Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 24) expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress, and providing for proceedings during the period from March 15, 2019, through March 22, 2019.

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.

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

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the gentleman from Georgia implied a few

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 208 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 208, providing for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress.

The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule.

The rule self-executes two amendments to simply clarify that the resolution is calling for the release of the special counsel's findings in addition to any report.

It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Finally, the rule provides standard recess procedures for the period of March 15 through March 22.

Mr. Speaker, when the Justice Department named the special counsel for the Russia investigation, acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said: ``A special counsel is necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome. Our Nation is grounded on the rule of law, and the public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly.''

This investigation has been about following the facts wherever they may lead, getting to the truth of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election, and ensuring government is transparent and accountable to the American public.

This does not predetermine the outcome of that investigation. It simply expresses that the report of the special counsel should be made available to Congress and to the American people.

The public, including my constituents in California--our constituents in California, Mr. Speaker--want to know what happened. Nearly 9 in 10 Americans in both parties say the investigation should produce a full public report on their findings. Not only do the American people want to know, but they deserve to know. Congress needs to preserve their ability to know.

Our election system is an integral part of what makes us the beacon of Western democracy. Any and all attempts to undermine this system is an attack on our country's values and cannot be taken lightly.

This is a serious investigation with consequences for our elections, democracy, government, and the future of this country and democracy itself. There is no one with more intimate knowledge of Russia's involvement in our election than the special counsel.

To date, this investigation has resulted in 34 people and three companies being criminally charged; nearly 200 charges filed; seven guilty pleas; one conviction following a jury trial; and the investigation, while costing $25 million, has recovered approximately $48 million in assets from tax evasion.

Mr. Speaker, eight Federal and congressional intelligence and national security groups believe Russia interfered

in our election, with the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluding that Vladimir Putin personally ``ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election'' to ``undermine public faith in the democratic process.''

The last time our country had a special counsel operating under the same rules as this probe was in 1993 to investigate the Waco siege and allegations of government wrongdoing. Prosecutors posted their final report directly on the internet with hundreds of pages of exhibits and timelines. The American people must receive the same transparency when this report is released.

I encourage my friends across the aisle to support the release of this report. We have commitments to support it from three House Republican leaders, including the minority leader, the minority whip, and the Republican Conference chair. I hope all my colleagues across the aisle will join us in this vote to ensure that we are on the record that we will share one of the most important investigations of our time within these halls and with all of America.

This is happening on our watch, and it is our job to be faithful to our oath to defend and uphold democracy. As Justice Brandeis famously said, ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me join with my friend from Georgia in noting how important it is that you are presiding, my good friend, with lots of history between the two of us in our political life in California and our education, I might add to the Jesuits.

I want to say to my good friend, I look at this as one of those opportunities where we may not get a headline. Unfortunately, too many of the headlines talk about how divisive it is here. Certainly, there is a lot of that.

But when I go home and do townhalls--and I do a lot of them in northern California--when this question comes up about polarization, I talk about all the times we do work together that don't get out, certainly, in the headlines, because that is not what sells advertising, apparently. I think this is one of those moments that we aspire to that, that we actually aspire that somebody picks up on this; that all of us, in these extraordinary circumstances, are being faithful to our oath; that we make sure that the things that may have happened, that apparently did happen, that the public needs confidence in us.

When we look every day, including today, at the affronts and the attacks on so many institutions in America, and this institution having had challenges, this might be one of those opportunities, at least for us, to say: We agree. We may have differences of opinion about who did what, but we have faith.

For me, I think history will say that this special counsel is one of those providential Americans. With his background, with his determination to believe in fidelity and truth, we were lucky to have this person at this point in time.

I put my faith in this institution. I put faith in the special counsel. In this instance, I hear from you, my friend from Georgia, that we are going to put our faith in this institution and one another, that we can show the American people that this is, indeed, more important than party, and it is more important than any of our individual political careers.

I did want to mention, Mr. Speaker, that this is a sense of Congress and that this is not the first time we have brought a resolution like this to the floor. In fact, just last week, we brought a resolution to the floor to send a message to the American people that Congress is united in condemning anti-Semitism and bigotry in all its forms. There are people who criticized us for bringing that and thought that it was unnecessary, but we brought that to the floor.

A majority of Republicans joined Democrats, an overwhelming majority, in voting for it. Leader McCarthy called it a resolution to make a statement. Whip Scalise said, regarding the resolution, ``We must all take a strong

stand against hatred and bigotry wherever we see it, and I am glad this resolution makes'' sense.

We agree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that passing these types of resolutions can make a strong statement. Although they may seem to some as unnecessary, these statements on these kinds of important issues, I believe, are very necessary for this institution to make, particularly when they are bipartisan.

Today, we are letting Attorney General Barr and everyone else know that we are all united behind one common principle, which I believe he agreed to in his confirmation hearings, which the Member from Georgia alluded to. That complete transparency, consistent with law, is vital to the success of our democracy. The American people deserve to have access to this report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished chair of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend from Georgia, I want to agree--and maybe we disagree a little bit.

I do think this is important. I think it is the unusual circumstance, and a lot of things that we have no direct control over have brought us to this circumstance.

Social media and the use of social media in our elections is relatively new, coming from the Bay area where so much of the genesis happened.

So I think it is important, and I do think there is lacking--and hyperbole is something that sometimes doesn't happen in this Chamber, but I think it is not a hyperbole to say that the U.S. House of Representatives, hopefully, unanimously says that the law should be followed to its letter.

So I think we agree, and I don't want to look for a way to disagree.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for pointing out that I am not a poker, that I might actually be trying to be thoughtful. Maybe it is because I was once registered as a Republican. I don't regularly admit that sometimes, at least not in my district.

But I do think this conversation is important on multiple levels, and I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is here to present his side of the aisle's position.

I think there is a danger here for us to resume to our corners, and this is an instance where I really think it is important--and, hopefully, it is newsworthy--to the media and to the general public that we are coming to this moment. Although it is a resolution, I still think it is significant without indulging in hyperbole.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is a pleasure to see you up there. And to my friend from Georgia, in his long, illustrious public career, I want to thank him for his comity here today.

I can't help but think so many Americans now and people who are filled with adrenaline and hyperbole talk about what a difficult time this is, and I wouldn't underestimate the challenges ahead of us; but, arguably, a more difficult time, I was thinking of Mr. Lincoln's comments about appealing to the better angels of our nature, and perhaps this is a turning point.

Certainly we will be tested, and we will fail on occasion, but to my friend, for whatever time both of us have left here, I would like to personally say to the degree we can find things that are of interest to your district and my district, they are of interest to the United States, and I would love to work with the gentleman to find those things.

Lastly, I just can't help but comment on my observation about providential Americans in history. I was reading about Mr. Mueller and his comments when he was FBI Director in the context of his amazing life and career as a combat veteran, a Bronze Star winner in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. I think of my own father who was a devoted Marine Corps combat veteran who is buried in Arlington. My dad and all marines, although I was not one, liked to always recite ``Semper Fidelis.''

The special counsel, in his comments when he was FBI Director, assures me that the work he does in ways that I find profound, talked about fidelity as he talked to his agents, that the fidelity to this Constitution, to this country, and to the truth will find us true to the path that we want to take and to success as we look for the better angels of our nature.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple vote but an important vote. We need to get to the bottom of what happened and put faith in the special counsel's findings and put faith in the American public and the people that they can devise their own truth when we give them this investigation's report.

Mr. Speaker, you either believe the public and Congress should see the report or you don't. Fortunately, it looks like we are agreed that they should. We owe it to our constituents, the American people, and future generations to do the right thing always, but today, I think, in particular, to support the release of this report.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, when I see someone of your stature come to the chair, I think: We must be down here to debate some serious American public policy. We must be down here to change the law in ways that can only happen once in a generation when people come together to make things happen.

I don't know what they told you when you came to the chair this morning, but let me be the first to tell you that is not at all why we are here today. What we are here to say today is important, that the American people have a vested interest in confidence in our democracy. That is a value shared from the furthest side of the left to the furthest side of the right. But the resolution we have here before us today is just a restatement of current law.

Sometimes I think, Mr. Speaker, that we undermine faith in the democracy when we try to pretend that division exists where division does not, where we try to pretend that we are doing great things when, in fact, we are not.

This is an opportunity today to speak with a voice in Congress that says the special counsel should release the report. But let me be clear, because we sometimes do more harm than good, that is going to be the headline: ``House Votes for Special Counsel to Release Report.'' That is not actually what the resolution says, and I want to guide you.

If you have a copy, Mr. Speaker, you can go back through it. It is not going to be on page 1. It is not going to be on pages 2, 3, 4, or 5. The real substance of the resolution is back on the bottom of page 5, early on page 6. It says, ``to the extent permitted by law.''

As you know from your legal background, Mr. Speaker, the law does not allow the special counsel to release so many things. Grand jury testimony, for example, nowhere in the country is grand jury testimony disclosed. Those facts are gathered, but that is never disclosed. Intelligence sources and methods, that is never disclosed, nor would anybody on the other side of the aisle suggest that it should be.

That is why, in the resolution drafted by the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, it says specifically that these things need not be released because it is prohibited by law. I only make that point, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes the headlines are all we read when they come through on our Twitter feed. Sometimes we believe the headline tells the whole story.

I want to make it clear that there is unanimity in this Chamber that transparency is valuable in our Republic. But it is also true that this is a nation of laws. The reason the special counsel exists is because we are a nation of laws, and the substance of the special counsel's report is going to be governed by those laws. To the extent allowable by law, our Attorney General has already said he wants to make the entire thing available.

I don't know how you want to characterize the resolution today, Mr. Speaker, whether you want to characterize it as an insistence of the House on how the administration should behave or just a big attaboy to our new Attorney General to say: You are doing a great job, and we are behind you 100 percent in what you have already promised the American people you were going to do.

However you characterize that resolution--we heard it in the Rules Committee, as my friend from California suggested--it is coming to the floor today under a closed rule. So if anybody has any additional changes they want to make, those changes will not be permitted. This is a take-it-or-leave-it resolution from the Rules Committee today.

But as a restatement of current law, it is quite clear. Again, you have to go all the way to the back of the resolution to find those 10 lines of substance. But when you get there, you will find these are already things the Attorney General has agreed to, and all Americans should be pleased about that outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a senior member on the Rules Committee and a subcommittee ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my friend from Rhode Island before he leaves the floor: The bill that he introduced, was that also a House resolution or was that an H.R. to insist on the revealing?

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island introducing the bill.

And I think that is an important distinction, Mr. Speaker, and that is what you have heard, largely. You heard it in the Rules Committee; you have heard it down here on the floor, that: Listen, there are lots of things that we could be doing here, and if we wanted to pass a law that insisted that the entire report was released--those parts that are prohibited from being released under current law and those parts that are intended to be released under current law--we could do that. That is just not what we are doing.

What we are doing is saying: Hey, do you know what current law is? Follow current law. Follow current law. We, the House of Representatives, have thought about it, and in our deliberative wisdom, we are prepared to announce that we believe current law should be followed--Signed, U.S. House of Representatives.

There are those who would have you believe this is something more than that. It is not. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing today except that it is not a particularly valuable use of time.

When I opened, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the chair, but I mentioned that I think we do great damage to trust in our Republic when we seek division instead of highlighting our unity. To suggest that we are down here doing something to protect our Republic from its inevitable demise is just ridiculous. No such thing is happening here on the floor today. All that is happening on the floor today is saying that we, the duly-elected Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, believe U.S. law should be followed.

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for something to disagree with my friend from Vermont about. I don't disagree with him about anything at all. I thought that was a very thoughtful presentation.

The only thing I would point out is the reason that he doesn't know what is in the Mueller report and the American people don't know what is in the Mueller report, is because as of today, there is no Mueller report. That is the only reason we don't know what is in it. It hasn't been released yet.

I don't mean released to the public. I mean, Mueller hasn't written it and handed it to the Attorney General yet, and so we don't know. When that happens, let me tell you what the Attorney General has said, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney General has committed to being transparent with Congress and the public consistent with the rules and the law. I don't think we would ask anything different of him.

The Attorney General has committed to providing as much information as he can consistent with current regulations. I don't think we would ask anything different of him than that, and, certainly, this resolution does not ask anything different of him other than that.

He says that his objective and goal is to get as much information as he can to the public. That is exactly what this resolution asks for; exactly what he has already committed to. And he says, ``I feel like I'm in a position in life where I can do the right thing and not really care about the consequences. I can be truly independent.''

Well, that doesn't just mean truly independent from pressure put on him from the White House. It also means truly independent from statements of opinion sent to him by the U.S. House. He is going to do the right thing, as allowed by the law and resolutions. If he doesn't, this House can act and try to push a different outcome.

Just understand that that is not what this resolution does today. It is simply a statement of fact. To my friend from California, there are those Members of Congress that sometimes they speak and you just want to get out your sharp stick, Mr. Speaker, and poke them a little bit harder. They don't calm you down. They rile you up. My friend from California is one of those folks whose thoughtful words always recenter me and remind me what we have together.

He is right about the hyperbole, and I don't want to mischaracterize this resolution. It does do one thing that is not available in current law today, and that is, that it makes the official position of the United States House known. I have always presumed that the Attorney General would follow the law. This resolution says we expect the Attorney General to follow the law.

It is not that it does nothing. It is just that it does something so very little, perhaps our time would be better spent elsewhere, but I support the underlying premise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend, I do not have any speakers remaining at this point, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I hope folks pay attention to some of those things that have brought folks together today, and I hope folks pay attention to some of those things that haven't brought us together today.

We have talked about whether there has been overstatement and hyperbole, whether it comes from that end of Pennsylvania Avenue or this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. None of us are advantaged by that. It breeds more distrust in the American public, and breeds more distrust in this institution.

We have talked about who is to blame within the administration. Of course, there is news today of Paul Manafort's sentence, not for anything related to the election, but for things related to his private business practices. There will be efforts to conflate those two investigations. Those are two different investigations, and I think the American people are disadvantaged if they are led to believe that those sentences are related to the election of the President of the United States.

But what you have heard is a lot of unanimity, as you would expect, that we are a Nation of laws and the rule of law should be followed, and transparency should be our touchstone, and the American People, the boss of each and every one of us, whether we work on that end of Pennsylvania Avenue or this end of Pennsylvania Avenue, have a right to know what their tax dollars have paid for and what their government is up to.

I find that very encouraging that we have that sense of agreement here today, Mr. Speaker. What is noticeably absent in this resolution is the dramatic overreach that I think has characterized most of the work we have done so far in 2019. Things that could have been partnership issues have been pushed further and further out to the edge of the political continuum that they became partisan issues.

This resolution does not make those mistakes of the past, and to my friend from California's point, these things are done incrementally. Trust is built incrementally; relationships grow incrementally; and success happens incrementally.

It is my great hope, Mr. Speaker, that those things that unite us, transparency, rule of law, trust in and of the American people will begin today to flourish in ways, perhaps, those common themes have not thus far. And both parties play a role in that disappointing outcome. But success has to begin on one day, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps success begins today.

I serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. There is no such thing as a Republican road or a Democratic bridge. There is no such thing as sitting in traffic on a Democratic highway or missing your child's soccer game because of malfunctions on a Republican road. We are all in this together.

I do not plan to offer a previous question today, Mr. Speaker, because this isn't one of those issues that dramatically divides us. My friend suggested in the Rules Committee we passed this out in, I think, our first voice vote of the year out of the Rules Committee, and I intend to do exactly that today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from California for yielding the time and leading the debate today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me thank the gentleman from California and congratulate him on his new distinguished post on the Rules Committee. My good friend who I have seen quite frequently over the years at the Rules Committee and I have known of his consistent concern with the rule of law and truly appreciate his comments today as it relates to the rule of law.

I would like my comments to be strictly on that question and really the American people of whom each and every one of us come here to represent.

I don't want to recount in detail, but I do want to make mention that we know that the Intelligence Committee in January 2017 concluded--and that is the intelligence community concluded--in a report that Russian President Putin ordered and influenced the campaign of 2016 on the Presidential election. We all know recently there were attempts to influence the 2018 election.

We won't dwell on that. We won't dwell on the fact that there are discussions and review in the special counsel's work dealing with collusion or the questions dealing with the campaign of the present President and Russia.

I believe that the real point of this is to answer the questions of the American people. If we say that the purpose of appointing the special counsel to oversee the investigation is to ensure that the American public would have full confidence in the integrity of the investigation, regardless of what it says, I am here to say, regardless of what the Mueller report will say--and we know that there will be comments made by the general public, leaders of Congress, and that is their right as Americans--we want to reinforce the fact that the DOJ regulations themselves say that investigation results should be made fully extended to the American public in the public interest, and that the results of that report should be made available to the American people.

Obviously, being concerned about persons that are mentioned with no relevance whatsoever, as a lawyer, I would want to make sure such protections occur. But it is true that Special Counsel Mueller previously served in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, and director of the FBI in the Republican and Democrat administrations where he built a reputation of competence, fairness, and nonpartisanship.

With that in mind, we thank him for the work he has done that has shown a number of guilty pleas and other responses.

But the main point is the American people need to know that their government adheres to the rule of law, and the integrity of the Constitution. All we are asking today is to reflect in a sense of Congress that you, the American people, that my colleagues in this House and the Senate should have the right to see the full report.

I ask for support of the underlying bill, and I ask us to do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on Judiciary, which has oversight of the Department of Justice, and as a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, which has oversight over our election security infrastructure, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24.

Mr. Speaker, I take no glee in standing here.

In fact, there are many parts of the last 22 months, since the day that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to be Special Counsel, where I have been concerned for the state of our democracy.

And I know, from my travels back to the 18th Congressional District of Texas, around our Nation, and to nations involved, that many Americans are concerned about our democracy.

Since well before the 2016 election, Americans have been concerned about how Russia was manipulating our election and the extent to which that crime was aided and abetted by associates of the Trump Campaign.

American intelligence officials have been keenly aware of this threat to the democracy posed by Russia's active measures campaign to sabotage the election and secure the American presidency for its preferred candidate, the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Shortly after the President took office, James Comey, the former director of the FBI testified to the House Intelligence Committee in a public congressional hearing that there was an active FBI investigation into Russia's interference and the extent to which Russia and was aided and abetted by agents of the Trump Campaign.

Shortly after the hearing, the President fired James Comey as FBI Director and went on broadcast television and cited the looming Russia investigation as his reason for doing so.

The next day in the Oval Office, the President of the United States met with the Russian Ambassador and other officials from the Kremlin and told them that he had gotten rid of ``nut job'' Comey and had gotten the Russian investigation off his back.

Mere days later, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein appointed legendary FBI Director and Department of Justice prosecutor Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate whether Russia interfered in our election and whether that effort was aided and abetted by members of the Trump Campaign.

Since that time, the investigation has secured numerous indictments, convictions or guilty pleas from the: President's campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his campaign's foreign policy advisor, his former personal attorney, his longtime confidante, and many others, including Russian agents.

The president has attempted to dismiss these crimes and other charges brought--like obstruction of justice, perjury, making false statements, etc.--as ``process crimes,'' when in actuality they are crimes designed to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system and the rule of law.

But these are merely the headlines, when we look closer at just what we have learned from the Russia investigation, we have a roadmap on how to manipulate the electoral process in the world's oldest democracy.

We know that the Russians manipulated our social media systems.

They did this by turning our social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, into rowdy and unwieldy debates that turned Americans against one another.

They did this by creating fake online social media accounts and populated them on social media platforms.

After infiltrating the social media accounts of real Americans, these fake accounts sought to sow discord in these online communities by purposely exacerbating divisions within our

Nation and creating new ones--all with the intent of pitting Americans against one another.

While they were distorting the social media landscape, they were also selectively disseminating emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton with the purpose of timing the dissemination to maximize political damage on Secretary Clinton's campaign.

Based on the statements from the Trump Campaign, we also know that it was actively trying to suppress the votes of groups traditionally aligned with the Democratic party, including women, African Americans and young voters.

We now know, due to information uncovered during the pendency of the Special Counsel's investigation, Russians affiliated with the highest ranks of the Kremlin were at Trump Tower during the middle of the 2016 election.

We know that then-candidate Trump asked Russia, ``Russia, if you're releasing, I hope you will find Hillary's stolen emails.''

In May 2017, Special Counsel Mueller was appointed with the task of getting to the bottom of this.

The American people deserve answers to know how their last presidential election was a crime scene so that we may learn to ensure that the next one is also not a crime scene.

And, the American people have every reason to have confidence in the report produced by the Special Counsel.

The Special Counsel is a decorated American hero and public servant. He has served as the FBI director for presidents of both parties.

He has served as a line prosecutor, a United States Attorney and a leader within the Justice Department.

Despite protestations by the President, this is not a witch hunt--it has yielded the public indictments of 34 individuals and 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas, and 1 conviction.

The American people are watching.

The most recent public opinion poll shows that a super majority of Americans--a full 68 percent--wants the Mueller Report made public.

The Mueller Report is one unparalleled way in which Americans can learn this information with confidence.

And, finally, we must tackle a serious issue that is being discussed among elected officials and the Justice Department.

Over the past two years, we have been told that it is Justice Department regulations that a sitting President cannot be indicted. I will note that this principle has not been tested in court.

That regulation was implemented during the Watergate investigation, under the theory that the President cannot be subjected to criminal process.

But, assuming arguendo that this regulation is correct, and the President cannot be subjected to criminal process and therefore cannot and should not be indicted, it is a logical fallacy to say that because he cannot be indicted by virtue of his office, and because it is Justice Department regulation not to reveal information about unindicted parties and individuals, the Justice Department cannot reveal any information of potential wrongdoing by the President and not reveal any information to the body that possesses the constitutional responsibility for holding this president accountable.

For these reasons, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24, and urge my colleagues to support it and urge passage so the American people can learn how the 2016 election became a crime scene.

Mr. 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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Is it not also directed at the House to not also impugn the integrity and the character of a sitting Cabinet member?

I wouldn't want to do it either, Mr. Speaker.

Offer? Can you offer it? You said you were able to offer an advisory opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I continue my parliamentary inquiry.

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.

Wow.

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. 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. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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. 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.