```

[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]
```