[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 46 (Thursday, March 14, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2723-H2732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915


                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 24.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 24 expresses the sense of Congress that any 
report Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivers to the Attorney General 
should be released to the public and to Congress. This concurrent 
resolution is important for several reasons.
  First, transparency is fundamental to the special counsel process, 
especially when dealing with matters of national security involving the 
President.
  In January 2017, the U.S. intelligence community unanimously reported 
that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign 
in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' and that ``Putin and 
the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect 
Trump.'' As a result of the importance of this charge and the clear 
conflict of interest in a matter involving the President, Robert 
Mueller was appointed as special counsel by the Acting Attorney General 
``in order for the American people to have full confidence in the 
outcome.''
  This is why in the only other instance involving the appointment of a 
special counsel under the regulations, concerning the Waco tragedy, the 
special counsel's report was released in full by the Attorney General.
  Second, this resolution is critical because of the many questions and 
criticisms of the investigation raised by the President and his 
administration. It is

[[Page H2724]]

important that Congress stand up for the principle of full transparency 
at a time when the President has publicly attacked the Russian 
investigation more than 1,100 times and counting. Among other things, 
the President has repeatedly referred to the investigation as a ``witch 
hunt'' and called it a ``hoax,'' ``rigged,'' and a ``scam.''
  This resolution is also needed because high-ranking DOJ officials 
have indicated that they may not release information about individuals 
who are not indicted. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein stated last 
month that ``if we aren't prepared to prove our case beyond a 
reasonable doubt in court, then we have no business making allegations 
against American citizens.''
  This normally salutary policy must not apply in the event the 
Department adheres to its policy that it cannot indict a sitting 
President. To maintain that a sitting President cannot be indicted no 
matter how much evidence there is because he is a sitting President, 
and then to withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the 
President cannot be charged, is to convert DOJ policy into the means 
for a coverup.
  Third, releasing the Mueller report, even in its entirety, does not 
absolve the Department of Justice of its obligation to provide Congress 
with the underlying evidence uncovered by the special counsel. This 
expectation is well grounded in precedent set by the Department just in 
the last Congress in connection with three Republican-led 
investigations into Hillary Clinton's emails, the dismissal of former 
FBI Acting Director McCabe, and allegations of bias concerning the 
Russian investigation.
  With respect to the investigation involving Secretary Clinton's 
emails, this included the Department of Justice releasing to Congress 
more than 880,000 pages of documents regarding the FBI's 
decisionmaking, identifying to Congress the names of career officials 
involved in the charging decision, identifying to Congress specific 
court cases relied on in the charging decision, and making numerous DOJ 
and FBI personnel available to Congress for transcribed interviews.
  With respect to the dismissal of former Acting Director McCabe, this 
included releasing to Congress all documents relied on by the Office of 
Professional Responsibility in making its decision.
  With respect to claims of bias in the Russian investigation, this 
included not only releasing to the public an otherwise classified 
foreign intelligence application, but also releasing to Congress: one, 
all underlying documents and communications involving the FISA 
applications; two, four memos detailing the former FBI Director's 
communications with the President; three, materials pertaining to 
classified briefings involving the Trump and Clinton Presidential 
campaigns; and four, making even more DOJ and FBI officials available 
for a total of 21 transcribed interviews and hearings.
  These precedents make clear the obligation of the Department of 
Justice to release all evidence with respect to the Russian 
investigation.
  A vote for this resolution will send a clear signal to both the 
American people and to the Department of Justice that Congress believes 
transparency is a fundamental principle necessary to ensure that 
government remains accountable to the public.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join 
me in supporting this commonsense resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, but as a matter of 
time and coming through this week, I have 30 minutes, so I might as 
well talk about a resolution that is a restatement of the regulation. I 
want to provide some background on the special counsel's regulations.
  Special Counsel Mueller is operating under a different regulatory 
framework from the independent counsel statute that gave us the Starr 
report.
  The Clinton administration Justice Department, which was led by 
Attorney General Janet Reno, Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, and 
Neal Katyal, drafted the special counsel regulations in effect today. 
They established a regulatory framework that gives the Attorney General 
flexibility.

  Attorney General Barr has a few options when he receives the 
information from Mr. Mueller. He can give Congress the complete report 
or a summary, or he can simply tell Congress that the Mueller 
investigation has concluded.
  The Clinton administration regulations do not require a full report 
to Congress. However, during his confirmation, Attorney General Barr 
said he wants to be ``transparent'' with Congress and the public 
``consistent with the rules and the law.'' I have no reason to think 
Attorney General Barr would back away from those statements he made 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe he is truthful and will be truthful to his 
word to make as much public as he possibly can.
  The American people should not expect another Starr report. The 
Clinton Justice Department made sure another President would not have 
salacious stories aired before the American people. Janet Reno herself 
testified before Congress in 1999 that it was a bad idea for 
independent counsels to publish final reports.
  Many Members of the Democratic majority in Congress today voted 
against the public release of materials related to the Starr report.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a narrative related to a roll 
call vote from the 105th Congress. For the Record, I note that the 
following Democratic Members voted against the release of the Starr 
materials: Speaker Pelosi, Majority Whip Clyburn, Chairman Nadler, 
Chairman Cummings, Chairman Engel, Chairman Waters, Ms. Jackson Lee, 
Mr. Markey, Chair Lofgren, and Chairman Neal, among others.
  It is amazing that we have now changed our perspective on that, in 
light of a Republican in the White House.
  Again, this resolution simply, basically, restates the regulations 
that are currently in place that were written under the Clinton 
Department of Justice. It is going to go forward. The new Attorney 
General has said he wants to make as much public to the American people 
as he legally can.
  I believe in transparency. I believe that there are many other things 
we could be working on, but I am happy to support a resolution that is 
actually just a restatement of the regulatory burden already placed 
upon the Attorney General.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 24, which expresses the 
sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller 
should be available to the public and to Congress.
  Special Counsel Mueller has been appointed to ensure a full and 
thorough investigation of the Russian Government's efforts to interfere 
in the 2016 Presidential election and to examine any links and/or 
coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated 
with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
  He has also been appointed with the authority to investigate and 
prosecute Federal crimes committed in the course of and with the intent 
to interfere with the investigation, including perjury, obstruction of 
justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.
  The gravity and magnitude of this investigation, given that it goes 
straight to the heart of our democracy and involves the President of 
the United States, requires the public release of the special counsel's 
findings.
  This is an investigation that affects each and every American, 
whether it implicates or exonerates the President. Therefore, it must 
be brought to light so that the American people can see for themselves 
the findings and determinations made by an objective, impartial 
investigator who has a reputation for integrity.
  In addition, the report will provide valuable insight and information 
for the important investigations being undertaken in the House, 
including the

[[Page H2725]]

investigation being conducted by the Committee on Financial Services on 
money laundering and the President's finances.
  Special Counsel Mueller has been appropriately deliberate and 
discreet in conducting this investigation. It is clear from the manner 
in which the special counsel has approached this investigation that he 
has taken it seriously and has not conducted what President Trump 
refers to as a ``witch hunt.''
  So far, the special counsel's investigation has resulted in 199 
criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and five prison 
sentences.
  Whatever his prosecutorial decisions may be going forward, it is in 
the public's interest to be given full transparency into those 
decisions and the explanations behind them.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chair of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) for yielding and for his sponsorship of this important 
legislation. I rise in strong support.
  Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed in May 2017 to oversee 
the ongoing criminal and counterintelligence investigation into 
Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Over the nearly 2 years 
since his appointment, the special counsel has indicted 34 individuals 
and three companies, and secured guilty pleas or convictions from eight 
individuals.
  We do not know when the special counsel will complete his work, but 
there are indications that it could occur in the near future.
  Notwithstanding the overwhelming public interest in the special 
counsel's report and findings, I am deeply concerned that Attorney 
General Barr may attempt to withhold Mueller's full report from the 
public and the underlying evidence from Congress and could instead seek 
to provide only a CliffsNotes version of the report to Congress.
  As this resolution makes clear, Congress will not accept any attempt 
by Mr. Barr or the President to bury the report and the findings of the 
special counsel. Withholding this information would be untenable in 
light of the intense public interest and need for transparency, but 
particularly so when the Department has provided voluminous production 
to Congress at the demand of the previous majority, including sensitive 
FISA materials and other classified and law enforcement-sensitive 
materials related to the Mueller investigation and the Clinton email 
investigation.
  Last year, I repeatedly warned Department leadership that, in 
providing these materials to Congress, they were establishing a 
precedent and one that they would have to live with in the future. They 
did so anyway.
  While anonymous sources at the Department have attempted to publicly 
blame James Comey for the provision of this information, in fact, the 
Department has turned over more than 880,000 pages of documents from 
the Clinton email investigation to Congress, all of them--all of them--
pursuant to congressional subpoenas issued after James Comey was fired. 
They have produced highly sensitive records, including FISA materials, 
directly related to ongoing investigations at the core of the special 
counsel's charter.
  To be sure, something far more serious than precedent is at stake. 
Disclosure is uniquely imperative here because the special counsel 
reportedly is investigating whether the President himself engaged in 
misconduct. If the special counsel has indeed uncovered evidence of 
serious wrongdoing on the President's part, then that evidence must be 
furnished to Congress and ultimately to the American people.
  Withholding the full report or underlying evidence would only 
heighten concerns over a coverup or a pernicious or partisan double 
standard.
  The special counsel's regulations were written, above all, to ensure 
public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice. 
That charge would be entirely vitiated by an attempt to cover up or 
conceal Special Counsel Mueller's findings and report, whatever they 
may be and whenever they are finalized.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of both parties to join me in supporting 
this resolution and to make clear that anything less than full 
transparency is unacceptable.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for 
his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution requesting that 
Special Counsel Mueller's report be made available to the public.
  There are three reasons why this must happen.
  First, the taxpayers paid for this report. The American people funded 
this investigation. They have a right to see the contents of the report 
of the investigation.
  Second, internal bureaucratic Department of Justice policies do not 
apply to Congress, especially on matters of national importance.
  And third, if we don't get this report, it could amount to a cover-
up.
  The United States Constitution does not say that a sitting President 
cannot be indicted. There is nothing in the Constitution that would 
prevent that.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has taken the policy 
position that they are not going to indict a sitting President, which 
means that the only institution that can hold the President accountable 
is Congress. If we do not get this information, we cannot effectively 
do our jobs, we cannot hold the President accountable, and it is 
something that the American public wants to see.
  Over 87 percent of respondents in a recent poll say that this report 
should be made available to Congress and to the American public. If the 
Department of Justice does not do this, we all need to ask: What are 
they trying to hide?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership and 
for introducing this incredibly important resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the investigation currently under way by Special Counsel 
Robert Mueller is incredibly important: an open investigation into 
incredibly serious allegations, potential obstruction of justice, 
corruption, and possible links of coordination between President 
Trump's Presidential campaign and the Russian Government, efforts to 
meddle in our democratic process, and mislead and manipulate American 
voters.
  The allegations at the center of this investigation, as I said, are 
serious, they are credible, and they are unprecedented. With 37 
indictments and counting, it is of paramount importance that the 
special counsel's report and the underlying evidence be made public for 
the sake of transparency and trust in our government.
  As a nation, as a Congress, and as a Republic, we need to know all of 
the facts about this investigation and what unfolded between players in 
the President's campaign and Russia in 2016. We must protect and 
respect the work of Special Counsel Mueller, and his report must be 
released, in full, for the Congress and for the American people to see.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the chairman for introducing this 
resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing is one of the most 
important documents that will ever be produced and given, potentially, 
to Congress for the American people in

[[Page H2726]]

our modern history: a question of whether or not this administration 
was involved with the Russian Government, our number one foreign enemy, 
in influencing the outcome of our Presidential election, something 
tantamount to treason.
  The report needs to be made public because the American people have a 
right to know. The American people, as Ronald Reagan, to paraphrase, 
said: I paid for this microphone, the American people paid for this 
report, they paid for the special counsel, they deserve to see the 
fruits of his work and whether or not, as Richard Nixon said, their 
President is a crook, they need to know that.
  Unfortunately, as I sit here listening to this discussion, I feel 
like I am thrown back into a time in the 1970s--I think it was 1977, 
somewhere around there--in Kinshasa, Zaire, not in the Washington, D.C. 
capitol. It is the Muhammad Ali-George Foreman fight, and the other 
side, the Republicans, are playing the role of Muhammad Ali. Not the 
``float like a butterfly, sting like a bee'' Muhammad Ali, but the 
rope-a-dope, sit back, take the punches, let them swing, let them hit 
you, because they know that eventually they will wear themselves out 
and they know the outcome, because the fix is in.
  There is a reason why the Attorney General was picked by this 
President, and we will soon find out. But we need to pass this 
resolution and show the American people that Congress is on the side of 
transparency and are releasing this report and letting the American 
public, who paid for this report, know the results of it and know what 
needs to happen to protect our democracy and the rule of law.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are, again, reminded that they 
should refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how about engaging in 
personalities against the sitting Attorney General? You are saying that 
he was appointed for a reason.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Is it not also directed at the House to not 
also impugn the integrity and the character of a sitting Cabinet 
member?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this time, the gentleman from Georgia is 
advised that the Chair will not issue an advisory opinion.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I wouldn't want to do it either, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not offer an advisory 
opinion.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Offer? Can you offer it? You said you were 
able to offer an advisory opinion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will once again advise that the 
rule requires Members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward 
the President.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue my parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I made a parliamentary inquiry concerning a 
Cabinet member, not the President. I understand your advisory opinion 
against the President. I fully agree with it. I am asking about a 
member of the Cabinet.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that the rule does 
not extend to a member of the Cabinet.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Wow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Those are the rules of the House. The 
gentleman is advised.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Wow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for enlightening 
us on that. It is okay, basically, if you impugn the integrity of a 
sitting member of the Cabinet. I guess we just learned something new 
today. That is encouraging. As far as Members of the House, I get that 
it is not in the rules, but it also shouldn't be a part of this debate.
  This is a simple resolution. It simply restates the regulation. Don't 
make it any more or any less than what it is. That is why we are here. 
We are going to approve this, we are going to vote for it, but let's 
not make it any more than what it is. Let's continue on so we can get a 
vote, everybody can go home, and maybe we will come back and actually 
vote on legislation that actually matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
24, to express the sense of Congress that Special Counsel Mueller's 
report be made available to the American people and to Congress. We 
cannot impugn the integrity of the American people by keeping this 
report silenced.
  For nearly 2 years, Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team have 
investigated serious and credible allegations about obstruction of 
justice and collusion at the highest levels of our government. To date, 
Mr. Speaker, the investigation has led to the public indictment of 
three companies and 34 individuals, including the indictment of 
President Trump's former campaign manager and personal lawyer, seven 
guilty pleas, and one conviction following a jury trial. The 
allegations range from election interference, to lying to the FBI, to 
conspiracy to defraud the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be a Republican or a Democratic issue. I 
hope that my colleagues on the other side will understand that there 
should be nothing to hide from the American people about this 
investigation, a special counsel's investigation into whether there was 
interference in our elections.
  If my Republican colleagues have nothing to fear from this report, if 
they are willing to stand up for the Constitution, if they are willing 
to stand up for the American people and put that Constitution over 
party, over any individual, including the one that sits in the White 
House, then they, too, will join us in voting unanimously for this 
resolution.
  It is a big deal for the American people to maintain trust in our 
democracy and in our government. They have to know the results of the 
special counsel's report. This is, again, an American issue. It is 
about doing our constitutional duty to protect our democracy.
  I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to having a unanimous vote on this 
resolution, passing it through and making it clear that we have nothing 
to hide. It is our duty to the American people.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I don't know, maybe I need to 
make the talking points to the other side clear. I agreed on Monday 
that I was voting for this. We are not opposing this, because it is 
simply a restatement of the regulation. I know that it is fashionable 
to think that we are not. So, again, I am sorry, I could have maybe 
made the talking points more clear at Rules that I was voting for this 
so we could have saved extra time on some of the discussion here.

  Mr. Speaker, again, we will continue to go through this, and, at this 
point, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), the sponsor of this legislation to ensure that the 
work of the special counsel is not suppressed and will offer valuable 
assistance on today's resolution.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his work on this.
  Mr. Speaker, the relentless, baseless attacks on an American patriot, 
Robert Mueller, and his team, have moved us ever so closer to a 
constitutional crisis. Just as we cannot yield to Trump's attempt to 
discredit this distinguished team of legal experts, neither can we let 
them bury the results of this taxpayer-funded investigation.
  Having nothing to fear means having nothing to hide. Those who seek 
to hide this report, obviously, do not believe that the truth will set 
them free. Rather, as it has for so many of Mr. Trump's sleazy cohorts, 
they feel that the truth will lock them up. So many lies, so much daily 
deceit. Already so much evidence of collusion and obstruction and, from 
the organization's own former lawyer, evidence of an apparent criminal 
enterprise that bears the name of the Trump organization.
  If it is a witch hunt, Mr. President, it has more witches than a Mar-
a-Lago

[[Page H2727]]

Halloween party. And your witches' brew seems to have cast a spell over 
many Members of this Congress who find themselves locked in continuing 
silence or wishy-washy efforts to ignore and bolster your floundering 
Presidency.
  Today's resolution says to President Trump, who has shown some 
consistent disregard for the rule of law: You cannot seize and secret 
evidence of conduct that others need to see. Let the taxpayers see the 
results of the investigation of the wrongdoing, which their dollars 
have rightly funded.
  Our congressional duty is to enforce the borders, to be Border Patrol 
people, to see that this President, who is willing to cross every line, 
every constitutional boundary, to see that he is contained within the 
borders of the Constitution. For the rule of law to stand, the 
administration cannot be allowed to sit on the special counsel's 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 26\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding. And I also thank the ranking member. I very much appreciate 
his comments that he will support this concurrent resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just observe, as a member of the Intelligence 
Committee, that we have seen our politics twisted into almost 
unrecognizable form by the unprecedented attacks of the President on 
the Department of Justice, on the FBI, on the investigation as a whole.
  This report must see the light of day and must be made available to 
the American public for a catharsis that will allow us to start with 
the facts, to understand what happened and to rebuild the faith that 
the American people did and should have in the Department of Justice, 
in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the government in 
general.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Congress, in strong, 
bipartisan fashion, passing this bill so that the American people will 
understand that the truth will be out there and it will help fix our 
politics.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for 
yielding.
  I, too, add my appreciation to Mr. Collins' eagerness to adhere to 
what I think is an appropriate policy that reasserts the article I 
authority, if you will, of the Congress. And I think it is important 
for my colleagues to recognize that Americans are wondering. They are 
wondering. They have heard over and over again of Russian collusion. 
They have heard the factual affirmation that the Russians did interfere 
with the 2016 election and tried to interfere with the 2018 election. 
Therefore, it is important for them, in their concern, to be informed. 
They are taxpayers. We say this all the time.

                              {time}  0945

  And it is important to note that, through this investigation, the 
National Security Advisor and former foreign policy advisor and many 
others have gone to court because of Mr. Mueller.
  It is indeed important to know that we have learned much because of 
his report, but we have not learned all. And we must overcome Attorney 
General Barr's hesitation, because the American people have made the 
point. The point is that 68 percent of them say that they would like to 
see this report.
  Now, we know that it has been bandied around that we cannot indict a 
President. This is not about indicting a President. But assuming, 
arguendo, that this regulation is correct, that someone thinks that 
that is constant law 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 the Justice Department's regulation not to 
reveal information about unindicted parties and individuals.
  The Justice Department cannot reveal any information or potential 
wrongdoing by the President and not reveal any information to the body 
that possesses the constitutional responsibility for holding this 
President accountable.
  So let us follow good policy. Even the words of Attorney General Barr 
that recognizes that the DOJ's purpose is to release investigations in 
the public interest. This is in the public interest.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to all that we do this in a bipartisan 
way to give to the American people what they deserve and what they 
want.
  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 rise because I believe our nation will soon be at an 
inflection point.
  For many years now, Americans have wondered about the role of 
Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether that crime was 
aided and abetted by Associates of the Trump Campaign.
  Americans have been concerned as we have watched a parade of 
colleagues and contemporaries of the President hauled before court.
  This includes the President's National Security Advisor, his longtime 
confidante, his former foreign policy advisor, and yesterday his former 
campaign manager and his former campaign manager.
  Indeed, the future that awaits the President's former campaign 
manager is bleak--he is facing 7.5 years in federal prison, and today a 
16-count indictment was returned in Manhattan detailing residential 
mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records.
  Indeed, most if not all of what we have learned about those who 
surround the president has been because of the work of the Special 
Counsel, Robert Mueller.
  It is important that whatever work Mr. Mueller has done, be shared by 
the American people.
  This is for any number of reasons.
  First of all, broad swaths of the American people want this report 
published.
  The last public opinion poll conducted showed that 68% of Americans 
want this Mueller report published.
  Next, the entire purpose of appointing a special counsel was because 
the president's first attorney General had to recuse himself because he 
was found to be less-than-truthful about his contacts with Kremlin 
officials during the 2016 campaign, on behalf of then Candidate Trump.
  According to the former Acting Attorney General, the Special Counsel 
was appointed in order for the American people to have full confidence 
in the outcome of the investigation . . . the public must be assured 
that government officials administer the law fairly.
  And thus far, Mr. Mueller's investigation has revealed the public 
indictment of 34 individuals, 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas and one 1 
conviction following trial.
  Through the work done by Mr. Mueller and his ``speaking 
indictments,'' we learned that Russian military officials tried to wage 
an active measures campaign.
  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 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.
  All the while, the President was encouraging this behavior.
  And, despite protestations by the President, this is not a witch 
hunt--it has yielded the

[[Page H2728]]

public indictments of 34 individuals and 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas, 
and 1 conviction.
  The American people are watching and paying attention.
  The most recent public opinion poll shows that a super majority of 
Americans--a full 68%--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. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Nadler for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my call today is for full transparency, with a clear 
focus on the sinister motives of Russia's corrupt leaders. Their 
interference in our 2016 elections has created confusion, anger, 
bewilderment, and division--exactly what Russia wanted.
  Today's resolution calls for the Department of Justice to make 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, along with any findings, 
available to the public to the maximum extent permitted by the law and 
to provide the report and its findings, in entirety, to the Congress of 
the United States of America.
  So whether you have used Special Counsel Mueller as a patriot 
conducting a nonpartisan investigation into a foreign power's possible 
influence in our elections or as a witch hunt, a full accounting and 
public release of the findings is needed to heal our political 
differences.
  This is not about embarrassing President Trump. This is about closure 
and full disclosure.
  If there was no collusion, as the President has emphasized, then he 
should want complete transparency. Mr. Speaker, the American people 
deserve no less.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, last week, the House passed H.R. 1, major 
legislation to strengthen voter access, address the corrosive influence 
of dark money in politics, institute national redistricting reform, and 
hold public officials accountable to higher standards of ethics and 
transparency.
  Taking the next step, this week is sunshine week on the House floor. 
The House has already passed several pieces of legislation this week to 
modernize government and increase transparency, accountability, and 
good governance. They include measures aimed at shining a light onto 
Russia's malign activities around the world and the suppression of 
democracy within its own borders.
  The resolution we now have before us expresses the sense of Congress 
that the American public ought to have transparency when it comes to 
the investigation into Russia's interference in our elections and 
efforts to undermine our democracy. It says that the special counsel's 
report ought to be made public to the fullest extent of the law and 
that Congress should see all of it.
  Nearly 9 in 10 Americans believe the special counsel's report should 
be made public, and we have heard that from Republicans in Congress as 
well. I hope this will be a bipartisan vote to tell the American 
people: You have the right to and ought to know the results of this 
report.
  One of my Republican colleagues, Representative  Mike Turner from 
Ohio, said in February the report has to be made public.
  Susan Collins of Maine said: ``The American people deserve to know 
what the findings are of Mr. Mueller.''
  ``I believe the report should be released,'' said Senator Collins.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, Mr. Nadler, 
Republicans, and Democrats on supporting this resolution and in calling 
for transparency. Let's come together in a bipartisan vote to make it 
clear that the American people deserve to know the full extent of what 
Russia--of what Russia--has done in the objective of subverting and 
undermining our democratic institutions.
  I thank the chair for bringing this resolution to the floor. I urge 
all of us to support it. Let's send a unanimous message to the Russians 
and to any other country or entity that would try to subvert our 
democratic elections that that will not be tolerated.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 26\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said today, and it is interesting to me--I think 
this is the funny part of this, because so many times we would come up 
here and we retreat to our partisan sides and we say, I am going to be 
a ``yes''; you are going to be a ``no.''
  The sad part about it is the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), my 
colleague, I said ``yes'' on Monday night. I said ``yes'' to the 
resolution on Monday night. Yet it seems like somehow, through the 
process: Well, we need everybody to come together.
  We have talked about this. It is nothing but a restatement of the 
regulation.
  Attorney General Barr will follow the regulation. He has said so. He 
has been in committee, and during his time of confirmation, he has said 
so.
  I think what we need to understand here, and maybe we also need to 
throw this out here, and maybe this is something because I have heard a 
lot of my colleagues across the aisle talk about what they believe 
should be in this report. Well, maybe I have a problem and maybe a news 
flash to give them: What happens when it comes back and says none of 
this was true, the President did not do anything wrong? Then the 
meltdown will occur.
  I heard probably, earlier, just one of my colleagues actually on the 
other side stated that the elections has thrown chaos into the system. 
No, the reason the election has thrown chaos is because President Trump 
won and the Democratic candidate didn't know where Wisconsin was. You 
all remedied that this time, though. The Democratic candidate for 
President will actually have been to Wisconsin by the election day next 
time.
  There are other reasons to do this. Transparency is good.
  As we go forward, my hope would be, on this issue, let's let the 
report be given to the Attorney General. Let's let the Attorney General 
do the regulations and follow the regulations and give as much as he 
has said in his confirmation hearing: that he wants to be transparent, 
he wants to be a part, he wants this to come out, because he 
understands the questions and the turmoil that this has caused.

  So I have nothing to believe that this would not be true. There is 
nothing that has been presented here today to think that it wouldn't be 
true. That is what makes this resolution even more amazing to me: 
Nothing has been presented that Mr. Barr would not do what the 
regulations say.
  Now, there may be more on it and everything else, but let's talk 
about what actually the resolution says, and that is what it says.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the gentleman from Georgia implied a 
few

[[Page H2729]]

minutes ago, that we shouldn't be wasting our time on this because it 
only restates what the regulations require and the Judiciary Committee 
ought to be spending its time more productively, I simply want to say, 
first, that the Democratic House majority and the Judiciary Committee 
are not focused on the President to the exclusion of our legislative 
priorities.
  In the 2 months since we organized, the Judiciary Committee has 
passed H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, through 
the House and has passed H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act 
of 2019, through the House. H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act of 2019, passed through the committee. We have 
passed H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2019, through the House.
  The Judiciary Committee has also held a hearing to begin the process 
of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and held a hearing to examine 
the state of competition in the healthcare industry, as well as the T-
Mobile-Sprint merger.
  We have introduced H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 1327, the Never 
Forget the Heroes: Permanent Authorization of September 11th Victim 
Compensation Fund Act; and the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, 
the so-called Dreamers bill.
  These are some of the things we have been doing besides looking into 
the possible misconduct by the President.
  In closing, I would like to include the following items in the 
Record:
  First, the U.S. Intelligence Community report concluding that 
Vladimir Putin ordered a misinformation campaign directed against the 
2016 Presidential election and displayed a clear preference for then-
candidate Donald Trump.

   Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

                           (January 6, 2017)


                             key judgments

       Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential 
     election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's 
     longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal 
     democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a 
     significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and 
     scope of effort compared to previous operations.
       We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an 
     influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential 
     election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in 
     the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and 
     harm her electability and potential presidency. We further 
     assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear 
     preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence 
     in these judgments.
       We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to 
     help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible 
     by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting 
     her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this 
     judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; 
     NSA has moderate confidence.
       Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign 
     based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of 
     the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that 
     Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian 
     influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her 
     future presidency.
       Further information has come to light since Election Day 
     that, when combined with Russian behavior since early 
     November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of 
     Russian motivations and goals.
       Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging 
     strategy that blends covert intelligence operations--such as 
     cyber activity--with overt efforts by Russian Government 
     agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and 
     paid social media users or ``trolls.'' Russia, like its 
     Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert 
     influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that 
     have used intelligence officers and agents and press 
     placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to 
     the Kremlin.
       Russia's intelligence services conducted cyber operations 
     against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential 
     election, including targets associated with both major US 
     political parties.
       We assess with high confidence that Russian military 
     intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or 
     GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release 
     US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in 
     exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to 
     WikiLeaks.
       Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to 
     elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS 
     assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or 
     compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
       Russia's state-run propaganda machine contributed to the 
     influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin 
     messaging to Russian and international audiences.
       We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-
     ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to 
     future influence efforts worldwide, including against US 
     allies and their election processes.

  Mr. NADLER. Second, I include a February 22, 2019, letter to the 
Attorney General from six House committee chairs expressing the 
expectation that the Mueller report will be made public and that the 
Department will make the underlying investigative materials available 
to committees upon request.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 2019.
     Hon. William P. Barr,
     Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Attorney General: Recent reports suggest that 
     Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be nearing the end of his 
     investigation into ``any links and/or coordination between 
     the Russian government and individuals associated with the 
     campaign of President Donald Trump'' and other matters that 
     may have arisen directly from the investigation. As you know, 
     Department of Justice regulations require that, ``[a]t the 
     conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall 
     provide the Attorney General with a confidential report 
     explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached 
     by the Special Counsel.''
       After nearly two years of investigation--accompanied by two 
     years of direct attacks on the integrity of the investigation 
     by the President--the public is entitled to know what the 
     Special Counsel has found. We write to you to express, in the 
     strongest possible terms, our expectation that the Department 
     of Justice will release to the public the report Special 
     Counsel Mueller submits to you--without delay and to the 
     maximum extent permitted by law.
       There also remains a significant public interest in the 
     full disclosure of information learned by the Special Counsel 
     about the nature and scope of the Russian government's 
     efforts to undermine our democracy. To the extent that the 
     Department believes that certain aspects of the report are 
     not suitable for immediate public release, we ask that you 
     provide that information to Congress, along with your 
     reasoning for withholding the information from the public, in 
     order for us to judge the appropriateness of any redactions 
     for ourselves.
       We also expect that the Department will provide to our 
     Committees, upon request and consistent with applicable law, 
     other information and material obtained or produced by the 
     Special Counsel regarding certain foreign actors and other 
     individuals who may have been the subject of a criminal or 
     counterintelligence investigation. This expectation is well-
     grounded in the precedent set by the Department in recent 
     years. In other closed and pending high-profile cases 
     alleging wrongdoing by public officials, both the Department 
     and the FBI have produced substantial amounts of 
     investigative material, including classified and law 
     enforcement sensitive information, to the House of 
     Representatives.
       Finally, although we recognize the policy of the Department 
     to remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests 
     of individuals who will not face criminal charges, we feel 
     that it is necessary to address the particular danger of 
     withholding evidence of misconduct by President Trump from 
     the relevant committees.
       If the Special Counsel has reason to believe that the 
     President has engaged in criminal or other serious 
     misconduct, then the President must be subject to 
     accountability either in a court or to the Congress. But 
     because the Department has taken the position that a sitting 
     President is immune from indictment and prosecution, Congress 
     could be the only institution currently situated to act on 
     evidence of the President's misconduct. To maintain that a 
     sitting president cannot be indicted, and then to withhold 
     evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the President 
     will not be charged, is to convert Department policy into the 
     means for a cover-up. The President is not above the law.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Rep. Jerrold Nadler,
       Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary.
     Rep. Elijah Cummings,
       Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
     Rep. Adam Schiff,
       Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
     Rep. Eliot Engel,
       Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.
     Rep. Maxine Waters,
       Chairwoman, House Committee on Financial Services.
     Rep. Richard Neal,
       Chair, House Ways and Means Committee.


[[Page H2730]]


  

  Mr. NADLER. Third, the introduction to the final report to the Deputy 
Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mount Carmel 
complex.

                              Introduction

       This Report contains the findings of the Special Counsel in 
     response to the questions directed to him by Attorney General 
     Janet Reno in Order No. 2256-99, dated September 9, 1999. The 
     questions pertain to the 1993 confrontation between federal 
     law enforcement officials and the Branch Davidians at the Mt. 
     Carmel complex near Waco, Texas. The Report is issued 
     pursuant to Section (e) of Order No. 2256-99 which provides, 
     in relevant part, that the Special Counsel shall submit ``to 
     the maximum extent possible . . . a final report . . . in a 
     form that will permit public dissemination.''
       The Office of Special Counsel has organized the Report in 
     the following format:
       (I) a description of the Issues investigated by the Special 
     Counsel;
       (II) the Conclusions of the Special Counsel;
       (III) a description of the Investigative Methods used by 
     the Special Counsel;
       (IV) a Statement of Facts relevant to the Special Counsel's 
     investigation;
       (V) Exhibits to the text of the Report; and
       (VI) Appendices that include a narrative summary of the 
     relevant beliefs and practices of the Branch Davidians, a 
     summary of expert findings, a chronological table of events, 
     and the reports of experts retained by the Office of Special 
     Counsel.

  Mr. NADLER. And fourth, the Department of Justice commentary 
interpreting the special counsel regulations.

     DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
     Office of the Attorney General
     28 CFR Parts 0 and 600
     [A.G. Order No. 2232-99]
     Office of Special Counsel
       AGENCY: Department of Justice.
       ACTION: Final rule.
       SUMMARY: This order amends the Code of Federal Regulations 
     to provide regulations concerning Attorney General 
     appointment of Special Counsel to investigate and, when 
     appropriate, to prosecute matters when the Attorney General 
     concludes that extraordinary circumstances exist such that 
     the public interest would be served by removing a large 
     degree of responsibility for a matter from the Department of 
     Justice. These regulations replace the procedures for 
     appointment of independent counsel pursuant to the 
     Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.
       EFFECTIVE DATES: July 1, 1999.
       FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Keeney, Deputy 
     Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. 
     Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514-2621.
     SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
     Background
       The Attorney General is promulgating these regulations to 
     replace the procedures set out in the Independent Counsel 
     Reauthorization Act of 1994. These regulations seek to strike 
     a balance between independence and accountability in certain 
     sensitive investigations, recognizing that there is no 
     perfect solution to the problem. The balance struck is one of 
     day-to-day independence, with a Special Counsel appointed to 
     investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute matters when the 
     Attorney General concludes that extraordinary circumstances 
     exist such that the public interest would be served by 
     removing a large degree of responsibility for the matter from 
     the Department of Justice. The Special Counsel would be free 
     to structure the investigation as he or she wishes and to 
     exercise independent prosecutorial discretion to decide 
     whether charges should be brought, within the context of the 
     established procedures of the Department. Nevertheless, it is 
     intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how 
     it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General 
     (or the Acting Attorney General if the Attorney General is 
     personally recused in the matter); thus, the regulations 
     explicitly acknowledge the possibility of review of specific 
     decisions reached by the Special Counsel.
       The regulations also remove Sec. 0.14, setting forth 
     procedures for Special Independent Counsels for members of 
     Congress. The regulations in that section have been suspended 
     since April 19, 1989. 54 FR 15752.
     Section-by-Section Discussion
       Section 600.1. Grounds for Appointing a Special Counsel
       ``The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney 
     General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint 
     a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal 
     investigation of a person or matter is warranted and--
       (a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or 
     matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating 
     Division of the Department of Justice would present a 
     conflict of interest for the Department or other 
     extraordinary circumstances; and
       (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public 
     interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume 
     responsibility for the matter.''
       Section 600.2. Alternatives Available to the Attorney 
     General
       ``When matters are brought to the attention of the Attorney 
     General that might warrant consideration of appointment of a 
     Special Counsel, the Attorney General may:
       (a) Appoint a Special Counsel;
       (b) Direct that an initial investigation, consisting of 
     such factual inquiry or legal research as the Attorney 
     General deems appropriate, be conducted in order to better 
     inform the decision; or
       (c) Conclude that under the circumstances of the matter, 
     the public interest would not be served by removing the 
     investigation from the normal processes of the Department, 
     and that the appropriate component of the Department should 
     handle the matter. If the Attorney General reaches this 
     conclusion, he or she may direct that appropriate steps be 
     taken to mitigate any conflicts of interest, such as recusal 
     of particular officials.''

       Discussion:
       There are occasions when the facts create a conflict so 
     substantial, or the exigencies of the situation are such that 
     any initial investigation might taint the subsequent 
     investigation, so that it is appropriate for the Attorney 
     General to immediately appoint a Special Counsel. In other 
     situations, some initial investigation, whether factual or 
     legal, may be appropriate to better inform the Attorney 
     General's decision. This provision is intended to make it 
     clear that a variety of approaches, even in cases that might 
     create an apparent conflict of interest, may be appropriate, 
     depending on the facts of the matter.
       Section 600.3. Qualifications of the Special Counsel
       ``(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a 
     lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial 
     decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure 
     both that the investigation will be conducted ably, 
     expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and 
     prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed 
     understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice 
     policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside 
     the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree 
     that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take 
     first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may 
     be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, 
     depending on its complexity and the stage of the 
     investigation.
       ``(b) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant 
     Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate 
     method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel 
     undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a 
     detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A 
     Special Counsel shall be appointed as a `confidential 
     employee' as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).''
       Section 600.4. Jurisdiction
       ``(a) Original Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special 
     Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The 
     Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual 
     statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction 
     of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to 
     investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the 
     course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special 
     Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of 
     justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of 
     witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter 
     being investigated and/or prosecuted.
       ``(b) Additional Jurisdiction. If in the course of his or 
     her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that 
     additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her 
     original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully 
     investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to 
     investigate new matters that come to light in the course of 
     his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the 
     Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the 
     additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction 
     or assign them elsewhere.''

       Discussion:
       Under these regulations, it is intended that a Special 
     Counsel's jurisdiction will be stated as an investigation of 
     specific facts. The regulations also recognize, however, that 
     accommodations can be made as necessary throughout the course 
     of the investigation, with the Attorney General's approval. 
     This provision establishes a protocol whereby Special 
     Counsels are provided with an appropriate description of the 
     boundaries of their investigation, with the full recognition 
     that adjustments to that jurisdiction may be required.
       Paragraph (b) establishes a single procedure through which 
     a variety of different jurisdictional issues can be resolved. 
     For example, a Special Counsel assigned responsibility for an 
     alleged false statement about a government program may 
     request additional jurisdiction to investigate allegations of 
     misconduct with respect to the administration of that 
     program; a Special Counsel may conclude that investigating 
     otherwise unrelated allegations against a central witness in 
     the matter is necessary to obtain cooperation; or a Special 
     Counsel may come across evidence of additional, unrelated 
     crimes by targets of his or her investigation. Rather than 
     leaving the issue to argument and misunderstanding as to 
     whether the new matters are included within a vague category 
     of ``related matters,'' the regulations clarify that the 
     decision as to which component would handle such new matters 
     would be made by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel 
     would report such matters to the Attorney General, and the 
     Attorney General would decide whether to grant the Special

[[Page H2731]]

     Counsel jurisdiction over the additional matters.
       ``(c) Civil and Administrative Jurisdiction. If in the 
     course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel 
     determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or 
     other governmental action outside the criminal justice system 
     might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the 
     Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to 
     take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have 
     civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted 
     such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.''

       Discussion:
       Paragraph (c) is intended to clarify that the Special 
     Counsel's jurisdiction will cover only the criminal aspects 
     of the matters within his or her jurisdiction, unless other 
     jurisdiction is specifically granted by the Attorney General.
       Section 600.5. Staff
       ``A Special Counsel may request the assignment of 
     appropriate Department employees to assist the Special 
     Counsel. The Department shall gather and provide the Special 
     Counsel with the names and resumes of appropriate personnel 
     available for detail. The Special Counsel may also request 
     the detail of specific employees, and the office for which 
     the designated employee works shall make reasonable efforts 
     to accommodate the request. The Special Counsel shall assign 
     the duties and supervise the work of such employees while 
     they are assigned to the Special Counsel. If necessary, the 
     Special Counsel may request that additional personnel be 
     hired or assigned from outside the Department. All personnel 
     in the Department shall cooperate to the fullest extent 
     possible with the Special Counsel.''

       Discussion:
       This provision, providing for the assignment of appropriate 
     personnel to assist the Special Counsel, also includes 
     assignment of needed investigative resources from the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation. It is anticipated that most 
     personnel will be Department of Justice employees provided by 
     detail to the Special Counsel, although the regulation 
     provides for additional employment from outside the 
     Department when necessary.
       Section 600.6. Powers and Authority
       ``Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, 
     the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his 
     or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority 
     to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of 
     any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, 
     the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what 
     extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or 
     others within the Department about the conduct of his or her 
     duties and responsibilities.''
       Section 600.7. Conduct and Accountability
       ``(a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, 
     regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the 
     Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with 
     appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with 
     respect to established practices, policies and procedures of 
     the Department, including ethics and security regulations and 
     procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the 
     extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would 
     render compliance with required review and approval 
     procedures by the designated Departmental component 
     inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the 
     Attorney General.''

  Mr. NADLER. I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that one reason 
for this resolution, given the fact that Mr. Barr, the Attorney 
General, has, in fact, said that he would want to release as much as 
possible--and we appreciate that statement--but he and Mr. Rosenstein, 
the Deputy Attorney General, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, have 
both cited the Department policy not to comment on the conduct of 
someone not indicted.
  That leads us to expect that a misapplication of the normal 
Department policy to a sitting President of not commenting on someone 
who is not indicted, the application of that normally good policy to a 
sitting President who the Department believes cannot be indicted 
because he is a sitting President, would, in fact, greatly limit the 
ability of the Department or the willingness of the Department to 
release information in the report to the Congress and to the public.
  One of the reasons for this resolution is that we want to say, no, 
you cannot use that normally salutary policy to convert the 
Department's policy of never indicting a sitting President into a 
coverup that you can't comment or give to the Congress information 
about that.
  If you can't indict a sitting President and you can't give the 
information to Congress, then you are holding the President above the 
law, and you are frustrating Congress' ability to do its job of holding 
an administration accountable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd).

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his 
indulgence.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because I want the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth to come to light in this matter; 
I want to know what Vladimir Putin did to our electoral process; I want 
to know the failures of the Obama administration in reacting to this 
attack in real time; I want any Americans complicit to face severe 
consequences; and I want the American people to know as much as they 
can and see as much as they can.
  As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
I support the efforts and the request for all information pertaining to 
this investigation to be open to the public. That includes all witness 
lists, every interview transcript, and every document provided.
  The taxpayers paid millions for this information, and they should get 
to see all of it and not just the assessment of one person.
  This resolution should have been broader; it should have been deeper; 
and it should have covered everything dealing with the investigation. 
But it is a step in the right direction.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle accept the calls 
for all the information to be made public because full transparency is 
the only way to prevent future speculation. Full transparency is the 
only way to prevent future innuendo.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say thank you to 
the chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. Hurd was on his way over here. I did 
my best song and dance. It didn't last long enough. I am from the 
South. I am bad because I can't dance that well. So I appreciate the 
gentleman giving him that moment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for all the reasons stated by all the people who spoke 
in favor of this resolution, myself and everyone else, I urge adoption 
of the resolution. I urge everyone to vote for it. It is a very 
important resolution to maintain the rule of law in this country
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 208, the previous question is ordered on 
the concurrent resolution and preamble, as amended.
  The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution will be followed 
by a 5-minute vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the 
Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 420, 
nays 0, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 125]

                               YEAS--420

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady
     Brindisi
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado

[[Page H2732]]


     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx (NC)
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Fulcher
     Gabbard
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gooden
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Green (TX)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayes
     Heck
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (AR)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Olson
     Omar
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Posey
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4

     Amash
     Gaetz
     Gosar
     Massie

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cleaver
     Hastings
     Lofgren
     Marshall
     McEachin
     Ratcliffe
     Schweikert

                              {time}  1030

  Messrs. BRADY and BUCK changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Mr. GAETZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I regrettably missed votes on Thursday, 
March 14, 2019. I had intended to vote ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 
125.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during 
today's rollcall vote on H. Con. Res. 24. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 125.

                          ____________________