[House Report 115-813]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-813
======================================================================
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROVIDE CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POSSESSION TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO THE ONGOING CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION
RELATED TO CERTAIN PROSECUTORIAL AND INVESTIGATORY DECISIONS MADE BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SURROUNDING THE 2016 ELECTION
_______
July 10, 2018.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 938]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
resolution (H. Res. 938) of inquiry directing the Attorney
General to provide certain documents in the Attorney General's
possession to the House of Representatives relating to the
ongoing congressional investigation related to certain
prosecutorial and investigatory decisions made by the
Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation
surrounding the 2016 election, having considered the same,
report thereon with an amendment and recommend that the
resolution as amended be agreed to.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 4
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 4
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 12
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 12
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 13
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 13
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 13
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 13
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 13
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 13
Dissenting Views................................................. 13
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all that follows after the resolving clause and insert
the following:
Whereas after the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions on March 2,
2017, from any matter potentially relating to the 2016 campaign, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has overseen the Department's response to
the congressional investigations into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
Whereas a second Special Counsel was first requested on July 27, 2017, by
House Committee on Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte and 19 Members of
Congress;
Whereas, on September 26, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte and 13 Members of
Congress sent a letter repeating the call for a second Special Counsel;
Whereas, on March 6, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte and House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy called for the
appointment of a second Special Counsel to investigate these matters;
Whereas, on May 22, 2018, Representative Lee Zeldin, along with 31 Members
of Congress, introduced House Resolution 907 calling for a second Special
Counsel;
Whereas Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise have
supported the appointment of a second Special Counsel;
Whereas Mr. Rosenstein and the DOJ have repeatedly failed to produce
documents requested by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, obstructing Congress' oversight duty;
Whereas, on October 24, 2017, the Committee on Judiciary and the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform opened a joint investigation into the
decisions made by the DOJ in 2016 and 2017 related to their handling of the
Secretary Hillary Clinton email investigation;
Whereas, on November 3, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, and four
Members of Congress sent a letter to Attorney General Sessions and Deputy
Attorney General Rosenstein requesting five specific categories of
documents;
Whereas, on December 12, 2017-, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, and
other Members sent a letter emphasizing the expectation that the Department
provide all requested documents as well as a privilege log;
Whereas, on February 1, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte sent a letter requesting
documents related to potential Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
abuses;
Whereas the DOJ has missed document production deadlines, produced
duplicative pages of information, and redacted pages to the point where
they contain no probative information;
Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary issued a subpoena to Deputy Attorney
General Rosenstein on March 22, 2018, which compelled him to produce, among
other things--
(1) all documents and communications with the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC) referring or relating to any Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) applications associated with Carter Page or
individuals on President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign or part of the
Trump administration;
(2) all documents and communications referring or relating to FISC
hearings and deliberations, including any court transcripts, related to any
FISA applications associated with Carter Page or the Trump campaign or
Trump administration;
(3) all documents and communications referring or relating to internal
DOJ or FBI management requests to review, scrub, report on, or analyze any
reporting of FISA collection involving, or coverage mentioning, the Trump
campaign or Trump administration; and
(4) all documents and communications referring or relating to defensive
briefings provided by the bOJ or FBI to the 2016 presidential campaigns of
Hillary Clinton or President Trump;
Whereas the DOJ has violated this congressional subpoena by failing to
produce each of these categories of documents;
Whereas Mr. Rosenstein and the DOJ have refused to provide an alternative
timeline for providing these categories of documents;
Whereas the DOJ has not provided a privilege log of the redactions with--
(1) the privilege asserted;
(2) the type of document;
(3) the general subject matter;
(4) the date, author, and address; and
(5) t e relationship of the author and address to each other, if any
document is withheld or redacted on the basis of a privilege;
Whereas the DOJ has failed to comply an agreement negotiated with the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform to expedite the production of documents for this congressional
investigation following the issuance of the March 22 subpoena;
Whereas upon in camera review of documents at the DOJ, it was revealed the
Department, 1;1-nder the supervision of Mr. Rosenstein, attempted to
conceal certain facts as documents provided to Congress were heavily and
unnecessarily redacted;
Whereas the DOJ unnecessarily redacted the price of FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe's $70,000 conference table because it was potentially
embarrassing information;
Whereas the DOJ redacted facts such as FBI Agent Peter Strzok's personal
relationship with FISC Judge Rudolph Contreras;
Whereas the DOJ redacted the names of high-ranking Obama administration
officials, such as former White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough;
Whereas the DOJ acknowledged the unnecessary redactions and agreed that
some information should not have been redacted in an April 16, 2018,
letter;
Whereas, on May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appointed
Robert S. Mueller III as the Special Counsel to investigate allegations of
collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia;
Whereas Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein authored the initial memo
outlining the scope of the investigation in May 2017;
Whereas Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein then sent a subsequent memo
modifying parameters of the investigation to Special Counsel Robert S.
Mueller III on August 2, 2017, and a heavily redacted version of the memo
was made public;
Whereas Mr. Rosenstein's memo began by noting ``the following allegations
were within the scope of the investigation at the time of your appointment
and are within the scope of the order'', with nearly everything following
the mention of those initial allegations redacted;
Whereas Mr. Rosenstein's memo raises fundamental concerns related to the
government's basis for alleging ``collusion'' between the Trump campaign
and Russia, and whether these allegations resulted in potential crimes
warranting investigation;
Whereas Mr. Rosenstein's memo also raises concerns given Special Counsel
investigations are not warranted by the existence of mere allegations, and
require there be facts evident warranting a ``criminal investigation of a
person or matter'';
Whereas the memo's status as a classified document and lack of unredacted
material raise concerns the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as Special
Counsel began outside the scope of regulations for Special Counsel
investigations by originating on a counterintelligence, rather than
criminal, basis;
Whereas, on April 9, 2018, Representative Mark Meadows and Representative
Jim Jordan sent a letter to the DOJ requesting access to the unredacted
August 2 memo in order to better understand the scope of the investigation
authorized by Mr. Rosenstein;
Whereas, on April 30, 2018, the DOJ responded in a letter indicating that
they would not provide the information to Congress, despite Congress'
oversight duty;
Whereas press reports indicate, Mr. Rosenstein approved a FISA application
to surveil Carter Page;
Whereas the application included ``salacious and unverified'' material
contained in a dossier written by former spy Christopher Steele;
Whereas the House Intel Committee Majority memo indicates, the DOJ went
before the FISA Court and failed to disclose or' reference the role of the
Democratic National Committee, the Clinton campaign, or any party or
campaign in funding Steele's efforts;
Whereas the House Intel Committee Majority memo indicates, the DOJ went
before the Court and failed to disclose the relationship between Steele and
the FBI;
Whereas the House Intel Committee Majority memo indicates, DOJ went before
the FISA Court and failed to acknowledge Steele was suspended and
subsequently terminated as an FBI source for an authorized disclosure to
the media.;
Whereas the House Intel Committee Majority memo indicates, The DOJ went
before the FISA Court and failed to disclose issues with Steele's numerous
encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling and
maintaining confidentiality, therefore compromising his credibility as a
source;
Whereas the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a
subpoena to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein on April 30, 2018,
requesting specific documents related to the misuse of FISA authorities by
the DOJ and FBI;
Whereas the DOJ has failed to comply with this subpoena;
Whereas, on June 8, 2018, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Chairman, Devin Nunes, sent a follow-up letter requesting the DOJ provide
the Committee Members and designated staff full, unredacted access to the
documents requested in the April 30, 2018, subpoena by Tuesday, June 12,
2018;
Whereas the DOJ did not comply with Chairman Nunes's June 12, 2018,
deadline; and
Whereas in January 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein appears to have
threatened to subpoena the calls and emails of Intelligence Committee staff
in retaliation for requesting documents and investigating the DOJ: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives compels the Department of
Justice to--
(1) fully comply with the March 22, 2018, subpoena issued by
the House Committee on the Judiciary;
(2) fully comply with the April 30, 2018, subpoena issued by
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;
(3) provide all documents requested by Congress; and
(4) provide Members of Congress and designated staff with
full access to unredacted documents.
Purpose and Summary
H. Res. 938 is a non-binding resolution of inquiry that, as
amended in Committee, demands that the Department of Justice
comply with subpoenas issued by the House Committee on the
Judiciary and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and that the Department provide all documents
requested by Congress, including providing Members of Congress
and designated staff with full access to unredacted documents.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Resolutions of inquiry, if properly drafted, are given
privileged parliamentary status in the House. This means that,
under certain circumstances, a resolution of inquiry can be
considered on the House floor even if the committee to which it
was referred has not ordered the resolution reported and the
majority party's leadership has not scheduled it for
consideration. Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives requires the committee to which the
resolution is referred to act on the resolution within 14
legislative days, or a motion to discharge the committee from
consideration is considered privileged on the floor of the
House. In calculating the days available for committee
consideration, the day of introduction and the day of discharge
are not counted.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Wm. Holmes Brown, et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents, and Procedures of the House ch. 49, Sec. 6, p. 834 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is a means by which the House may request
information from the President or the head of one of the
executive departments. According to Deschler's Precedents, it
is a ``simple resolution making a direct request or demand of
the President or the head of an executive department to furnish
the House of Representatives with specific factual information
in the possession of the executive branch.''\2\ Such
resolutions must ask for facts, documents, or specific
information; they may not be used to request an opinion or
require an investigation.\3\ Resolutions of inquiry are not
akin to subpoenas, they have no legal force, and thus
compliance by the Executive Branch with the House's request for
information is purely voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\7 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of
Representatives, H. Doc. No. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 24,
Sec. 8.
\3\A resolution that seeks more than factual information does not
enjoy privileged status. Brown, supra note 1, at 833-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a study conducted by the Congressional
Research Service (CRS), between 1947 and 2011, 290 resolutions
of inquiry were introduced in the House.\4\ Within this period,
CRS found that ``two periods in particular, 1971-1975 and 2003-
2006, saw the highest levels of activity on resolutions of
inquiry'' and that the ``Committees on Armed Services, Foreign
Affairs, and the Judiciary have received the largest share of
references.''\5\ CRS further found that ``in recent Congresses,
such resolutions have overwhelmingly become a tool of the
minority party in the House.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Christopher M. Davis, Congressional Research Service,
Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of Their Use in the House, 1947-
2011 at i (2012).
\5\Id.
\6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Committee has a number of choices after a resolution of
inquiry is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution up or
down as is or it may amend it, and it may report the resolution
favorably, unfavorably, or with no recommendation.
As amended during the Committee's markup, H. Res. 938
demands that the Department of Justice fully comply with a
subpoena issued by the House Committee on the Judiciary on
March 22, 2018, and a subpoena issued by the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence on April 30, 2018. The
documents and communications requested in these subpoenas
relate to potential Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
abuses by the Justice Department or the potential unequal
treatment of the two presidential campaigns by the Department.
H. Res. 938 also demands that the Department provide all other
documents that have been requested by Congress and that the
Department provide Members of Congress and designated staff
with access to the requested documents in unredacted form.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res.
938.
Committee Consideration
On June 26, 2018, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the resolution (H. Res. 938) favorably reported by a
roll call vote of 15-11, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H. Res. 938.
1. Appeal the ruling of the Chair on the amendment offered
by Mr. Jordan. Passed 16 to 13 (with 2 voting present).
ROLL CALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................
Mr. Smith (TX)................................. X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).............................
Ms. Roby (AL)..................................
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)............................... X
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Rothfus (PA)............................... X
Mr. Nadler (NY), Ranking Member................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................ X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA).................................. X
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY).............................. X
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. X
Mr. Swalwell (CA).............................. X
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)............................... X
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
Ms. Demings (FL)............................... X
------------------------
Total...................................... 16 13 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Motion to table the resolution. Failed 12 to 18.
ROLL CALL NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................
Mr. Smith (TX)................................. X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)............................. X
Ms. Roby (AL)..................................
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)............................... X
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Rothfus (PA)...............................
Mr. Nadler (NY), Ranking Member................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY).............................. X
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. X
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)............................... X
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
Ms. Demings (FL)............................... X
------------------------
Total...................................... 12 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. An amendment offered by Mr. Cohen to request certain
documents regarding the Trump Organization or any entity owned
by President Trump. Failed 10 to 17.
ROLL CALL NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)............................. X
Ms. Roby (AL)..................................
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)............................... X
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Rothfus (PA)...............................
Mr. Nadler (NY), Ranking Member................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY).............................. X
Mr. Cicilline (RI).............................
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
Ms. Demings (FL)............................... X
------------------------
Total...................................... 10 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. An amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to request
certain documents related to unaccompanied alien children.
Failed 11 to 16.
ROLL CALL NO. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)................................... X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)............................. X
Ms. Roby (AL)..................................
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)...............................
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Rothfus (PA)...............................
Mr. Nadler (NY), Ranking Member................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY).............................. X
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. X
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
Ms. Demings (FL)............................... X
------------------------
Total...................................... 11 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Motion to order the previous question. Passed 16 to 11.
ROLL CALL NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)............................. X
Ms. Roby (AL)..................................
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)...............................
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Rothfus (PA)...............................
Mr. Nadler (NY), Ranking Member................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY).............................. X
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. X
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
Ms. Demings (FL)............................... X
------------------------
Total...................................... 16 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
Chairman Goodlatte. Passed 16 to 10.
ROLL CALL NO. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)............................. X
Ms. Roby (AL)..................................
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)...............................
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Rothfus (PA)...............................
Mr. Nadler (NY), Ranking Member................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. X
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
Ms. Demings (FL)............................... X
------------------------
Total...................................... 16 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Motion to report H. Res. 938 favorably to the House.
Approved 15 to 11.
ROLL CALL NO. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)............................. X
Ms. Roby (AL)..................................
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)...............................
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Rothfus (PA)...............................
Mr. Nadler (NY), Ranking Member................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. X
Mr. Swalwell (CA).............................. X
Mr. Lieu (CA).................................. X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
Ms. Demings (FL)............................... X
------------------------
Total...................................... 15 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Committee Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that
implementing this non-binding resolution would not result in
any significant costs. The Congressional Budget Office did not
provide a cost estimate for the resolution.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H. Res. 938 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee finds that H. Res. 938 contains no directed
rule making within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H. Res.
938 demands that the Department of Justice comply with
subpoenas issued by the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees
and provide Congress with all documents that have been
requested from the Department.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H. Res. 938 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the resolution as
reported by the Committee.
H. Res. 938, a non-binding resolution of inquiry, demands
that the Department of Justice comply with subpoenas issued by
the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and that the Department
provide all documents requested by Congress, including
providing Members of Congress and designated staff with full
access to unredacted documents.
Dissenting Views
Originally intended as a resolution of inquiry, H. Res. 938
is a sense of Congress resolution that does not carry the force
of law, but which nonetheless purports to ``compel'' the
Department of Justice to comply with two ill-advised subpoenas,
only one of which may be enforceable, and contains the vague
command to ``provide all documents requested by Congress.'' H.
Res. 938 is unnecessary legislation that does not advance
Congress's oversight interests, but merely serves as a
convenient vehicle for the Majority's ongoing public attacks on
the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is used to obtain information from the executive
branch. A resolution of inquiry is directed at the President or
the head of a Cabinet-level agency, requesting facts within the
control of the executive branch.\1\ As a ``simple resolution''
(designated by ``H. Res.''), a resolution of inquiry does not
carry the force of law. Thus, ``compliance by the executive
branch with the House's request is voluntary, resting largely
on a sense of comity between co-equal branches of government
and a recognition of the necessity for Congress to be well-
informed as it legislates.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Christopher M. Davis, Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of
Their Use in the House, 1947-2011, Cong. Research Service, May 15, 2012
(R40879).
\2\Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Rules afford resolutions of inquiry a privileged
parliamentary status. A Member files a resolution of inquiry
like any other legislation. The resolution is then referred to
the proper committee of jurisdiction. If the committee does not
report the resolution to the House within 14 legislative days
of its introduction, however, a motion to discharge the
resolution from committee can be made on the House floor.\3\ In
practice, even when the Majority opposes a resolution of
inquiry, a committee will mark it up and report it adversely to
prevent its sponsor from making a privileged motion to call up
the legislation on the House floor.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\House Rule XIII, clause 7.
\4\Davis, supra note 1, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) introduced H. Res. 938 on June 13,
2018, together with original cosponsors Reps. Jim Jordan (R-
OH), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), and Scott Perry (R-PA). As introduced,
H. Res. 938 directed the Attorney General to produce
information related to the joint Judiciary Committee and
Oversight & Government Reform Committee investigation of
certain prosecutorial and investigatory decisions made by the
DOJ and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surrounding the
2016 presidential election. Specifically, the resolution
requested documents related to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) applications made by the FBI to
investigate former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, as well
as other Trump campaign and Administration officials.
H. Res. 938 as amended, however, replaced this focused
inquiry with a preamble, essentially reducing the legislation
to a sense of Congress resolution. The preamble enumerates,
among other points: the Majority's previously made demands for
documents from the Department of Justice as part of the
Judiciary Committee's joint investigation with the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform into former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server; a separate
demand for information made by House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA); and
demands for documents related to the early stages of the
counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in
the 2016 presidential election included in the introduced text.
It resolves that the House of Representatives compel DOJ to--
(1) fully comply with the March 22, 2018, subpoena
issued by the House Committee on the Judiciary;
(2) fully comply with the April 30, 2018, subpoena
issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence;
(3) provide all documents requested by Congress; and
(4) provide Members of Congress and designated staff
with full access to unredacted documents.
H. RES. 938 DOES NOT ADVANCE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT INTERESTS AND
SERVES ONLY AS PRETEXT TO UNDERMINE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN
H. Res. 938 represents a further escalation of the
Majority's effort to generate partisan conflict between the
Department of Justice and Congress over the FBI's handling of
the investigation into former Secretary Clinton's private email
server. After having had the central thesis of their argument
that Secretary Clinton received special treatment during the
investigation rebutted by the DOJ Inspector General (IG), the
Majority now seeks to expand its investigation to include the
opening stages of the investigation into the Trump campaign's
potential links to the Russian government. Indeed, it has
become clear that the real purpose of H. Res. 938--and the
investigation the resolution purports has been stymied by DOJ--
is to undermine Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and, by
extension, the Special Counsel's investigation.
The Committee has spent considerable resources on an
unnecessary investigation into the FBI's handling of its
investigation into former Secretary Clinton's private email
server.\5\ The joint investigation continues despite the DOJ
IG's recent finding that the decisions made by the DOJ and the
FBI during the Clinton email investigation were reasonable and
supported by the law, the facts, and Department policy. The IG
found no testimonial or documentary evidence that any political
bias influenced the investigative steps taken by the
Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Press Release, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on Judiciary,
Goodlatte, Gowdy Open Investigation into Decisions Made by DOJ in 2016
(Oct. 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, the Department of Justice has and continues to
make a good faith effort to respond to the Majority's document
demands. In response to a series of demand letters by Chairman
Bob Goodlatte, as recited in H. Res. 938,\6\ the DOJ has been
continuously/consistently providing responsive documents
related to the 2016 Clinton email investigation, as well as the
text messages shared by FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney
Lisa Page. The document production has occurred on at least a
weekly basis since January 2018. This effort has been
supplemented by a massive production of text messages as well
as the aforementioned DOJ IG report.\7\ The Committee has also
conducted transcribed interviews with several current and
former FBI officials associated with the Clinton email
investigation. To date, the Committee has interviewed: former
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; James Rybicki, former chief of
staff to former Director James Comey; Bill Preistap, Assistant
Director of the Counterintelligence Division; John Giacalone,
former Executive Assistant Director of the National Security
Branch; and Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Letter from Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
Chairman Trey Gowdy, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, et al., to
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions & Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein (Nov. 3, 2017); Letter from Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm.
on the Judiciary, Chairman Trey Gowdy, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't
Reform, et al., to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions & Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (Dec. 20, 2017); Letter from Chairman
Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to U.S. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions & Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (Dec. 6, 2017);
Letter from Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Chairman
Trey Gowdy, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, et al., to U.S.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions & Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
(Dec. 12, 2017).
\7\U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of Inspector General, A Review of
Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department
of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election, Oversight & Rev. Div. No.
18-04 (June 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 938 also reiterates the Majority's demands for
documents and information related to early investigative steps
taken by the FBI after opening a counterintelligence
investigation into Trump campaign officials' apparent contacts
with Russian agents. The Majority argues that these early
investigative steps were initiated by a cabal of ``politically
biased'' FBI agents lead by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, based
solely on ``opposition research''--i.e. the Steele Dossier--
funded by Democratic operatives, and that this bias taints the
entire investigation into Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election.\8\ No credible evidence supports these
allegations. Furthermore, Department officials have repeatedly
explained to the Majority that longstanding Department policy
prohibits the release of certain information related to ongoing
criminal investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See Louis Jacobson, Fact-checking Donald Trump's claims about
Democrats on Robert Mueller's team, Politifact, Mar. 21, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the Department's good faith efforts to comply with
the Majority's oversight demands, Chairman Goodlatte issued on
March 22, 2018 a unilateral subpoena to the DOJ asking for: (1)
evidence provided to the Inspector General as part of its
Clinton email investigation report; (2) personnel information
on any individual associated with the declination decision
related to Secretary Clinton; (3) cases supporting this
decision; (4) materials related to the Office of Professional
Responsibility's decision to fire Deputy Director McCabe; (5)
any evidence, documents, or communications related to the FISA
applications on Carter Page or any individuals associated with
the Trump campaign and Administration, including evidence to
public reporting of the applications; (6) any documents related
to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) hearings
associated with the Page or Trump FISA applications; (7)
documents related to defensive briefings provided to both
campaigns in 2016; and (8) documents and communications related
to the Clinton Foundation investigation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Subpoena from Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
Chairman Trey Gowdy, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, et al., to
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Mar. 22, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a June 21, 2018 letter, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler
(D-NY) notified Chairman Goodlatte that this subpoena does not
comply with Committee rules and is therefore unenforceable.\10\
Committee rules require consultation with the Ranking Member in
advance--and the Chairman must provide the Ranking Member with
a ``full copy of the proposed subpoena'' at that time.\11\ On
March 19, 2018, the Majority provided Ranking Member Nadler
with a version of a subpoena substantially different from the
subpoena ultimately issued on March 22. After consulting with
the House Parliamentarian and several former House counsels,
Ranking Member Nadler concluded that ``the subpoena that
eventually issued is likely unenforceable as a matter of
law.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Letter from Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, to Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (June
21, 2018).
\11\ ``At least two business days before issuing any subpoena
pursuant to subsection (a), the Chair shall consult with the Ranking
Member regarding the authorization and issuance of such subpoena, and
the Chair shall provide a full copy of the proposed subpoena, including
any proposed document schedule, at that time.'' Rule IV(c), Rules of
Procedure, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong., adopted Jan. 24,
2017.
\12\Nadler letter, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Committee's markup, Rep. Jordan offered an amendment
substituting the text of H. Res. 938 largely with the text of
H. Res. 937, a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress
that the DOJ, within seven days of enactment, must provide
certain documents in its possession to the House of
Representatives relating to the ongoing congressional
investigation of certain prosecutorial and investigatory
decisions made by the Department and the FBI regarding the 2016
presidential election. Rep. Jordan's amendment was clearly non-
germane on two grounds: (1) the subject matter of the amendment
was far broader than the underlying text of H. Res. 938; and
(2) the amendment broke the resolution's privileged
parliamentary status.
In 1998, the Chairman of the Committee set a precedent:
``To a privileged resolution of impeachment, an amendment
proposing instead censure, which is not privileged, was held
not germane.''\13\ That precedent applies to resolutions of
inquiry as they also enjoy privileged parliamentary status.
Thus, an amendment that makes the underlying privileged
resolution ``not privileged'' is not germane. Furthermore,
House precedent states that to enjoy privilege a resolution of
inquiry should call for facts rather than opinions,\14\ should
not call for an investigation,\15\ and should not present a
preamble.\16\ Rep. Jordan's amendment was clearly non-germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Jefferson's Manual, at 320.
\14\3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1872, 1873; 6 Cannon Sec. 413; Deschler Ch.
15 Sec. 2; 93-1, Mar. 6, 1973, pp 6383-85.
\15\3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1872-1874; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 427, 429, 432;
93-1, Mar. 6, 1973, pp 6383-85.
\16\3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 1877, 1878; 6 Cannon Sec. Sec. 422, 427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, on a party line vote, the Majority overruled the
determination made by their own acting Chairman that Rep.
Jordan's amendment was non-germane. And incredibly, during the
vote, acting Chairman Steve Chabot (R-OH) refused to uphold his
own ruling. Instead, both he and Chairman Goodlatte voted
``present.'' Only the Minority Members at the markup voted to
uphold the rules of the House and the ruling of the acting
Chair. Without doubt, the Majority's flagrant violation of its
own Committee rules and those of the House demonstrates that
the Majority's true goal is to undermine the DOJ, its Deputy
Attorney General, and the rule of law.
Finally, it must be noted that the Majority scheduled the
markup of H. Res. 938 a mere two days before they scheduled Mr.
Rosenstein to testify at a hearing before the Committee on June
28, 2018. The Majority engineered this sequence of events by
violating the Committee's rule requiring the Chairman to
provide seven days' advance notice of a hearing to Members.
Worse, on the day of the hearing with Mr. Rosenstein, the
Majority scheduled a floor vote on H. Res. 970, an alternate
resolution substantially similar in subject matter to H. Res.
938. And to add further insult to comity, the Majority
abandoned longstanding committee practice and refused to recess
the hearing during floor consideration of H. Res. 970.
Thus, on June 28, 2018, the House voted on a resolution the
Committee never considered that wrongfully condemned the DOJ
for purportedly failing to comply with congressional oversight
requests, and that served as a symbolic public ultimatum to Mr.
Rosenstein--all before he had a chance to defend himself and
the Department against the Majority's spurious accusations. The
Majority's multiple violations of Committee and House comity
clearly underscore the fact that their effort in favorably
ordering the report of H. Res. 938, as amended, was a public
charade devoid of process and legality.
CONCLUSION
H. Res. 938 advances no legitimate oversight interest and
serves merely as a vehicle to aid President Trump's assault on
the integrity of the Department of Justice. Even worse, the
Majority's conduct during the markup of H. Res. 938 flouted
basic and longstanding principles of committee process as well
as the rules governing the House. This conduct and the
circumstances surrounding the markup's timing sadly demonstrate
that the Majority has abandoned the Committee's oversight
responsibilities in an effort to aid the Trump Administration
even at the expense of adhering to the most fundamental rules
of law, precedent, and practice. The only saving grace in this
whole debacle is that H. Res. 938 does not carry the force of
law.
For the forgoing reasons, we dissent.
Mr. Nadler.
Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Johnson, Jr.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Gutierrez.
Ms. Bass.
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Lieu.
Mr. Raskin.
Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Demings.
[all]