[House Report 115-335]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-335
======================================================================
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO THE REMOVAL OF FORMER FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY
_______
September 28, 2017.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
ADVERSE REPORT
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 488]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
resolution (H. Res. 488) of inquiry requesting the President
and directing the Attorney General to transmit, respectively,
certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to
the removal of former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director
James Comey, having considered the same, report unfavorably
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the resolution as
amended not be agreed to.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 7
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 7
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 7
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 7
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 8
Dissenting Views................................................. 9
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That the President is requested, and Attorney General of the United
States is directed, to transmit, respectively (in a manner appropriate
to classified information, if the President or Attorney General
determines appropriate), to the House of Representatives, not later
than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, copies
of any document, record, audio recording, memo, correspondence, or
other communication in their possessions, or any portion of any such
communication, that refers or relates to the following:
(1) The removal of James B. Comey from his position as the
director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(2) The participation of Attorney General Jefferson Sessions
in the removal of Director Comey.
(3) The scope or application of Attorney General Sessions'
recusal from ``any existing or future investigations of any
matters in any way related to the campaigns for President of
the United States''.
(4) The application of Attorney General Sessions' recusal to
the removal of Director Comey.
(5) The scope or application of executive privilege as
applied to the June 13, 2017, testimony of Attorney General
Sessions before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
(6) President Donald J. Trump's statement, communicated via
Twitter on May 12, 2017, at 8:26 a.m.: ``James Comey better
hope that there are no `tapes' of our conversations before he
starts leaking to the press!''.
(7) Any system used by the White House to secretly record
conversations between President Trump and Director Comey.
(8) Any contemporaneous account of any meeting between
President Trump and Director Comey.
(9) Any communication Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, or
Jared Kushner may have had with the Department of Justice or
the Federal Bureau of Investigation that relates to their June
9, 2016, meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rinat Akhmetshin,
and Irakly Kaveladze.
(10) Any analysis regarding the violation of any criminal law
with respect to that June 9, 2016, meeting, including any
analysis of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or the Espionage Act of 1917 as
it may pertain to a Federal campaign's attempt to obtain
information that ``would incriminate Hillary'' from a foreign
government.
(11) The disposition or review of any application for a
security clearance submitted by White House advisor Jared
Kushner or Attorney General Sessions.
Purpose and Summary
House Resolution 488 is a non-binding resolution of inquiry
that requests that the Trump Administration provide the House
of Representatives with certain documents related to the
removal of James B. Comey from his position as director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Resolutions of inquiry, if properly drafted, are given
privileged parliamentary status in the House. This means that,
under certain circumstances, a resolution of inquiry can be
considered on the House floor even if the committee to which it
was referred has not ordered the resolution reported and the
majority party's leadership has not scheduled it for
consideration. Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives requires the committee to which the
resolution is referred to act on the resolution within 14
legislative days, or a motion to discharge the committee from
consideration is considered privileged on the floor of the
House. In calculating the days available for committee
consideration, the day of introduction and the day of discharge
are not counted.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Wm. Holmes Brown, et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules,
Precedents, and Procedures of the House ch. 49, Sec. 6, p. 834 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is a means by which the House may request
information from the President or the head of one of the
executive departments. According to Deschler's Precedents, it
is a ``simple resolution making a direct request or demand of
the President or the head of an executive department to furnish
the House of Representatives with specific factual information
in the possession of the executive branch.''\2\ Such
resolutions must ask for facts, documents, or specific
information; they may not be used to request an opinion or
require an investigation.\3\ Resolutions of inquiry are not
akin to subpoenas, they have no legal force, and thus
compliance by the Executive Branch with the House's request for
information is purely voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\7 Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of
Representatives, H. Doc. No. 94-661, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., ch. 24,
Sec. 8.
\3\A resolution that seeks more than factual information does not
enjoy privileged status. Brown, supra note 1, at 833-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a study conducted by the Congressional
Research Service (CRS), between 1947 and 2011, 290 resolutions
of inquiry were introduced in the House.\4\ Within this period,
CRS found that ``two periods in particular, 1971-1975 and 2003-
2006, saw the highest levels of activity on resolutions of
inquiry'' and that the ``Committees on Armed Services, Foreign
Affairs, and the Judiciary have received the largest share of
references.''\5\ CRS further found that ``in recent Congresses,
such resolutions have overwhelmingly become a tool of the
minority party in the House.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Christopher M. Davis, Congressional Research Service,
Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of Their Use in the House, 1947-
2011 at i (2012).
\5\Id.
\6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Committee has a number of choices after a resolution of
inquiry is referred to it. It may vote on the resolution up or
down as is or it may amend it, and it may report the resolution
favorably, unfavorably, or with no recommendation.
H. Res. 488 is the fifth resolution of inquiry that the
Judiciary Committee has been forced to consider this Congress.
This is the same number of resolutions of inquiry that all
other House committees combined have considered. As members of
the majority have pointed out in debate regarding these
resolutions, resolutions of inquiry, even if acted upon by the
House, have no greater legal force than sending the Executive
Branch a letter. Except that sending a letter does not
monopolize the Committee's time. Time that the Committee could
better spend on working to reform our nation's immigration
system; enacting criminal justice reform; reauthorizing the
Department of Justice; advancing legislation to create jobs and
restore economic prosperity for families and businesses across
the nation; securing constitutional freedoms; or working on
legislation that helps protect our citizens from the threats
posed by crime and terrorism.
H. Res. 488 is particularly emblematic of the time-
consuming nature of these resolutions. At the Committee's July
26, 2017 business meeting, the Committee debated a resolution
of inquiry (H. Res. 446) that was nearly identical to H. Res.
488. Debate on that resolution took almost two-and-a-half
hours. H. Res. 488 required the Committee to debate essentially
the same resolution all over again. The Committee cannot
continue to debate these repetitive, non-binding resolutions--
resolutions that seek information that is already subject to
investigation by at least five other entities.
This Committee is conducting oversight as appropriate into
Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russian
interference in the 2016 elections and potential ties to the
Trump Campaign. In fact Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member
Conyers recently met with Mr. Mueller. However, the
investigation must be allowed to proceed without outside
political interference. The resolution injects the very
political influence the Committee seeks to avoid.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res.
488.
Committee Consideration
On, September 7, 2017, the Committee met in open session
and ordered H. Res. 488 unfavorably reported with an amendment,
by a roll call vote of 23-8, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H. Res. 488.
1. Motion to order the previous question. Approved 18 to 1.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI).................... X
Mr. Smith (TX)................................. X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. King (IA)..................................
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................ X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)................................... X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC)................................. X
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............................ X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................
Mr. Buck (CO)..................................
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).............................
Ms. Roby (AL).................................. X
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)............................... X
Mr. Biggs (AZ).................................
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI).............................
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA)..................................
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
------------------------
Total...................................... 18 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. A substitute amendment offered by Mr. Goodlatte to make
technical corrections. Approved 17 to 1.
ROLLCALL NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI).................... X
Mr. Smith (TX)................................. X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................
Mr. King (IA)..................................
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................ X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................
Mr. Poe (TX)................................... X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC)................................. X
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............................ X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................
Mr. Buck (CO)..................................
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).............................
Ms. Roby (AL).................................. X
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)............................... X
Mr. Biggs (AZ).................................
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member..........
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI).............................
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA)..................................
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
------------------------
Total...................................... 17 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Motion to report H. Res. 488 unfavorably to the House.
Approved 23 to 8.
ROLLCALL NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI).................... X
Mr. Smith (TX)................................. X
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................ X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)................................... X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC)................................. X
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Mr. Farenthold (TX)............................ X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................
Mr. Buck (CO).................................. X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX)............................. X
Ms. Roby (AL).................................. X
Mr. Gaetz (FL)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (LA)............................... X
Mr. Biggs (AZ)................................. X
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................ X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................ X
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member.......... X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................ X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI)............................. X
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA)..................................
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................ X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)............................... X
Mr. Schneider (IL)............................. X
------------------------
Total...................................... 23 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Committee Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that
implementing this non-binding resolution would not result in
any significant costs. The Congressional Budget Office did not
provide a cost estimate for the resolution.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H. Res. 488 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee finds that H. Res. 488 contains no directed
rule making within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H. Res.
488 requests certain documents from the Trump Administration
related to the dismissal of former Federal Bureau of
Investigation Director James Comey.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H. Res. 488 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the resolution as
reported by the Committee.
H. Res. 488, a non-binding resolution of inquiry, requests
that the President and the Attorney General of the United
States transmit certain documents and communications to the
House of Representatives related to the removal of James B.
Comey from his position as the director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
Dissenting Views
H. Res. 488, introduced by Representatives David Cicilline
(D-RI) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), directs the Trump
Administration to produce information related to certain key
events at the Department of Justice--among them, the removal of
James Comey from his position as director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), the seemingly arbitrary application of
the Attorney General's recusal from matters related to the
presidential campaigns, and President Donald Trump's claim that
he maintains secret ``tapes'' of his private conversations with
Mr. Comey.\1\ This resolution represents our second attempt to
debate this subject matter and proceed to an up-or-down vote.
Once again, the Majority has shown that it would rather change
the subject--or cut off debate entirely--than conduct even
modest oversight of the Trump Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\@realDonaldTrump (President Donald J. Trump), Twitter, May 12,
2017, 8:26 AM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any one of the issues raised by H. Res. 488 would
ordinarily command the attention of the Committee. The
information we seek is critical to our ability to conduct
oversight of the executive branch, and to push back against the
President's direct attacks on the leadership and integrity of
the Department of Justice. The Majority refuses to do this
work. At markup, rather than discuss the resolution on the
merits, Chairman Bob Goodlatte simply ``called the previous
question'' and cut off debate just as consideration of H. Res.
488 had begun.
This move breaks with the Committee's long commitment to
the rights of the Minority, no matter which party is in charge.
The Majority is entitled to disagree with us about the
importance of conducting oversight--but we cannot tolerate a
situation where they dispose of a resolution of inquiry without
first providing us with the courtesy of open debate. We object
to the procedures employed during the consideration of this
important measure and dissent from the Majority's decision to
report it unfavorably.
I. H. RES. 488 IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE MAJORITY UNDERMINED AN EARLIER
RESOLUTION BY TURNING IT INTO A LIST OF HILLARY CLINTON CONSPIRACY
THEORIES
Representatives Jayapal and Cicilline introduced a
substantively similar resolution, H. Res. 446, on July 14,
2017. Like H. Res. 488, H. Res. 446 sought information about
the firing of James Comey, the scope and application of the
Attorney General's recusal, and the President's alleged
recordings of his private conversations with Mr. Comey.
Rather than debate H. Res. 446 at the Committee markup in
July, however, the Majority adopted an amendment offered by
Representative Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) that struck the contents of
the resolution and replaced it with a long list of unfounded
grievances aimed at Hillary Clinton.\2\ We learned later that
Representative Gaetz's office had solicited suggestions for the
amendment from r/The_Donald, an online forum hosted by Reddit
whose members promote pro-Trump conspiracy theories and often
self-identify as racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim,
misogynistic, pro-Nazi, and anti-immigrant.\3\ The Majority
embraced this amendment unanimously, and passed it on a party
line vote.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See H.R. Rep. No. 115-300, Sept. 8, 2017. ``Rather than debate
the resolution on the merits, however, the Majority has shown us where
their priorities lie: they would rather chase the ghost of Hillary
Clinton's emails than face the fact of widespread dysfunction at the
White House and the Department of Justice.'' Id. (dissenting views).
\3\Ashley Feinberg, A GOP staffer crowdsources an anti-Clinton
resolution from Reddit, Wired, July 28, 2017. See also The Data Team,
The origin of the specious, The Economist, July 4, 2017; Caitlin Dewey,
The people running this Trump fan club also promote eugenics and call
Muslims ``animals'', Wash. Post, July 20, 2016.
\4\H.R. Rep. No. 115-300, Sept. 8, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter to Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA) after the markup
of H. Res. 446, Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI),
together with Representatives Cicilline, and Jayapal expressed
their frustration with this heavy-handed tactic:
As the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, you
have no need to distort our legislation in order to
accomplish your oversight needs. You may demand
whatever information you wish from the Trump
Administration, supported by the threat of subpoena . .
. . Indeed, we have urged you for months to conduct
even basic oversight of the Department of Justice. We
repeat our request that you call hearings with the
leadership of the Department as soon as possible.
If even that power is insufficient for your needs,
then members of the Majority are free to offer
resolutions of inquiry of their own.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Letter from Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., et al., to
Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, July 28, 2017.
The Majority did not respond to the letter and still has not
scheduled a single substantive oversight hearing. With no other
recourse, Representatives Cicilline and Jayapal introduced H.
Res. 488 to demand an open debate on the substance of their
resolution, rather than on a trite inventory of Clinton-related
conspiracy theories.
H. Res. 488 covers much of the same subject matter as its
predecessor. The resolution asks for information about the
firing of James Comey, the Attorney General's recusal, and the
President's conversations with the FBI director prior to his
removal. H. Res. 488 also incorporates two amendments our
Members had planned to offer at the markup of the earlier
resolution. Accordingly, H. Res. 488 now asks for information
about a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior
campaign officials and representatives of the Russian
government, as well as for information about security clearance
applications submitted by White House advisor Jared Kushner and
Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Obtaining this information
would represent a modest first step in fulfilling our
Committee's oversight responsibilities.
II. THE MAJORITY CUT OFF DEBATE TO AVOID ITS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES
The markup of H. Res. 488 was brief. Chairman Goodlatte
complained that the resolution was an example of ``partisan
mudslinging'' and a waste of time.\6\ Ranking Member Conyers
responded to that criticism, stating that ``until the
Administration answers our questions, and until the Majority
calls them here to do so, my colleagues and I will do
everything in our power to hold both the Administration and the
Majority accountable.''\7\ Representative Gaetz pitched an
amendment that he would not be permitted to offer--arguing,
incredulously, that ``[t]he only evidence of collusion with
Russia is the evidence that Hillary Clinton was working with
Russian operatives.''\8\ He yielded time to Representative Jim
Jordan (R-OH), who wondered aloud: ``[w]hy is not the House
Judiciary Committee doing an investigation'' into Hillary
Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and former Attorney General Loretta
Lynch?\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Unofficial Tr. of Markup of H.R. 3229; H.R. 620; H. Res. 488,
before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. (Sept. 7, 2017)
(statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte) [hereinafter Markup Tr.].
\7\Id. (statement of Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.).
\8\Id. (statement of Rep. Matthew Gaetz).
\9\Id. (statement of Rep. Jim Jordan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Cicilline, who was the last Member permitted
to speak on the resolution, then got to the heart of the
matter:
When Congresswoman Jayapal and I originally filed
this resolution of inquiry, we were seeking answers to
urgent questions about the conduct of members of the
Trump Administration. These questions remain and they
include . . . the full extent of the ties between
Donald Trump's inner circle and the Kremlin; whether
James Comey was fired to hide the truth about Donald
Trump's ties to Russia or collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russian officials; and if Jeff Sessions
violated his recusal when he participated in the firing
of James Comey.
[W]e were denied not only the answers to our
questions, we were denied the right to even ask those
questions. Instead of allowing us to have a debate and
offer amendments, the Majority used a procedural
maneuver to erase our underlying resolution and turn
[it] into a vehicle to conduct yet another pointless,
baseless investigation of Hillary Clinton . . . .
Why we would abdicate our constitutional oversight
role is beyond me.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id. (statement of Rep. David Cicilline).
Chairman Goodlatte then proceeded to move the previous
question, thereby halting any further discussion of H. Res.
488.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\``The motion to order the previous question proposes to stop
the debate and block amendments . . . . The committee immediately votes
on the motion and, if it is agreed to by majority vote, the committee
proceeds to vote on the amendment. No further debate on the amendment
is in order, nor can members offer any amendments to it.'' The
Committee Markup Process in the House of Representatives, Cong.
Research Service, Dec. 2, 2016 (RL30244).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many years, our Committee has prided itself on being
able to agree to fair process and full debate, even when we
disagree on the substance of matters before us. By cutting off
debate on H. Res. 488, and by diverting the core purpose of H.
Res. 446 in an earlier markup, the Majority has threatened this
longstanding and mutually honored understanding.
The maneuver itself is largely foreign to our Committee.
Prior chairmen of this Committee have rarely, if ever, called
the previous question. During his tenure as chairman, Ranking
Member Conyers never suspended debate in this manner. Some
chairmen have used the motion as a device to expedite Committee
business, with the unanimous consent of the Members.\12\
Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) once called the previous question
during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, but only
after days of related hearings and hours of fulsome debate.\13\
There is no modern precedent for Chairman Goodlatte's decision
to end consideration of legislation just as debate had begun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See, e.g., Markup of H.R. 807 before the H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 107th Cong., June 20, 2001; Markup of H. Res. 437 before the
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th Cong., July 17, 2002.
\13\See Markup of H. Res. 611 before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
105th Cong., Nov. 19, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. THE MAJORITY FAILED TO JUSTIFY THEIR DECISION TO CUT OFF DEBATE
At markup, the Majority raised several arguments in an
attempt to justify the decision to cut off debate. Each of
these claims is inaccurate, unpersuasive, or both.
The Majority argued that we did not need to debate H. Res.
488 because ``there is a special counsel in place examining the
issue this resolution seeks to shed light on.''\14\ Although
some aspects of the resolution--the President's decision to
fire James Comey, for example--may be under examination by
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, nothing about that
investigation prevents the Committee from conducting its own
oversight. Further, there is no indication that the Special
Counsel is reviewing whether Attorney General Sessions has
complied with the terms of his own recusal or whether certain
questionable security clearances should be revoked. These
matters are central to the information we had hoped to obtain
through H. Res. 488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Markup Tr., supra note 5 (statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority asserted that H. Res. 488 ``is simply an
exercise in partisan mudslinging.''\15\ This is also
inaccurate. This resolution of inquiry, and its predecessor,
represent an attempt to obtain information about well-
substantiated allegations of misconduct in the Trump
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority claimed that the Committee ``does not have the
time'' to consider H. Res. 488, in part because it ``barely
differs from Ms. Jayapal's resolution we considered in July,
and because debate on H. Res. 446 ``took almost two-and-a-half
hours of the Committee's time.''\16\ In fact, out of the two
hours and 15 minutes that the Committee debated H. Res. 446, a
full one hour and 50 minutes was dedicated to the Gaetz
Amendment--which the Majority embraced unanimously. Indeed, had
the Committee considered H. Res. 446 in the ordinary course--
allowing for a full debate on the subject matter of that
resolution, instead of demeaning the Committee with a call for
yet another investigation into ``Hillary Clinton, the Clinton
Foundation, and . . . the obvious crimes committed
therein,''\17\--it seems unlikely that Representatives
Cicilline and Jayapal would have seen a need to introduce H.
Res. 488.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Id.
\17\Id. (statement of Rep. Matthew Gaetz).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Majority complained that it should not have to
debate H. Res. 488 because our Committee has considered ``the
same number of resolutions of inquiry that all other House
committees have had to consider.''\18\ We cannot change the
fact that the Department of Justice and the FBI play central
roles in the allegations of abuse of power and obstruction of
justice surrounding the Trump Administration--or that oversight
of these agencies falls squarely within our jurisdiction. The
Committee must eventually play a lead role in Congress's
response to this alleged misconduct. To date, however, the
Majority has made no meaningful effort to engage with the
Department of Justice or the FBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Id. (statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not alone in our frustration at the Majority's
unwillingness to fulfill our oversight responsibilities. At the
markup, Representative Jordan made clear that he agreed with
Ranking Member Conyers on the question of prioritizing
oversight:
We should conduct our own investigation, as the
Ranking Member just said, which raises one more
important ``why'' for the House Judiciary Committee.
Why will not this committee look into this?
[T]he most important question is the one we need to
ask ourselves. Why is not the House Judiciary Committee
doing an investigation?\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Id. (statement of Rep. Jim Jordan).
In this same spirit, we have attempted to conduct oversight
where the Majority will not. We have written to the Trump
Administration on more than twenty occasions. We have not
received a single meaningful response. In fact, the
Administration has gone so far as to indicate that it will not
respond at all to letters sent by Democratic Members (or rank-
and-file Republicans).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Burgess Everett and Josh Dawsey, White House orders agencies to
ignore Democratic oversight requests, Politico, June 2, 2017. See also
Letter to President Donald J. Trump from Chairman Charles E. Grassley,
S. Comm. on the Judiciary, June 7, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also written collectively to Chairman Goodlatte on
seven occasions--and Ranking Member Conyers has written
separately an additional four times--making eleven attempts to
secure oversight hearings with the Attorney General, the Deputy
Attorney General, the Director and former Director of the FBI,
and the Secretary or Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. We
have not received a response to these letters either. To date,
the Majority has not scheduled a single substantive oversight
hearing since President Trump took office.
In the face of this failure to act, resolutions of inquiry
like H. Res. 488 often represent our only available recourse to
conduct oversight. We will not be deterred from carrying out
our constitutional responsibilities by the Majority's reckless
tactics. We will do our work even if threatened with shortened
debate and spurious conspiracy theories. Indeed, until the
Committee finally begins its oversight work in earnest, we have
little choice.
CONCLUSION
On September 15, 2017, we again wrote to Chairman Goodlatte
to object to his handling of the markup of H. Res. 488. His
decision to call the previous question ``was not only premature
and ill-considered, but also disrespectful to the democratic
process and to the Minority, in particular.''\21\ We have
offered to work with the Majority to resolve our concerns. We
have received no response to this letter either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Letter from Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., et al., to
Chairman Bob Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Sept. 15, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has a duty to ask questions of the Trump
Administration and to protect the institutions that have been
trusted to our oversight. H. Res. 488 would have helped us to
begin asking those questions. Rather than discuss these matters
further, the Majority cut off debate on the resolution. Its
reasons for doing so are wholly unpersuasive.
Because the Majority continues to fall short of the
Committee's responsibility to conduct oversight of the
executive branch, and because the Majority has broken with
longstanding Committee practice in order to stifle debate, we
dissent.
Mr. Conyers, Jr.
Mr. Nadler.
Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Johnson, Jr.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Gutierrez.
Ms. Bass.
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Lieu.
Mr. Raskin.
Ms. Jayapal.
[all]