[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3640-H3646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SENSE OF HOUSE CONCERNING PRESIDENT'S ASSERTIONS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House resolution 436, I call up 
the resolution (H. Res. 432) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives concerning the President's assertions of executive 
order, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of House Resolution 432 is as follows:

                               H. Res 432

       Whereas a unanimous Supreme Court held in United States v. 
     Nixon that ``[a]bsent a claim of need to protect military, 
     diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets,

[[Page H3641]]

     we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the 
     very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential 
     communications is significantly diminished by production of 
     such material'' that is essential to the enforcement of 
     criminal statutes (418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974));
       Whereas during the Watergate investigation, the Supreme 
     Court unanimously held in United States v. Nixon that the 
     judicial need for the tapes of President Nixon ``shown by a 
     demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending 
     criminal trial'' outweighed the President's ``generalized 
     interest in confidentiality . . .'' (418 U.S. 683, 713 
     (1974));
       Whereas the Supreme Court further held in United States v. 
     Nixon that ``neither the doctrine of separation of powers, 
     nor the need for confidentiality of high-level 
     communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, 
     unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial 
     process under all circumstances'' (418 U.S. 683, 706 (1974));
       Whereas executive privilege is qualified, not absolute, and 
     should ``never serve as a means of shielding information 
     regarding governmental operations that do not call ultimately 
     for direct decisionmaking by the President'' (In re Sealed 
     Case, 116 F.3d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1997), reissued in unredacted 
     form, 121 F.3d 729, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1997));
       Whereas on September 28, 1994, Special Counsel to the 
     President Lloyd N. Cutler, in a memorandum to the general 
     counsels of all executive departments and agencies, wrote, 
     ``[i]n circumstances involving communications relating to 
     investigations of personal wrongdoing by Government 
     officials, it is our practice not to assert executive 
     privilege, either in judicial proceedings or in congressional 
     investigations and hearings'';
       Whereas President Clinton is the first President since 
     President Nixon (and the second in the history of the United 
     States) to withhold information, under claims of executive 
     privilege, from a grand jury investigating allegations of 
     personal wrongdoing and possible crimes in the White House;
       Whereas the President's assertions of executive privilege 
     have recently been denied by a United States district court;
       Whereas in January 1998, President Clinton said that the 
     ``American people have a right to get answers'' regarding 
     certain matters being investigated by the Office of the 
     Independent Counsel;
       Whereas President Clinton has promised to give ``as many 
     answers as we can, as soon as we can, at the appropriate 
     time, consistent with our obligation to also cooperate with 
     the investigations''; and
       Whereas the people of the United States and their duly 
     elected representatives have a right to judge for themselves 
     the merits or demerits of the President's claim of executive 
     privilege: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that, in the interests of full disclosure 
     consistent with principles of openness in governmental 
     operations, all records or documents (including legal 
     memoranda, briefs, and motions) relating to any claims of 
     executive privilege asserted by the President should be 
     immediately made publicly available.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and a Member opposed each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) for introducing this resolution. The resolution is very simple. 
It simply says that all documentation related to the White House claims 
of executive privilege should be made public.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious debate. It is a serious discussion. 
And really what we are trying to sort out here needs to be focused on 
for just one moment.
  There is, despite all of the stonewalling, despite all of the 
tardiness, slowness, failed memories, inability to find people, 
secrecy, there is ample evidence that one can read in the Nation's 
press, and there has been for some time ample evidence, even as it 
relates to millions of dollars of returned campaign contributions after 
the last election that were admittedly returned because they were 
subsequent to the elections discovered to have been illegal 
contributions.
  So that everybody in America must deal with a very serious question. 
And really we have two questions, one coming mostly from this side of 
the aisle, one coming from the other side of the aisle. We are saying 
that, given that people in highly elected office and positions of 
public trust must be honest and honorable beyond any shadow of a doubt 
and the interest of the security, national and domestic, of this 
Nation, that it is the Congress' responsibility to find out the truth 
about illegal activities, violations of law by people that are, in 
fact, in these highest positions of trust.
  The other side of the aisle, as we just heard just a moment ago, is 
arguing that there is some possibility that the system might have 
corrupted some people and, therefore, we must change the system and 
they are arguing that the more important and more immediate business is 
to get on with changing the system.
  I want to make a point here, Mr. Speaker, and I want to make it as 
emphatically as I can. When dealing with the choice of how do we 
prioritize the actions by the Congress of the United States relative 
to, one, the question of discerning the truth about the honesty, honor 
and integrity of people in highly elected offices, especially with 
respect to the manner in which they have acquired those offices; or, 
two, changing the rules of protocol and law that govern the financing 
of campaigns, that the latter must be clearly understood to be the 
matter of lesser priority.
  Stated another way, if this Congress is incapable of recognizing, if 
the press is incapable of recognizing, if the American people are 
incapable of recognizing, and if the White House is incapable of 
recognizing that all matters of doubt regarding the honesty, the 
integrity, the legality of people in the highest elected offices of 
this land is a matter of crucial and utmost concern that must be given 
priority over the manners in which the laws are written, that they will 
therefore then, having not addressed, as my colleagues equally feel, to 
continue violating as they violated the previous laws, then surely we 
are lost.
  There are serious questions related to the movement of money in 
campaigns, and no doubt we will address those in due time. But there 
can be no question of money that can be allowed to take precedence over 
questions of honesty, integrity, fidelity, duty and honor in those 
people that we would trust with dominion over the lives of our 
children's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay); and I ask unanimous consent that he be able to yield 
time as he sees fit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) claim the 30 minutes in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of an amazing short-
sightedness on the part of Republican leadership in advancing the 
incredibly partisan resolutions like the one being sponsored by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) which, if actually passed, might do 
lasting damage to the institution of the presidency.
  This resolution, if I read it correctly, seeks to have the President 
divulge all records and documents relating to any assertion of 
executive privilege to where? The Congress? To the press? To the 
public?
  The administration has already joined with news organizations in 
seeking to make public both the legal papers filed by his lawyers and 
the judge's decisions concerning executive privilege. Questions about 
sealing such proceedings and preventing public access is, my 
colleagues, a question for the courts. It is one that our judicial 
system decides by hearings and carefully balancing the competing 
interests.
  Never in the history of the Congress has the Congress said we ought 
to take that over and ask you, Mr. President, to just cooperate with 
us.
  This is a meaningless resolution. The administration cannot do 
anything about this. These questions are court questions, questions 
already residing in the judiciary for determination. And if the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) were concerned about this issue, 
instead of attempting to politicize it, this resolution would be 
directed to the courts, not to ourselves or to the President of the 
United States.
  But in reading it, it goes further and demands that all documents 
concerning the invocations of executive privilege now be made public. 
Why, this goes beyond Kenneth Starr and the independent counsel.

[[Page H3642]]

  Just who do we think we are? If the demands are to be taken 
seriously, that would include confidential recommendations from the 
President's closest advisors. There is no question that these kinds of 
recommendations deserve confidential treatment.
  The supporters of this resolution, like my friend the chairman, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), have a hard time recognizing what 
should and what should not be released to the public.

                              {time}  1215

  Any President of either party is entitled to confidential advice 
concerning the invocation of executive privilege. Elementary. The 
Reagan administration invoked executive privilege quite frequently. The 
Bush administration withheld documents and witnesses from congressional 
committees on numerous occasions based on concerns about executive 
privilege.
  Republicans have never sought to pierce the confidentiality of the 
advice given to those Presidents, and I am afraid that they only seek 
to do so now because of their partisan intent to discredit the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very serious business. As I said weeks ago, and 
I wish my voice was clearer so that the American people would hear from 
me in a very clear way, I think this is very serious business. This is 
not partisan politics.
  The gentleman says, Mr. Speaker, that we are attempting to inflict 
lasting damage to the institution of the Presidency. We think this 
President has already inflicted that damage on the office of the 
Presidency by claiming executive privilege to cover up information of a 
personal wrongdoing or possible crimes in the White House, by 
stonewalling the American people when, on the one hand, months ago, the 
President said, ``I will tell the American people the truth in a very 
expeditious manner, in a timely manner'', and yet has hid behind 
lawyers and courts and attack dogs.
  I think this is very serious. I rise today because I believe the 
American people have a right to know the truth. That is what this is 
all about. The American people have a right to know the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, the list is very long and far from distinguished: 
Whitewater; the Travel Office Affair; the collection of classified FBI 
files; foreign campaign contributions to the DNC, the Democratic 
National Committee; Webster Hubbell; the appointment of numerous 
Independent Counsels to investigate Cabinet members; the transfer of 
sensitive missile technology to the Communist Chinese.
  Do the American people know the full truth about what happened in 
even one of these scandals after 4\1/2\ years? The answer, as we all 
too well know, is a resounding no.
  The lengths to which this administration has gone to hide from the 
light of day are breathtaking. Sadly, congressional Democrats have lent 
the administration a helping hand every misguided step of the way. They 
have made sure that every hearing, every investigation is met with a 
coordinated campaign of misinformation and stonewalling.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman; the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach), chairman; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Clinger), chairman; Chairman Senator Thompson, Chairman Senator 
D'Amato, Special Counsel Starr, FBI Director Freeh, each has been the 
victim of relentless personal attacks and slander from this 
administration, the administration's hit men and Democrats from 
Congress.
  Why? Because the one thing the Democrats fear the most is that the 
American people will find out the truth. They will go to any length to 
stop that from happening. The only strategy left to them is to draw 
these investigations out as long as possible so that they will never 
have to answer these questions or any questions. The only people 
President Clinton and the Democrats have to blame for these 
investigations are themselves.
  The Democrats have chosen a new tool, executive privilege. Mr. 
Speaker, executive privilege is an essential constitutional safeguard 
in my mind. It is vital to the protection of our national security. 
Almost every President since George Washington has made use of 
executive privilege in one way or another.
  But this administration is the first since President Nixon and only 
the second in the history of our country, only the second presidency in 
the history of our country to withhold information under claims of 
executive privilege from a Grand Jury investigating allegations of 
personal wrongdoing and possible crimes in the White House.
  President Clinton is obliged to claim executive privilege if he is 
doing so to protect national security. But President Clinton has 
repeatedly claimed executive privilege to shield himself, the First 
Lady, and some of his aides from testifying in a criminal 
investigation.
  Nearly 25 years ago, in the United States versus Nixon, the Supreme 
Court wrote about President Nixon's use of executive privilege under 
similar circumstances. I quote:

       To read the constitutional powers of the President as 
     providing an absolute privilege against subpoena essential to 
     enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a 
     generalized claim of the public interests and confidentiality 
     of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the 
     constitutional balance of a workable government.

  The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could not have been more clear. 
Executive privilege may be used only to protect national security, not 
to shield information in a criminal proceeding.
  Less than 4 years ago, the President's own special counsel, Lloyd 
Cutler, had this to say, and I quote:

       In circumstances involving communications relating to 
     investigations of personal wrongdoing by government 
     officials, it is our practice not to assert executive 
     privilege, either in judicial proceedings or in congressional 
     investigations and hearings.

  That is President Clinton's own Special Counsel that wrote that.
  The New York Times, a surprising new member of the right-wing 
partisan conspiracy, had this to say about the President's use of 
executive privilege:

       To invoke that privilege in a broad and self-serving way, 
     as the Clinton White House has done to shield itself from 
     Kenneth Starr's inquiry, is to abuse it.
       But this White House is not easily embarrassed. It has 
     tried to invoke the hallowed attorney/client privilege even 
     when attorneys are servants of the public, not the 
     President's private lawyers.
       All this legal inventiveness carries the implicit assertion 
     that Mr. Clinton is somehow above the law and thus raises the 
     kind of constitutional questions that ought to be exposed to 
     public debate.

The New York Times.
  Mr. Speaker, that is all we are asking here today, that the President 
be honest with the American people about his use of executive 
privilege. Like the American people, I want to believe President 
Clinton. But what are reasonable people to believe when the President 
will not even level with them?
  We are not asking that the President tell us the substance of private 
conversations with his lawyers, although that would be nice. No, we are 
simply asking the President to be honest with the American people, with 
the people of the United States. Just be honest. Just be honest.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends and colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to support this resolution and send a message to the Appeals 
Court. I urge you to go to the President and tell him, tell the 
American people what you are doing. It is so simple. If you have 
nothing to hide, come clean.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not question the sincerity of the motives of the 
gentleman who just spoke and the reasons behind his drafting and 
offering of this resolution.
  If I could have the gentleman's attention, I would appreciate it.
  I just wanted to engage the gentleman in a discussion of what seems 
to me to be a troubling set of implications from the way the 
``Resolved'' clause in the gentleman's resolution has been prepared.

[[Page H3643]]

  I do not want to misread it; and if I am, I would like to be 
corrected. If I am not, I think we have a very serious problem on our 
hands. The ``Resolved'' clause speaks to ``all records or documents 
relating to any claims of executive privilege'' and that they should be 
immediately made public.
  I do not know the full scope of documents and materials that would be 
covered by this language. It seems to me entirely possible that they 
would extend to matters that had legitimate national security or 
classification constraints imposed upon them.
  I understand the gentleman's concern that we do not want that to be 
used as a way of manipulating information, but let us stipulate for the 
moment that we could be embracing with this language some real national 
security information that is at least tangentially implicated in these 
assertions of executive privilege.
  I hope it is not the gentleman's intention to suggest that that, 
willy-nilly, should be made public, but that is what that language 
implies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. It is a 
very good question, and I appreciate the gentleman asking it.
  First, let me answer it by saying this is a sense of Congress. This 
is not a binding law. This is expressing how the House feels about what 
the President has done in the executive privilege. That is number one.
  Number two is, of course, we are not saying, reveal all documents, 
especially those documents that may undermine the national security of 
this country. There is precedent that would allow the President to 
claim executive privilege based upon national security. But we all know 
what the intent is here. We are not stopping the President from 
revealing the truth to the American people.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's answer. Whether this is sense of Congress or law, it seems 
to me we should be careful in its drafting and in its consequences.
  I am afraid that the gentleman, in his sweeping desire to get at 
everything, has made no provision for what needs to be dealt with here 
in the eventuality that real national security information is covered 
by this language.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Members have imposed a rule that prohibits amendments. We 
might be able to address this were it not for that constraint.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield again.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the courts would not allow us to impose upon 
the President, even if this was a statute, impose upon the President 
the revealing of documents that would undermine national security. The 
gentleman is trying to change the subject. The subject is that, if the 
President wanted to reveal the truth to the American people, he could 
do so, and we want to send a message to the courts that are taking his 
appeal.
  I am not trying to change the subject at all. I believe that when we 
are dealing with something as nuanced and delicate and as important as 
this interrelationship between the executive branch and the legitimate 
investigative responsibilities of the legislative branch, we ought to 
proceed with due care.
  This seems to me to be, in its expansiveness, a little bit glib in 
the way it deals with a very, very important matter, and I think that 
the Members should take that seriously and not just dispense with it, 
because we know, of course, what this is really about.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker is a very close friend 
of mine. He is going to be retiring. He is a former Marine. So, 
naturally, I have great respect for him.
  But he has a real disadvantage standing up here today because he is a 
lawyer. Sometimes lawyers get tied up in nitpicking things, and they do 
not look at it from a sincere point of view; not that he is not 
sincere, because he is, but sometimes because of their education in 
law, he is sort of misled.
  I am glad to say I am not a lawyer. Having said that, I want the 
gentleman to look at it the way Joe Six-pack, the way my American 
constituents look at it from the Hudson Valley.

                              {time}  1230

  I think I do not want to know about all this nitpicking stuff. They 
wanted to know this. Read page 3 of the bill. It says, ``Whereas, in 
January 1998, President Clinton said,'' and this is a quote now of the 
President, ``the American people have a right to get answers'' 
regarding matters being investigated. That is the end of his quote.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of openly answering the questions to Members of 
Congress, but more than that, to members of the press, who are out 
there trying to get the information for the public, he simply says time 
and time again, there is no evidence of that. He does not deny it, he 
says there is no evidence of that.
  Well, we do not have to worry about that part of the resolve clause, 
about whether there are documents there dealing with national security. 
The gentleman knows, nobody stands up here more for national security 
than I do. I am blocking an encryption bill that would expose our 
ability to track terrorism, communists and people that would bring down 
this government. So do not come over here and say we have a question 
about national security. There is no evidence of that. We want the 
President to come forward and give the answers. I salute the gentleman.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I am not questioning the gentleman's 
sincerity about taking national security issues seriously. Far be it 
from that. Contrary to what the gentleman is suggesting, I think we 
should adhere to and aspire to a particularly high standard of 
precision in the work of this body and not just say hey, ``Joe six-pack 
knows what we are talking about, don't not sweat the small stuff.'' I 
think we are here to pick some nits and make sure we are doing careful 
work.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, 
and I would say the American people want the answers. Mr. President, 
come forth and give them to them. He is capable of doing that. He can 
do that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules that I am very glad he is not a 
lawyer too, so we are in total agreement on that; but not being a 
lawyer, he may have some handicap in reading the decisions of the 
United States Supreme Court. Some of them you do not have to be a 
lawyer to understand.
  The Supreme Court has said in the Nixon case, and I underline the 
``Nixon'' case, how executive privilege should be asserted. It would be 
important for the proponents of this resolution to have studied that 
case. The proponent is proudly, I presume, not a lawyer as well.
  It said in that decision that the courts, not the Congress, determine 
the question of whether an executive privilege can be asserted. So the 
gentleman from Texas either does not appreciate the decision that 
exists as current guidance on the subject, or perhaps it has not been 
brought to his attention that we cannot tell the court how it should 
handle itself.
  I guess we can advise the President that he should release all 
records or documents, including legal memoranda, briefs and motions 
relating to any claims of executive privilege asserted by the 
President, and it should be made publicly available. Well, this is 
already in the courts.
  There is not one word, with all respect to the patriotism of the 
gentlemen on that side of the aisle, about documents dealing with 
national security matters being excluded. Not a word.
  I think what the gentleman from Colorado was pointing out was that if 
you really mean this, and, as the gentleman from Texas has said twice, 
this is a serious matter, you had better change this to make everyone 
understand that, of course, defense matters, secret matters, secrecy of 
documents, are not included. We should just understand that.

[[Page H3644]]

  Well, I do not think we can just understand that, I would say to the 
gentlemen from the other side, whether you are lawyers or not lawyers, 
or whatever it is you might be. This is a flawed resolution, assuming 
you want to do what you said. You want to give the President some free 
advice. ``Give us everything you have got on executive privilege,'' 
which is already in the courts.
  I do not think that the system is ready to work that way. Never in 
the history of the Congress have we ever had such a resolution put 
forward with reference to the President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), the distinguished Chairman of the Republican Conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have entrusted the President of the 
United States with many exclusive privileges not available to the 
average person. Because of the travel demands that he bears as the 
leader of the free world, he has got the privilege of traveling across 
the world on Air Force One; because of his need for constant security 
as the leader of our government, he has the privilege of round-the-
clock protection from the Secret Service, even after he leaves office; 
and because of the need for national security, he is entrusted with a 
special privilege, probably more sacred than any of these, and that is 
executive privilege.
  Let us be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker. The President has the right 
to claim executive privilege in matters of national security. But no 
one has the privilege of being above the law; not Members of this 
House, not Members of the other body, not even the Chief Executive of 
the United States of America. But it seems that this important 
privilege is being used to block the people's right to know on a much 
broader range of issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is a pattern developing in the Executive 
Branch. While reassuring the public that they are anxious to get to the 
truth, certain officials have consistently stood in the way of 
legitimate legal inquiries into activities of our government at the 
White House.
  Just yesterday, in fact, a White House spokesman bluntly claimed that 
the administration has fully cooperated with Congressional questions 
about these very troubling technology transfers to China. It was a 
reassuring thing to hear, but it just was not true.
  Congressional leaders from the Committee on National Security and 
from the Committee on International Relations have written the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the Director of the 
U.S. Arms Control Agency, and the chairman of the Committee on 
Intelligence wrote to the Secretary of Defense as well. Our Committee 
on Science, both Democrats and Republicans, have raised the issue of 
China with NASA. Even a letter sent to the President by the Speaker and 
the Majority Leader of the Senate has fallen on defense ears. To date, 
all of these requests have been met with either silence or reassurance. 
But all requests for information have been denied.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the stonewall tactics to end and the 
cooperating to begin. Whether it is stalling on basic requests for 
information or invoking executive privilege, the result is the same; 
the American people are denied the right to know what is going on 
inside their White House. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is what this 
fight is about, the American people's right to know what happens in 
their government.
  This government does not belong to politicians in Washington D.C. 
This government belongs to the American people, and they have a right 
to know what happens in Washington, D.C. They have a right to know what 
is going on in their White House.
  I think the stonewalling should end, and the cooperating and the 
truth needs to be discovered.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman 
from Texas, who has brought forth this resolution, a little bit of 
history about executive privilege and how it has operated.
  In 1992, the White House refused to permit White House Counsel C. 
Boydon Gray and C. Nicholas Rostow of the National Security Council to 
testify before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services 
concerning the allegations that the Bush Administration had attempted 
to conceal from Congress the extent of its assistance to Iraq prior to 
the Gulf War. That was an assertion of executive privilege.
  In 1991, President Bush ordered Defense Secretary Cheney not to 
comply with a subpoena for a document related to a subcommittee's 
investigation of cost overruns in a Navy aircraft program. It came to 
the Committee on Government Operations.
  During the administration of President Bush, in response to requests 
from the Committee on Government Operations, Vice President Quayle's 
Council on Competitiveness cited executive privilege in refusing to 
make public its contacts with companies affected by proposed 
regulations that it was charged with reviewing.
  President Bush invoked executive privilege in refusing to respond to 
a subpoena issued by the House Committee on the Judiciary seeking an 
opinion written by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 
authorizing the FBI to snatch fugitives on foreign soil.
  Again during the Bush Administration, Attorney General Thornburgh 
cited exclusive executive privilege in withholding hundreds of 
documents from the Committee on the Judiciary concerning the Justice 
Department's controversial purchase of a $180 million computer system.
  In 1986, the Bush Administration even supported former President 
Nixon's claim of executive privilege which he asserted to prevent the 
National Archives from releasing the Nixon White House papers.
  Again, President Reagan invoked executive privilege with respect to 
the controversies concerning Mr. James Watt and certain Canadian land 
leases, Anne Burford and the EPA Superfund enforcement in 1982, and 
Department of Justice memos concerning the nomination of Chief Justice 
William Rehnquist in 1986. So those were three other instances in 1981, 
1982 and 1986 where there have been presidential assertions of 
executive privilege.
  Now, there is a process in which we can go into court, but never 
before in my memory and my research have we ever put a special 
resolution on the floor asking the President to go far beyond specific 
material, but asking him that in the interest of full disclosure, 
consistent with the principles of openness in government, all records 
or documents, including legal memoranda, briefs and motions relating to 
any claims of executive privilege asserted by the President, should be 
immediately made publicly available.
  That was never done in the numerous examples of the assertion of 
executive privilege under Republicans.
  But, more than that, would you really want the President to do what 
you are asking for in the resolved clause? Would you really want all of 
these materials released to the public? I do not really think you mean 
what you are saying here. I think maybe you would like to get to some 
more arguments on executive privilege, which, by the way, are being 
handled in the court. But would you want this much information?
  This goes far beyond anything that would ever be brought up in a 
court. It goes far beyond anything necessary for us to understand why 
the assertion of executive privilege is being made, and it is a matter 
being debated and resolved in the courts as we stand here in the well.

                              {time}  1245

  So I would just say in mustering the most benefit I can to explain 
the reason for House Resolution 432 is that perhaps the author went 
beyond what it is he really wanted to know and forgot that everything 
means everything, that all means all, that any means any, no 
exceptions, none.
  I do not think anybody really would want that to happen. Therefore, 
it is my position that this resolution is fatally flawed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close, and I have no 
other

[[Page H3645]]

speakers, and I am working with the gentleman from Colorado on an 
amendment, so if the gentleman has no more speakers, I will close.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do have more speakers, so if the 
gentleman does not mind, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time.
  I think it is important to note, because we have heard the refrain 
today about the President setting himself above the law. Well, there is 
nowhere that I have heard or read or observed where this President is 
suggesting that he is above the law.
  Mr. Speaker, to me and to I think most Americans, it is clear that 
the President feels he has a constitutional obligation to assert 
executive privilege where he feels it is necessary to secure the 
independence of the executive branch.
  Now, some may or may not like that particular assertion, but it has 
been and will be tested, by the third branch of government, our courts, 
our judiciary. I believe that the American people have great confidence 
in our constitutional democracy, whether they be lawyers or whether 
they be Joe Six-pack, because ultimately, the Constitution of the 
United States is a document above viable democracy. It is about the 
separation of powers, and it is a document that has worked well for 
this Nation since its birth back in the late 1700s.
  So the President is working within the confines of the Constitution, 
that great American document, that document that so many have fought 
for and died for and served in this Nation's military, including the 
Marine Corps. This is all about the United States Constitution and 
about constitutional democracy and about respect for each branch of 
government.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the 
right to close.


       Request To Amend House Resolution 432 Offered by Mr. DeLay

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to add at the end of 
the resolving clause an amendment prepared by the gentleman from 
Colorado that states, ``Such public disclosure shall not extend to 
legitimate national security information.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Add at the end of the resolved clause: ``Such public disclosure shall 
not extend to legitimate national security information.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have not 
seen this amendment and I have no inclination to support it without 
having seen it, and so I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to use additional time before 
the gentleman closes?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is amazing, it is just amazing. The display of objections to the 
people's right to know the truth and the President's right to claim 
executive privilege that has been interpreted by the courts and not 
revealed any documents. But so be it.
  The real intent of my resolution is to try to get the President of 
the United States to reveal information that has been withheld for all 
of these 4\1/2\ years in some cases, and information that the President 
is claiming executive privilege for.
  The gentleman cited all of these claims by other Presidents. Not one 
of those cites that the gentleman listed has anything to do with claims 
of executive privilege involving allegations and information given to a 
grand jury on information of personal wrongdoing and possible crimes in 
the White House, not one of them. This President is only the second 
President after Nixon in the entire history of the country that has 
made those kinds of claims, and yet the gentleman still supports the 
President.
  The gentleman says that the House of Representatives has no 
responsibility or authority to tell the courts what to do. Well, the 
gentleman and I have a very strong difference of opinion as to what the 
House of Representatives and the Congress of the United States is, its 
standing in the country, and particularly, its standing relative to the 
judiciary branch. We are not a sub-branch of the judiciary.
  Now, for years, almost 40 years, the majority of this House has 
allowed the judiciary to rule law across this country and this body has 
not asserted itself. But now, under a new majority, we think we hold an 
equal standing with the judiciary that the Constitution gives us every 
opportunity to send messages to the judiciary and indeed, this week, 
this House overwhelmingly voted to limit the jurisdiction of the 
judiciary when it came to early release of convicts for the reason of 
prison overcrowding.
  Now, the gentleman must believe that we are subservient to the 
judiciary, but I do not, and this resolution is the sense of Congress 
that says such, and we are sending a message to the appeals courts that 
are hearing the case of this President of the United States bringing 
executive privilege.
  Congress, under the Constitution, has about as much right and duty to 
address the issues of constitutional import as any other branch. 
Congress considers issues every day that implicate the Constitution. 
The courts are the final decisionmakers, as we learned in Marbury v. 
Madison. However, the court considers the views of coordinate branches, 
equal branches of government.
  This resolution merely says that the President's reasons for 
asserting executive privilege should be made public. If the President 
wanted to talk, he should not hide behind the courts. That is the truth 
of what is going on here.
  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court should know 
that this House believes that court proceedings regarding executive 
privilege should be open to the public, and we are going to take a vote 
in a moment to express ourselves to those courts.
  But the bottom line here, Mr. Speaker, is we should not participate 
in strategies of stonewalling or keeping the American people away from 
the truth. The bottom line of what we are trying to do here is the fact 
that the American people have the right to know the truth and we are 
calling on the President of the United States to tell the American 
people the truth, and I urge adoption of my resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to the 
adoption of House Resolution 432.
  First, I would like to express my dismay at the way the Republican 
leadership brought this resolution to the floor. When the agenda was 
set for this week, the Rules Committee minority leaders were only given 
approximately five minutes notice to prepare for consideration of this 
proposed resolution. Furthermore, the Judiciary Committee, which also 
has probable jurisdiction on this matter, was not even given the 
opportunity to review its text. If House majority leadership wants to 
maintain any semblance of impartiality, I suggest that they resist the 
temptation to take political ``potholes'' at every opportunity.
  Fellow colleagues, this resolution does nothing more than embroil 
Congress in a dispute that is more properly before an Article III 
Court.
  I believe that almost every member of Congress agrees that an 
executive privilege exists. In its purest manifestation, it protects us 
from the divulgence of information which threatens our national 
security. The scope of this privilege is still somewhat of an unknown 
quantity. The Bush Administration invoked the privilege on several 
occasions, many of which did not involve national security.
  Colleagues, we are not the Supreme Court. It is not our task to 
divine the meaning of the Constitution. A rejection of this resolution 
is a clear signal to the American people that this Congress still 
recognizes the concept of separation of powers.
  I also object to this resolution because it does nothing but make a 
recommendation that the President, that he waive his executive 
privilege. This is a right to be asserted by the President, under 
advisement of his lawyer only. In a legislative body, how can we fail 
to recognize the impropriety of stepping on the toes of the attorney-
client relationship. Remember all of us under the law are innocent 
until proven otherwise.

[[Page H3646]]

  I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution, in order to send a 
clear message to the American people that we understand and respect the 
role of the legislature in our democratic system.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The resolution is considered read for amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 436, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 259, 
nays 157, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                               YEAS--259

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--157

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--6

     Barrett (WI)
     Berman
     Johnson (WI)
     Kind (WI)
     Obey
     Rivers

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bateman
     Crapo
     Farr
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Kaptur
     McDermott
     Meeks (NY)
     Schumer
     Torres

                              {time}  1318

  Mr. CUMMINGS, and Mr. DAVIS of Florida changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. PASCRELL, ABERCROMBIE, and STRICKLAND changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________