Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H433-H440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, my name is Keith Ellison, and I do
represent the great State of Minnesota. And tonight I'm coming to the
floor to talk about the progressive message of the Progressive Caucus,
the Congressional Progressive Caucus, dedicated to ideas that some
might describe as liberal, but all must recognize have benefited the
United States over the course of time.
To be liberal is to be open-minded, to be accepting of others, to
listen to different points of view and to try to be tolerant and
inclusive of all people. But the progressive community in the United
States and throughout our whole land is entitled to have a body of
people in Congress who will reflect their views. And tonight we are
coming together to offer these views. I'm proud to be able to take the
floor tonight with the cochair of the Progressive Caucus, Mr. Raul
Grijalva from the great State of Arizona. We are proud to have him in
our leadership.
But I want to point out before I hand it back to our Chair that the
progressive promise is fairness for all. The Congressional Progressive
Caucus offers progressive promise for all. We believe in government of
the people, by the people and for the people. Our fairness plan is
rooted in our core principles. And it also embodies national priorities
that are consistent with the values, needs and hopes of all of our
people, not just the powerful and the privileged.

{time} 1830

We pledge our unwavering commitment to these legislative priorities,
and we will not rest until they become law.
I want to throw it out to our co-chairman, Raul Grijalva from the
great State of Arizona and ask him, what makes you come to the House
floor tonight and commit yourself to talking about the Progressive
Caucus and the principles that support our caucus?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Ellison, and thank you,
Congressman, for your initiative in beginning to highlight and to talk
to the American people about the Progressive Caucus, about the fact
that the Progressive Caucus stands for more than people have given us
credit for, and stands for what I believe are the commonsense, rooted
values of the American public in general.
Mr. ELLISON. Is fighting for economic justice and security in the
U.S. and global economies, is that part of the Progressive message?
Mr. GRIJALVA. It is essential to the Progressive message as we look,
as we try to spin our way out and as our President said yesterday, to
come out of this long, dark night economically and socially in this
country, and to get ourselves in a position where we are rebuilding
America, its schools, its people, and its infrastructure. We are
rebuilding its values, and we establish ourselves in a global sense,
not only economically, but as leaders, that the American people have a
shared responsibility in this. I thought those were very poignant and
very important words. It was an historic inauguration, one that is
fundamentally changing the scope and the tenor of this Nation.
President Obama called upon us to embrace a shared responsibility. He
called upon us that this shared responsibility is going to be the
cornerstone of how this country pulls itself out of its quagmire and
begins a renewed and better future for all Americans. And I think the
call for shared responsibility and sacrifice is a hallmark of our
Nation's spirit, and it is a hallmark of its past.
I think today as we speak about the Progressive Caucus, it is also
time to reflect on what we have been through and not to point fingers
and not to malign anyone in particular, but to talk about the past,
what went right and more importantly what went wrong, and how not to
repeat those mistakes. I think the opportunity afforded to us tonight
by yourself and others is a very important step in that direction.
Mr. ELLISON. In the beginning of our hour as we come together in this
Special Order, I think you, as one of the leaders in the Progressive
Caucus, have correctly identified economic justice as one of the
critical things that the Progressive Caucus stands for, not only here
at home but also abroad.
Congressman Grijalva, what does it mean to you that there are a
billion

[[Page H434]]

people who go to sleep every night around the world who live on less
than a dollar a day?
Mr. GRIJALVA. One of the tragedies for our Nation has been in the
last 8 years our inability to not only export our products but export
our values to the rest of the world. With the exportation of values
comes the exportation of ideas, democracy, and I think the most
important thing is that we have an association with other people, not
by domination, not by exploitation, but a cooperation that we are going
to work together. And for a billion people and children in the Third
World and poor people, to wake up trying to figure out where they are
going to live and survive that next moment and that next day is a
tragedy upon all of us, and it is a tragedy upon all of us who have the
privilege of living in this great Nation.
That is part of economic justice because it is part of the picture,
as you well know, Keith, that if we are going to have real security in
this Nation, we share the common value of prosperity and opportunity
for other people in the world. One of the breeding grounds for hatred
and one of the breeding grounds for violence in this world, and to some
extent in our Nation, is the lack of----
Mr. ELLISON. That's right.
Mr. GRIJALVA.----the lack of health, the lack of education, the lack
of food and the lack of opportunity.
Mr. ELLISON. So when we are talking about fighting for economic
justice, we are talking about universal health care and about
preserving guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans,
including protecting private pensions and corporate accountability.
We are talking about investing in America by creating new jobs in the
U.S., by building affordable housing and rebuilding America's schools
and physical infrastructure, just like you talked about a minute ago,
about cleaning up our environment and improving our homeland security.
What we mean when we say ``economic security'' is about exporting
more American products and not more American jobs, and we demand fair
trade, not just free trade, and affirming freedom of association and
enforcing the right to organize. You and I know that we will probably
be coming here one day in the future to talk about the Employee Free
Choice Act. That is the right to organize in the labor union, and also
to ensure that working families can live above the poverty line with
dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.
I would like to ask you about protecting and preserving civil rights
and civil liberties. What does that mean to you, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GRIJALVA. One of the hallmarks of this great country of ours has
been and continues to be our personal freedoms, our liberties and
freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the
rule of law. That is the example that the rest of the world looks to us
not only as leaders but as examples of that. I think President Obama
said it well, we are to lead by example. And our civil rights and our
civil liberties being the fundamental right of every American, the rule
of law a fundamental right, the ability to exercise our discretion and
our choice in a democracy, to protect our Constitution, to eliminate
discrimination, those are what this country is built on. That is why
people have died for this Nation, to protect those rights, and they
are essential. And any part of what the Progressive Caucus does is to
protect, as you well said, to protect, preserve those civil rights and
liberties. They are part of what makes us American, what makes us
unique and different, and, quite frankly, what makes us coveted. And to
do what we need to do as a country and to continue that example, we
need to protect number two in a big way and in an earnest way, and that
is why the Progressive Caucus is so important to this Congress because
we make that one of the platforms that we are united around.

Mr. ELLISON. Chairman Grijalva, as you know, the Progressive Caucus
is dedicated to preserving civil rights and civil liberties. That means
we believe in sunsetting expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act and
bring remaining provisions into line with the Constitution. We believe
in protecting the personal liberty of all Americans from unbridled
police powers and unchecked government intrusion. That means unlawful
surveillance, things like that, violation of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. We believe an extended Voting Rights Act could reform
the electoral process.
We believe in fighting corporate consolidation of the media because
if the people don't know, how can they do anything about it. And we
also believe in ensuring the enforcement of all legal rights in the
workplace. That goes again to OSHA and things like that so people don't
get injured. We worked hard for those rights, isn't that right, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Those rights were earned by people who came before us,
by anonymous people, by people who worked hard to make sure that those
rights were in place and protected. It is incumbent upon us to protect
their legacy and their hard work. Without the sacrifices they made
years ago in establishing those rights in this country, the right to
vote, the right to free association, the freedom from discrimination,
the right to know, to lose those, we have to honor that legacy, and
that legacy is part and parcel, it is as American pie as being
American, and we need to protect those. I appreciate that you have
highlighted that as one of the three important cornerstones of our
caucus.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, do you want to talk about the third thing
that the American people can count on the Progressive Caucus to fight
for?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Our caucus has long believed that promoting global
peace and security is essential to the security and the peace here at
home. We have pledged under our mission to honor and help our
overburdened international public servants, both civilian and military,
so it is not always the hammer that we use internationally but is
extending the hand of support. And the international public servants,
God bless them, they sacrifice more than we can ever thank them for,
but they need the support. They need the resources and the personnel,
and they need the help.
And to bring home our troops, bring them home from Iraq as soon as
possible, to make sure that the agreed-upon timetable, both by the
Iraqis and by our new President, is upheld, followed through, that
there are no permanent bases there, that there is no presence there,
that we bring our troops home, thank them, give them the respect and
support that they need, and begin a whole new era and a new dawn of how
we do our international affairs and how do we really promote peace. And
to rebuild all of the alliances around the world, to restore
international respect for the American power and influence, and
reaffirm our Nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and
other multilateral organizations. Rather than playing the role of
reluctant partner in many of these alliances and organizations in the
United Nations, we must be firmly and totally engaged, both with
resource support to the United Nations and as a full participating
partner in the enhancement of global peace and security.
And we need to enhance international cooperation to reduce threats
posed by nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction. The
caucus is committed to nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. We are
committed to the end of weapons of mass destruction, and one of the
ways to do that, and possibly the most effective way to do that, is
with international cooperation, treaties, and agreements. And to
increase efforts to combat hunger, to fight the scourge of HIV-AIDS,
tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
When 1 billion people wake up every morning wondering if there is
going to be a next day, one of the ways that we can enhance our global
peace and security for our Nation is to increase our efforts to combat
the social and human ills that affect almost a full third of the
world's population, and to encourage debt relief for poor countries and
support the efforts of the U.N. to reach the Millennium goals for poor
countries. That is the way that we feel, an important way, to enhance
security globally and in turn enhance security for ourselves in this
country.
Mr. ELLISON. I think it is important as we come together with the
Progressive Caucus message, and it is our goal to come here week in and
week out,

[[Page H435]]

that people know what the Progressive Caucus stands for, that they know
what the Progressive Caucus will fight for, and that they have a chance
to join and participate.
So now, I think, Mr. Chairman, we are ready to talk about the main
subject we are going to be talking about tonight and that has to do
with a report that was recently issued called ``Reining in the Imperial
Presidency.'' This is a 500-page document that was drafted by Chairman
John Conyers and his staff, the lessons and recommendations relating to
the Presidency of George W. Bush, House Committee on Judiciary Staff to
report to John Conyers.
In this report, it lays out a whole series of issues that need to be
addressed. You know what, Chairman Grijalva, some people have said we
don't want to look back, we don't want to dig up old dirt. We have a
new President, why look back. But you know what, Chairman, I don't
think we are looking back because you and I never want to have to deal
with another President in the future who thinks, because George W. Bush
did these things, they can do them, too.
We are looking to the future. We don't want to set a precedent around
illegal wire-tapping, around domestic warrantless surveillance, around
the U.S. attorney scandal, and things like that. We will get into this
over the course of the next several minutes, and that is what we are
going to be really talking about and digging into tonight.
Do you have any preliminary comments, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Congressman.
I can't add too much more to the fine introduction that you have just
given to the subject. Again, my thanks to you for your effort and time
that you are putting into making sure that our message is carried
weekly before the American people, the Progressive Caucus's message.

{time} 1845

You know, a new President was inaugurated yesterday. We turned an
unbelievable corner in this country in so many ways. America's hunger
for change, America's hopeful attitude and expectation that things will
be better are historic firsts. An African American President, when
perhaps his forefathers and his father could have never even voted in
this country. It's a corner. It is a huge corner. And it speaks to the
general goodness and the decency of the American people.
And, in doing so, all of us have the tendency or the desire to clean
the slate. That's over. We need to move on. And I couldn't agree more.
I could not agree more. We need to clean that slate and begin anew,
begin to talk about this country in a different tone.
But, in cleaning the slate, we can't forget the past. The adage about
history repeating itself is an important adage and a good thing to
remember.
So when we look at this past administration, we want to forget it. We
want to say that chapter in American life is over. Let's move on. Well,
as we embark on this new political frontier that promises to restore
America's values of justice and speaking the truth to the American
people and the world, then the cornerstone is our Constitution and the
checks and balances the system created--Congress, executive, judicial.
And I think we owe it to our forefathers and we owe it to all the
American people and to all the future generations that we are
empowering, as a consequence of this great election, to ensure that the
most basic tenets of our system are not disregarded or ignored by past,
current or future administrations.
Simply said, we owe the American people the truth, not to ignore the
past, and to present them with the facts and the proposed policies that
will move our country forward and assure that the intrusions into our
civil liberties, the intrusions into privacy, the intrusions into the
powers of Congress and to restoring that checks and balances do not
occur again. And to do so it is not to rehash the past, it is to learn
from the past. Without running from the past, we are not able to make
the corrective steps that we can.
Many of the dark chapters in this Nation's history were corrected
because we learned from the past--segregation, the treatment of certain
people because of who they were, what they looked like or where they
came from. We learned from that. We learned from wars and preemption.
We learned that that is a chapter we don't want to repeat.
Those lessons were taught to us as a consequence of knowing history
and correcting history. So what we are asking for, as the Progressive
Caucus--and you can speak to that, Mr. Ellison, with the report that
Chairman Conyers put out--and we're very grateful to his effort for
this--is that we're not asking for us to be punitive, mean, harsh or
vindicative to the Bush administration.
We are saying there is some accountability here. There is a
consequence to your actions. And there is a reckoning point with the
American people. And that reckoning point is not about retribution,
that reckoning point is we will not repeat these mistakes again. And we
cannot do that unless there is full disclosure, an investigative
process, and a set of recommendations and policies that cement in place
the thought and the policies that this cannot occur again.
Mr. ELLISON. Chairman Grijalva, did we do this after the tragedy of
9/11? Did we engage in a process where we tried to discover what the
truth was?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Excellent. I think that commission brought to light
what we should have done, what we didn't do, and what we need to do in
the future to secure the safety of the American people. And I think
your point is well taken. This is not a process of indictment. It is a
process of correction. And I think the 9/11 Commission did just that,
took corrective steps so it would not occur again and to mitigate any
of those occurrences in the future.
Mr. ELLISON. You know what? Chairman Grijalva, I'm holding in my hand
a pretty thick piece of paper right here. This is 500 pages all
documenting allegations regarding abuses of power by the Bush
administration. This thing is not designed, as you said, to try to
settle old scores but to get to the truth of the matter of what really
happened.
I mean, don't the American people deserve to know what Karl Rove
would have said if he would have honored the subpoena that was lawfully
served on him? Don't the American people deserve to know what Harriet
Miers and Josh Bolten would have said when the Judiciary Committee had
a subpoena duly served on them, where they were summoned to give
testimony before the Judiciary Committee and they simply refused to
show up? What would they have said?
This is the kind of process we need to go into. And I think the
American people deserve to know what the truth is. And I think that
this very weighty report--you know, you could probably work out with
this thing, this thing is heavy--and it details allegations and it
details the facts and information that cry out for answers.
And so what we've done is not just come to talk about a problem but
really to discuss a solution. H.R. 104 is a bill that calls for a panel
to do an investigative process to figure out what the truth is behind
the allegations right here. Now, if nobody did anything wrong, then
there won't be any problem and nobody should be concerned. But if there
is some facts tied up in here that can be confirmed in this voluminous
document.
I think it only makes sense that we should pass H.R. 104 to really
figure out what actually happened. What actually happened with regard
to allegations of torture and the torture memos that were written
authorizing the torture of detainees? What happened with the
extraordinary rendition, when, Mr. Chairman, people were brought from
the United States and sent to countries and were tortured in those
countries, where these countries aren't squeamish about torture? What
happened with warrantless domestic surveillance? What happened with the
U.S. Attorney scandal? These are things that need to happen.
What do you think about that?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, I think if you look at this nearly 500-page
report that you just indicated, Mr. Ellison, I think you will see that
there are 47 separate recommendations in the report. But I think
central to it is the point that you made, as you made the comparison to
the 9/11 Commission, and that is the establishment of such a bipartisan
commission, a blue ribbon, bipartisan commission of Congress to

[[Page H436]]

thoroughly investigate and make legislative recommendations to the
standing committees, or, if necessary, to call upon the Attorney
General to appoint a special counsel to investigate and follow through
and prosecute, if necessary.
I mention those because I really believe--and let me just quote
Chairman Conyers, and I believe he's going to be here later so he can
quote himself. But as part of the statement that he issued with this
report he said, ``Even after scores of hearings, investigations and
reports, we still do not have answers to some of the most fundamental
questions left in the wake of Bush's precedency,'' Conyers said.
Pointing to allegations of torture and inhumane treatment,
extraordinary rendition, warrantless domestic surveillance, the Valerie
Wilson leak, the U.S. Attorney scandal, investigations are not a matter
of payback or political revenge, Chairman Conyers says. It is our
responsibility to examine what has occurred and set an appropriate
baseline of conduct for future administrations.
In the set of recommendations, the report contains a forward by the
chairman in which he talks about the need for H.R. 104, that it is a
step to begin to correct what has gone wrong, to rein in the excessive
power, to restore Congress to its legitimate, necessary and
constitutional role of oversight over the executive branch, and to
assure the American people with transparency, truth and public
information. Those are what we are asking for.
Many of us--yourself and I and many members of the Progressive
Caucus--have co-sponsored this legislation. We feel strongly about it.
This is not looking back to point fingers. It is looking forward so
that we have a blueprint for the future generations that, as I said
earlier, this is not to occur again.
Mr. ELLISON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I mean, Josh Bolten, Karl Rove and
Harriet Miers were served with subpoenas to appear in front of the
Judiciary Committee within the context of the law. We followed the
rules when we authorized those subpoenas to be served upon them, and
the White House told them not to come. Now, there may one day be a
Republican administration, a Republican House, I mean, we're Democrats
now, but one day things may change. Do we really want to set up a
situation, no matter who's in charge, where an individual can simply
scofflaw or skip over or just ignore a subpoena of the Judiciary
Committee? I think it sets a horrible precedent, no matter who is in
charge of our government.
And so I think you're right. This is a forward-looking process. This
is not about settling scores. This is about setting the record
straight. I think it's important that the American people really know
what happened. I mean, extraordinary rendition. I was in a committee
hearing one day when a man named Maher Arar, who is a Canadian of
Syrian ancestry, was explaining how he had come from Europe through New
York and was on his way to Canada when he was scooped up by
representatives of our government and then held incommunicado, sent to
Syria, and was tortured and was eventually released.
The Canadian Government did a full investigation of the whole matter
and came to the conclusion that they grabbed the wrong guy. Oops. Well,
the fact is the Canadian Government gave him a monetary award, but he
could not come to the committee hearing and explain to us what actually
happened to him. He had to appear by teleconference. Why? Because even
our State Department, after they had demonstrably said they made a
mistake about who they had picked up, still refused to take him off of
the watch list.
My point is, these kind of things need a full hearing; these kind of
things need a full airing. The rest of the world needs to know this is
not how America does business. It was something that happened. We're
not happy about it, but it happened.
We've been joined, Chairman Grijalva, by one of our most outstanding
public servants from the great State of Texas. Sheila Jackson-Lee has
been putting it down for a long time. How are you, Congresswoman?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It is a pleasure to join two distinguished
Members of not only this body but the Progressive Caucus. And I thank
you so very much for yielding. And, as well, let me thank both of you
for framing the issue and giving voice to what I believe represents a
broad breadth of the American people.
And let me thank the distinguished co-chairman for jump-starting this
session, for not taking for granted that we have a lot to celebrate--
and we do. As the American people watch us, they still have in their
memory what I thought was a day of reckoning, a day of reconciliation,
a day of movement. But, at the same time, the Progressive Caucus wants
to not only give voice--and I heard both of you speaking--but to give
action, hearings and legislation.
And, Congressman Ellison, I appreciate greatly the reach that you
have shown, the breadth and the depth, the understanding of finite
issues dealing with the rule of law. And I came to the floor today--and
I thank you for allowing me--just to take one small corner. I've heard
the discussion as you opened and you talked about our economy, and I
think the important point is there should be a progressive voice on all
of that.
Now, some would say that we're the guys that are anti-PAYGO. No.
There is no doubt that we have to balance our pocketbooks, our wallets
just like anyone else. What we are for is to make sure that the voices
of the people that ride the bus, that have to leave at 6 a.m. in the
morning to get to work, that don't have childcare, that, in fact, are
still waiting on lines to be employed, never having been employed,
those who are underemployed, those who have gotten out of, as I said,
the line and therefore are not even counted anymore, those who are
making $18,000 a year, such as a constituent in my constituency, who is
trying to hold on to a home that obviously was given some years ago
under the adjustable mortgage rate, so this is who we are speaking to.
And I am, frankly, a supporter of a balanced budget. I want to make
sure that our monies are used well, that there is transparency. But
again, I want to have a hand--or a handle, if you will--on making sure
those dollars--the economic stimulus package, I've had people ask me,
am I going to have an impact? Is it going to get to me down in fifth
ward Texas? I imagine there are some neighborhoods both in your great
State and that of our chairperson's to ask, is it going to get to the
Indian reservations or pueblos that have been lost, if you will--even
though a lot of people say that they get a big donation, but there are
great needs on our Indian reservations.
So I come today to just take a corner of what you were speaking of
called the rule of law. And I would like to, as well, thank Chairman
John Conyers. And, of course, we organized today, and I'm very excited
to have had my first time opportunity to be on the Constitution
Subcommittee. Mr. Ellison, we miss you, but as well you are going on to
do great works, and I look forward to working with you and
collaborating on a number of issues.
But this basic document suggested that, one, the continuation of
congressional oversight. One of the criticisms we got over the last 8
years--though it was not accurate, we were in the minority, as
Democrats--is that there was no oversight. But we were, we were sort of
fighting in the darkness.
I was reminiscing about the vote on the Iraq war before you came.
There was a corner of about 133 of us who just worked and whipped and
worked and whipped, but the loud noise, the thunderous noise drowned us
out. We were on the floor asking and begging that we not go to war,
that it was the wrong direction.

{time} 1900

So congressional oversight is key. The independent criminal probes by
the incoming Justice Department must continue. I would almost suggest
that we look at this issue called prosecutorial abuse, and you know
what? I'm open minded. I would as well look at the case in North
Carolina. You remember that, with I believe it was not the soccer team
but it was one of the sports teams of a university. It's coming to me.
Everyone will remember that case. But they should also look at Jena 6.
Mr. ELLISON. The lacrosse team.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The lacrosse team. Thank you very much.

[[Page H437]]

You're absolutely right. I don't mind looking at that case or looking
at the case of Jena 6, looking at the Sean Bell case in New York or
wherever these cases might be. We must look at that. And then the
creation of a blue ribbon commission to fully investigate the last
administration's actions. I think we had a meeting and we thought that
was a productive manner in which we should work.
But I want to focus on this FISA, the Restore Act, and just indicate
that one of the areas that I was targeting was reverse targeting. For
Americans what that means is I'm calling my aunt overseas and they use
that call to then reverse target me. And what we have said is that that
is such a significant breach of the Constitution, unreasonable search
and seizure, that we wanted a warrant to issue. And, of course, we went
back and forth and back and forth, and the language that we attempted
to use was language that indicated that you must use a significant
purpose as a basis for being able to do that. The language that finally
got, I call it, watered down says when the government seeks to conduct
electronic surveillance. That means if you just feel like fishing, they
could surveil you here minding your business in the United States. The
government wouldn't have to explain that it was a significant purpose.
And, frankly, I think that much of the premise of our new President,
and he made it clear--I congratulate him for some of the actions today
indicating the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I heard you mention that.
Most people think we'll be in danger, but I think we are in danger as
it is now. And believe it or not, we have a rule of law and a system of
law that will capture all of those who need to be captured in the
system and will find all of those on the basis of our system innocent
or guilty. I'm not interested in terrorists running free as well.
Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, could you speak on this critical
issue. Some people might think that having a blue ribbon panel such as
contemplated in H.R. 104 might be a backward-looking process and sort
of be something about settling old scores now that the Dems have the
White House and the Congress. But in your opinion as a lawyer of many
years, what would such a process do in terms of signaling that such
presidential behavior from a future President might not be permissible
or might not be condoned if we were to have such a process?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I find it a constitutional necessity that
will equate to the cleansing of this body and of this process or these
processes that we've seen. A cleansing.
When we were engaged in the impeachment process that I was engaged in
some years ago, we went back to the Madison Papers to be able to read
as to whether or not we were on solid ground in the approach that we
were taking. Many of us who opposed this impeachment believed that we
were not on solid ground because it was not a governmental action, if
you will.
What we want to do is to lay the record and make it clear and not
have someone guessing whether or not waterboarding equates to torture.
We want someone to not guess whether or not it is appropriate for the
counsel to the President to go into the night in a hospital room and
seek some action from a sick cabinet officer. It could be an action to
go to war. It could be an action to eliminate Medicare. But we want to
have a basis of refining and clearing up. I'm not looking to throw
darts and call names. These are pointed issues. And let me lead into
something that goes to this point.
Mr. ELLISON. Before you lead to this point, I just want to ask you
another question.
You and I and Chairman Grijalva only a few days ago raised our hands
up and we said we would swear an oath to support and defend. What did
we swear to support and defend? Can you tell us?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The Constitution of the United States of
America.
Mr. ELLISON. That's right. What does that mean to you?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank you for yielding. I think you have
drawn for me, and that's a wonderful cross-examination, counselor, but
you've drawn for me to say that that is a simple underpinning of a blue
ribbon commission, to restore the understanding of the Constitution.
Might I tell my friends around America and my colleagues that are
here that there is something called legislative history, and years down
the road that legislative document will be used to help further
interpret the actual law itself. That's why we're on the floor of the
House, and this will be used to further interpret the understanding.
So the gentleman that was captured inappropriately by Canada, and
there may be people now incarcerated here in the United States, they
will look to the laws and its legislative history to assist them.
For example, two border patrol agents' sentences have been commuted.
I happen to be a supporter of that. Why? I was a supporter of that
because I found the facts needed to, in essence, provide mercy. It
seemed like a contrary position by someone from the Progressive Caucus.
But I also believe there should be fairness to individuals who were
dealing with drugs on the border and an incident happened. I would have
preferred for them to be reprimanded and fired if they misused a
firearm or some other handling of it. They were incarcerated, in jail.
I happen to think that even their rights might have been somewhat
shortchanged. So the sentence was commuted. In the course of that,
there was probably a statement of sorts, some explanation that can be
used further down the road to say why the sentence was commuted.
So this blue ribbon commission, and I know you're about to drop and I
hope to join with you, I think is a vital response to the cleansing of
the last actions that occurred in the last 8 years but also to help
support what the Constitution stands for. Our duty is to provide the
eyes and ears of the American people.
Let me just finish with a point as well. I talked about FISA, but I
wanted to also talk about the Congressional Lawmaking Authority
Protection Act, which we are reintroducing, and it has to do with
signing statements. And one would think we have this new President
which we are so enthusiastic of supporting.
Mr. ELLISON. Forgive my reclaiming my time again, gentlelady, but if
you could convey to the American people what is a signing statement?
What is that?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I will be happy to do so because I think it
really hit us over this last 8 years. The legislature, our body, the
House and the Senate, would write a bill, and we would do our work
teams. We would have what we call a conference, and that means that
House and Senate Members would come to the conference. We'd finish that
bill. It could be on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, of course,
which was so controversial and went completely upside down and cost
Americans millions and millions of dollars. That bill would go to the
President's desk, and he would sign it with a signing statement saying
you and the administration, my executives, my State Department, my
Health and Human Services, my Department of Transportation, you don't
have to pay attention to that at all. So they would completely have the
authority or they would sense that their President has told them that
the law that was passed by this body fairly representing the many
millions of Americans in transparency--our hearings are open, the floor
debate is open--did not matter. So the work that we might have done to
create a summit jobs program, there might be a signing statement saying
it's too costly or it is not a worthy program, ignore it. That means
the Department of Labor could ignore it.

Mr. ELLISON. Now, did the President do a signing statement when it
came to the law that this body passed and he signed with regard to
torture?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. He obviously had in mind that he could
overturn our position on that, as the PATRIOT Act and, of course, in
others, yes. And, of course, we had the famous memo, the memorandum
that came in one of the Department of Justice, if you will, lawyers who
today still defend----
Mr. ELLISON. That's John Yoo and David Addington and people who
worked for the Vice President?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Many of those who did likewise. And let me
finish on these points because you raised a very good point.
In the redistricting case in Texas, the staff of the Department of
Justice

[[Page H438]]

agreed with the kind of redistricting arguments that were being made by
the congressional delegation of Texas, the legal arguments that were
being made about diversity, representation, and the way the lines were
drawn. The professional staff agreed with the State of Texas prior to
the loss of seven or eight Members, who happened to be Democrats. Well,
interestingly enough, the political folk came in and altered their
presentation and representation, which significantly caused a
completely opposite result, which, of course, is the result that lost
eight Members of Congress, not on the fact that eight Members of
Congress don't have a right to win or lose, but it was because we
reconfigured the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the contrary of how it
should have been interpreted. So that wasn't necessarily a signing
statement, but we found many incidences like that in the actions of
those, and needless to say, the Judiciary Committee spent many, many
days and hours, able work by able subcommittees, on this whole question
of the U.S. attorneys and political appointments.
Let me close, and then I want as well to have you yield to my good
friend from Arizona, just to simply say that this is an important
journey that we are about to venture, and that is the cleaning and
cleansing and restoring of the Constitution; the protecting of your
rights of privacy; the questioning of the watch list, which, as a
chairwoman of the Transportation Security Committee of the last
Congress, we looked at and will forge ahead in the new Congress as
well. But this is an important and vital opportunity for not only the
Progressive Caucus, which will lead, but as I look at it, the body of
this institution. The Madison Papers would not be what they are today
if there was not a meticulous and interested body of lawmakers that
wrote meticulously what the law should be in the early stages of this
Nation's history.
I want to be part of the positive history that protects every boy and
girl, every man and woman, every family from the injustices that will
come about through an unruly and a wrong-headed direction as it relates
to the rule of law.
Let me thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. Let me thank you again
for yielding to me. And I think that we are making some important steps
to help lead this Congress on issues that must be addressed to protect
the American people and to work with the new President of the United
States of America.
Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congresswoman. And we have only got about 15
more minutes; so we invite you to hang out with us a little bit.
But we have got to hear from our illustrious chairman, who has helped
lead the way for the Progressive Caucus.
You've had a long time to reflect on what Congresswoman Jackson-Lee
has said and, of course, you have some thoughts on your own. How does
any of this stuff strike you, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me, first of all, thank our esteemed colleague from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). Her expertise and her voice is an ingredient
that this Congress would sorely miss if it was not here. Her clarity
and her honesty are something this body has come to depend on and those
of us who work with her have come to rely on.
As we discuss this and particularly the resolution before us that you
are discussing, Mr. Ellison, let me thank you for the initiative. The
Progressive Caucus in the past has spent too much time talking to
itself and not enough time talking to the public and to the people we
represent. So thank you for breaking that mold.
We are all proud Americans, all of us that serve here. And I think as
Americans, and let me go back to the point that our colleague just
made, we're about learning the truth in this body. And we're about
making sure that that truth is given out to the American people that
everybody knows. And I think as Americans we all have a sense of
decency and fair play, that no one is above the law. And Ms. Jackson-
Lee made the point about the rule of law being the cornerstone of who
we are. And she made the point about cleansing, and to Native people,
cleansing is an important tradition. It is about taking body, the
entity, and making it come to full circle and to removing things that
are not natural to that body and to that circle. And if we refer that
to the body of this institution, that's what we're asking for in a very
simple way, to return us to that whole that we should be.

{time} 1915

We are all here for a short period of time. Whether we are here for
20 years or 2 years, we are a mere breath in the history of this
Nation. And I think our legacies are going to be judged, and this is
why this discussion today is so important, by how we protect and
preserve the rule of law and the Constitution.
So this is not about retribution. This is about moving forward.
Because we need a blueprint to move forward, and I think this process
of discovery, this process of letting the truth be known, can only lead
to better policies, restored checks and balances and restoring to this
body the oversight and authority that it gave away.
We are at that point now, and this is not a reflex on what is to come
in the future, this is merely a discussion about the future with some
milestones and markers about how we need to travel and still remain
that Nation that everybody envies because we are governed by the rule
of law.
Congressman, thank you so much. I am looking forward to these
discussions. Again, thank you for the initiative, and I am looking
forward to continuing to participate as the Progressive Caucus against
this very important discussion, this talk, this communication with the
American people.
Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and as we begin to wind down, I
would like to invite Congresswoman Jackson-Lee of Texas to maybe give
us a few concluding remarks.
We are here, this hour, we like to call it the progressive message.
It is a special order afforded to Members of Congress to talk about
what the progressive message is, whether it's on issues of executive
authority, reining in executive authority, the economy, whatever it is.
We want to let the American people know what the Progressive Caucus is
talking about.
Would you like to give a few remarks as we come to the end of our
hour tonight?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank you very much.
Obviously, we have only been at the tip of the iceberg of what we
have to talk about in the future. Certainly I want to make the point
very clear that as it relates to the TARP and the economic stimulus
package, the Progressive Caucus will be very much engaged,
collaborating, of course, with a number of other caucuses, Hispanic
Caucus, Women's Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus and others,
not from the perspective of isolation but from the perspective of
ensuring, again, that voices that cannot speak for themselves are heard
and particularly to go to places where others might not attempt to go.
Again, what does that mean? It means that as we rallied around our
opposition for the Iraq war, it was a willingness to be able to stand
in the eye of the storm on many of these issues, whether it be on the
reform of health care, looking to not talk about socialized medicine
but ensuring that everyone has access to health care. That will be a
progressive, if you will, challenge, to ensure that that happens.
Finally, let me say that we are here to shine the light on items that
some may think was not necessarily an item or an issue that needed to
be broadly affirmed or confirmed.
I am still questioning the administrative agreement that took place
in the resolve of the Iraq war, not resolving it but establishing the
role of our American soldiers, the soldiers that we love. The care and
the nurturing of those soldiers in Iraq is an administrative document
that this Congress has not had a chance to review.
So the Progressive Caucus is that light that is to shine, not for
ourselves but for all of those who asked what is it that this
government is doing and what are they doing for me as I am trying to do
for my Nation.
So I thank you. We are patriots, and I hope that as our voices are
heard, as you have made a commitment, we will be part of the
cornerstone of legislation and laws, and we will therefore serve the
American people even better.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
this special

[[Page H439]]

order. I would like to discuss the importance of America returning to
the rule of law and respect for our Constitution in the immediate
aftermath of the Bush-Cheney legacy. Madam Speaker, I thank you for the
opportunity to address this issue.
Since 2001, the Bush Administration's policies impacting civil
liberties have raised grave constitutional and legal concerns. After
the myriad hearings and investigations last year, there is much we do
not know about the Bush Administration.
Last week, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee released a
report, entitled ``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and
Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush.'' This
document contained nearly 500 pages. The report detailed numerous
examples of these abuses by the administration from allegations of
torture and inhumane treatment, extraordinary rendition, and
warrantless domestic surveillance to the U.S. Attorney scandals. The
report also contained over 45 pages of recommendations designed to
restore our Constitution's traditional system of checks and balances.
Chief among these recommendations are: (1) The continuation of
congressional oversight; (2) independent criminal probes by the
incoming Justice Department; and; (3) the creation of a blue ribbon
commission to fully investigate the Bush Administration's activities.
My office will work to put some of these into law. These included
recommendation number 17 on pages 280 to 281, regarding the President,
the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, and the Director of the National Security Agency
should implement policies to ensure that there is no ``reverse
targeting'' used under authorities created by the FISA Amendments Act
of 2008. Specifically, I have long championed the inclusion of language
that would prohibit ``reverse targeting.''
Indeed, I worked on specific language that was included in an early
version of the FISA Act, the RESTORE Act, which was added during the
markup made a constructive contribution to the RESTORE Act by laying
down a clear, objective criterion for the administration to follow and
the FISA court to enforce in preventing reverse targeting.
``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this
Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the
arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the Government
targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to
collect information on certain U.S. persons.
One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical
conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties
organizations, have is that there is an understandable temptation of
national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting that may be
difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent it.
My amendment reduces even further any such temptation to resort to
reverse targeting by requiring the administration to obtain a regular,
individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the
surveillance is a person in the United States.
The amendment achieves this objective by requiring the administration
to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an
acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person
reasonably believed to be located in the United States.'' The current
language in the bill provides that a warrant be obtained only when the
Government ``seeks to conduct electronic surveillance'' of a person
reasonably believed to be located in the United States.
It was far from clear how the operative language ``seeks to'' is to
be interpreted. In contrast, the language used in my amendment,
``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that has long been a staple
of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by the
agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson-
Lee Amendment provides a clearer, more objective, criterion for the
administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the
practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can
agree should not be permitted.
I am also pleased that the chairman has accepted my recommendation
for the President to end abuses of Presidential signing statements. I
have re-introduced a bill to address this issue in the 111th Congress.
In an earlier Congress, I introduced the ``Congressional Lawmaking
Authority Protection Act'' or CLAP Act of 2006, which: (1) prohibited
the expenditure of appropriated funds to distribute, disseminate, or
publish Presidential signing statements that contradict or are
inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Congress in enacting
the laws; and (2) bars consideration of any signing statement by any
court, administrative agency, or quasi-judicial body when construing or
applying any law enacted by Congress. I am proud to say that the
chairman was one of the original co-sponsors of my bill.
In the 110th Congress, I introduced another bill substantially in the
same form in the current Congress, except that the new bill, H.R. 264,
makes clear that the limitations of the law do not apply to
Presidential signing statements that are consistent with congressional
intent. This is not a hard test to administer. As the late Justice
Potter Stewart said about obscenity: ``it may be hard to define, but
you know it when you see it.''
I have now reintroduced this bill in the 111th Congress.
Notwithstanding that we have a new President, my bill is still
relevant.
If there be any question whether the Congress has the power to ban
the use of appropriated funds to publish or distribute signing
statements, the answer is simple: regardless of whether it is wise to
do so, if no one seriously can question Congress's constitutional
authority to terminate the Executive's use of appropriated funds to
wage military operations, a fortiori, Congress has the constitutional
authority to withhold from the President funds needed to distribute a
signing statement that undermines the separation of powers.
The problem with presidential signing statements is that their use
fosters abuse and misuse. Presidential signing statements seek to alter
Congress's primacy in the legislative process by giving a President's
intention in signing the bill equal or greater standing to Congress's
intention in enacting it. This would be a radical, indeed
revolutionary, change to our system of separated powers and checks and
balances.
Bill signing statements eliminate the need for a President ever to
exercise the veto since he or she could just reinterpret the bill he
signs so as to make it unobjectionable to him. Such actions deprive
Congress of the chance to consider the President's objections, override
his veto, and in the process make it clear that the President's
position is rejected by an overwhelming majority of the people's
representatives. Since few Presidents wish to suffer a humiliation so
complete and public they have strong incentive to work closely with the
Congress and are amenable to negotiation and compromise. This is
precisely the type of competitive cooperation the Constitution
contemplates and which bill signing statements threaten.
Again, I thank the Chairman for including these two very important
ideas in his very thorough and thoughtful report.
There is much work to be done by the Members of Congress to fix the
mistakes that were made during the prior administration so that the
proper foundation can be laid for a succesful President Obama and his
administration. It is my hope that we can wipe the slate clean from the
Bush Administration and start afresh for the current administration.
I agree that we must investigate the U.S. Attorney firings to
determine what precisely happened. We need to determine why these
firings occurred. Moreover, the incoming administration should limit
the ability of Executive Branch officials to prevent victims of
terrorism from recovering for their losses. The President should seek
to resolve a dispute between victims of torture and the government of
Iraq committed during the Gulf War.

Because of the myriad of problems that we have seen at the Department
of Justice, I recommend that the Department of Justice should issue
guidelines to require transparency and uniformity of corporate deferred
and non-prosecution agreements. These are agreements between the
Federal Government and individual corporations in which the Government
agrees to not prosecute or defer criminal prosecution in exchange for
the corporation agreeing to specific actions such as changes in
corporate policies and payment of monetary penalties.
We should also consider whether we should consider legislation
concerning the exercise of clemency involving government officials.
This is important so that we can truly learn what happened during the
Bush Administration.
We should also enact changes in statutes and rules to strengthen
protection for Executive Branch whistleblowers, Congress's contempt
powers, and the incoming administration should establish procedures for
asserting executive privilege. There are a myriad of laws that we must
enact to set this Nation on the right track. We must roll up our
sleeves and get ready to work with the new administration to restore
the rule of law to America and its position of respect on the world
stage.
Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Let me just say, tonight we have come together, members of the
Progressive Caucus, a caucus organized, not based on ethnicity, like
the Black Caucus or the Hispanic Caucus, not based on things like that,
but based on our commonality of views, our value, what we all believe
in. The Progressive Caucus represents diverse members of our
congressional body, people from all over the country, different
religions, different ethnic groups, all coming to project a progressive
vision for our Nation.

[[Page H440]]

We believe in fighting for economic justice and security in the
United States and global economies. We also believe in protecting and
preserving civil rights and civil liberties. We also believe in
promoting global peace and security. These are some of the essential
core beliefs of the Progressive Caucus, and you can count on us to
come, week in, week out, with the progressive message to talk about how
these critical values impact you.
Tonight we have spent time, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee and
Congressman Raul Grijalva, talking about the imperial presidency that
we have just seen ushered out of the door. We have seen a 500-page
report, this big, thick, giant, humongous, enormous report full of
facts and information in detail about allegations that the Bush
administration may have overstepped its constitutional bounds. We
believe this needs to be looked into. We believe the groundwork has
been laid for an inquiry for a blue ribbon panel.
The vehicle, we believe, that should be used to get to the bottom, to
get to the truth, is H.R. 104. H.R. 104, which Members and their
community can look it up and read it, but what it would tell you if you
looked it up is it would contain 47 separate recommendations designed
to restore our Constitution's traditional system of checks and
balances.
Chief among the recommendations are, one, continuation of
congressional oversight; two, independent probes by the Justice
Department; three, creation of a blue ribbon commission to fully
investigate the activities; and they go on and on and on. You can look
up the report online. It's there for you to look at it, at
judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/110th. You can look it up that
way.
Finally, we want to look into and don't want the American people to
forget that our constitutional system is delicate. It must be
maintained. It is a three-part system of checks and balances,
executive, judiciary and legislative. The legislative branch is the
first one mentioned in the Constitution.
We are a coequal branch of government. We don't work for the
President, not the President we just got, Barack Obama, although we
support him and wish him well. He is not our boss. The people are our
boss. Also, we don't work for the President. We have a duty and an
obligation to provide oversight to the executive.
We need to get to the bottom of allegations of torture and inhumane
treatment, extraordinary rendition, warrantless domestic surveillance,
the U.S. Attorney General scandal, a contrived drive to go to war with
Iraq, signing statements to override laws of the land, intimidation and
silencing of critics. We need to get into what happened with Valerie
Plame. Why didn't Rove, Bolton and Myers show up to the Judiciary
hearing after they were duly served? These are issues the American
people have a right to know, and we intend to get to the bottom of it.
This is going to conclude the Progressive Message. Mr. Speaker, it
has been a wonderful hearing.

____________________