[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT BY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER III:
FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DONALD F. MCGAHN II
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2019
Serial No. 116-22
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-798 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair
ZOE LOFGREN, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
Georgia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida Wisconsin
KAREN BASS, California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island KEN BUCK, Colorado
ERIC SWALWELL, California JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
TED LIEU, California MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MATT GAETZ, Florida
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California TOM MCCLINTOCK, California
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
LUCY MCBATH, Georgia BEN CLINE, Virginia
GREG STANTON, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 21, 2019
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 1
The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 4
OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT BY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER III:
FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DONALD F. MCGAHN II
----------
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,
Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Bass, Richmond, Cicilline, Lieu,
Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse,
McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Collins,
Chabot, Gohmert, Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe, Gaetz, Johnson of
Louisiana, McClintock, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, and
Steube.
Staff Present: Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya
Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass,
Senior Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Lisette Morton,
Director of Policy, Planning, and Member Services; Madeline
Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach
Advisor; Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Sophie
Brill, Counsel; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member; Brendan
Belair, Minority Chief of Staff; Jon Ferro, Minority
Parliamentarian; Carlton Davis, Minority Chief Oversight
Counsel; Ashley Callen, Minority Senior Adviser and Oversight
Counsel; and Erica Barker, Minority Chief Legislative Clerk.
Chairman Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on ``Oversight of
the Report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller III: Former White
House Counsel Donald McGahn II.'' I will now recognize myself
for an opening statement.
More than a year ago, White House counsel Don McGahn sat
for the first of several interviews with special counsel Robert
Mueller. Over the course of those interviews, he described how
the President directed him to have the special counsel fired.
He described how the President ordered him to lie about it. He
described several other obstructive incidents outlined in the
special counsel's report.
The President, in contrast, refused to be interviewed by
the special counsel or even to answer written questions about
his attempts to obstruct the investigation. Instead, to address
the allegations spelled out by Mr. McGahn and outlined in the
report, President Trump relied on his preferred mode of
communication. He took to Twitter to call Mr. McGahn a liar.
His lawyers went on cable television to do the same, to call
Mr. McGahn a liar.
There are reports of the President and his lieutenants
exerting other kinds of pressure on Mr. McGahn. In short, the
President took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has
a legal obligation to be here today. This conduct is not
remotely acceptable.
The White House asserts that Mr. McGahn does not have to
appear today because he is entitled to ``absolute immunity''
from our subpoenas. We know this argument is wrong, of course,
because the executive branch has tried this approach before. In
2007, President George Bush attempted to invoke a similarly
broad and unjustified assertion of executive privilege and
asked his former counsel Harriet Miers to ignore a subpoena
issued by this committee. Ms. Miers also did not appear at her
scheduled hearing.
Judge John Bates, who was appointed by President Bush,
slapped down that argument fairly quickly. ``The executive
cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes
absolute immunity for senior presidential advisers in this or
any other context. That simple, yet critical fact bears
repeating. The asserted absolute immunity claim here is
entirely unsupported by the case law,'' from the judicial
decision.
In other words, when this Committee issues a subpoena, even
to a senior presidential adviser, the witness must show up. Our
subpoenas are not optional. Mr. McGahn has a legal obligation
to be here for this scheduled appearance. If he does not
immediately correct his mistake, this Committee will have no
choice but to enforce the subpoena against him.
Mr. McGahn did not appear today because the President
prevented it, just as the President has said that he would
``fight all subpoenas'' issued by Congress as part of his
broader efforts to cover up his misconduct. This stonewalling
makes it more important to highlight some of the incidents that
Mr. McGahn is said to have witnessed. Let me recount some of
them.
We know that the President directed Mr. McGahn to prevent
then Attorney General Sessions from recusing himself from
overseeing the investigation into Russian election
interference. On March 3, 2017, shortly after Attorney General
Jeff Sessions did recuse himself from the Russia investigation,
the President summoned Mr. McGahn to the Oval Office. According
to the Mueller report, ``The President opened the conversation
by saying, `I don't have a lawyer.' ''
The President told Mr. McGahn that he wished that Roy Cohn
was his attorney instead. Roy Cohn, of course, is known
principally as the chief architect of the Army--McCarthy
hearings that destroyed so many lives back in 1954, an actual
political witch hunt, not the imaginary kind that the President
decries.
Mr. Cohn served as President Trump's lawyer for a long
time, defending the President against Federal discrimination
suits before he, that is, Mr. Cohn was ultimately disbarred for
unethical practices in 1986.
Mr. McGahn refused to follow blindly into unethical
behavior. Mr. McGahn told the President that the Department of
Justice ethics officials had weighed in and that Mr. Sessions
would not unrecuse himself, and he advised the President not to
have any contact with Mr. Sessions on the matter. Days later,
the President did exactly the opposite.
He summoned Mr. McGahn and Mr. Sessions to Mar-a-Lago,
where the President again ``expressed his anger.'' He said he
wanted Mr. Sessions to Act as his fixer. He said he wanted Mr.
Sessions to undo his recusal and to limit the scope of the
investigation. Mr. Sessions, too, refused the President's
orders.
On June 17, 2017, the President took his displeasure a step
further. He called Mr. McGahn at home and directed him to order
Rod Rosenstein to fire Robert Mueller. ``Mueller has to go,''
the President barked, ``Call me back when you do it.''
Once again, Mr. McGahn refused. This time, Mr. McGahn felt
the President's behavior was so inappropriate that he said he
would rather resign than trigger a constitutional crisis.
In early 2018, after press reports described the
President's attempt to force Mr. McGahn to remove the special
counsel on his behalf, the President repeated his pattern. He
summoned Mr. McGahn to his office, and he got angry. ``This
story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You are the
White House counsel,'' President Trump told Mr. McGahn.
``What about these notes? Why do you take notes?'' the
President said to Mr. McGahn, inquiring why Mr. McGahn had
documented their conversation.
The President then told Mr. McGahn to tell the American
people something that was not true. He asked him to deny those
reports publicly. Mr. McGahn again refused the President's
order. He refused the President's order to lie to the American
people on the President's behalf. Six months later, the
President announced that Mr. McGahn would be leaving the White
House.
The special counsel found Mr. McGahn to be ``a credible
witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate, given the position
he held in the White House.'' That is from the Mueller report.
The special counsel also found the following: ``Substantial
evidence indicates that by June 17, 2017, the President knew
his conduct was under investigation by a Federal prosecutor who
could present any evidence of Federal crimes to a grand jury.
Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to
remove the special counsel were linked to the special counsel's
oversight of investigations that involved the President's
conduct and, most immediately, to reports that the President
was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice.''
``Substantial evidence indicates''--and these are all
quotes from the report--``substantial evidence indicates that
in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to
have the special counsel terminated, the President acted for
the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect
or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards
the investigation. Substantial evidence indicates that the
President's efforts to have Sessions limit the scope of the
special counsel's investigation to future election interference
was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the
President and his campaign's conduct.'' Those are all quotes
from the special counsel's report.
I believe that each of these incidents, documented in
detail in the Mueller report, constitutes a crime. For the
Department of Justice's policy of refusing to indict any
sitting President, I believe the President would have been
indicted and charged with these crimes.
I am not alone in this belief. Over 900 former Federal
prosecutors from across the political spectrum whose job was to
determine when the elements of a crime have been satisfied have
stated--have agreed that the President committed crimes that
would have been charged if he were not the sitting President. I
believe that the President's conduct since the report was
released, with respect to Mr. McGahn's testimony and other
information we have sought, has carried this pattern of
obstruction and cover-up well beyond the four corners of the
Mueller report.
The President has declared out loud his intention to cover
up this misconduct. He told Mr. McGahn to commit crimes on his
behalf. He told Mr. McGahn lie about it. After the report came
out, the President claimed that Mr. McGahn lied to the special
counsel about what happened. Then he directed Mr. McGahn not to
come here today so that the public would not hear his testimony
and so that we could not question him.
President Trump may think he can hide behind his lawyers as
he launches a series of baseless legal arguments designed to
obstruct our work. He cannot think these legal arguments will
prevail in court, but he can think he can slow us down and run
out the clock on the American people.
Let me be clear. This Committee will hear Mr. McGahn's
testimony, even if we must go to court to secure it. We will
not allow the President to prevent the American people from
hearing from this witness.
We will not allow the President to block congressional
subpoenas, putting himself and his allies above the law. We
will not allow the President to stop this investigation.
Nothing in these unjustified and unjustifiable legal attacks
will stop us from pressing forward with our work on behalf of
the American people. We will hold this President accountable,
one way or the other.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of
the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Collins, for his opening statement.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all
that have gathered here again.
Here we go again. The theater is open, and the summations
are coming in. In fact, right now we are again running over the
norms of congressional oversight. We are dabbing at the edges
of running roughshod on the Constitution, asking for things
that we don't.
I am glad about one thing. I am glad that Chairman read
into the record today the Mueller report. I am glad that he
quoted, as he said, this is a quote directly from the Mueller
report. I just wish my chairman would actually go read the rest
of it that he has been offered to read, which he has chosen not
to read.
He did leave out one thing. He left out something in the
Mueller report from just now. He read McGahn's testimony
beautifully, did everything right. He left out what he doesn't
want to have to come back to and the frustrating thing that has
brought us here again and again and again, and that is the
conclusions. There was no collusion. There was no obstruction
charge. There is nothing here.
After 2 years of doing this, we can read it in, you can
talk about how you don't like it, you can talk about what you
would like to have. At the end of the day, it is interesting we
will read in the quotes that make the headlines, but we are
also not going to read in the bottom line of what was actually
concluded.
So, the Democrats are here trying again. The Mueller report
concluded there was no collusion, no obstruction. Because the
report failed to provide damning information against the
President, the majority claims we need to dig deeper, deeper
than the 2 years of investigation conducted by what is
considered a prosecutorial dream team because that probe ended
without criminal charges against the President or his family.
The special counsel closed up shop without giving Democrats
anything to deliver to their base. Now the Democrats are trying
desperately to make something out of nothing, which is why
Chairman has again haphazardly subpoenaed today's witness. That
move, though, has actually ensured the witness will not
testify.
This is becoming a pattern. The chairman knew this, I
believe, when he sent the subpoena last month. Instead of
inviting the witness to testify voluntarily and working with
McGahn's counsel to find mutual agreeable time and scope for
the testimony, Chairman rushed to maximize headlines by issuing
a subpoena. That subpoena was the third in just 4 months, more
subpoenas than the prior chairman issued in 6 years.
The chairman had several ways out here. He took none of
them. The chairman could have invited the witness to testify
voluntarily. That was the practice in the 1990s when the White
House counsel testified before Congress. Chairman did not do
that. Instead, he launched a subpoena at the witness without
any consultation or follow-up with the witness' lawyer.
The chairman could have invited the witness to testify
behind closed doors, but that would have been politically
expedient, and you would not have been here, and the show would
not have been as exciting. A closed-door conversation would not
have generated those headlines and everything that we are
looking at today. Even gaveling in today's hearing without a
witness is theatrical.
The cameras love a spectacle, and the majority loves the
chance to rant against the Administration. I just am glad today
to see that we don't have chicken on the dais.
The chairman orchestrated today's confrontation when he
could have avoided it because he is more interested in the
fight than the fact finding. Take the Mueller report, which we
have already heard quoted from. More than 99 percent the
Justice Department has offered to Chairman. For an entire
month, Chairman refused to take a look at it.
The Attorney General who volunteered to testify before the
committee, Chairman changed the rules for the first time in the
committee's 200-year history, thus blocking General Barr from
testifying.
I cannot emphasize this enough. The track record
demonstrates he does not actually want information. He wants
the fight, but not the truth. The closer he actually comes to
obtaining information, the further we run from it.
The Democrats claim to need today's witness to investigate
obstruction of justice, but that investigation was already
done. Robert Mueller spent 2 years running it and then closed
it. We are not a prosecutorial body, but a legislative body
that does have valid congressional oversight. But let us talk
about that Mueller report for just a second. It is really
interesting to me that the Mueller report was actually--within
24 hours of coming out, Chairman and the majority subpoenaed
for all of the documents.
In fact, we have a legal subpoena that asked the Attorney
General to provide documents he cannot legally provide. That
has been covered in this Committee for the last 2 weeks
exhaustively, and even the panel that was with us last week
agreed that the subpoena asked the Attorney General to do
something illegal by exposing 6(e) information. That was his
own witnesses said that last week.
You know what is interesting to me is that we have
subpoenaed the documents. We have subpoenaed that we want
underlying documents. We have subpoenaed stuff that we can't
get. You know the one thing we seem to avoid is Mr. Mueller
himself, the one who wrote it.
We have asked since April about Mr. Mueller coming. Every
time we seem to get close to Mueller, Mueller just gets pushed
on a little bit. Hadn't seen a subpoena here, and this is what
is really amazing. We will get back to subpoenas in a moment.
Just think about that. You wanted the work of the author,
but you don't want to talk to the author. Keep that pinned for
just a moment. When we look at this, 99 percent of the
information is at the Democrats' fingertips, and it is the
Mueller report the Attorney General offered to Speaker Pelosi,
Chairman Nadler, and others to have seen it, but they refuse.
So don't be fooled. The majority wants the fight. They want
the drama. He does not actually want the information he claims
to be seeking. After the Administration made volumes of
information available to this committee, Chairman issued
overbroad subpoenas and now harangues the Administration for
being unable to comply with those subpoenas.
In fact, it is the Democrats who are not engaging in the
accommodation process, abruptly cutting off negotiations,
rejecting olive branches by the Administration. I want to come
back to something my chairman just said a moment ago. His quote
was in his opening statements that our subpoenas are not
optional.
Well, we found out a lot about subpoenas over the last
month or so in this committee. I found out that subpoenas maybe
now are not optional. Let us add to the list. Subpoenas are
also a discussion starter. A subpoena is to give us better
standing in court. Not my quotes, Chairman's quotes.
So what is it? Is a subpoena the legal document that we
have talked about all along in here and the forceful document
that all attorneys in this country actually use, or is it a
discussion starter? Is it to help our standing in court, or is
it we don't want it ignored?
At this time, it is amazing to me that the accommodation
process--and we talk about the committee, and Chairman
forcefully talked about our oversight. I agree with Chairman on
this point. This Committee and all committees in Congress have
oversight responsibility, but it is also the sacred
responsibility of Chairman and the majority to use it properly
and to not headlong rush into subpoenas when you don't get what
you want.
That is all we have seen in 5 months here. When we don't
get what we want, we subpoena. The first one was the Acting
Attorney General. We subpoenaed, and then we backed off. We
caved. Then everything else has become a race to get a
headline. The accommodation process, not happening. The
accommodation process, never here.
So don't be fooled. You may have come wanting--you may have
an opinion that says everything is wrong today with the Mueller
report and the President is guilty, but don't undercut
congressional oversight because you can't wait. That is the
problem we have right now.
So the question is, are we tearing at the fabric of
congressional oversight? It was really interesting to hear some
of that last week. When you have a Committee that has issued
subpoenas that ask the Attorney General to do something
illegal, when you have the subpoenas when no accommodation
process has been put in place, when you have contempt issues
that have been in part with no process and no time going
through, I just submit to you this.
Whatever your opinion on the Mueller report, great. Glad
you have it. You didn't get it here today, and you are not
getting it from this Committee because this Committee
undoubtedly doesn't like the author or want to talk to the
author of the report. They just want to talk about the report
and make innuendo and attack the President at the middle of the
day when this committee, who has charge of immigration, who has
charge of intellectual property, who we have touched none of
with a crisis at the border.
We have an admission that the economy is good, jobs are
happening, unemployment is at its lowest rate. I guess at the
end of the day, we can't find something that the Mueller report
lets them hang their I-word, ``impeachment,'' on, which they
can't even agree on, because the President is continuing to do
his job. We are here again with the circus in full force.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Collins. Who seeks
recognition?
Mr. Cohen. Move to strike the last word.
Chairman Nadler. The gentleman from Tennessee?
Mr. Cohen. Move to adjourn.
Chairman Nadler. Motion is made to adjourn.
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Nadler. Motion to adjourn is not debatable.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Mr. Chabot. Recorded vote.
Chairman Nadler. Do I hear a request for a recorded vote?
Mr. Chabot. Request for recorded vote.
Chairman Nadler. The clerk will call the roll on the motion
to adjourn.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler?
Chairman Nadler. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Nadler votes aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cohen votes aye.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes aye.
Mr. Deutch?
Ms. Bass?
Ms. Bass. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Bass votes aye.
Mr. Richmond?
Mr. Richmond. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Richmond votes aye.
Mr. Jeffries?
Mr. Cicilline?
Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cicilline votes aye.
Mr. Swalwell?
Mr. Lieu?
Mr. Lieu. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Lieu votes aye.
Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
Ms. Jayapal?
Ms. Jayapal. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Jayapal votes aye.
Mrs. Demings?
Mrs. Demings. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mrs. Demings votes aye.
Mr. Correa?
Mr. Correa. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Correa votes aye.
Ms. Scanlon?
Ms. Scanlon. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Scanlon votes aye.
Ms. Garcia?
Ms. Garcia. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Garcia votes aye.
Mr. Neguse?
Mr. Neguse. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Neguse votes aye.
Mrs. McBath?
Mrs. McBath. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mrs. McBath votes aye.
Mr. Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Stanton votes aye.
Ms. Dean?
Ms. Dean. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Dean votes aye.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes aye.
Ms. Escobar?
Ms. Escobar. Aye.
Ms. Strasser. Ms. Escobar votes aye.
Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Collins votes no.
Mr. Sensenbrenner?
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No. And this is disgraceful.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chabot votes no.
Mr. Gohmert?
Mr. Gohmert. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gohmert votes no.
Mr. Jordan?
Mr. Jordan. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Jordan votes no.
Mr. Buck?
Mr. Buck. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Buck votes no.
Mr. Ratcliffe?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Ratcliffe votes no.
Mrs. Roby?
Mr. Gaetz?
Mr. Gaetz. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Gaetz votes no.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. McClintock?
Mr. McClintock. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. McClintock votes no.
Mrs. Lesko?
Mr. Reschenthaler?
Mr. Reschenthaler. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Reschenthaler votes no.
Mr. Cline?
Mr. Cline. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Cline votes no.
Mr. Armstrong?
Mr. Armstrong. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Armstrong votes no.
Mr. Steube?
Mr. Steube. No.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Steube votes no.
Chairman Nadler. Is there anyone who wishes to vote who
hasn't voted?
[No response.]
Chairman Nadler. The clerk will report.
Ms. Strasser. Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 13 noes.
Chairman Nadler. There are 21 ayes and 13 noes. The motion
to adjourn is adopted, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:27 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]