[House Report 115-797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


115th Congress    }                                     {       Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session       }                                     {      115-797
======================================================================


 
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THE 
 ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT'S USE OF THE PARDON 
         POWER UNDER ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION

                                _______
                                

   June 28, 2018.--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. 928]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
resolution (H. Res. 928) of inquiry requesting the President 
and directing the Attorney General to transmit, respectively, 
certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to 
the President's use of the pardon power under article II, 
section 2 of the Constitution, 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.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     5
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     5
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     5
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     5
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     5
Dissenting Views.................................................     6

                             The Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
      Strike all that follows 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, 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, memorandum, correspondence, or other 
communication in their possession, or any portion of any such 
communication, that refers or relates to the following:
          (1) Any pardon issued by the President on or after 
        January 20, 2017.
          (2) Any pardon under consideration by the President, 
        including pardons under consideration for any of the 
        following individuals:
                  (A) Michael Cohen, the President's personal 
                attorney.
                  (B) Paul Manafort, former chairman of the 
                Trump Presidential campaign.
                  (C) Richard Gates, former deputy chairman of 
                the Trump Presidential campaign.
                  (D) Michael Flynn, former National Security 
                Advisor.
                  (E) George Papadopoulos, advisor to the Trump 
                Presidential campaign.
                  (F) Alex van der Zwaan, attorney and former 
                associate of Paul Manafort.
          (3) Any consideration of the President's power to 
        pardon himself, including his assertion that he has the 
        ``absolute right'' to pardon himself.
          (4) President Trump's decision to issue pardons 
        without first consulting the Office of the Pardon 
        Attorney of the Department of Justice.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H. Res. 928 is a non-binding resolution of inquiry that 
requests that the Trump Administration provide the House of 
Representatives with certain documents related to the 
President's use of the pardon power under article II, section 2 
of the Constitution.

                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. 928 is the seventh 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 had to consider. Moreover, 
the resolution is completely unnecessary. It seeks information 
about things that have not yet happened. It is completely 
prospective and there is no indication that, in issuing the 
pardons he has issued, President Trump has acted improperly or 
outside the scope of his constitutional authority. Indeed, 
President Trump has pardoned five individuals and commuted the 
sentences of only two. The Justice Department's U.S. Attorney's 
Manual states that ``commutation of sentence is an 
extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted.'' Thus far, 
President Trump's actions with the pardon power are in line 
with that sentiment.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H. Res. 
928.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June 26, 2018, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the resolution (H. Res. 928) unfavorably reported by a 
roll call vote of 13-12, 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. 928.
    1. Motion to report H. Res. 928 unfavorably to the House. 
Approved 13 to 12.

                             ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Ayes    Nays   Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman...................      X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI)....................
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................      X
Mr. Issa (CA)..................................      X
Mr. King (IA)..................................      X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)...............................
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................
Mr. Poe (TX)...................................
Mr. Marino (PA)................................      X
Mr. Gowdy (SC).................................
Mr. Labrador (ID)..............................
Mr. Collins (GA)...............................      X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................
Mr. Buck (CO)..................................      X
Mr. Ratcliffe (TX).............................      X
Ms. Roby (AL)..................................
Mr. Gaetz (FL).................................      X
Mr. Johnson (LA)...............................      X
Mr. Biggs (AZ).................................
Mr. Rutherford (FL)............................      X
Ms. Handel (GA)................................      X
Mr. Rothfus (PA)...............................      X
 
Mr. Nadler (NY), Ranking Member................              X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)...............................
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)...........................              X
Mr. Cohen (TN).................................              X
Mr. Johnson (GA)...............................              X
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................              X
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................              X
Mr. Cicilline (RI).............................              X
Mr. Swalwell (CA)..............................
Mr. Lieu (CA)..................................              X
Mr. Raskin (MD)................................              X
Ms. Jayapal (WA)...............................              X
Mr. Schneider (IL).............................              X
Ms. Demings (FL)...............................              X
                                                ------------------------
    Total......................................     13      12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      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. 928 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. 928 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. 
928 requests certain documents from the Trump Administration 
related to the President's use of the pardon power under 
article II, section 2 of the Constitution.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H. Res. 928 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. 928, 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 President's use of the 
pardon power under article II, section 2 of the Constitution.

                            Dissenting Views

    H. Res. 928 directs President Donald Trump and U.S. 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions to produce any information 
related to the President's decision to use (or abuse) the 
pardon power under article II, section 2 of the Constitution. 
This legislation is absolutely necessary given the Majority's 
repeated failure to conduct proper oversight of President 
Trump's use of the pardon power.

                       DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

    Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution 
of inquiry is used to obtain information from the executive 
branch. A resolution of inquiry is directed at the President or 
the head of a Cabinet-level agency, requesting facts within the 
control of the executive branch.\1\ As a ``simple resolution'' 
(designated by ``H. Res.''), a resolution of inquiry does not 
carry the force of law. Thus, ``compliance by the executive 
branch with the House's request is voluntary, resting largely 
on a sense of comity between co-equal branches of government 
and a recognition of the necessity for Congress to be well-
informed as it legislates.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Christopher M. Davis, Resolutions of Inquiry: An Analysis of 
Their Use in the House, 1947-2011, Cong. Research Service, May 15, 2012 
(R40879).
    \2\Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House Rules afford resolutions of inquiry a privileged 
parliamentary status. A Member files a resolution of inquiry 
like any other legislation. The resolution is then referred to 
the proper committee of jurisdiction. If the committee does not 
report the resolution to the House within 14 legislative days 
of its introduction, however, a motion to discharge the 
resolution from committee can be made on the House floor.\3\ In 
practice, even when the Majority opposes a resolution of 
inquiry, a committee will mark it up and report it adversely to 
prevent its sponsor from making a privileged motion to call up 
the legislation on the House floor.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\House Rule XIII, clause 7.
    \4\Davis, supra note 1, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H. Res. 928, which was introduced by Representative Ted 
Lieu (D-CA) on June 13, 2018, together with Rep. Bill Pascrell, 
Jr. (D-NJ) as an original cosponsor, would direct the President 
and the Attorney General to transmit to the House, not later 
than 14 days after the enactment of the resolution, copies of 
any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other 
communication of the White House or the Department of Justice 
(DOJ), respectively, that refers or relates to:
          (1) any presidential pardon issued after January 20, 
        2017;
          (2) any pardon under consideration by the President, 
        including but not limited to Michael Cohen, Paul 
        Manafort, Richard Gates, Michael Flynn, George 
        Papadopoulos, or Alex van der Zwaan;
          (3) any consideration of the President's ability to 
        pardon himself; and
          (4) The President's decision to issue pardons without 
        consulting the DOJ's Office of the Pardon Attorney.

                        WHY H.RES. 928 IS NEEDED

    A clear pattern is emerging regarding President Trump's use 
of the pardon power. The following is a partial list of 
individuals whom President Trump has either pardoned or granted 
a commuted sentence:
          (1) Sheriff Joe Arpaio:\5\ the controversial and 
        racist former sheriff from Arizona who was found guilty 
        of criminal contempt for continuing to racially profile 
        Latinos in violation of a court order. He did not serve 
        any time in prison and his sentence was pardoned by 
        President Trump on August 25, 2017;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\@realDonaldTrump, Twitter, Aug. 25, 2017, 07:00 P.M.; Julie 
Hirschfeld Davis & Maggie Haberman, Trump Pardons Joe Arpaio, Who 
Became Face of Crackdown on Illegal Immigration, N.Y. Times, Aug. 25, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (2) Kristian Saucier:\6\ a navy sailor who was 
        convicted for the unauthorized retention of classified 
        information, specifically photos depicting classified 
        areas of the U.S.S. Alexandria submarine. He was found 
        guilty in 2016. His cause was championed by former 
        National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and the 
        President pardoned him on March 9, 2018;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Matt Zapotosky, Trump pardons former Navy sailor convicted of 
retaining submarine pictures in case that drew comparisons to Clinton, 
Wash. Post, Mar. 9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (3) Scooter Libby:\7\ the former chief of staff to 
        Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of perjury 
        and obstruction of justice for his involvement in 
        revealing the identity of Valerie Plame, a former 
        covert Central Intelligence Agency operative. His 
        sentence was originally commuted by President George W. 
        Bush and then pardoned by President Trump in April 
        2018;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\John Wagner, Matt Zapotosky, & Joshua Dawsey, Trump issues 
pardon to Scooter Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President 
Cheney, Wash. Post, Apr. 13, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (4) Dinesh D'Souza:\8\ the conservative political 
        author who pled guilty to campaign finance law 
        violations in 2014. He was given five years of 
        probation prior to receiving his pardon on May 31, 
        2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Peter Baker, Dinesh D'Souza, Pardoned by Trump, Claims Victory 
Over Obama Administration, N.Y. Times, June 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These individuals were convicted of crimes similar to those 
alleged by the Special Counsel against various associates of 
President Trump. Former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn 
and former Trump Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates have plead 
guilty to making false statements to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) and federal prosecutors.\9\ Mr. Gates' 
associate Alex van der Zwaan and former Trump campaign advisor 
George Papadopoulos also pled guilty to making false statements 
to the FBI.\10\ President Trump's former campaign manager Paul 
Manafort has yet to plead to any counts, but faces multiple 
charges of money laundering, wire fraud, witness tampering, 
obstruction of justice, making false statements, Foreign Agent 
Registration Act violations, and conspiracy against the United 
States.\11\ President Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen, 
while not yet indicted, is allegedly being investigated for 
bank fraud, wire fraud, and campaign finance law violations--
all crimes that have already been the focus of President 
Trump's pardons.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\United States v. Michael T. Flynn, No. 1:17-cr-232 (D.D.C. Nov. 
30, 2017) (plea agreement); United States v. Richard W. Gates, No. 
1:17-cr-201 (D.D.C. Feb. 23, 2018) (plea agreement).
    \10\United States v. Alex van der Zwaan, No. 1:18-cr-31 (D.D.C. 
Feb. 14, 2018) (plea agreement); United States v. George Papadopoulos, 
No. 1:17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2017) (plea agreement).
    \11\United States v. Paul Manafort & Konstantin Kilimnik, No. 1:17-
cr-201 (D.D.C. June 8, 2018) (third superseding indictment).
    \12\Carol D. Leonnig, Tom Hamburger, & Devlin Barrett, Trump 
attorney Cohen is being investigated for possible bank fraud, campaign 
finance violations, Wash. Post, Apr. 9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, it is clear from President Trump's public 
statements--as well as those of individuals closely associated 
with him--that the President is signaling his willingness to 
pardon individuals, including himself, in order to obstruct the 
ongoing Special Counsel investigation.
    The statements by President Trump, his surrogates, and his 
legal team suggest that he views the pardon power as unlimited 
and that he will use it to undermine the ongoing investigation 
into efforts by Russia to interfere with the 2016 presidential 
election. For example, President Trump has claimed, ``As has 
been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute 
right to pardon myself, but why would I do so when I have done 
nothing wrong?''\13\ Similarly, the President's attorney Rudy 
Giuliani has argued that the President's powers are so 
expansive that ``[i]n no case can he be subpoenaed or 
indicted.''\14\ Mr. Giuliani later suggested that the President 
may consider pardoning Paul Manafort because he believes Mr. 
Manafort was treated unfairly by the Special Counsel. He 
stated, ``When it's over, hey, he's the president of the United 
States. He retains his pardon power. Nobody is taking that away 
from him. He can pardon, in his judgment.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\@realDonaldTrump, Twitter, June 4, 2018, 08:35 A.M.
    \14\S.V. Date, Giuliani: Trump could have shot Comey and still 
couldn't be indicted for it, HuffPost, June 3, 2018.
    \15\Hope Yen, Rudy Giuliani Says President Trump Could Use Pardon 
Power After Russia Probe, Time, June 18, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The President and his surrogates' claims run counter to the 
Framers' intent and the basic rule of law. The Framers of the 
Constitution discussed the issue of self-pardon and concluded 
that the concept was inherently corrupt.\16\ Furthermore, the 
DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel reiterated this position when it 
informed President Richard Nixon he could not pardon himself: 
``Under the fundamental rule that no one may be the judge in 
his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.''\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\In Convention, Richmond, June 18, 1788, in The Debates in the 
Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Constitution, ed. 
Jonathan Elliot, 5 vols. (Washington, DC: Taylor and Maury, 1863), 
4:498.
    \17\Mary C. Lawton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of 
Legal Counsel, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy 
Attorney General (Aug. 5, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    In light of his public statements--as well as those of his 
close associates--President Trump and his use of the pardon 
power should be the subject of exhaustive oversight by this 
Committee. Judiciary Democrats have written Chairman Bob 
Goodlatte on three separate occasions this Congress requesting 
that he hold hearings on abuse of the pardon power, with no 
response.\18\ It is abundantly clear that the Majority has 
chosen to ignore our critical concerns and refuses to conduct 
any meaningful oversight of the Trump Administration. Instead, 
the Majority voted to report H. Res. 928 unfavorably to the 
House as a further effort to prevent such oversight. For the 
forgoing reasons, we dissent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Ranking Member Nadler, et. al., to Chairman Robert Goodlatte, 
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, April 17, 2018, Ranking Member Nadler, et. 
al., to Chairman Robert Goodlatte, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, June 6, 
2018, Ranking Member Nadler, et. al., to Chairman Robert Goodlatte, H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary, June 28, 2018, Ranking Member Nadler, et. al., 
to Chairman.

                                   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. Lieu.
                                   Ms. Jayapal.
                                   Mr. Raskin.
                                   Ms. Demings.

                                  [all]