and it also.be ungermane to that the motion before us is to permit staff 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 motion is about.
it is beyond the scope of the motion, totally o ungermane. benjamin appeals the ruling of the chair. ruling ofo table the the chair. all in favor say aye. opposed. is requested on a motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nadler. >> aye. logfrin. >> aye. >> mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mr. dortch. >> aye. >> miss bass. mr. richmond. mr. jeffries.
mr. cicilline. >> aye. >> mr. swalwell. mr. lieu. >> aye. mr. raskin. >> aye. miss jayapal. >> aye. >> miss deming's. >> aye. >>. >> mr. correa. aye. >> miss garcia. >> aye. >> mr. neguse. >> aye. >> miss macbeth. >> aye. >> mr. stanton. >>. >> aye. >> miss newcastle powertel. >> aye. >> miss escobar. >> aye. >> mr. collins.
>> no. >> mr. sensenbrenner. >> no. chaffetz. >> no. >> mr. gomer. >> no. >> mr. jordan. >> no. >> mr. buck. >> no. >> mr. ratcliffe. ms. robie. >> no. mr. gates. >> no. >> mr. johnson of louisiana. >> no. >> mr. biggs. >> no. >> mr. mcclintock. >> miss lesko. >> no. >> mr. rosenthaler. >> no. >> mr. klein. >> no. >> mr. armstrong.
the clerk will announce the results. clerk: mr. chairman, there are nos.es and1 15 chairman nadler: is there an amendment at the desk? whose amendment is it? the chai gentlelady from arizona is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> mr. chairman, i reserve a point of order. chairman nadler: that gentlelady will expand her amendment. you, mr. chair. the amendment says it will strike the words committee staff and insert committee staff
holding a valid election certificate to the united states house of representatives. yes, it made me laugh when i too.ght about it because all members, all members of congress can ask whatever questions they want. we are ready agreed to a motion by the chairman to extend the amount of time for another hour. that sayis no rules that attorneys for the democratic staff can't stand right behind a member of congress and hand them the exact question they want to ask. so i see no reason for a staff member to be able to be requested to ask questions of the witness when the members of congress can do so. we already passed a motion that said we would are our to do so.
if the committee staff member holds a certificate of election for the united states house of representatives, then they can ask questions. otherwise, they should not. regimentnadler: the insist on his point of order? >> mr. chairman, the house rules questioning.tuff so this motion that this is some unprecedented move by the judiciary committees actually trying to find the truth, is stunning to me. , itink it basically makes is the civic the underlying motion. i withdraw my challenge. >> with the chairman yield? what the chairman yield. >> i yield to the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much, mr. cicilline. i want to add a couple of points to what you said.
first thing, it would be illegal for a member of the house of representatives to be on the committee staff. if that is the intention of it, the premise of this amendment is built on an impossibility. , or youruse the word staff uses the word holding a certificate, means in their hand. i yield to you the purpose of saying, do you mean a committee staff will literally holds a certificate in their hand? is that what your staff meant as a wrote this? >> mr. chair, i would like to respond. chairman nadler: the lady is recognized. >> what i meant is that it is just as ridiculous to ask members of staff to be able to ask questions for next hour. >> i got where you are going. distinguishedthe ranking member of the started off by saying that we should get to the work of the american people.
we an important piece of legislation, yet all we are getting are these obstructions and legislative attacks. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. let me make this point. this is obstruction for one of the most excellent and there are pieces of correspondence in the history of the department of justice, just made available to members of the committee. somebody put it on my desk. this is an extraordinary letter written to attorney general william barr by the special onnsel robert mueller iii march 27. what it details is this remarkable chronology where on march 22, attorney general barr was given the special counsel's intot on the investigation the events surrounding the 2016 campaign and russian influence. that was march 22. two days later, the attorney general sent to the now infamous for page letter to congress --
e letter to congress stating that he needed time to do reductions and it was a very complicated process. the very next day, special letter mueller sent a which imposed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the special counsel report marked with reductions to remove any information that could be protected by federal rules and criminal procedure 6e. in other words, robert mueller did the work that the attorney general said he would do. all the reductions that had been made had dirty been discussed. in other words, -- all the redactios had already been discussed. all of the work had already been done. two sentences for
review. there were two sentences that needed to be reviewed on march 25, and attorney general barr held that the report for the next three and a half weeks. but on march 27, the special counsel was apparently so incensed by the obstructionism, he sent another letter saying, we have now confirmed that these two sentences can be publicly. accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and department policy. i am requesting that you provide these materials to congress and authorize public release at this time. that was on march 27. their attorney general did not release the redacted report 18.l 22 days later, april it is a pattern of outrageous obstructionism, continued in the report and that we see on hand. unfortunately, from our
colleagues today, as they threw out amendment after ridiculous amendment, i yield back to the gentleman. >> i would just ask in light of those eloquent remarks from the gentleman from maryland come out the lady from arizona will get a ruling on her amendment so we can get to the truth in a serious way -- whether she will withdraw her amendment so that we can get to the truth in a serious way. >> no, i will not. chairman nadler: the gentleman has withdrawn his point of order. by gentlelady has spoken in favor of firmament. i will speak in opposition to her amendment. i will recognize myself for five minutes. the amendment is frankly -- no.ous because the young lady spoke. and then there was a point of order. there amendment is ridiculous
because it says that in fact, we disapprove the motion. motion,isapprove of the you voted against it, you do make an amendment to say that. number one. number two, let us be real about what is going on here. the attorney general 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? clearlycause he misrepresented and has been dishonest with the american people. >> mr. chairman. that has not been said. chairman nadler: it is my speculation. >> well. meaning the character at the same time of what we're doing here. chairman nadler: the facts are what they are. ,or whatever reason he's afraid he is certainly does not want to answer questions. the committee wants him to answer questions. the committee is entitled to
have its procedures. the minority in the committee is entitled to oppose the manner of asking questions and that is what the motion before us does -- and that is what their opposition to the motion does. however, this motion is a very simple motion, to permit questioning by staff. you are either for it, or you are against it. we have to get to a very important piece of legislation. the ranking member told us in his opening statement that he would engage in dilatory tactics. we see those tactics now. instead of just opposing the motion and explaining their reason -- >> we will debate the motion. point of order. 's setan nadler: gentleman of just opposing the motion and explaining the reasons why --
gentlemen, we can debate the motion. .ou will debate the motion but we will get to a vote on the motion within a half-hour because we have to go to a very important bill. the motion is simple. either you allow staff to question the witness. or you don't. does not need a lot of debate. it is simply dilatory and this committee cannot sanction if its members that cannot function if its members simply seek to cause obstruction. we are debating the lesko amendment. in the other people who seek recognition on the lesko amendment? >> mr. chairman, i moved to strike the last words. >> mr. chairman, if the majority were so hot to get to the next
bill, they would have supported the motion to table, but they chose not to do so. what is going on here? i have never seen. i have been on this committee throughout my service in congress, over 40 years. i have never seen, no matter how bipartisan the matter has become -- no matter how partisan the matter has become, an attempt to railroad changes in procedure. i want to talk about the changes in procedure which go to who can ask questions. last night, on cnn, it was said, i am somewhat paraphrasing, that there are some instances where the staff has been able to ask questions. they talked about both richard nixon and bill clinton impeachment inquiries. that chairman has repeatedly said, this is not an impeachment inquiry, it is oversight. now, 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. it is not fair to the witness and not fair to members of the committee or to the american public. there have been staffers outside of formal public hearing committee processes that have interviewed and asked questions of cabinet officials. that is part of the job, if the cabinet officials want to do that, it is up to the official who decides to do that. but we have never in the 40 years that i have been on this ormittee had staff interview ask questions of the cabinet official, during a public hearing. what the chairman is proposing to do is unprecedented. whatlks a little bit about happened in the wrong contra in thes of 1987 --
iran-contra hearings of 1987. i was around here, not in the committee, but i was around here. reportedington post" that there was an agreement that members of the cabinet, if they were to be confronted, and should be done by senators and members of congress, not the staff. referring directly to secretary of state george shultz and attorney general edwin meese at the time. one of the reasons doing my chairmanship in the last decade that this committee operated so 115ciently that there were judiciary committee bills passed by both houses and signed into law by the president of the united states is that we did not get involved in procedural --that is going on now. there is no justice in the
judiciary committee if the chairman wishes to go on like this. that is something that will committee, scar this and set a precedent that will last a long, long, time. long after we all leave the congress, and long enough where all of us have passed on. i would implore the chairman to think about what he's doing. to think about what the resident is setting. there has to -- to think about what the precedent is setting. there has to be justice in this committee. throughout the last four or five decades, this committee has stood up for justice for minorities in this society. we have passed landmark civil rights legislation, mostly on a bipartisan basis. 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 out of the books at the time that they were 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 for beyond that. i would ask the judiciary chairman to think about the consequences, to think about what happens long after this controversy is over with, long after the 2020 presidential election has come and gone. because people around here have a long memory, and a bad precedent, which this is, is going to last forever. please don't do it that way. i yield back. chairman nadler: gentleman from arizona mr. biggs. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am troubled at the proceedings today and the things that have been said.
the gentlelady from texas mentioned attorneys and counsel, as a result, if this motion passes, would be the ones, not the lesko motion, would be the ones asking the question. but that is not necessarily so. the language in this motion says staff. the chairman himself said during his explanation that this would be concurrent under the previous motion. but that is not accurate either because there is no mention of concurrency in this motion vis-a-vis their previous motion. additionally, we heard from, in the defense of all closing the lesko motion and supporting that matter motion, we have heard of reference to the letter. talkhe letter does not about whether we should allow staff to ask questions. if you want to talk about something that is irrelevant to this question, just say, oh,
there is this letter here. the real question here is whether you will make this a pseudo-impeachment hearing by allowing staff to ask questions, which is unprecedented. with that, would ask for the chairman to admit . >> someone made a motion to table and chairman referred to indicates this incredible hostility to normal procedure that we're seeing today. i view this as nothing more than impeachment. having said that, mr. chairman, move to table. motion made to table.
those in favor say aye. opposed? tabled. is >> mr. chairman i move to adjourn. chairman point of order. adjourn.to adjourn takes precedence. adjourn. motion to clerk will call the role on rn which is not debatable. >> wait, wait. motion to adjourn? aye. opposed? no? no? n to call role on motio adjourn. miss jackson lee? votes no.
>> there 15ayes and 22 nos. >> point of order. results. will announce s and to two nos. >> motion to adjourn is not adopted for what purposes? >> mr. chairman point of order. >> point of order. on ordering.s >> this is not debatable. point of order is not previously. tabled. has been that is correct, mr. chairman. point of order. lying nadler motion has just tabled. house, i'm happy to make my formal.f order
read the rule. >> motion to adjourn? >> we voted to table. rules of the house say it didn't measure those at the table. >> sorry. motion to table, what? when a motion, when an amendment -- > when a proposed amendment to a pending measure is tabled pending measure also goes to the table. section 7, house 29 of house practice. >> very well, motion is tabled. the motion, again. i offer the same motion. order. of >> move the previous question, mr. chairman. of order. >> with the house? ajoin. on to >> point of order. >> motion is not debatable. all those in favor of the previous question, say aye. opposed? say no. in the opinion of the chair ayes have it.
roll call. clerk will call the roll. d, motion wasn't rea mr. chairman. unanimous sked consideration. >> sorry. you can't -- rder?int of o >> we're in the middle of a vote. >> a motion, reading the motion. that is on on a motion not before the committee is one thing. is previous onomy question. otion re is a previous m acquiring point of order. >> motion? excuse me. motion was not read. . move to adjourn -- o one objected to >> objection? but -- inquiry.mentary >> do not have people shouting
other.ach gentleman from wisconsin? move to suspend. house rule 11 i now move the tion to e adopt a mo permit committee staff as designated bit chair and ranking witness o question the for an additional hour equally ivided for any full committee hearing oversight. special ter:ed by counsel robert mueller. the clerk will record the motion. >> motion offered by chairman e dler purse yunlt to hous rules 11 clause 2 j, 2 c rankinged bit chair and member to question the witness for an additional hour, equally and ed between majority at any full hearing on the investigation into russian 2016 ference in the
>> i move to reconsider. >> motion. no.from florida, georgia from georgia. >> i move to reconsider? >> not recognized. >> i couldn't introduce my i can't make a motion? e recognize the reconsider? i have an interesting point here we're going to discuss. the question, we have had two misconstruing of your motions today. one thing is concurrent which it is clearly not. any hearing in o future oversight on the
investigation into russian interference in related matters, any height. is words on paper say this whatever. >> fine. >> reporting -- cognize for a e motion. >> question is on adoption of the motion. those in favor say aye. >> how do i get recognition? is there a mechanism? anyone? ayes have it. motion is agreed to. okay. roll.will call
results. ayes and 14, nos. >> ayes have it. motion is adopted. >> so after members gave approval for committee staff awyer to ask attorney general bar questions, the attorney general let the committee know testify at the hearing scheduled for the following day. say afterhat he had to notified. >> attorney general bar just ill not attend w hearing.'s candoris lack of