[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.

                          ____________________