79–008 

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 

2 

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 

3 

(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; 

4 

1Wm. Holmes Brown, et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures 

of the House ch. 49, § 6, p. 834 (2011). 2 7 Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. No. 94–661, 

94th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 24, § 8. 

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

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 reVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:48 Jul 14, 2018 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR813.XXX HR813
5 

3 A resolution that seeks more than factual information does not enjoy privileged status. 

Brown, supra note 1, at 833–34. 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. 

quire 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. 

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

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). 

6 

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) ......................................

7 

ROLL CALL NO. 2—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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) ......................................

8 

ROLL CALL NO. 3—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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) ......................................

9 

ROLL CALL NO. 4—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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 

10 

ROLL CALL NO. 5—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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 

11 

ROLL CALL NO. 6—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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 

12 

ROLL CALL NO. 7—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

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. 

13 

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. § 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, 

14 

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. 3 House Rule XIII, clause 7. 

4Davis, supra note 1, at 1. 

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

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

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 

15 

5Press Release, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on Judiciary, Goodlatte, Gowdy Open Investigation into Decisions Made by DOJ in 2016 (Oct. 24, 2017). 6Letter 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). 

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. 

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 proVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:48 Jul 14, 2018 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR813.XXX HR813
16 

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). 8See Louis Jacobson, Fact-checking Donald Trump’s claims about Democrats on Robert 

Mueller’s team, POLITIFACT, Mar. 21, 2018. 9Subpoena 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. 10Letter 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 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. 

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. 

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

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, 

17 

posed 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. 13 JEFFERSON’S MANUAL, at 320. 14 3 Hinds §§ 1872, 1873; 6 Cannon § 413; Deschler Ch. 15 § 2; 93–1, Mar. 6, 1973, pp 6383– 

85. 15 3 Hinds §§ 1872–1874; 6 Cannon §§ 427, 429, 432; 93–1, Mar. 6, 1973, pp 6383–85. 16 3 Hinds §§ 1877, 1878; 6 Cannon §§ 422, 427. 

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

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. 

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 comVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:48 Jul 14, 2018 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR813.XXX HR813
18 

ity, 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. GUTIE ́ RREZ. 

MS. BASS. 

MR. RICHMOND. 

MR. JEFFRIES. 

MR. CICILLINE. 

MR. SWALWELL. 

MR. LIEU. 

MR. RASKIN. 

MS. JAYAPAL. 

MS. DEMINGS. 

Æ