[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2175-2185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF H. RES. 979, RECOMMENDING THAT HARRIET MIERS 
AND JOSHUA BOLTEN BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, AND ADOPTION OF H. 
    RES. 980, AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INITIATE OR 
     INTERVENE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE CERTAIN SUBPOENAS

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 982 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

       Resolved, That House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 
     980 are hereby adopted.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 982 provides that upon its adoption, House 
Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980 are hereby adopted.
  House Resolution 979 recommends that the House of Representatives 
find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, the White House Chief of Staff, 
in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly 
issued by the Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1200

  House Resolution 980 authorizes the Judiciary Committee to initiate 
or to intervene in any judicial proceedings to enforce certain 
subpoenas.
  Madam Speaker, I've had so many requests for time that I will cut my 
own time short. I simply want to give some reasons why it's important 
that we're here today.
  In my 21 years in the House, I have known that there were Members who 
came to Congress simply hoping that throughout their career they will 
always land on the safe square; not wanting to take a vote that might 
challenge them in any way, not wanting to take a vote that might 
require explanation. Fortunately, this is the safe square today.
  What we are doing here today is protecting the Constitution of the 
United States of America, which all of us are pleased, when we come 
here, to raise our hand and swear so to do. It is critically important 
that we protect the powers of the Congress of the United States for 
future generations. It would be dreadful if a future President, having 
looked back over the recent events, used it as a precedent.
  We have a strong case on the merits, is the first point I want to 
make. The administration's assertions of executive privilege are weak, 
excessively broad, and unprecedented. We win the executive privilege 
argument both on legal grounds and our compelling need for requested 
information.
  Aside from prevailing on the merits of the executive privilege 
dispute, enforcing our subpoenas is part and parcel of our current 
ability to perform effective oversight. If we accept the White House 
stonewalling in this instance, the House, in the future, will not be 
able to conduct its oversight. And every future President can view 
Congress, not as a coequal branch of this government, but as 
subordinate to the executive.
  The enforcement of the subpoenas in this investigation seeks to 
strengthen, rather than weaken, the House's prerogatives by 
demonstrating that we are serious about citizens resisting the issuance 
of validly authorized congressional subpoenas. If we countenance a 
process where subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness, under 
a duly authorized subpoena, doesn't even bother to appear, where 
privilege can be asserted on the thinnest of reeds and the broadest 
possible manner, then we have already lost, and we may be in much more 
danger than even we believe.
  There's ample precedent supporting the House's prerogative to 
initiate a civil action. If we pursue this course of action and it 
proves to be legally incorrect, then we here in Congress, where the 
laws are passed, can take necessary steps to correct that procedure. If 
we do not pursue this course of action at all, we, again, have already 
lost.
  There are some who believe that the court will say that indeed we 
have no rights here. If that is the case, if that even should be a 
possibility, then I think we have to say that if the Justice Department 
has become that politicized and that weak, then we are in worse shape 
in this democracy than we know.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
thank the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the time, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I was in the funeral of our distinguished friend and 
colleague, Congressman Lantos, someone whom I admired very, very much 
and who was a personal friend. I was standing by the ranking member of 
the Rules Committee.
  At the time during the funeral, the House was in recess subject to 
the call of the Chair under the understanding that we would not come 
back into session until after the funeral. And I was most disturbed and 
hurt and pained when, even though the funeral was still proceeding and 
distinguished guests were speaking, the bells rang that the House was 
going back into session and I had to leave.
  Because of my obligation today, I have the assignment, as a member of 
the Rules Committee, to be here during this rule. I had to leave the 
funeral to be here today. It's most unfortunate, and I'm very, very 
sorry that the day has begun in that ultimately unfortunate fashion.
  Madam Speaker, today the majority proposes that the House consider a 
rule that, according to the Parliamentarian, is unprecedented in the 
history of this institution. It will prevent any and all debate on two 
contempt motions against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and 
White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.
  A contempt resolution is a privileged matter because it directly 
concerns the constitutional rights and privileges of the House. Chapter 
17, section 2 of House Practice states, ``Such a resolution may be 
offered from the floor as privileged, because the privileges of the 
House are involved.''
  The action of the majority today is most unfortunate. Never before in 
the history of this House has a contempt resolution, one of the highest 
questions regarding the rights and privileges of this institution, been 
treated in such an underhanded manner. If this rule is adopted, there 
will be no debate, no vote, and the contempt resolutions will magically 
and automatically be hereby adopted when this rule is adopted.
  Now, if the majority believes the contempt resolution to be correct, 
the just and proper course of action to assert the rights of this 
institution would be to debate and vote on the resolution.
  The majority leadership is subverting the rights of every Member of 
this House, allegedly in order to assert the

[[Page 2176]]

rights of this House. The irony can escape no one. These are the 
constitutional rights of this institution that are in question, and not 
one Member of this institution is going to be allowed to discuss it or 
vote, to have a vote on these resolutions.
  The majority's attempt to rush this contempt resolution through the 
House will have repercussions that many Members may not be aware of. 
And so I urge my colleagues to pay close attention because, by this 
action, the House majority risks causing great harm. It risks causing 
grave harm and undermining Congress's oversight authority for 
generations to come, and here is why.
  The administration is claiming executive privilege, and any attempt 
to force testimony from the President's former counsel and his Chief of 
Staff will be fought by the administration within the courts. This 
could very possibly lead to the courts ruling that Congress does not 
have civil contempt authority, for example; that the U.S. Attorney, for 
example, does not have to prosecute criminal citations against 
executive officials or that the President's senior advisors are 
absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress. Any of 
those rulings would weaken Congress's ability to conduct oversight in 
the future, and a weakened Congress means a strengthened executive.
  This is not an extreme or farfetched theory, Madam Speaker. 
Administrations from both parties have claimed executive privilege for 
many decades. The former Attorney General, for example, Janet Reno, 
stated, and I quote, ``the President and his immediate advisors are 
absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional 
committee, because subjecting a senior Presidential advisor to the 
congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President 
himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to his 
constitutionally assigned functions.''
  What the majority is doing today is needlessly tempting a court loss 
that could gravely undermine Congress's oversight authority, the very 
authority the majority is allegedly seeking to protect. If Congress 
loses in the courts, we could forever disable one of our most important 
powers, the power of oversight. And for what in return, Madam Speaker? 
Harriet Miers is no longer with the administration; Alberto Gonzales is 
no longer Attorney General. But the majority, with its action today, 
risks quite a bit.
  Let's remember, Members will not even get the opportunity to vote on 
these resolutions today. And that's not only uncalled for, but 
absolutely unprecedented. Members will only be able to vote on this 
rule. Once the rule passes, so do the two resolutions and so does the 
majority's gamble.
  So, back in July, the Judiciary Committee cited both Mr. Bolten and 
Ms. Miers for contempt of Congress. Now, here we are, 8 months later, 
considering these two contempt resolutions, but not really, just the 
rule. By passing the rule, automatically those contempt resolution will 
be passed, after an emergency Rules Committee meeting last night.
  So the question is, why the rush? For some reason the majority feels 
that after 8 months, now this is a pressing issue. But I can think of a 
large list of other issues that I feel that Americans would rather we 
address; none more than considering the FISA bill that the Senate 
approved this week to give the administration the ability to protect 
the United States from terrorist attacks.
  The tragic events of September 11, 2001, taught us many lessons, and 
one of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation must remain 
aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We must always 
stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm America, and now is not 
the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. And the 
majority seeks to leave today and go home without addressing this 
issue.
  The modernization of the foreign intelligence surveillance into the 
21st century is a critically important national priority, and I'm 
pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
agree as well.
  On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to 
the Speaker in support of the Senate FISA legislation. The letter 
states, and I quote, ``The Senate FISA Rockefeller-Bond legislation 
contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we 
would fully support the measure should it reach the House floor without 
substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong 
national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe 
and save American lives here at home.''
  Madam Speaker, I will insert the letter sent by the Blue Dogs to the 
Speaker into the Record.

       Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being 
     considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a 
     FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly 
     consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President 
     before the Protect America Act expires in February.
       It is our belief that such legislation should include the 
     following provisions: Require individualized warrants for 
     surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad; 
     Clarify that no court order is required to conduct 
     surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are 
     routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight 
     by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel 
     compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court 
     of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers 
     that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.
       The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory 
     language addressing all these issues and we would fully 
     support that measure should it reach the House floor without 
     substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a 
     strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism 
     across the globe and save American lives here in our country.
       It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a 
     timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect 
     America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a 
     limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical 
     surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace 
     the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong, 
     bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed 
     into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing 
     such a measure could place our national security at undue 
     risk.
           Sincerely,
         Leonard L. Boswell, ------, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, Heath 
           Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Lincoln 
           Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa 
           L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe Baca, John Tanner, Jim 
           Cooper, Zachary T. Space, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie 
           Melancon, Christopher P. Carney.

  The extension of this important program is set to expire at 11:59 
p.m. tomorrow night. After that, our ability to conduct surveillance on 
foreign terrorists will be severely hampered. It's time to make our 
country safer, and Congress needs to act today. The House should vote 
on the Senate measure, and we should do it now, instead of debating 
these contempt motions in an unprecedented and uncalled-for fashion.
  Today I will give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on 
a bipartisan, long-term modernization of FISA. I call on my colleagues 
to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can 
immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to 
the President to be signed into law before the current law expires and 
our Nation is at greater risk.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Conyers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record from 
today's New York Times, ``Time To Vote Contempt.''

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 14, 2008]

                         Time To Vote Contempt

       Alberto Gonzales may be out, but the country is still 
     waiting for a full accounting

[[Page 2177]]

     of how he and his White House patrons cynically politicized 
     the Justice Department. Congress is rightly asking questions 
     about the actions of yet another United States attorney: New 
     Jersey's Christopher J. Christie. The House also needs to 
     stop procrastinating and vote to hold witnesses in contempt 
     for refusing to testify in the wider scandal.
       Federal prosecutors must be scrupulously nonpartisan. Mr. 
     Christie, a Republican activist who got his job despite a 
     lack of trial and criminal-law experience, has gone up to the 
     line of acceptable behavior--and possibly crossed it.
       He began an investigation of Senator Robert Menendez, a New 
     Jersey Democrat, late in a hard-fought election campaign. The 
     charges now appear baseless, but at the time the news 
     provided a big boost to Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent. 
     Mr. Christie went against a long Justice Department 
     presumption against opening investigations or bringing 
     indictments right before an election, to avoid affecting the 
     outcome.
       There are also questions about Mr. Christie's decision to 
     award, without competitive bidding, a lucrative contract to 
     monitor a company accused of consumer fraud. The winner? 
     Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, an influential 
     Republican who was once Mr. Christie's boss. Senate and House 
     leaders have asked the Government Accountability Office to 
     investigate.
       Some of the people who likely know the most about the role 
     politics has played in the Bush Justice Department have 
     defied Congressional subpoenas to testify. Joshua Bolten, the 
     White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former 
     White House counsel, contend that they are protected from 
     testifying by executive privilege. That is not enough. They 
     have a legal obligation to appear before Congress and plead 
     that privilege to specific questions.
       The House Judiciary Committee voted in July to hold Mr. 
     Bolten and Ms. Miers in contempt. The House's Democratic 
     leadership has been trying to figure out the pros and cons 
     ever since. The public needs to hear the testimony of these 
     officials (along with Karl Rove, who is also refusing to 
     appear), and the full House should vote as quickly as 
     possible to hold them in contempt.
       The House should also approve a resolution authorizing the 
     Judiciary Committee to go to court to enforce the contempt 
     citations if the current attorney general, Michael Mukasey, 
     as expected, refuses to do so.
       The stakes are high. There are people in jail today, 
     including a former governor of Alabama, who have raised 
     credible charges that they were put there for political 
     reasons. Congress's constitutionally guaranteed powers are 
     also at risk. If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas, 
     it would effectively be ceding its subpoena power. It would 
     also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an 
     imperial president--above the law and beyond the reach of 
     checks and balances.
       The founders did not want that when they wrote the 
     Constitution, and the voters who elected this Congress do not 
     want it today.

  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the resolution we are considering 
today is not steps that I take as chairman easily or lightly. It's been 
8 months that we've tried to negotiate, nine letters, but this is what 
is necessary to protect the constitutional prerogatives as a coequal 
branch of government in this democracy of ours.
  I believe the investigation we have been engaged in is an important 
one. And it's not about whether the U.S. Attorneys can serve at the 
pleasure of the President. They clearly can and do. But it concerns 
whether the American people can be assured that their laws are being 
fairly and impartially enforced by the United States Department of 
Justice. That's why we're here.
  In order to pursue this investigation, we've done what committees in 
the Congress have traditionally done: We've sought our documents and 
testimony initially on a voluntary basis and through compulsory process 
only as a last resort. The investigation did not begin with the White 
House but has ended up there only after the review of thousands of 
pages of documents and obtaining the testimony and interviews of nearly 
20 current and former Department of Justice employees.

                              {time}  1215

  We have been open at all times to any reasonable compromise and have 
been fully respectful and cognizant of the prerogatives of the 
executive branch. As a matter of fact, I have written the White House 
counsel on no less than 9 separate occasions, and talked with him 
seeking a compromise on this matter.
  What I am not open to, as the chairman of Judiciary, is accepting a 
take-it-or-leave-it offer which would not allow us access to 
information that we need, would not even provide for a transcript, and 
would prevent us from seeking any additional information in the future. 
That is the only proposal we've ever received from White House counsel, 
and so I would hope that all of the Members in this body, as an 
institutional matter, recognize the problems inherent in such an 
approach.
  Now, some may argue that the stakes in this confrontation, and I 
think that's what's been suggested already, are so high that we cannot 
afford to risk that we might lose. Well, I'd say to them that if we 
countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where 
a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother 
to show up or tell us that they're not coming, where privilege can be 
asserted on the thinnest of bases and in the broadest possible manner, 
then we've already lost.
  This is not a matter of vindicating the Judiciary Committee; and if 
you're really concerned about Congress' rights, which I think all of us 
are, you would contact the White House counsel's office.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes 
to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Smith of Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
rule.
  Yesterday, House Democrats said that Congress does not have enough 
time to pass critical FISA modernization legislation to keep America 
safe from foreign terrorists. Today, we are wasting Congress' time on 
an issue that does nothing to make our Nation safer. Clearly, the 
Democratic majority is out of touch with the needs of our intelligence 
community and is placing Americans' lives at risk.
  On the eve of the expiration of critical intelligence legislation, 
the House Democratic majority has chosen to put extreme partisanship 
ahead of our country's safety. Apparently, the Democratic majority 
cares more about the alleged steroid use of a few baseball players and 
the personnel decisions of the White House than they do about promoting 
national security.
  Last year, Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, 
warned Congress that the intelligence community was missing two-thirds 
of all overseas terrorist communications, endangering Americans' lives. 
Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close this terrorist 
loophole.
  Now House Democrats are going to let the Protect America Act expire. 
If the act expires, we will return to the status quo, unable to begin 
any new foreign intelligence surveillance without a court order and 
risk losing two-thirds of all foreign intelligence.
  Today we find ourselves at two very dangerous thresholds: first, 
expiration of legislation vital to this Nation's national security, the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House Democratic majority 
has let this legislation lapse without even allowing a straight up-or-
down vote on the bipartisan Senate bill approved earlier this week by a 
vote of 68-29. Instead of reauthorizing FISA, the Democratic majority 
chooses to take us to another threshold, that of a needless 
constitutional confrontation in the courts over the dismissal of a 
handful of United States Attorneys.
  We know that the President has the authority to dismiss U.S. 
Attorneys. We know that his executive privilege claims are consistent 
with those made by previous Presidents for decades. We know that by 
tilting at the executive privilege windmill we risk severely 
undermining the very oversight authority we would want to protect. But 
most of all, we know that reauthorization of FISA is infinitely more 
important than this spat over executive privilege.
  Once again, we see why Congress' approval rating is at an historic 
low. It's because the Democratic majority engages in extreme 
partisanship and ignores the people's business.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

[[Page 2178]]


  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am not overly 
concerned by what the courts ultimately decide executive privilege 
covers. The Bush administration's claim of executive privilege here 
goes well beyond any privilege ever recognized by any court decision, 
but the Republic can obviously survive a court decision on the narrow 
question of the exact extent of executive privilege.
  But, Madam Speaker, the courts must decide. The President cannot 
decide by decree. The President cannot announce with absolute, 
unreviewable authority what information the administration will provide 
or withhold.
  The Framers of our Constitution had just fought a war against an 
autocratic King. It is inconceivable that they intended to create an 
executive with the powers that the Bush administration now claims and 
that the minority now supports.
  For the entire history of our Republic, our courts have recognized 
that Congress needs information to carry out our constitutional duties, 
to decide what the laws should be, to decide what to appropriate 
Federal funds for, and that we cannot rely on information that is 
voluntarily, cheerfully provided. Congress must have the power to 
require information, including information that the President does not 
want to provide, that the President sees as inconvenient or 
embarrassing.
  We must inquire into the need for new laws. We must inquire into how 
existing laws are being administered. And the Supreme Court said half a 
century ago that Congress' investigative powers are never greater than 
when inquiring into abuse of authority or corruption by Federal 
Government agencies.
  Madam Speaker, the allegations here are very serious. Does the 
minority think that these are trivial allegations? Prosecutorial 
decisions cannot be used to reward political friends or punish enemies. 
Elections have consequences, Madam Speaker; but they should never have 
these consequences, not in America. Criminal prosecutions guided by 
political concerns are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and 
the rule of law.
  The two resolutions that we are considering will allow the courts to 
decide these questions of what information Congress can require in the 
discharge of our constitutional duties. It will allow important 
constitutional questions to be decided, as they should be decided in a 
democracy, by the courts.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm 
here to say that I am fully supportive of the prerogatives of the 
Congress. I think the Congress has a right to ask for, receive, demand 
information from the administration; but I don't think that right 
extends to this case.
  I think the idea that we would expect to get information that is 
dealing with advice to the President on the status of at-will employees 
is a loser for us on the House floor. It's a loser for us in court. It 
will set back the prerogatives of the Congress; and beyond that, I 
think the idea that we're here today, as we see the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act get less value to us every day because 
we're unwilling to deal with a permanent solution, this is the wrong 
debate to have at any time. It's certainly the wrong debate to have at 
this time.
  And the idea that somehow if we extend that act, if we've done all we 
could do by trying to extend an act, a bipartisan group of Members of 
this Congress for various reasons said we don't want to extend and then 
we come back today and we take our time focusing on a contempt charge 
on two dedicated civil servants is the wrong thing to do at any time, 
and it's particularly the wrong thing to do at this time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished Speaker of the House, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi of 
California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, the Chair of the 
Rules Committee, for yielding.
  Today is a very sad day for us for more than one reason. One reason 
is, though, the matter that is before us. I had hoped, frankly, that 
this day would never have come, that the respectful negotiations that 
should take place between article I, the legislative branch, and 
article II, the executive branch, would have yielded the information 
that is necessary for Congress to make its decisions.
  I thank Chairman Conyers for his distinguished lifetime leadership of 
protecting the Constitution of the United States. We all take that oath 
of office, every single one of us who serves. Indeed, every person who 
serves in any civic capacity in our country does so. Today, we are 
honoring our oath of office with this resolution that is before us.
  Again, I rise in sadness, not in confrontation. This is not a 
conflict that the Congress has sought. In fact, as the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee has indicated, the committee has 
repeatedly sought to avoid confrontation, repeatedly making requests 
that have been ignored or rejected by the White House on completely 
unacceptable terms.
  The Judiciary Committee, indeed the Congress, is clearly entitled to 
this information. It involves neither national security information nor 
communications with the President. The President has no grounds to 
assert executive privilege.
  On the other hand, Congress has the responsibility of oversight of 
the executive branch. I know that Members on both sides of the aisle 
take that responsibility very seriously. Oversight is an institutional 
obligation to ensure against abuse of power, in this case the 
politicizing of the Department of Justice. Subpoena authority is a 
vital tool for that oversight.
  Today, we seek to require the Department of Justice to bring contempt 
motions against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. When our resolution 
passes, we hope the administration will realize that this House of 
Representatives, this Congress, is serious about our constitutional 
role of oversight and will reach a settlement with us over the 
documents and testimony at issue. I still hold out the hope that they 
will cooperate.
  But if the administration fails to do so, and if it orders the 
Department of Justice not to file contempt proceedings, we will then, 
through this resolution, have the power ourselves to go to Federal 
court and seek civil enforcement of our subpoenas.
  The resolution before us today should not be a partisan issue. It 
should not be. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Former 
Congressman Mickey Edwards, who once served in the Republican 
leadership, has said that the enforcement of the subpoenas in the U.S. 
Attorney matter is about defending Congress, not a Democratic or a 
Republican Congress, but the people's Congress, as a separate, 
independent, and completely equal branch of government.
  The subject of the Judiciary Committee's investigation involves 
serious and credible allegations that Federal law enforcement was 
politicized. Political manipulation of law enforcement undermines 
public confidence in our criminal justice system. Congress must find 
out what happened not just in terms of those who were fired but also 
whether improper criteria were used to retain the remaining U.S. 
Attorneys.

                              {time}  1230

  We must have the information in order to protect against political 
manipulation of law enforcement, and it must be provided in terms 
consistent with our constitutional obligations.
  The so-called White House offer refused to permit even a transcript 
of any interviews and to permit questions on discussions and required 
the committee to promise in advance not to seek further information. 
This is beyond arrogance; this is hubris taken to the ultimate degree.
  As former Congressman Edwards, again I remind, a former member of the 
Republican leadership in the House, said, ``No Congress, indeed, no 
lawyer, would ever agree to such an outrageous demand.''

[[Page 2179]]

  Madam Speaker, we must continue in our efforts to restore our 
Nation's fundamental system of checks and balances. This Congress and 
future Congresses must have the ability to conduct meaningful 
oversight. It is the hallmark of our constitutional democracy that has 
served us well for more than two centuries.
  Thank you, again, Chairman Conyers, for your leadership, 
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, chairwoman of the subcommittee that dealt 
with this issue, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, for the important work of 
the Rules Committee on all of this. To the new Members of Congress, on 
this issue of article I led by John Yarmuth, article I, protecting the 
prerogatives of the Congress of the United States, we thank our new 
Members for their leadership honoring their oath of office. And Brad 
Miller, an expert on the subject in the Congress, has been a tremendous 
resource to us as well.
  Let us uphold our oath of office by voting for this resolution, my 
colleagues. Let us restore the rule of law. Let us act to protect and 
defend our constitution by ensuring appropriate congressional oversight 
in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier 
of California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi is absolutely right, this 
is a very, very sad day for all of us. We just memorialized our 
colleague, Tom Lantos, and we have come back today to deal with an 
issue which I believe is one that creates the potential to undermine 
the power of the first branch of government.
  Now, as has been said, if we looked at the potential court challenge 
that we can see, this notion that has been put forward by our former 
colleague, Mr. Edwards, that we are, in fact, a separate, independent, 
and equal branch of government could be thrown out the window.
  The other thing that's very sad about today, Madam Speaker, is the 
fact that we are here with an absolutely unprecedented rule. Never 
before in the history of the Republic has there been such a rule. This 
rule actually undermines the deliberative nature of the people's House. 
What we're doing is we are saying that there will be no debate 
whatsoever, no debate whatsoever on these very important two contempt 
resolutions, no debate whatsoever. When this rule is adopted, we will 
see those two measures hereby adopted, meaning that there will be no 
chance for us to, as a House, have the kind of debate that we did for 
an hour upstairs in the Rules Committee. And so, we're throwing out the 
window the notion of participation in a free and open debate.
  And Madam Speaker, the other thing that is very sad about today is 
that, while we were promised 1 year ago last month a new direction for 
America, a new era of openness, an opportunity for free-flowing debate, 
we will, with passage of this resolution, be on the brink of seeing the 
110th Congress, and I will say to the distinguished chair of the 
Committee on Rules, since she is presiding over this, Madam Speaker, we 
will have, this Congress, adopted more closed rules than any Congress 
in the history of the Republic.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. And I urge strong support for the 
resolution which will allow us to finally bring about modernization of 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
majority leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  We are dealing, in these days, with serious issues. And serious 
people have been considering these issues in committee, and we will now 
consider them on the floor. This matter has been pending now for over 
half a year.
  Madam Speaker, in 1885, a young scholar wrote an influential book 
about the United States Congress entitled ``Congressional Government.'' 
And in that book he offered the following observations about 
legislative branch oversight, and he said this, ``Quite as important as 
legislation is vigilant oversight of the administration. Not any 
particular administration, but of the other coequal branch of 
government.''
  He continued, ``It is the proper duty of a representative body to 
look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about 
what it sees. The informing function of Congress, not just informing 
ourselves, but informing the American public as well, the informing 
function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative 
function.'' An interesting observation. Many years later, in 1913, that 
young scholar, Woodrow Wilson, became President of the United States.
  Congressional oversight of any administration is absolutely 
imperative to the proper functioning of our government, to our system 
of checks and balances, and to the fulfillment of our constitutional 
duty. A President who is forced to answer for his administration's 
actions, decisions, and conduct is a President who is less likely to 
amass power beyond that which the Constitution proscribes for his 
office or to imperil the welfare of our republic form of government. 
And that is the constitutional interest that today's resolution 
addresses.
  I support the rule before us because I believe in a system of checks 
and balances in which no branch holds itself above the constitutional 
objectives of the sharing of authority, which the Founders wisely 
believed was essential to protect against the abuse of that authority 
by any one of those branches.
  The issue before this body is not fundamentally whether the current 
administration acted properly and within the law when it dismissed 
seven U.S. attorneys in 2006, that may be the issue at some point in 
time, but unless we have the information to get to that point, such a 
question will be moot. Nor is this a partisan clash between a 
Democratic House and a Republican President. Rather, the basic issue 
before this House is this: whether this body and the committee system, 
which is central to our duties to perform meaningful and vigorous 
oversight, can simply be ignored by the executive branch when this body 
seeks testimony and documents relevant to an important public policy 
controversy.
  As the New York Times noted this morning, ``If Congress fails to 
enforce its own subpoenas, it would effectively be ceding subpoena 
power. It would also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea 
of an imperial President, above the law, and beyond the reach of checks 
and balances.''
  What profit it a Nation if we include checks and balances within our 
constitutional framework to protect our country's freedom, and more 
importantly, our people's freedom, if, in fact, we honor it only in the 
breach? And as Bruce Fein, the constitutional scholar and former 
Department of Justice official during the Reagan administration, has 
stated, ``If Congress shies from voting for contempt in this case, 
secret government will become the rule.'' This is perhaps the most 
secretive administration in our history. This is a danger to our 
democracy.
  He went on to say ``that Congress would be reduced to an ink blot on 
the constitutional map.'' That is why every one of us, every one of the 
435 of us who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the 
United States and uphold its laws, ought to vote for this resolution, 
because it does not matter whether there is a Republican President or a 
Democratic President, for them to refuse to respond to a subpoena of 
the Congress of the United States, and to even come here and claim a 
privilege, which they have not, our democracy will be lessened.
  I urge my colleagues to carry out the intent and the vision of the 
Founders and the writers of our Constitution. Support this resolution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would remind our 
colleagues that one of the reasons why the minority is outraged with 
the conduct of the majority today is that we are not even allowed to 
debate nor vote on the contempt resolutions, but rather on a rule that 
will

[[Page 2180]]

self-adopt, automatically adopt even resolutions of this magnitude of 
importance; totally unprecedented and uncalled for.
  Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
  Yesterday, the Democratic leadership tried to sweep a bipartisan FISA 
bill under the rug, and today they're trying to throw the President's 
Chief of Staff in jail. I am curious to know what happened to the 
pledge of partnership with Republicans in Congress, and with the 
President, and not partisanship.
  The vote we are going to take this afternoon has been festering since 
July, when the House Judiciary Committee decided to vote on holding 
White House officials in contempt. This pandering to the left reflected 
a political and unnecessary escalation on the part of the Democratic 
majority.
  The contempt resolution was approved on a straight party line vote in 
the committee, and today's vote will be the same. The threat of losing 
in court should be enough for this institution to back down from this 
escalation.
  My concern with the Democratic leadership's course of action is that 
it will likely weaken Congress' position in situations where we 
disagree with the President on matters of executive privilege. If the 
Speaker and the House Judiciary Committee chairman really cared about 
getting to the bottom of this matter, they could have taken the 
nonpolitical route, such as directing the House Office of General 
Counsel to file a civil lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia. This proposal, which I suggested last summer, 
would be a legitimate effort to resolve our issues with the President 
in an arena where the Congress would have equal footing.
  So, what's next? How will we rehabilitate our image to give the 
public confidence in the Congress? I don't think throwing the 
President's Chief of Staff in jail will do the trick.
  It amazes me that the Democratic leadership would bring such a 
divisive matter to the floor so soon after receiving accolades for 
working so well with the minority to pass an economic stimulus package.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Chairman, today is not about a FISA debate. 
Actually, it's not even about whether or not Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten 
have a right to claim an executive privilege. What it is about is does 
a person in this country have to follow the laws of the United States, 
follow the rule of law, follow the Constitution and abide by a legally 
administered subpoena.
  And I guess the best way to talk about that is to draw a comparison. 
Under the Constitution, a person has an absolute right to claim their 
fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. So, if a person is 
subpoenaed to testify in a criminal matter, they can't call the judge 
up and say, ``Judge, I think I might have a fifth amendment problem 
here. I'm not going to show up.'' The judge will tell them they have to 
be in court and they have to assert their fifth amendment right after 
they are asked a question. The same thing applies here. They have to 
appear before Congress and at least assert that right before they can 
claim some kind of privilege; otherwise, the entire system falls apart.
  Oh, today is a very important day for Congress. We are taking up a 
very, very important measure, and that is is the Constitution going to 
be followed and are we going to do our constitutional job.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished Member from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I have prepared a whole series of remarks to respond 
to the comments made on the floor as to the substance of the concept 
citation. Unfortunately, because we're only able to debate the rule, we 
don't have time to do that. Let me just try to make a couple of points 
here very quickly.
  First of all, the question is, is this the most important thing we 
should be doing today? Is there a time limit on the action of the House 
of Representatives that requires us to act on this today? And the 
answer is no. This doesn't expire today. It doesn't expire tomorrow. It 
doesn't expire the next day. We are able to do this anytime until the 
end of this Congress.
  But what does expire? The Protect America Act. It expires at midnight 
tomorrow. We should be doing the Nation's business with respect to 
that, rather than this. If, in fact, we are serious about the war on 
terror; if, in fact, we are serious about gathering that information 
which is necessary to protect us against those who would harm us and 
those we represent, we would be acting on the FISA Act reconstitution 
here today. We'd be acting on the Senate bill. That's the time limit.
  There is no reason for scheduling this today. We have had 8 months to 
schedule this. But yet we find that this is what we're going to be 
dealing with before we go home. And we're going to say it is 
unimportant as to whether or not we would continue with the Protect 
America Act. Unimportant except in the opinion of the number one 
intelligence officer in the United States, Admiral McConnell, who 
served under Democrat and Republican administrations, who told us if we 
allow this to go down, that is, the Protect America Act, we will close 
our eyes for 60 percent of the legitimate terrorist targets around the 
world prospectively.
  What are we doing here?
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California, the Chair of the Commercial and Administrative Law 
Subcommittee (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, we have 
reluctantly reached today's vote to hold former White House Counsel 
Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt 
of Congress.
  Since March 9 of 2007, Chairman Conyers and I have patiently 
negotiated in good faith to reach an accommodation with the White House 
for documents and testimony relevant to the U.S. Attorney 
investigation.
  Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Under normal instances, I would, 
but I don't have the time. I apologize.
  Mr. CANNON. I hope the gentlewoman will remain on the floor so that 
on my time I will be able to yield for a colloquy.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I apologize to the gentleman, but 
this is my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will proceed.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, we have patiently 
negotiated in good faith to reach an accommodation with the White House 
for documents and testimony relevant to the U.S. Attorney 
investigation. Unfortunately, the White House has stubbornly refused to 
move off its opening position, an unreasonable offer that testimony be 
given without an oath or a transcript and that any testimony and 
documents provided exclude internal White House communications. To have 
negotiations, concessions by both sides are necessary. Otherwise, it's 
just capitulation.
  I was extremely disappointed that Ms. Miers, Mr. Bolten, and the 
White House based their refusal to comply with our subpoenas on 
sweeping claims of executive privilege and immunity that some experts 
have called ``Nixonian in breadth.'' The subcommittee carefully 
considered these claims in two separate meetings last year. In detailed 
rulings, I found that these claims were not properly asserted and were 
not legally valid. Even if the claims were properly asserted and 
legally valid, the strong public need for

[[Page 2181]]

information about the U.S. Attorney firings substantially outweighs the 
assertion of executive privilege here.
  I was also very disappointed to hear from Attorney General Mukasey in 
testimony before the Judiciary Committee last week that he will direct 
the D.C. U.S. Attorney not to comply with the contempt statute, which 
provides that the U.S. Attorney ``shall'' refer the contempt citation 
to a grand jury for action after receiving it from the Speaker.
  Members on both sides of the aisle should recognize the gravity of 
this vote. If the executive branch is allowed to simply ignore 
congressional subpoenas while Congress stands idly by, we will have 
abdicated our role of oversight of the executive branch and undermined 
our system of checks and balances. Further, our lack of action will be 
cited by future Presidents as justification for questionable claims of 
executive privilege.
  I hope that my colleagues on the other side will stand together in 
support of this body's institutional prerogatives. Time is long overdue 
for Congress to reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government.
  I urge support of the rule and House resolutions 979 and 980.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, I would ask the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, who has oversight of 
this matter and which committee I rank on, to remain on the floor so we 
could have a colloquy on this issue.
  It appears that she has left the floor. That's unfortunate. Her 
response to my inquiry about yielding was that she didn't have enough 
time, and we are standing here today with very little time to debate an 
issue that is dramatically important. It's important for this 
institution, and, by the way, people on both sides of the aisle have 
said and the Speaker and majority leader have both made a point of how 
important this issue is to this body. It is vitally important to me 
that we retain the rights of this body as it relates to administration, 
whether that's a Republican administration or Democratic 
administration.
  In his opening statements, Mr. Diaz-Balart gave a quote from former 
Attorney General Janet Reno in which she said there was no right to do 
what we're trying to do today. I would have loved to have asked the 
chairman on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law if 
she thought that was the case or if she disagreed with what the scope 
of the right of the administration is to not appear.
  Obviously, there is a sense in this case that we ought to get 
something done; and, in fact, we have done a great deal. We have had 
hundreds of hours of depositions, literally tens of thousands of pages, 
tens of thousands of e-mails. We have asked questions of everyone 
involved in the matter in the case. And what have we come up with? I 
wanted to ask the chairman what the evidence we are going to present to 
the U.S. Attorney is that he can take and say, I have a need to get 
this information from these people in the administration who won't show 
up to the House. I have a need to understand these facts which seem to 
be in confusion. I have a need to decide what between these two 
different stories is the truth.
  But we haven't said that to him. We don't have evidence that we can 
give the U.S. Attorney. What we are giving to him is a desire to 
continue a witch hunt which has produced up to today zero, nothing, as 
far as I can tell; and I've been in every meeting, every hearing, and 
followed on every single deposition that we have had. There is nothing 
that indicates that anybody has lied or that there is a reason that the 
White House has been involved. And, therefore, there is no reason that 
I can understand, and I have asked many times on the record in 
committee hearings what those reasons are, what it is, what the 
discrepancies, what the problems are for which we need to subpoena 
people in the White House and create a showdown, a showdown between our 
institution and the White House. And I ask the gentleman, as the 
chairman of the committee has just risen to his feet, and I would love 
to yield to him if he is willing to answer that question: What are the 
discrepancies?
  Mr. CONYERS. We don't know because we can't get one sheet of paper 
from Mr. Bolten and nobody else will talk to us. That's precisely why 
we were forced to this position, sir.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the 
gentleman's position. The gentleman has said that eloquently in the 
past on many occasions. But we are now talking about getting a 
subpoena, enforcing a subpoena in a criminal process against people for 
whom we have no evidence, as far as I can tell, and I will be happy to 
yield to the gentleman if he has evidence, no evidence that they have 
been involved.
  There are no discrepancies in the testimony that we have had before 
us, is there?
  Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman is so kind to yield again, we don't 
have any evidence. We aren't accusing them of anything, sir. We're 
merely seeking the documents that could be relevant to the 
determination of whether the Department of Justice has been 
politicized.
  Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the 
gentleman's candor, and I appreciate the very gracious way the 
gentleman has handled this whole investigation. But it comes back down 
to this: we have no evidence.
  Let me just finish by saying that having seen this, if there was a 
conspiracy, and I know that the majority believes there is something 
evil that is happening out there, then we ought to have given enough 
time and enough context to be able to track that down and prove that 
this administration has done something wrong.
  As opposed to what the gentleman has just said, we have had a number 
of statements by the chairman of this committee saying that there is 
evidence of corruption. But we have had no evidence of corruption, none 
at all adduced anywhere from all the investigations we have done, and 
there is no basis for these contempt citations. I ask that we vote 
against them.

                                                Cooper & Kirk,

                                 Washington, DC, December 4, 2007.
     Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Smith: We write in response to your request for 
     our views regarding the legal issues raised by the Judiciary 
     Committee's resolution recommending that the House of 
     Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten in 
     contempt of Congress. Each of us has had substantial 
     experience in the Executive Branch, including in the Office 
     of Legal Counsel. Charles J. Cooper served as Assistant 
     Attorney General for the Office of legal Counsel from 
     November 1985 through July 1988. Howard C. Nielson, Jr. 
     served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 
     Legal Counsel from June 2003 through August 2005. In 
     addition, our law firm has successfully litigated a number of 
     significant separation of powers cases.
       We have reviewed the opinions of the Justice Department 
     regarding the assertion of executive privilege and 
     testimonial immunity in response to the Miers and Bolten 
     subpoenas. We have also reviewed the committee report 
     relating to this matter, the additional views of the Chairman 
     and Subcommittee Chair, and the minority views. The positions 
     asserted by the Administration reflect the longstanding and 
     considered views of the Executive Branch, views repeatedly 
     affirmed by Administrations of both parties. These views were 
     held during our tenures in the Office of Legal Counsel, and 
     we continue to believe that they are sound. Moreover, we 
     believe that a decision by the House to hold Ms. Miers and 
     Mr. Bolten in contempt would likely be a legally futile 
     gesture that could ultimately undermine Congress's ability to 
     obtain information from the Executive Branch.
       As an initial matter, even if the House votes to hold Ms. 
     Miers and Mr. Bolten in contempt, and even if a contempt 
     citation is referred to the appropriate United States 
     Attorney, the United States Attorney will have no choice but 
     to decline to take action on the matter. It has long been the 
     position of the Executive Branch that ``the criminal contempt 
     of Congress statute does not apply to the President or 
     presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege.'' 
     Application of 28 U.S.C. 458 to Presidential Appointments of 
     Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. 350, 356 (1995) (opinion of 
     Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger). As then-
     Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson explained the 
     position of the Executive Branch in 1984:
       ``First, as a matter of statutory interpretation reinforced 
     by compelling separation of

[[Page 2182]]

     powers considerations, we believe that Congress may not 
     direct the Executive to prosecute a particular individual 
     without leaving any discretion to the Executive to determine 
     whether a violation of the law has occurred. Second, as a 
     matter of statutory interpretation and the constitutional 
     separation of powers, we believe that the contempt of 
     Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not 
     constitutionally be applied to an Executive Branch official 
     who asserts the President's claim of executive privilege in 
     this context.''
       Prosecution for Contempt of Congress of an Executive Branch 
     Official Who Has Asserted a Claim of Executive Privilege, 8 
     Op. O.L.C. 101, 102 (1984); see also id. at 119, 129 
     (documenting similar positions taken by the Eisenhower and 
     Ford Administrations).
       While the Chairman and Subcommittee Chair note that Justice 
     Department opinions such as the Dellinger and Olson memoranda 
     are not binding on Congress or the Judiciary, such opinions 
     are binding on members of the Executive Branch--including the 
     United States Attorney to whom a contempt citation would be 
     referred. Furthermore, because a prosecutor's ``decision 
     whether or not to prosecute . . . generally rests entirely in 
     his discretion,'' Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 
     (1985), it is highly unlikely that Congress could obtain any 
     sort of judicial review of the United States Attorney's 
     refusal to submit the contempt citation to a grand jury.
       Assuming Congress could somehow obtain judicial review of 
     the claim of executive privilege, we believe that it could 
     not overcome that claim on the facts presented here. To be 
     sure, there is a paucity of judicial authority resolving 
     executive privilege disputes between Congress and the 
     Executive; still, the following factors should persuade a 
     court to uphold the claim of executive privilege here.
       First, the threshold arguments that executive privilege has 
     not been, or cannot be, properly invoked to protect the 
     communications at issue here appear insubstantial. The 
     Chairman and Subcommittee Chair have identified no 
     authority--and we are aware of none--requiring the Executive 
     Branch to submit a privilege log to sustain a claim of 
     executive privilege in a legislative proceeding. The letter 
     sent to Chairman Conyers by Counsel to the President 
     Fielding, written ``at the direction of the President'' to 
     ``advise and inform [Congress] that the President has decided 
     to assert Executive Privilege,'' Letter of Fred F. Fielding 
     to Chairmen Leahy and Conyers at 1 (June 28, 2007), plainly 
     suffices to invoke executive privilege under controlling 
     precedent. See In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 744, n.16 
     (D.C. Cir. 1997). And In re Sealed Case clearly establishes 
     that executive privilege extends to ``communications of 
     presidential advisors which do not directly involve the 
     President,'' id. at 751, and protects ``communications that 
     these advisors and their staff author or solicit and receive 
     in the course of performing their function of advising the 
     President on official government matters''--whether or not 
     the President is aware of those communications. Id. at 752. 
     Given the essential role of the President in appointing and 
     removing United States Attorneys, communications to or from 
     senior presidential advisors regarding the replacement of 
     United States Attorneys plainly fall within the scope of the 
     privilege recognized by In re Sealed Case. As the D.C. 
     Circuit explained, where ``the President himself must 
     directly exercise the presidential power of appointment and 
     removal . . . there is assurance that even if the President 
     were not a party to the communications over which the 
     government is asserting presidential privilege, these 
     communications nonetheless are intimately connected to his 
     presidential decisionmaking.'' Id. at 753.
       Second, there is nothing novel or unprecedented in the 
     claim of privilege here. On the contrary, many historical 
     precedents support the Administration's refusal to disclose 
     confidential communications and deliberations relating to the 
     appointment or dismissal of executive officers. For example, 
     as early as 1886, the Cleveland Administration rejected 
     Congress's attempt to obtain communications relating to the 
     dismissal of a district attorney (the historical predecessor 
     of today's U.S. Attorneys). As President Cleveland explained, 
     ``the documents related to an act (the suspension and removal 
     of an Executive Branch official) which was exclusively a 
     discretionary executive function.'' History of Refusals by 
     Executive Branch Officials to Provide Information Demanded by 
     Congress, 6 Op. O.L.C. 751, 767 (1982) (opinion of Assistant 
     Attorney General Theodore B. Olson); see also id. at 758-759 
     (discussing similar refusals to provide information regarding 
     the appointment or removal of executive officers by the 
     Jackson and Tyler Administrations). Furthermore, D.C. Circuit 
     precedent addressing executive privilege expressly recognizes 
     that ``confidentiality is particularly critical in the 
     appointment and removal context.'' In re Sealed Case, 121 
     F.3d 729, 753 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
       Third, when the judiciary has adjudicated executive 
     privilege disputes between Congress and the Executive, it has 
     required Congress to establish that the information it seeks 
     ``is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of 
     [Congress's] functions'' to overcome even a generalized claim 
     of executive privilege. Senate Select Committee on 
     Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 731 
     (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc). To satisfy this burden, it is not 
     enough for Congress to show that the information it desires 
     ``may possibly have some arguable relevance to the subjects 
     it has investigated and to the areas in which it may propose 
     legislation.'' Id. at 733. Rather, it must identify 
     ``specific legislative decisions that cannot responsibly be 
     made without access to materials uniquely contained in'' the 
     documents or testimony it seeks. Id. Furthermore, decisions 
     such as United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and In 
     re Sealed Case that limit executive privilege to accommodate 
     the special needs of the criminal justice system offer little 
     support for Congress here. As the D.C. Circuit has explained:
       ``There is a clear difference between Congress's 
     legislative tasks and the responsibility of a grand jury, or 
     any institution engaged in like functions. While fact-finding 
     by a legislative committee is undeniably a part of its task, 
     legislative judgments normally depend more on the predicted 
     consequences of proposed legislative actions and their 
     political acceptability, than on precise reconstruction of 
     past events; Congress frequently legislates on the basis of 
     conflicting information provided in its hearings. In 
     contrast, the responsibility of the grand jury turns entirely 
     on its ability to determine whether there is probable cause 
     to believe that certain named individuals did or did not 
     commit specific crimes.''
       Senate Select Committee, 498 F.2d at 732. Cf. Nixon, 418 
     U.S. at 713 (``Without access to specific facts a criminal 
     prosecution may be totally frustrated.'').
       Given the voluminous documentary evidence and testimony 
     already provided by the Executive Branch--not to mention the 
     additional documents and testimony that the White House has 
     offered to make available in attempt to resolve this 
     controversy, see e.g., Letter of Fred F. Fielding to Chairmen 
     Leahy and Conyers at 1-2 (June 28, 2007)--it seems clear the 
     lingering factual ambiguities identified by the Committee 
     Chairman and the Subcommittee Chair are inadequate to 
     overcome even a generalized claim of executive privilege 
     under controlling precedent. And a judicial determination to 
     that effect would plainly prejudice Congress's ability to 
     obtain sensitive information from the Executive Branch not 
     only in this investigation but in future investigations as 
     well.
       The Justice Department's determination that Ms. Miers is 
     immune from compulsion to testify before Congress likewise 
     reflects the longstanding and consistent position of the 
     Executive Branch. As Attorney General Reno explained in a 
     formal opinion to the President, ``It is the longstanding 
     position of the executive branch that `the President and his 
     immediate advisors are absolutely immune from testimonial 
     compulsion by a Congressional committee.' '' Assertion of 
     Executive Privilege with Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. 
     O.L.C. 1, 4 (1999) (quoting Memorandum from John M. Harmon, 
     Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: 
     Executive Privilege at 5 (May 23, 1977). This view is not 
     only that of the current Administration and the Clinton 
     Administration. As documented in Attorney General Reno's 
     opinion, this view also reflects the position of the Reagan, 
     Carter, and Nixon Administrations. See id. (collecting 
     opinions from Assistant Attorneys General Theodore B. Olson, 
     John M. Harmon, Roger C. Crampton, and William H. Rehnquist). 
     This view also reflects the position of the Johnson and 
     Truman Administrations. See History of Refusals, 6 Op. O.L.C. 
     at 771-72, 777-78. And as documented by the Justice 
     Department in its opinion regarding Ms. Miers, the Executive 
     Branch--including, again, Administrations of both parties--
     have long taken the position that the same immunity extends 
     to former Presidents and their Advisors. See Memorandum from 
     Stephen G. Bradbury, Principal Assistant Attorney General 
     Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Immunity of Former Counsel to 
     the President from Compelled Testimony at 2-3 (July 10, 2007) 
     (documenting positions taken by the Truman and Nixon 
     Administrations).
       In short, we believe the President's assertions of 
     executive privilege and testimonial immunity in this instance 
     are entirely constitutionally sound. We also believe that a 
     determination by the House to hold Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers 
     in contempt of Congress would be futile as a legal matter and 
     might ultimately prejudice Congress's ability to obtain 
     information from the Executive Branch.
           Sincerely,
     Charles J. Cooper.
     Howard C. Nielson, Jr.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the distinguished chairwoman from the Rules 
Committee, a native Kentuckyan and someone who has always stood for the 
finest traditions of this body.
  In November of 2006, the American people decided to give the 
Democrats the control of the House of Representatives and the Congress. 
I was fortunate

[[Page 2183]]

enough to be elected as one of the 43 new Democrats in that class.
  And many people have said, in examining that election, oh, we were 
elected because of the war in Iraq. But that's not what I heard. What I 
heard when I was campaigning in 2006, and I think most of my colleagues 
in this class would say the same thing, is we want to return the 
Government to the tenets of the Constitution. We want to restore the 
checks and balances that the Founding Fathers prescribed. We want to 
make sure that this President and every President is held accountable, 
is not above the law.
  So when we came here, one of the things we did was to start talking 
about article I, which established that all legislative powers herein 
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. We started 
wearing these buttons, article I buttons, and we offered them to 
Members of both parties, hoping that this would not be a partisan issue 
and not be an expression of partisanship but, instead, a respect for 
the integrity of this institution.
  Unfortunately, most of my colleagues on the other side chose not to 
wear these buttons. They have chosen to make this a partisan issue in 
spite of the fact that during the last 6 years before we took control 
of the Congress, no subpoenas were issued against this President. No 
efforts to hold him accountable were made, in spite of the fact that in 
the prior administration a thousand subpoenas were offered by the 
Republican Congress to the Democratic President.
  So, unfortunately, this has become a partisan issue when it shouldn't 
be. To me this is all about institutional integrity, about restoring 
the checks and balances.
  Fundamental to our power, legislative power, is our ability to gather 
information. If we do not stand up for our right to gather information, 
then in spite of the fact that my colleagues on the other side have 
said we may lose our prerogatives if we go to court, if we don't 
challenge the President on this issue, we will have surrendered our 
prerogatives; and that is the worst fate that we could commit this body 
to.
  So I would say, in closing, that many people look at polls today and 
say the standing of the Congress is at its lowest ebb ever, and they 
say maybe that's because we are not doing anything. I think it's 
because the American people recognize that we have been negligent in 
not upholding our responsibilities under the Constitution.
  This is an important step in restoring the integrity of this 
institution and restoring the confidence of the American people in this 
body in its willingness to respond to the dictates of the Constitution.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, rather than spinning our wheels on this 
issue, there is a much more important issue that we should be dealing 
with today, and the very safety of our Nation is at issue. I'm 
disappointed that we have reached the point in this House that 
reasonable minds could not prevail on an issue that involves the very 
safety of the American people.
  Last August Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the 
Protect America Act. This critical legislation closed the gaps which 
had previously caused the intelligence community to miss more than two-
thirds of all overseas terrorist communications, finally allowing the 
United States to stay one step ahead of the terrorists.
  The Senate amendments to H.R. 3773 would enable law enforcement and 
the intelligence community to continue their counterterrorism efforts, 
including working with telecommunications companies and allowing 
officials to gather intelligence from potential foreign terrorists 
outside the United States.
  At the same time, this bill is mindful of our Constitution and the 
protections it affords to U.S. citizens, whether they are inside or 
outside the United States. Furthermore, the authority provided by the 
bill would sunset in 6 years, allowing Congress to revisit any issues 
that might arise.
  We cannot afford to let the terrorists, particularly those who are 
conspiring abroad, to have the upper hand. Our law enforcement and 
intelligence communities must have every resource available to do their 
jobs in keeping this Nation safe. I urge my colleagues to support the 
United States, not the terrorists, by passing the Senate amendments to 
H.R. 3773.
  And I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), Chair of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. I wanted to respond, or continue our discussion that was 
raised by the gentleman from Utah. As a matter of fact, in our 
resolution recommending that contempt of Congress be issued, we found 
plenty of evidence of wrongdoing at the Department of Justice, nearly 
100 pages of it. This was voted out of the committee. For example:
  The decision to fire or retain some U.S. attorneys may have been 
based in part on whether or not their offices were pursuing or not 
pursuing public corruption or vote fraud cases based on partisan 
political factors;
  Department officials appear to have made false or misleading 
statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of 
White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney firings;
  Actions by some department personnel may have violated civil service 
laws.

                           Executive Summary

       To date, the committee's investigation--which has reviewed 
     materials provided by the Department of Justice in depth and 
     obtained testimony from 20 current and former Department of 
     Justice employees--has uncovered serious evidence of 
     wrongdoing by the Department and White House staff with 
     respect to the forced resignations of U.S. Attorneys during 
     2006 and related matters. This includes evidence that: (a) 
     the decision to fire or retain some U.S. Attorneys may have 
     been based in part on whether or not their offices were 
     pursuing or not pursuing public corruption or vote fraud 
     cases based on partisan political factors, or otherwise 
     bringing cases which could have an impact on pending 
     elections; (b) Department officials appear to have made false 
     or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to 
     minimize the role of White House personnel in the U.S. 
     Attorney firings, or otherwise obstruct the Committee's 
     investigation, and with some participation by White House 
     personnel; and (c) actions by some Department personnel may 
     have violated civil service laws and some White House 
     employees may have violated the Presidential Records Act.
       Based on this evidence, and because of the apparent 
     involvement of White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney 
     firings and their aftermath, the committee has sought to 
     obtain relevant documents from the White House and documents 
     and testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers--
     who appears to have been significantly involved in the 
     matter--on a voluntary basis and, only after taking all 
     reasonable efforts to obtain a compromise, on a compulsory 
     basis. The committee's subpoenas have been met with 
     consistent resistance, including wide-ranging assertions of 
     executive privilege and immunity from testimony. This has 
     gone so far that the administration indicated in July that it 
     would refuse to allow the District of Columbia U.S. 
     Attorney's office to pursue any congressional contempt 
     citation against the White House's wishes. In addition to the 
     many infirmities and deficiencies in the manner in which the 
     White House Counsel has sought to assert executive privilege, 
     in the present circumstance such privilege claims would be 
     strongly outweighed by the committee's need to obtain such 
     information.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask the 
distinguished chairwoman how many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Possibly five, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve at this time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) who serves on both the Committee on Rules and 
Judiciary.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, let us recall what this is all about. We 
are here today because the now-resigned Chief of Staff to former 
attorney, Alberto Gonzalez, ran a plan over a period of just under 2 
years during which

[[Page 2184]]

he maintained a revised list of U.S. attorneys to be fired or retained. 
If prosecutors were placed on this list for political reasons, or 
alternatively kept off because of a willingness to engage in political 
prosecutions, these actions are not only improper and illegal, but they 
constitute criminal abuse. These are serious allegations, and we have a 
constitutional duty to pursue this proceeding today.
  Congress is not only entitled to look into this matter, we must 
conduct a thorough oversight of the executive branch. Now, some of my 
colleagues argue that the United States attorneys serve at the pleasure 
of the President. However, it is very critical to note that throwing 
out this term, ``at the pleasure of the President,'' may be accurate in 
the sense that the President may fire somebody for no reason, Alberto 
Gonzalez can fire somebody for no reason, but they can't fire him for 
an illegal reason.
  And that is what we are looking at here. The Committee on the 
Judiciary Chairman Conyers testified yesterday that he pursued 
documents from the White House and the testimony of Ms. Miers and from 
Mr. Bolten for 8 long months, and in return the White House did not 
provide a single document and specifically directed Ms. Miers and Mr. 
Bolten to ignore the Judiciary Committee's subpoenas citing executive 
privilege.
  This is not a situation of exerting executive privilege, because Ms. 
Miers did not even show up for the hearings that they were called to 
testify before to assert that claim. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, it is 
one thing for them to decline to answer certain questions based on a 
claim of executive privilege; it is an entirely different matter to 
defy even orders to appear.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve, Madam 
Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time. I do serve on Judiciary Committee, 
and I looked at that empty chair that Ms. Miers was supposed to be 
sitting in when she was asked to testify before our committee.
  Nothing is more contemptuous of an official than not to simply 
appear. To appear by counsel, to appear in person, to allege a 
privilege is one thing. Not to show up is the uttermost peak of 
contempt that a person could have for the Congress and for the 
legislative body. She didn't even send a little note, Ms. Miers 
regretfully cannot attend your hearing.
  This is the highest contempt. We are representatives of the people, 
and we are upholding the Constitution and our jobs as being an equal 
branch of government, which this legislative body is, and there is no 
such thing as an imperial Presidency, and no one is above the law.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) from the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. WEXLER. Madam Speaker, no one is immune from accountability and 
the rule of law, not Harriet Miers or Josh Bolten, and especially not 
President Bush or Vice President Cheney.
  It is high time to defend the Constitution and Congress as a coequal 
branch of government. Our liberty and freedoms as Americans are 
dependent upon the checks and balances that protect our Nation. Not 
since Watergate, not since Watergate has a President so openly 
disregarded the will of Congress. Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers have 
blatantly ignored congressional subpoenas, thumbing their nose at 
Congress and our obligation of legitimate oversight.
  The power of the congressional subpoena safeguards our liberty. It 
protects against an all-powerful President. The Constitution demands 
that we hold these renegade officials in contempt of Congress.
  Thank you, Madam Chairman.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that the 
wearing of communicative badges is not in order while under 
recognition.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to 
reserve.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
resolution. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as Members 
of a coequal branch of government to issue these contempt citations to 
members of the Bush administration who clearly feel that they are above 
the law.
  Last year, when the Judiciary Committee was legitimately 
investigating the political purge of U.S. attorneys and conducting 
oversight into the politicization of the Justice Department, 
administration officials not only failed to turn over key documents 
after receiving subpoenas, they didn't even bother to show up to 
testify.
  Madam Speaker, I am deeply frustrated by this administration's 
continued stonewalling and, frankly, the contempt that it has shown for 
Congress. As our former Republican colleague Congressman Mickey Edwards 
told our committee, the administration's actions have been outrageous 
and it continues to erode the separation of powers.
  I applaud Chairman Conyers' patience and his many attempts to resolve 
this situation short of the manner in which we will today, but I know I 
speak for many of my colleagues when I say enough is enough.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask the 
distinguished chairwoman how many speakers she has remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I believe I have just one. And so I will yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues of the 
Judiciary Committee, and I thank my colleagues of the Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, I stand on this floor with a very heavy heart. It is a 
heavy heart compounded by the fact that Harriet Miers is my friend. We 
practiced law together in the State of Texas. We worked together. And 
so it is very difficult to stand here today and to acknowledge what is 
an enormous crisis in our Government, and that is the lack of 
recognition of the constitutional premise of the three equal branches 
of Government. I came yesterday to talk of the embeddedness of the 
Constitution not only in many books but also in the hearts of 
Americans. When I go home to Texas, people still ask the question: What 
are you doing about the U.S. attorney situation? What happened to the 
fairness and integrity of the appointment process? The American people 
want to know. We are now doing their bidding. They want us to be able 
to clear the air.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, let me tell you, John Conyers 
has the patience of Job. Over and over again, and Chairwoman Sanchez, 
over and over again, working with Ranking Member Cannon, said that we 
wanted to do this in a way that you could come and give information, 
that information could be transcripted. We will then try to find out 
the truth.
  We come here with a broken heart, a humble spirit, but with the 
Constitution deeply embedded in our heart, recognizing that there is 
nothing to protect if the President says that he is not involved.
  Let the Constitution stand. Let us do what we are supposed to do. My 
friends, vote for this in a bipartisan way so that the Constitution 
remains sacred in our hearts and in this country.
   Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 982, which 
provides that upon adoption of the rule, both H. Res. 979 recommending 
that the House of Representatives find former White House Counsel 
Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt 
of Congress for their refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the 
Committee on the Judiciary and H. Res. 980--Authorizing the Committee 
on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to 
enforce certain subpoenas are adopted. Both

[[Page 2185]]

of the resolutions were introduced by my distinguished colleague from 
Michigan, the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.


                              H. Res. 979

   This resolution highlights the accountability issues that this body 
has continued to have with the Bush administration. This committee made 
attempt after attempt to secure critical information voluntarily from 
both former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of 
Staff Joshua Bolten. At no point did they cooperate and comply with our 
requests. Even as this committee directed their appearance by subpoena, 
the White House sought to avert our inquiries by citing executive 
privilege.
   Instead, the White House offered this committee a very limited 
inquiry, completely controlled by providing: (1) virtually no access to 
internal White House documents, (2) no questioning regarding internal 
White House discussions, and (3) no interview transcripts. The White 
House is not bluffing with this act of defiance. Rather, it seems the 
Bush administration wants to test, and attempt to expand, the limits of 
presidential power.
   Madam Speaker, it was on July 12, 2007 that Ms. Harriet Miers was 
asked to testify before the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
Administrative Law investigating the removal of U.S. attorneys by the 
Bush administration, and did not attend. That same day, the 
subcommittee's Chair, the Honorable Linda Sanchez, undertook the 
preliminary steps necessary to declare Miers in contempt. The 
subcommittee voted 7-5 that there was no legal justification for Ms. 
Miers's failing to appear pursuant to the subpoena.
   Notwithstanding this blatant affront to the House Judiciary 
Committee, Republican Members allowed party affiliation to trump 
institutional responsibility, just as they had when they controlled 
Congress. The Minority continues to make excuses for the Bush 
administration's defiance, and appears content to let the President 
slight the subcommittee by instructing both Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten to 
not testify.


                 H. Res. 980 and CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

  Congresssional oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated 
power. My colleagues across the aisle may make the argument that 
nothing explicitly grants this body the authority to conduct inquiries 
or investigations of the Executive, to have access to records or 
materials held by the Executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or 
testimony from the Executive.
   However, congressional investigations sustain and vindicate our role 
in our constitutional scheme of separated powers. The rich history of 
congressional investigations from the failed St. Clair expedition in 
1792 through Teapot Dome, Watergate, and Iran-Contra, has established, 
in law and practice, the nature and contours of congressional 
prerogatives necessary to maintain the integrity of the legislative 
role. Numerous Supreme Court precedents recognize a broad and 
encompassing power in this body to engage in oversight and 
investigation that would reach all sources of information necessary for 
carrying out its legislative function. Without a countervailing 
constitutional privilege or this body self-imposing a statutory 
restriction on our authority, this chamber, along with our colleagues 
in the Senate, have plenary power to compel information needed to 
discharge our legislative functions from the Executive, private 
individuals, and companies.
   In McGrain v. Daugherty, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the 
power of inquiry, with the accompanying process to enforce it, ``an 
essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.'' 
Senate Rule XXVI, 26, and House Rule XI, 11, presently empower all 
standing committees and subcommittees to require the attendance and 
testimony of witnesses and the production of documents. This chamber 
was given an implied power of oversight by the U.S. Constitution; that 
power has supported by our 3rd branch of government, the Supreme Court; 
we ourselves have expressed this authority in our Senate and House 
Rules, and yet two attorneys under the direction of the White House 
continue to tell us we do not have the proper authority.


 H.R. 5230, Contempt of the House of Representatives Subpoena Authority 
                          Act of 2008 [110th]

   On February 6, I introduced legislation that would amend Title 28, 
of the United States Code and grant this chamber the statutory 
authority to bring a civil action to enforce and secure a declaratory 
judgment to prevent a threatened refusal or failure to comply with any 
subpoena or order for the production of documents, the answering of any 
deposition or interrogatory, or the securing of testimony issued by the 
House or any of its committees or subcommittees.
   Once we pass H.R. 5230, we should have no further need to adopt 
resolutions for authorization to enforce certain subpoenas; we would 
already hold that statutory authority. As it stands now, we must 
collectively support both H. Res. 979 and H. Res. 980 under H. Res. 
982, the adopted rule. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H. Res. 982 an important piece of legislation that allows 
for not only accountability but enforcement.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask the distinguished 
chairwoman if she has no other speakers, obviously besides herself.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. That's correct, if the gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Actually I will yield myself 2 
minutes at this time.
  The actions of the majority today are unprecedented. We have checked 
with the House Parliamentarian, and they are absolutely and totally 
unprecedented, that privileged resolutions would be taken to the floor 
in this fashion, in effect, avoiding even the floor by virtue of the 
fact that when the rule is passed, the rule that we are debating, 
automatically the two privileged resolutions of contempt will be 
considered adopted. That is absolutely unprecedented as well as 
uncalled for.
  And the nature of the actions of the majority today are most, most 
unfortunate. I had the recent opportunity to speak at Florida 
International University's law school. Professor Levitt asked me to 
speak there about the rule of law. In studying, restudying the issue, 
the rule of law, I stressed how the independence of the judiciary is 
perhaps the key, or certainly one of the fundamental keys, to the rule 
of law. And judicial restraint has permitted the judiciary to remain 
independent throughout these two-plus centuries. All of the branches, 
Madam Speaker, must exercise restraint.
  And the actions of the majority today manifest the opposite, not only 
restraint, but I would say unprecedented, uncalled for, an 
unprecedented and uncalled for manner of dealing with even an issue of 
this importance.
  As I stated, the majority is not even allowing debate on the 
resolutions of contempt, not even permitting votes on the resolutions 
of contempt.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                          ____________________