[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 13, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2690-H2697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 24, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF
CONGRESS THAT THE REPORT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER SHOULD BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO CONGRESS, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS
DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 15, 2019, THROUGH MARCH 22, 2019
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 208 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 208
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 24) expressing the sense of Congress that the
report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to
the public and to Congress. All points of order against
consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The
amendments to the concurrent resolution and the preamble
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The
concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in the
concurrent resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent
resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
March 15, 2019, through March 22, 2019--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 208, providing for the consideration
of H. Con. Res. 24, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that
the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the
public and to Congress.
The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed
rule.
The rule self-executes two amendments to simply clarify that the
resolution is calling for the release of the special counsel's findings
in addition to any report.
{time} 1215
It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Finally, the rule provides standard recess procedures for the period
of March 15 through March 22.
Mr. Speaker, when the Justice Department named the special counsel
for the Russia investigation, acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
said: ``A special counsel is necessary in order for the American people
to have full confidence in the outcome. Our Nation is grounded on the
rule of law, and the public must be assured that government officials
administer the law fairly.''
This investigation has been about following the facts wherever they
may lead, getting to the truth of Russia's involvement in the 2016
election, and ensuring government is transparent and accountable to the
American public.
This does not predetermine the outcome of that investigation. It
simply expresses that the report of the special counsel should be made
available to Congress and to the American people.
The public, including my constituents in California--our constituents
in California, Mr. Speaker--want to know what happened. Nearly 9 in 10
Americans in both parties say the investigation should produce a full
public report on their findings. Not only do the American people want
to know, but they deserve to know. Congress needs to preserve their
ability to know.
Our election system is an integral part of what makes us the beacon
of Western democracy. Any and all attempts to undermine this system is
an attack on our country's values and cannot be taken lightly.
This is a serious investigation with consequences for our elections,
democracy, government, and the future of this country and democracy
itself. There is no one with more intimate knowledge of Russia's
involvement in our election than the special counsel.
To date, this investigation has resulted in 34 people and three
companies being criminally charged; nearly 200 charges filed; seven
guilty pleas; one conviction following a jury trial; and the
investigation, while costing $25 million, has recovered approximately
$48 million in assets from tax evasion.
Mr. Speaker, eight Federal and congressional intelligence and
national security groups believe Russia interfered
[[Page H2691]]
in our election, with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National
Security Agency, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence concluding that Vladimir Putin personally ``ordered an
influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' to
``undermine public faith in the democratic process.''
The last time our country had a special counsel operating under the
same rules as this probe was in 1993 to investigate the Waco siege and
allegations of government wrongdoing. Prosecutors posted their final
report directly on the internet with hundreds of pages of exhibits and
timelines. The American people must receive the same transparency when
this report is released.
I encourage my friends across the aisle to support the release of
this report. We have commitments to support it from three House
Republican leaders, including the minority leader, the minority whip,
and the Republican Conference chair. I hope all my colleagues across
the aisle will join us in this vote to ensure that we are on the record
that we will share one of the most important investigations of our time
within these halls and with all of America.
This is happening on our watch, and it is our job to be faithful to
our oath to defend and uphold democracy. As Justice Brandeis famously
said, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank my friend from California for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, when I see someone of your stature come to the chair, I
think: We must be down here to debate some serious American public
policy. We must be down here to change the law in ways that can only
happen once in a generation when people come together to make things
happen.
I don't know what they told you when you came to the chair this
morning, but let me be the first to tell you that is not at all why we
are here today. What we are here to say today is important, that the
American people have a vested interest in confidence in our democracy.
That is a value shared from the furthest side of the left to the
furthest side of the right. But the resolution we have here before us
today is just a restatement of current law.
Sometimes I think, Mr. Speaker, that we undermine faith in the
democracy when we try to pretend that division exists where division
does not, where we try to pretend that we are doing great things when,
in fact, we are not.
This is an opportunity today to speak with a voice in Congress that
says the special counsel should release the report. But let me be
clear, because we sometimes do more harm than good, that is going to be
the headline: ``House Votes for Special Counsel to Release Report.''
That is not actually what the resolution says, and I want to guide you.
If you have a copy, Mr. Speaker, you can go back through it. It is
not going to be on page 1. It is not going to be on pages 2, 3, 4, or
5. The real substance of the resolution is back on the bottom of page
5, early on page 6. It says, ``to the extent permitted by law.''
As you know from your legal background, Mr. Speaker, the law does not
allow the special counsel to release so many things. Grand jury
testimony, for example, nowhere in the country is grand jury testimony
disclosed. Those facts are gathered, but that is never disclosed.
Intelligence sources and methods, that is never disclosed, nor would
anybody on the other side of the aisle suggest that it should be.
That is why, in the resolution drafted by the Democratic chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, it says specifically that these things need
not be released because it is prohibited by law. I only make that
point, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes the headlines are all we read
when they come through on our Twitter feed. Sometimes we believe the
headline tells the whole story.
I want to make it clear that there is unanimity in this Chamber that
transparency is valuable in our Republic. But it is also true that this
is a nation of laws. The reason the special counsel exists is because
we are a nation of laws, and the substance of the special counsel's
report is going to be governed by those laws. To the extent allowable
by law, our Attorney General has already said he wants to make the
entire thing available.
I don't know how you want to characterize the resolution today, Mr.
Speaker, whether you want to characterize it as an insistence of the
House on how the administration should behave or just a big attaboy to
our new Attorney General to say: You are doing a great job, and we are
behind you 100 percent in what you have already promised the American
people you were going to do.
However you characterize that resolution--we heard it in the Rules
Committee, as my friend from California suggested--it is coming to the
floor today under a closed rule. So if anybody has any additional
changes they want to make, those changes will not be permitted. This is
a take-it-or-leave-it resolution from the Rules Committee today.
But as a restatement of current law, it is quite clear. Again, you
have to go all the way to the back of the resolution to find those 10
lines of substance. But when you get there, you will find these are
already things the Attorney General has agreed to, and all Americans
should be pleased about that outcome.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me join with my friend from Georgia in noting how
important it is that you are presiding, my good friend, with lots of
history between the two of us in our political life in California and
our education, I might add to the Jesuits.
I want to say to my good friend, I look at this as one of those
opportunities where we may not get a headline. Unfortunately, too many
of the headlines talk about how divisive it is here. Certainly, there
is a lot of that.
But when I go home and do townhalls--and I do a lot of them in
northern California--when this question comes up about polarization, I
talk about all the times we do work together that don't get out,
certainly, in the headlines, because that is not what sells
advertising, apparently. I think this is one of those moments that we
aspire to that, that we actually aspire that somebody picks up on this;
that all of us, in these extraordinary circumstances, are being
faithful to our oath; that we make sure that the things that may have
happened, that apparently did happen, that the public needs confidence
in us.
When we look every day, including today, at the affronts and the
attacks on so many institutions in America, and this institution having
had challenges, this might be one of those opportunities, at least for
us, to say: We agree. We may have differences of opinion about who did
what, but we have faith.
For me, I think history will say that this special counsel is one of
those providential Americans. With his background, with his
determination to believe in fidelity and truth, we were lucky to have
this person at this point in time.
I put my faith in this institution. I put faith in the special
counsel. In this instance, I hear from you, my friend from Georgia,
that we are going to put our faith in this institution and one another,
that we can show the American people that this is, indeed, more
important than party, and it is more important than any of our
individual political careers.
I did want to mention, Mr. Speaker, that this is a sense of Congress
and that this is not the first time we have brought a resolution like
this to the floor. In fact, just last week, we brought a resolution to
the floor to send a message to the American people that Congress is
united in condemning anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its forms. There
are people who criticized us for bringing that and thought that it was
unnecessary, but we brought that to the floor.
A majority of Republicans joined Democrats, an overwhelming majority,
in voting for it. Leader McCarthy called it a resolution to make a
statement. Whip Scalise said, regarding the resolution, ``We must all
take a strong
[[Page H2692]]
stand against hatred and bigotry wherever we see it, and I am glad this
resolution makes'' sense.
We agree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
passing these types of resolutions can make a strong statement.
Although they may seem to some as unnecessary, these statements on
these kinds of important issues, I believe, are very necessary for this
institution to make, particularly when they are bipartisan.
Today, we are letting Attorney General Barr and everyone else know
that we are all united behind one common principle, which I believe he
agreed to in his confirmation hearings, which the Member from Georgia
alluded to. That complete transparency, consistent with law, is vital
to the success of our democracy. The American people deserve to have
access to this report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess), a senior member on the Rules Committee and a
subcommittee ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to the rule providing for
consideration of H. Con. Res. 24 to release the special counsel's
investigation report, a report that, I may note, has not yet been
issued.
The resolution we are considering here today will not change the law;
it will not increase transparency; and it will provide no new benefit
to the American people. Quite simply, this resolution merely
states current law. This resolution simply restates current Department
of Justice protocol.
We had a Member here in this House who was also a physician and who
was a member of the other party, former Congressman McDermott of
Washington State. I remember one time Republicans offered a sense of
Congress resolution that had something to do with taxes. The gentleman
took to the floor of the House and said, if you want to do something
about taxes, do something about taxes, but a sense of Congress
resolution, why you might as well be sending a get-well card to the
IRS.
That is the force with which we are exercising our congressional time
today. Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have decided to use
valuable legislative time to consider a resolution that changes nothing
and does not serve the American people.
In the time that we have spent debating this resolution, we could
have been discussing more serious matters before this body. Let's just
run through a few of them.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act has been brought to
the floor 17 times, yet the current Democratic leadership refuses to
bring up this legislation for a vote. I might remind the body that this
bill is not about abortion but saving the lives of children who are, in
fact, born alive.
{time} 1230
You know, I don't make it a habit of watching ``60 Minutes'' on
television, but last Sunday night, ``60 Minutes'' had a news story on
the dramatic advances in the treatment and perhaps--perhaps--inching
towards a cure for sickle cell disease.
Sickle cell disease is a painful condition I witnessed many times as
a resident at Parkland Hospital back in the 1970s.
For years, sickle cell received very little attention. Now, I am
happy to say in the last Congress, under the leadership of Danny
Davis of Illinois, our subcommittee worked on and passed his bill
dealing with sickle cell. It finally was passed by the Senate in
October of last year, and it was signed into law by the President last
December.
As a consequence, the push for sickle cell research has continued.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which this Congress worked on at the end of
the previous administration, certainly can be given some credit for
that. But, I have to tell you, it was dramatic to have the Director of
the NIH interviewed on ``60 Minutes'' talking about a cure for sickle
cell.
So our work that we do here is important. It does impact the lives of
real people, and I think that is just one dramatic example.
Well, another example was the first tax reform, 31 years, that was
signed into law last year, and here we are a month out from tax day. We
could use this time to strengthen the progress we made on the tax
reform that was passed last year.
In the last Congress, we helped American people keep more of their
hard-earned money. We should be working to continue that momentum,
perhaps make those tax cuts permanent for the middle class.
We could be discussing the Democrats' government-run, bureaucratic,
top-down healthcare plan that would strip hardworking Americans of
their private health insurance and offer less coverage at more expense
to American taxpayers, but we are not.
Today, we could be talking about patent abuse entities, so-called
patent trolls, particularly troublesome in the eastern district of
Texas, where most of those cases are litigated.
The House could be considering the Troll Act, legislation that I have
introduced for three terms of Congress to limit patent assertion
entities and protect Americans' intellectual property.
We could be using this time to discuss our Nation's critical need for
border security to protect the American people and defend our borders.
In February of 2019, the shortest month of the year, only 28 days,
more than 75,000 people that we know of crossed the border without
legal status, in excess of a 100 percent increase from the same period
last year. People argue whether that is an emergency. I believe that it
is, but we could be talking about that.
In a week in which more than 150 lost their lives, we could be using
this time to discuss aviation safety and does Congress need to do
anything further to ensure the continued safety of the American
traveling public.
So time and again, we found that Members on the other side of the
dais are far more interested in discrediting the President than working
on policy that will help the American people, this President who, in
the first 2 years and 2 months of this administration, has probably
been more productive than any Presidency in the last 50 years.
And, finally, Mr. Speaker, we could be using this time to address the
false and misleading comments that a member of the Judiciary Committee
made about the Department of Health and Human Services.
Last month, a Member of this House grossly mischaracterized the work
being done by the Department of Health and Human Services to care for
unaccompanied alien children by stating that the Office of Refugee
Resettlement created ``an environment of systemic sexual assaults by
Health and Human Services staff on unaccompanied alien children.''
Mr. Speaker, that accusation is false, and it was made without that
Member ever having visited an ORR facility. Those comments are a
discredit to the effort by dedicated personnel of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, those employees who deal with a problem that dates back
to the Obama administration when the Office of Refugee Resettlement was
unprepared for the task.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Beyer). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. If Democrats don't like the work that the Office of
Refugee Settlement is doing, you are in the majority. You have the
ability to introduce legislation and pass legislation to do something
different.
Instead of standing here today discussing this superfluous
resolution, the Democrats could be using this time to change a law that
they clearly don't like.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the agency's
Administration for Children and Families regarding this issue.
Administration for
Children & Families,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2019.
Representative Ted Deutch,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Deutch: At the February 26th House
Judiciary Committee hearing, you stated that ORR created ``an
environment of systemic sexual assaults by staff on
unaccompanied alien children'' and went on to conclude that
you have seen ``thousands of cases of sexual assault, if not
by
[[Page H2693]]
HHS staff, then by staff HHS oversees.'' (emphasis added).
However, this is unsupported by the data you provided and
none of the allegations involve HHS employees. By
mischaracterizing the data during a televised hearing, you
impugned the integrity of hundreds of federal civil servants
who, like Commander White, work tirelessly to ensure the
well-being of the nearly 50,000 unaccompanied alien children
who they have been charged by federal law to protect
annually. On behalf of these dedicated employees of HHS
assigned to the UAC program, we request that you apologize to
these career civil servants for your untoward and unfounded
comments. Acknowledging that you were wrong is the moral,
decent and right thing to do.
Child safety is our top priority in managing the UAC
program. All but one of our care facilities are licensed by
the authorizing state residential child care agency, and
operate under intense state and federal oversight. Because
ORR care facilities diligently track all allegations of a
wide range of sexually inappropriate conduct, ranging from
name calling or use of vulgar language to more serious
claims, the data given to Congress by our agency reflects
allegations much broader than just `sexual abuse' (as defined
in 34 U.S.C. Sec. 20341 and in ORR regulations at 45 C.F.R.
Sec. 411.6), to also include `sexual harassment' (as defined
in ORR regulations at 45 C.F.R. Sec. 411.6) and
`inappropriate sexual behavior' (a catch-all category for
sexual behaviors that do not rise to the level of sexual
abuse or sexual harassment).
The total number of sexual conduct allegations reported to
ORR decreased in FY2017 (1,069 total) but otherwise has
generally remained relatively stable each year (FY2015: 1,000
total, FY2016: 1,226 total, FY2018 (through July): 1,261
total). The vast majority of the allegations reported to ORR
are `inappropriate sexual behaviors' involving solely UAC,
and not staff or any other adults. Facilities can often
resolve these allegations by, for example, counseling the
minors about more appropriate behaviors.
More serious allegations rising to the level of `sexual
abuse' are reported to both ORR and the Department of Justice
(DOJ). Of these, the vast majority involve `UAC-on-UAC'
allegations; the distinct minority involve adults. In FY2015,
279 allegations of sexual abuse were reported. Of these, 8.6%
(24 instances) involved allegations of facility-staff-on-
minor sexual abuse. These metrics fluctuated in subsequent
years but remained relatively consistent. In FY2016, ORR and
DOJ received 348 allegations of sexual abuse, and 16.1% (56
instances) involved facility-staff-on-minor allegations; in
FY2017, ORR and DOJ received 264 allegations of sexual abuse,
and 18.6% involved facility-staff-on-minor allegations (49
instances); in FY2018 (through July), ORR and DOJ received
412 allegations of sexual abuse, and 11.9% involved facility-
staff-on-minor allegations (49 instances). Thus, the total
number of incidents of alleged `sexual abuse' involving
facility-staff-on-minor misconduct across a four-year period
spanning the previous administration and this administration
was 178 out of approximately 182,806 children under UAC care
or about 0.10% of all children placed in ORR custody during
that period. None of the allegations involved ORR or other
HHS federal staff. These allegations were all fully
investigated and remedial action was taken where appropriate.
Your office staff requests an additional briefing from ORR
program officials on these allegations. ORR will be happy to
meet with you once you correct the hearing record and provide
an apology to the dedicated men and women working tirelessly
to protect and improve the lives of unaccompanied alien
children in our care.
Sincerely,
Jonathan H. Hayes,
Acting Director,
Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Mr. BURGESS. So here is the bottom line: House Democrats do not like
the President of the United States, and we know that.
Less than 3 months into the 116th Congress, the Democrats have shown
that they will work against President Trump to the detriment of the
American people.
We are here in the United States House of Representatives to serve
the American people, and the legislation we are considering here today
will not do that.
President Trump has urged us at the State of the Union, asked all the
Members present, to reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and
retribution and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation,
compromise, and the common good. I also believe this is possible, and I
recommend we get on with the task.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chair of the Committee on
House Administration.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution today.
We have a responsibility to the American people to uphold the
Constitution and rule of law, and we also have an obligation, as a
separate and equal branch of government, to act as a check on the
executive branch.
Without access to necessary information, we can't fulfill our
constitutionally prescribed duties. We must have not only this report,
but the evidence collected to support the report.
If the President has nothing to hide, then he would also support this
resolution by tweet or verbal approval.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation. It is
very important for our country.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and
Administrative Law.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution.
Special Counsel Mueller's investigation has resulted in 199 criminal
charges against 39 people and entities. Seven people have pleaded
guilty, and five people have been sentenced to prison.
This investigation has been conducted on behalf of the American
people, and they are entitled to know the results of this
investigation.
This investigation was begun to safeguard our democracy, and the
American people deserve to know the results of this investigation; and
yet President Trump has repeatedly sought to attack and discredit the
investigation, labeling it a witch hunt and even contemplating firing
the special counsel.
The President's pick for Attorney General, Bill Barr, has also made
it clear during his confirmation hearing that he will only follow DOJ's
policies that are convenient for the President. Therefore, it is up to
Congress to make sure that documents related to the special counsel's
investigation are preserved and published.
That is why I introduced the Special Counsel Transparency Act, with
Congressman Doggett, to require the publication of the special
counsel's report.
No one person should decide what the public gets to see. The American
people have a right to come to their own conclusions and to know that
justice was served.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the American people. Allow
them to see the results of the investigation conducted on their behalf.
Bring transparency to this process. Support this resolution and signal
a willingness to respect the right of the American people to see the
consequences and the results of this important investigation which,
again, was begun to safeguard our democracy.
This shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic issue. Mr. Speaker, I
hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in our
effort to preserve our democracy.
I thank, again, the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Rhode Island before he
leaves the floor: The bill that he introduced, was that also a House
resolution or was that an H.R. to insist on the revealing?
Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation that I introduced is an
H.R. But if the point of the gentleman's question is is that a more
effective way to do it, I would welcome support on my resolution. I
haven't been as successful getting my Republican colleagues to join us.
We are hoping that this resolution is a way for him to find his way
toward transparency, democracy, and spirit of bipartisanship and
letting the American people know the results of the investigation.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode
Island introducing the bill.
And I think that is an important distinction, Mr. Speaker, and that
is what you have heard, largely. You heard it in the Rules Committee;
you have heard it down here on the floor, that: Listen, there are lots
of things that we could be doing here, and if we wanted to pass a law
that insisted that the entire report was released--those parts that are
prohibited from being released under current law and those parts that
are intended to be released under current law--we could do that. That
is just not what we are doing.
[[Page H2694]]
What we are doing is saying: Hey, do you know what current law is?
Follow current law. Follow current law. We, the House of
Representatives, have thought about it, and in our deliberative wisdom,
we are prepared to announce that we believe current law should be
followed--Signed, U.S. House of Representatives.
There are those who would have you believe this is something more
than that. It is not. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing
today except that it is not a particularly valuable use of time.
When I opened, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the chair, but I
mentioned that I think we do great damage to trust in our Republic when
we seek division instead of highlighting our unity. To suggest that we
are down here doing something to protect our Republic from its
inevitable demise is just ridiculous. No such thing is happening here
on the floor today. All that is happening on the floor today is saying
that we, the duly-elected Members of the U.S. House of Representatives,
believe U.S. law should be followed.
Mr. Speaker, I agree, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend from Georgia, I
want to agree--and maybe we disagree a little bit.
I do think this is important. I think it is the unusual circumstance,
and a lot of things that we have no direct control over have brought us
to this circumstance.
Social media and the use of social media in our elections is
relatively new, coming from the Bay area where so much of the genesis
happened.
So I think it is important, and I do think there is lacking--and
hyperbole is something that sometimes doesn't happen in this Chamber,
but I think it is not a hyperbole to say that the U.S. House of
Representatives, hopefully, unanimously says that the law should be
followed to its letter.
So I think we agree, and I don't want to look for a way to disagree.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is in the Mueller report and neither
do you. The American people don't know what is in the Mueller report,
but they want to know. And I want to know, as you do, and why not?
Mr. Speaker, 81 percent of the American people polled say they want
to know, and that includes 79 percent of the Republicans. That is good
news.
Because what we do know, without knowing the details of the Mueller
report, is that really bad stuff happened in the last election. Some of
it was in a campaign, and some of it was in a foreign country that is
our severe adversary; and I speak, of course, of Vladimir Putin's
Russia.
But the bad stuff: a former campaign foreign policy adviser indicted
and convicted, Mr. Papadopoulos; a former campaign manager on his way
to jail, Mr. Manafort; a former campaign aide and Manafort's long-time
junior business partner indicted; a former foreign policy national
security adviser pleaded guilty, Mr. Flynn.
This is the high level of a campaign where crimes are not just being
discussed; there have been convictions and guilty pleas. What is behind
all of that? We need to know.
And, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the American people are footing the
bill for this--about $25 million, as far as we can tell. They have got
a right to know.
But, in addition to whatever happened in the campaign, really bad
stuff happened in Russia. We know from our own intelligence agencies
that Russia made a concerted effort and a determined effort and a well-
financed effort to interfere in our election.
{time} 1245
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, outside interference goes to the heart of our
democracy. The most important challenge for our country is that we, the
citizens of this country, make the decision on who is our President,
who are our Senators, and who are our Representatives.
We have to get to the bottom of what Russia did and how they did it
so that we can take steps to make certain that that does not happen in
the future. It is the American people who decide who is their leader.
Release the Mueller report.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking for something to disagree with my friend
from Vermont about. I don't disagree with him about anything at all. I
thought that was a very thoughtful presentation.
The only thing I would point out is the reason that he doesn't know
what is in the Mueller report and the American people don't know what
is in the Mueller report, is because as of today, there is no Mueller
report. That is the only reason we don't know what is in it. It hasn't
been released yet.
I don't mean released to the public. I mean, Mueller hasn't written
it and handed it to the Attorney General yet, and so we don't know.
When that happens, let me tell you what the Attorney General has said,
Mr. Speaker. The Attorney General has committed to being transparent
with Congress and the public consistent with the rules and the law. I
don't think we would ask anything different of him.
The Attorney General has committed to providing as much information
as he can consistent with current regulations. I don't think we would
ask anything different of him than that, and, certainly, this
resolution does not ask anything different of him other than that.
He says that his objective and goal is to get as much information as
he can to the public. That is exactly what this resolution asks for;
exactly what he has already committed to. And he says, ``I feel like
I'm in a position in life where I can do the right thing and not really
care about the consequences. I can be truly independent.''
Well, that doesn't just mean truly independent from pressure put on
him from the White House. It also means truly independent from
statements of opinion sent to him by the U.S. House. He is going to do
the right thing, as allowed by the law and resolutions. If he doesn't,
this House can act and try to push a different outcome.
Just understand that that is not what this resolution does today. It
is simply a statement of fact. To my friend from California, there are
those Members of Congress that sometimes they speak and you just want
to get out your sharp stick, Mr. Speaker, and poke them a little bit
harder. They don't calm you down. They rile you up. My friend from
California is one of those folks whose thoughtful words always recenter
me and remind me what we have together.
He is right about the hyperbole, and I don't want to mischaracterize
this resolution. It does do one thing that is not available in current
law today, and that is, that it makes the official position of the
United States House known. I have always presumed that the Attorney
General would follow the law. This resolution says we expect the
Attorney General to follow the law.
It is not that it does nothing. It is just that it does something so
very little, perhaps our time would be better spent elsewhere, but I
support the underlying premise.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for pointing
out that I am not a poker, that I might actually be trying to be
thoughtful. Maybe it is because I was once registered as a Republican.
I don't regularly admit that sometimes, at least not in my district.
But I do think this conversation is important on multiple levels, and
I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is here to present his side of
the aisle's position.
I think there is a danger here for us to resume to our corners, and
this is an instance where I really think it is important--and,
hopefully, it is newsworthy--to the media and to the general public
that we are coming to this moment. Although it is a resolution, I still
think it is significant without indulging in hyperbole.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Perlmutter), my friend and a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California,
[[Page H2695]]
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I have not heard you two be so
agreeable. Disagreeable is what usually you are, but so agreeable, and
the reason there is agreement here is, we all want to see what is in
this report.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying
resolution, and I would like to remind everybody about what the Mueller
investigation is about. Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. Presidential
election with, in my opinion, the goal of helping Donald Trump be
elected.
This is a fact confirmed by the U.S. intelligence community, as well
as by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. This should concern
every American, Republican, Democrat, or Independent.
In response to this unprecedented attack on our elections, Robert
Mueller was appointed to serve as special counsel for the Justice
Department to follow the facts wherever they may lead, whether they
implicate people or exonerate people. We need to know precisely what
happened, understand who was involved, how it was accomplished, and,
ultimately, hold those responsible for this attack on our election
accountable under our laws. This investigation will also ensure we
better protect our elections in the future.
Now, we have had 2 convictions of Mr. Manafort, 7 guilty pleas, 34
people and 3 companies indicted as part of the Mueller investigation.
Six of the people indicted were part of President Trump's inner circle
with the campaign and business. So it is important for us to understand
precisely what is in the report.
I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee unanimously supported
this particular rule and the underlying resolution, and I say to my
friend from Georgia, you are right. The law is what it is and that it
says the report should be withheld until fully written and prepared.
And then if Mr. Barr does what he says he was going to do, it will be
made available to all of us.
We are emphasizing that point because Americans should know precisely
what happened and where this investigation has led. I thank my friend
from California for bringing this rule.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend, I do not have any
speakers remaining at this point, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me thank the gentleman from California and congratulate him on
his new distinguished post on the Rules Committee. My good friend who I
have seen quite frequently over the years at the Rules Committee and I
have known of his consistent concern with the rule of law and truly
appreciate his comments today as it relates to the rule of law.
I would like my comments to be strictly on that question and really
the American people of whom each and every one of us come here to
represent.
I don't want to recount in detail, but I do want to make mention that
we know that the Intelligence Committee in January 2017 concluded--and
that is the intelligence community concluded--in a report that Russian
President Putin ordered and influenced the campaign of 2016 on the
Presidential election. We all know recently there were attempts to
influence the 2018 election.
We won't dwell on that. We won't dwell on the fact that there are
discussions and review in the special counsel's work dealing with
collusion or the questions dealing with the campaign of the present
President and Russia.
I believe that the real point of this is to answer the questions of
the American people. If we say that the purpose of appointing the
special counsel to oversee the investigation is to ensure that the
American public would have full confidence in the integrity of the
investigation, regardless of what it says, I am here to say, regardless
of what the Mueller report will say--and we know that there will be
comments made by the general public, leaders of Congress, and that is
their right as Americans--we want to reinforce the fact that the DOJ
regulations themselves say that investigation results should be made
fully extended to the American public in the public interest, and that
the results of that report should be made available to the American
people.
Obviously, being concerned about persons that are mentioned with no
relevance whatsoever, as a lawyer, I would want to make sure such
protections occur. But it is true that Special Counsel Mueller
previously served in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, and
director of the FBI in the Republican and Democrat administrations
where he built a reputation of competence, fairness, and
nonpartisanship.
With that in mind, we thank him for the work he has done that has
shown a number of guilty pleas and other responses.
But the main point is the American people need to know that their
government adheres to the rule of law, and the integrity of the
Constitution. All we are asking today is to reflect in a sense of
Congress that you, the American people, that my colleagues in this
House and the Senate should have the right to see the full report.
I ask for support of the underlying bill, and I ask us to do it in a
bipartisan way.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on Judiciary, which
has oversight of the Department of Justice, and as a senior member of
the Committee on Homeland Security, which has oversight over our
election security infrastructure, I rise in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 24.
Mr. Speaker, I take no glee in standing here.
In fact, there are many parts of the last 22 months, since the day
that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI
Director Robert Mueller to be Special Counsel, where I have been
concerned for the state of our democracy.
And I know, from my travels back to the 18th Congressional District
of Texas, around our Nation, and to nations involved, that many
Americans are concerned about our democracy.
Since well before the 2016 election, Americans have been concerned
about how Russia was manipulating our election and the extent to which
that crime was aided and abetted by associates of the Trump Campaign.
American intelligence officials have been keenly aware of this threat
to the democracy posed by Russia's active measures campaign to sabotage
the election and secure the American presidency for its preferred
candidate, the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Shortly after the President took office, James Comey, the former
director of the FBI testified to the House Intelligence Committee in a
public congressional hearing that there was an active FBI investigation
into Russia's interference and the extent to which Russia and was aided
and abetted by agents of the Trump Campaign.
Shortly after the hearing, the President fired James Comey as FBI
Director and went on broadcast television and cited the looming Russia
investigation as his reason for doing so.
The next day in the Oval Office, the President of the United States
met with the Russian Ambassador and other officials from the Kremlin
and told them that he had gotten rid of ``nut job'' Comey and had
gotten the Russian investigation off his back.
Mere days later, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein
appointed legendary FBI Director and Department of Justice prosecutor
Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate whether Russia
interfered in our election and whether that effort was aided and
abetted by members of the Trump Campaign.
Since that time, the investigation has secured numerous indictments,
convictions or guilty pleas from the: President's campaign manager, his
deputy campaign manager, his campaign's foreign policy advisor, his
former personal attorney, his longtime confidante, and many others,
including Russian agents.
The president has attempted to dismiss these crimes and other charges
brought--like obstruction of justice, perjury, making false statements,
etc.--as ``process crimes,'' when in actuality they are crimes designed
to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system and the rule
of law.
But these are merely the headlines, when we look closer at just what
we have learned from the Russia investigation, we have a roadmap on how
to manipulate the electoral process in the world's oldest democracy.
We know that the Russians manipulated our social media systems.
They did this by turning our social media platforms like Twitter and
Facebook, into rowdy and unwieldy debates that turned Americans against
one another.
They did this by creating fake online social media accounts and
populated them on social media platforms.
After infiltrating the social media accounts of real Americans, these
fake accounts sought to sow discord in these online communities by
purposely exacerbating divisions within our
[[Page H2696]]
Nation and creating new ones--all with the intent of pitting Americans
against one another.
While they were distorting the social media landscape, they were also
selectively disseminating emails stolen from the Democratic
National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton with the purpose
of timing the dissemination to maximize political damage on Secretary
Clinton's campaign.
Based on the statements from the Trump Campaign, we also know that it
was actively trying to suppress the votes of groups traditionally
aligned with the Democratic party, including women, African Americans
and young voters.
We now know, due to information uncovered during the pendency of the
Special Counsel's investigation, Russians affiliated with the highest
ranks of the Kremlin were at Trump Tower during the middle of the 2016
election.
We know that then-candidate Trump asked Russia, ``Russia, if you're
releasing, I hope you will find Hillary's stolen emails.''
In May 2017, Special Counsel Mueller was appointed with the task of
getting to the bottom of this.
The American people deserve answers to know how their last
presidential election was a crime scene so that we may learn to ensure
that the next one is also not a crime scene.
And, the American people have every reason to have confidence in the
report produced by the Special Counsel.
The Special Counsel is a decorated American hero and public servant.
He has served as the FBI director for presidents of both parties.
He has served as a line prosecutor, a United States Attorney and a
leader within the Justice Department.
Despite protestations by the President, this is not a witch hunt--it
has yielded the public indictments of 34 individuals and 3 companies, 7
guilty pleas, and 1 conviction.
The American people are watching.
The most recent public opinion poll shows that a super majority of
Americans--a full 68 percent--wants the Mueller Report made public.
The Mueller Report is one unparalleled way in which Americans can
learn this information with confidence.
And, finally, we must tackle a serious issue that is being discussed
among elected officials and the Justice Department.
Over the past two years, we have been told that it is Justice
Department regulations that a sitting President cannot be indicted. I
will note that this principle has not been tested in court.
That regulation was implemented during the Watergate investigation,
under the theory that the President cannot be subjected to criminal
process.
But, assuming arguendo that this regulation is correct, and the
President cannot be subjected to criminal process and therefore cannot
and should not be indicted, it is a logical fallacy to say that because
he cannot be indicted by virtue of his office, and because it is
Justice Department regulation not to reveal information about
unindicted parties and individuals, the Justice Department cannot
reveal any information of potential wrongdoing by the President and not
reveal any information to the body that possesses the constitutional
responsibility for holding this president accountable.
For these reasons, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24, and
urge my colleagues to support it and urge passage so the American
people can learn how the 2016 election became a crime scene.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hope folks pay attention to some of those things that
have brought folks together today, and I hope folks pay attention to
some of those things that haven't brought us together today.
We have talked about whether there has been overstatement and
hyperbole, whether it comes from that end of Pennsylvania Avenue or
this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. None of us are advantaged by that. It
breeds more distrust in the American public, and breeds more distrust
in this institution.
We have talked about who is to blame within the administration. Of
course, there is news today of Paul Manafort's sentence, not for
anything related to the election, but for things related to his private
business practices. There will be efforts to conflate those two
investigations. Those are two different investigations, and I think the
American people are disadvantaged if they are led to believe that those
sentences are related to the election of the President of the United
States.
But what you have heard is a lot of unanimity, as you would expect,
that we are a Nation of laws and the rule of law should be followed,
and transparency should be our touchstone, and the American People, the
boss of each and every one of us, whether we work on that end of
Pennsylvania Avenue or this end of Pennsylvania Avenue, have a right to
know what their tax dollars have paid for and what their government is
up to.
I find that very encouraging that we have that sense of agreement
here today, Mr. Speaker. What is noticeably absent in this resolution
is the dramatic overreach that I think has characterized most of the
work we have done so far in 2019. Things that could have been
partnership issues have been pushed further and further out to the edge
of the political continuum that they became partisan issues.
This resolution does not make those mistakes of the past, and to my
friend from California's point, these things are done incrementally.
Trust is built incrementally; relationships grow incrementally; and
success happens incrementally.
It is my great hope, Mr. Speaker, that those things that unite us,
transparency, rule of law, trust in and of the American people will
begin today to flourish in ways, perhaps, those common themes have not
thus far. And both parties play a role in that disappointing outcome.
But success has to begin on one day, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps success
begins today.
I serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. There is
no such thing as a Republican road or a Democratic bridge. There is no
such thing as sitting in traffic on a Democratic highway or missing
your child's soccer game because of malfunctions on a Republican road.
We are all in this together.
{time} 1300
I do not plan to offer a previous question today, Mr. Speaker,
because this isn't one of those issues that dramatically divides us. My
friend suggested in the Rules Committee we passed this out in, I think,
our first voice vote of the year out of the Rules Committee, and I
intend to do exactly that today.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from California for yielding the
time and leading the debate today, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, again, it is a pleasure to see you up there. And to my
friend from Georgia, in his long, illustrious public career, I want to
thank him for his comity here today.
I can't help but think so many Americans now and people who are
filled with adrenaline and hyperbole talk about what a difficult time
this is, and I wouldn't underestimate the challenges ahead of us; but,
arguably, a more difficult time, I was thinking of Mr. Lincoln's
comments about appealing to the better angels of our nature, and
perhaps this is a turning point.
Certainly we will be tested, and we will fail on occasion, but to my
friend, for whatever time both of us have left here, I would like to
personally say to the degree we can find things that are of interest to
your district and my district, they are of interest to the United
States, and I would love to work with the gentleman to find those
things.
Lastly, I just can't help but comment on my observation about
providential Americans in history. I was reading about Mr. Mueller and
his comments when he was FBI Director in the context of his amazing
life and career as a combat veteran, a Bronze Star winner in the Marine
Corps in Vietnam. I think of my own father who was a devoted Marine
Corps combat veteran who is buried in Arlington. My dad and all
marines, although I was not one, liked to always recite ``Semper
Fidelis.''
The special counsel, in his comments when he was FBI Director,
assures me that the work he does in ways that I find profound, talked
about fidelity as he talked to his agents, that the fidelity to this
Constitution, to this country, and to the truth will find us true to
the path that we want to take and to success as we look for the better
angels of our nature.
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple vote but an important vote. We need to
get to the bottom of what happened and put faith in the special
counsel's findings and put faith in the American public and the people
that they can devise their own truth when we give them this
investigation's report.
[[Page H2697]]
Mr. Speaker, you either believe the public and Congress should see
the report or you don't. Fortunately, it looks like we are agreed that
they should. We owe it to our constituents, the American people, and
future generations to do the right thing always, but today, I think, in
particular, to support the release of this report.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on
the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________