[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2185-2191]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           MOTION TO ADJOURN

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I move that the 
House do now adjourn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of 
order that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 2, nays 
400, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 59]

                                YEAS--2

     Johnson (IL)
     Young (AK)
       

                               NAYS--400

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)

[[Page 2186]]


     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Ackerman
     Brown, Corrine
     Costa
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Edwards
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Green, Gene
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hunter
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Lowey
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Peterson (PA)
     Renzi
     Ruppersberger
     Solis
     Tierney
     Towns
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. McHUGH, Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota, Messrs. LINCOLN DAVIS of 
Tennessee, HIGGINS, SESTAK, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. RUSH, and Ms. BERKLEY 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 59, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 59, on the motion 
to adjourn, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes 
remaining; the gentlewoman from New York has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the balance of our time 
to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, many of you have heard 
me say on numerous occasions that I think the American people sent us 
here to work together to get things done on behalf of our country.
  Over the last couple of weeks, we have had an opportunity with the 
economic growth package to work in a bipartisan way on behalf of the 
American people, and I really think it showed our Chamber and our 
Congress at its best. But I don't think there is any priority that we 
have that is more important than protecting the American people.
  For more than 6 months, we have reached out to the majority on the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because we want to give our 
intelligence officials all the tools they need to protect us. That bill 
that was passed in late July expired on February 1, and several weeks 
ago we provided an extension that runs out on Saturday. But for the 
last 6 months, as we have tried to come to an agreement on this bill, 
we have reached out to the majority, trying to find common ground, and 
we have been turned down at every turn.
  This week, the President, the Senate, and, frankly, a majority of the 
Members of this House have said enough is enough, no more extensions. 
But instead of working with the Republicans and Democrats who are 
interested in working on this bill that would protect our country and 
protect the American people by passing the bipartisan Senate Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance bill, the House floor is the scene of a 
partisan political stunt.
  Yesterday, the majority leader said that this political stunt would 
occur today because we have space on the House schedule. In other 
words, we have space on the calendar today for a politically charged 
fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the 
American people from terrorists who want to kill us.

                              {time}  1345

  Madam Speaker, I think this is the height of irresponsibility. It is 
an insult to this House, and it is an insult to the American people. 
The actions on the floor of this House today will not make America 
safer. It will not help us protect Americans from being attacked.
  Earlier today, the President announced that he would delay his trip 
to Africa, a long-planned trip. He would delay it so he could work with 
us to sign the long-term Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
modernization law into law. House Republicans stand ready to stay here 
as long as it takes to get this bill passed and get it to the 
President's desk.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we will not stand here and watch this floor be 
abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national 
security. We will not stand for this, and we will not stay for this. I 
would ask my House Republican colleagues and those who believe that we 
should be here protecting the American people not vote on this bill; 
let's just get up and leave.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is an interesting turn of events. 
They are apparently attaching no importance whatsoever to the 
Constitution of the United States. But that has not always been the 
case. I want to read to you a little from the debate in 1998 when Mr. 
Boehner speaks.
  Mr. Boehner says: ``Mr. Speaker, it is time for the stonewall tactics 
to end and the cooperating to begin. Whether it is stalling on basic 
requests for information or invoking executive privilege, the result is 
the same: the American people are denied the right to know what is 
going on inside their White House. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is 
what this fight is about, the American people's right to know what 
happens in their government.
  ``The government does not belong to politicians in Washington, D.C. 
This government belongs to the American people, and they have a right 
to know what happens in Washington, D.C. They have a right to know what 
is going on in their White House.''

[[Page 2187]]

  I concur completely with Mr. Boehner on that statement. I want 
neither Republican nor Democrat President to stonewall the House of 
Representatives or Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  The debates we have been having over the past few days are 
consequential and about the most important thing that this body does, 
and that is uphold the law. Not just pass the law, uphold the law.
  As I said a little earlier in this debate, part of that was 
overseeing the executive branch to ensure that they execute our laws 
appropriately and legally. And the Congress has been given under the 
Constitution the authority to seek information. The Judiciary Committee 
has sought information and that information has not been forthcoming. 
The Congress, as Mr. Boehner said, cannot do its job if the Congress 
simply fails to assert its constitutional role.
  Now there is a situation that we confront that a large number say 
they want to adjourn. They have been making motion after motion after 
motion to adjourn and they haven't been voting for it, but they have 
been making it.
  And now they walk off the floor on the assertion that we are not 
working. They assert that we are not passing the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act. They assert that, but they all voted to a person not 
to give us the time to perform our extraordinarily important duties in 
resolving the differences between the Senate and the House in a 
conference committee.
  Now, I will tell my friends on the Republican side of the House, they 
know as well as I do that the reason the Senate did not pass us a bill 
3 months after we passed our bill to them was because of Republican 
delay in the United States Senate. That's the reason this bill is so 
late getting to us. That is the reason we don't have the time to work 
it out. That is the reason we are not passing legislation.
  Now, the President asserts that the expiration of the Protect America 
Act will pose a danger to our country. The former National Security 
Council Adviser on Terrorism says that is not true. Former Assistant 
Attorney General Wainstein says that is not true. Numerous others, and 
the chairman, have asserted that is not true. Why is it not true? 
Because FISA will remain in effect.
  The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect. 
And if there are new targets, a FISA Court has full authority to give 
every authority to the administration to act.
  So I tell my friends, we are pursuing the politics of fear, unfounded 
fear; 435 Members of this House, and every one of us, every one of us, 
wants to keep America and Americans safe. Not one of us wants to 
subject America or Americans to danger.
  The President's assertion is wrong. I say it categorically: the 
President's assertion is wrong. Now the President says he will delay 
his trip to stay here and work with us. I know Mr. Reyes and Mr. 
Conyers will be contacting Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Leahy to discuss 
with them how we might move forward. They in turn will talk with their 
Republican counterparts, as well, to see how we can move forward.
  But the time that we asked for, less than 24 hours after the Senate 
passed us a bill, the time we asked for to elect this process, which is 
the normal legislative process to bring the Senate and the House 
together to fashion a bill that both Houses feel comfortable with, feel 
is good for America, was denied to us yesterday by unanimous vote by 
the minority party and gave us no time to accomplish that objective.
  The President said he was going to veto it, which is why I presume 
all of you voted against it, because, of course, in the first 6 years, 
we never passed anything to the President that he wasn't supportive of. 
We were a very cooperative Congress with this President. This President 
is not used to the Congress saying, We may have a different view, Mr. 
President. We, too, have a responsibility and we may see it slightly 
differently than you.
  But, yes, as the leader on the other side said, we have come 
together. We worked together. We passed a stimulus package together. We 
can do that on this bill. But we can't do it overnight. This matter is 
much too serious to do it overnight.
  My friend from the Rules Committee indicates that this does not give 
us full time for debate on this rule. He opposes this rule. The 
interesting thing is he says contrary, we ought to be considering 
something overnight, overnight, without any time to consider it in 
conference.
  The minority has now effected a strategy that they tried to use on 
the agriculture bill: let's work, but by the way, we are leaving. And 
why are we leaving? We are leaving so we can preclude a majority 
responding to a quorum call and if a majority does not respond, we will 
have to go out of session. So it is somewhat ironic that on the one 
hand they say we ought to be doing something, and on the other hand 
they walk out to preclude us from doing our business.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I simply rise to say that my very good 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, is incorrect when he 
said that we are asking for a measure to be considered overnight. On 
Tuesday of this week, this measure was sent to this House. We have had 
an opportunity, as we have looked at the issue of FISA modernization 
since July of this past year to get it done, and there is an urgency at 
this moment. So it has not been overnight.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. There is no 
urgency. That claim is a claim made to stampede this House and the 
American people, I tell my friend from California. And the reason that 
there is no urgency is because in 1978 this Congress passed legislation 
to ensure the fact that we could intercept communications while at the 
same time protecting our Constitution. That is why there is no urgency.
  Is there an important reason to act? There is. Do we have every 
intention of acting? We do. But we will not be presented with a bill on 
Tuesday night and be asked to pass it on Wednesday afternoon without 
full and fair consideration. That is our duty, that is our 
responsibility, and that is what we will do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I began my speech today by saying we 
must not always live our lives hoping simply to land on a safe square. 
Some votes may be tough. This one isn't. The first thing we do when we 
enter this Congress is swear to uphold the Constitution of the United 
States. That is what we are asking you to do today on both sides of the 
aisle. For some of our friends, it is obviously easier for them to 
pass; they would rather not vote on this. But for the rest of us, let 
us stand up to our duty, why we were sent here, and reassert that the 
Congress of the United States is a co-equal branch, and vote ``yes'' on 
this.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the contempt 
resolutions. Unfortunately, these resolutions are necessary for 
Congress to meet its Constitutional obligations and conduct oversight 
and investigations. We provided many opportunities for the 
administration to avoid this situation. But here we are.
  We are here today to consider issuing contempt citations for former 
White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh 
Bolten for their failure even to appear in response to valid subpoenas 
issued in our investigation of the firings of a number of United States 
Attorneys and related matters concerning the politicization of the 
Justice Department. We issued these subpoenas only after repeated 
unsuccessful attempts to secure their cooperation voluntarily.
  It is one thing to assert a legal privilege; but no one has a legal 
right simply to refuse to appear at all.
  This investigation seeks answers to ensure that the American people 
can trust the Justice Department to be guided by the law and not by 
political obligations or pressures.

[[Page 2188]]

  This resolution is about the rule of law. We are taught about a 
system of checks and balances to prevent abuses, but this Executive has 
shown that it thinks the rules do not apply to it. This sets a 
dangerous precedent for our democracy. Our system of government works 
only when each branch respects the authority and role of the others, 
and follows the rule of law.
  For the sake of our democracy, for the sake of the rule of law, and 
for the sake of our Constitution, I urge my colleagues to support the 
resolutions.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, I plan to vote in favor of this 
resolution--first and foremost--because of the essential importance of 
maintaining the constitutional role of the Congress as a coequal branch 
of government with the executive. However, the partisan division over 
this resolution is highly regrettable and serves to obscure the vital 
principles at stake.
  As my colleagues are well aware, the House Judiciary Committee has 
initiated an inquiry into the unusual firing of several U.S. Attorneys. 
The impartial administration of federal law around the nation depends 
upon the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. 
Attorneys. The decisions of the department and the officials who 
implement its vast legal authority should be free of even the 
appearance of impropriety, and free of politics. This is true under any 
administration, regardless of party.
  The importance of the committee's inquiry into this matter is clear. 
In order to secure the facts necessary to make an informed judgment 
regarding the propriety of those firings, the committee first sought 
the voluntary cooperation of the administration in producing all of the 
information the committee needed to form a fair assessment. When that 
cooperation was not forthcoming, subpoenas were duly issued to Chief of 
Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. On 
the basis of an assertion of executive privilege, neither complied with 
the subpoenas. In the face of the White House's inflexibility and 
refusal to cooperate, the committee ultimately voted to approve a 
contempt citation and bring the matter before the House.
  I still believe that focusing on civil proceedings as a way to 
resolve the dispute could have garnered bipartisan support, and thereby 
avoided much of the partisan division we have witnessed regarding this 
resolution. However, that is not the choice before the House today. We 
must choose between recognizing and supporting the constitutional role 
of Congress, or allowing the administration to direct officials and 
former officials to ignore an important inquiry under way in the House.
  At this crucial moment in our nation's history, it's more important 
than ever to maintain the balance of powers between the federal 
government's executive and legislative branches. That balance was 
carefully designed by the Founders, and we have consistently seen 
through the years the wisdom of that arrangement. Over the last several 
years, we witnessed first-hand the unfortunate and regrettable 
consequences when that balance was disturbed, and Congress failed to 
carry out its oversight responsibilities. The American people deserve 
better.
  Thus, I cast my vote today not only to support the centuries-old role 
of the House under the Constitution, but for greater transparency, 
greater accountability, and to ensure the fair administration of 
federal law. Once the facts are known, the House can make an informed 
judgment about what course of action is best. Until we learn what the 
administration knows, but isn't willing to share with the Congress, we 
cannot form a final judgment in this matter.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I regret that it is necessary 
for the House to consider this matter today, but I will support the 
resolution because I have concluded that the Bush administration has 
made it necessary to do so. When this is disposed of, I hope we can 
promptly return to the pressing needs of the American people that 
Congress needs to address.
  Last year, the Judiciary Committee began reviewing the actions of the 
administration related to the firings of a number of U.S. Attorneys and 
allegations that this was part of a pattern of improper politicization 
of the Justice Department.
  After failing to get requested information voluntarily, the Committee 
served subpoenas on then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of 
Staff Josh Bolten. The president then invoked executive privilege and 
Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten, despite the subpoenas, refused to appear 
before the Committee. In response, the Judiciary Committee approved a 
resolution citing them both for contempt of the Congress.
  I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert on questions of 
executive privilege. But it seems clear to me that the administration 
has refused to negotiate in good faith to resolve this matter, offering 
only to allow some interviews under severe restrictions, including a 
bar to keeping of transcripts.
  This is not the first time Congress has sought information from a 
president's advisors. The Congressional Research Service reports there 
have been 74 instances since World War II where even sitting White 
House advisers, including White House counsel, have testified before 
Congress, including 17 between 1996 and 2001. But I am not aware of any 
instance in which executive privilege has been invoked as a reason why 
a former advisor--such as Ms. Miers--will not even make an appearance 
before a Congressional committee in response to a subpoena.
  And I am not persuaded by the administration's explanations about why 
it refused to allow Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolton to even appear, let alone 
to testify. For example, we have been assured that the President was 
not involved in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys. But if that is 
true, how can executive privilege, which is intended to assure that a 
president will receive candid advice, apply to this matter?
  After reviewing the history of this matter, I find myself in 
agreement with someone who is both a lawyer and a distinguished former 
Member of Congress--Mickey Edwards, who during his service here as a 
Representative from Oklahoma chaired the Republican Policy Committee.
  Commenting on this matter, he has written, ``If Congressional leaders 
are not able to persuade the administration to reverse its position and 
allow Ms. Miers to testify and Mr. Bolten to produce documents, then 
all Members of Congress, regardless of party, should insist that the 
subpoenas be enforced promptly and vigorously and to use civil 
litigation if, as the White House has hinted, it prohibits the D.C. 
U.S. Attorney from performing his enforcement duties.''
  I agree, and because that is exactly the purpose of this resolution, 
I will vote for it.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution. Many Americans are frustrated and angry because they 
believe that this administration is not being held to account for its 
actions. Now, after 7 years, much of the public turns this frustration 
at Congress because it is the branch with the responsibility for 
oversight.
  Last year, the House Judiciary Committee undertook a very serious 
investigation into allegations that a number of key law enforcement 
officers in our country--United States attorneys--were being fired for 
their unwillingness to respond to political pressure in various cases. 
This led to information about other actions that were clearly 
politicizing the work of the Department of Justice. You will hear 
people on the other side talk about the investigation wasting time. 
This was no fishing expedition. The fact is that the revelations from 
this investigation led to the resignation of the Attorney General of 
the United States.
  We are here today because this administration responded to a 
legitimate investigation--the exercise of our oversight duty--by 
stonewalling in the extreme. The disrespect shown to this body has been 
stunning, culminating in the fact that when the committee subpoenaed 
the testimony of Harriet Miers, neither she nor her attorney bothered 
to even show up to assert the privilege she claimed.
  To justify the administration's behavior, the President has asserted 
an astonishingly broad theory of executive privilege which claims that 
any document or information from any individual who has ever worked for 
the President is covered and therefore immune from being compelled to 
testify before Congress. This view of executive privilege may be 
unprecedented in our history, and if accepted, it would chill any 
meaningful oversight of the executive branch and grant near limitless 
power to the President to hide information from Congress, the courts, 
and the American people.
  The utter contempt shown by this administration toward Congress and 
its constitutional duties is unacceptable, and to permit these actions 
to stand unchallenged would be an abrogation of our constitutional 
responsibility.
  Approving these contempt resolutions would send a strong message to 
the administration that Congress will not be ignored. At the end of the 
day, whether civil or criminal action is successful, our most important 
goal should be getting to the truth.
  If we do not respond to the administration's disregard of the 
legislative branch, we risk rendering permanent damage to our own 
institution and to this country's cherished system of checks and 
balances. Failure to act will also set a dangerous precedent that 
future administrations will almost assuredly seek to exploit. To my 
colleagues on the other side who are trying to dismiss these 
resolutions as partisan--I urge you not to be shortsighted. This is not 
a partisan issue. It is a matter that

[[Page 2189]]

strikes at the heart of our democracy and the checks and balances on 
which it depends.
  Congress has been eminently patient in awaiting the President to 
provide information on the U.S. attorneys scandal. Yet, rather than 
work with us to get to the bottom of wrongdoing in his administration, 
the President has continued his pattern of actively hiding possible 
evidence of illegal behavior by high-ranking officials in his 
Government and stonewalling any inquiries to get to the truth. Because 
it is each Member's very responsibility to support and defend the 
Constitution, we have absolutely no other choice than to pursue this 
action against the President's Chief of Staff and his former chief 
legal counsel. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. 
Res. 982, a resolution recommending that the House find White House 
Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet 
Miers in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas 
properly issued by the Judiciary Committee.
  Recommending the House cite someone for contempt of Congress is a 
significant step, one that I support under only the most necessary 
circumstance. Regrettably, it is a step that must be taken. Since 
assuming office in 2001, the Bush Administration has repeatedly thumbed 
its nose at Congress, ignored our constitutional mandate as a check 
upon the executive branch.
  This resolution comes after the Judiciary Committee attempted for 
months to gain access to information requested by the committee. The 
Congress has a responsibility to investigate this matter and therefore, 
the White House's refusal to cooperate with the Congress leaves us no 
choice.
  Testifying before the House Rules Committee yesterday, my colleague 
John Conyers said that he had written nine letters over more than 8 
months trying to resolve this matter. But despite properly issued 
subpoenas, the White House had ``determined that it has the unilateral 
authority to prevent Mr. Bolten from providing us with a single piece 
of paper and to prevent Ms. Miers from even showing up at a committee 
hearing.'' Madam Speaker, the President is wrong and we have a 
responsibility to the American people to correct him.
  If the executive branch can disregard congressional subpoenas in this 
way, we no longer have a system of checks and balances. That is the 
cornerstone of our democracy, and it is our responsibility to protect 
it. That is why I am proud to join my colleagues today in support of 
the resolution.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H. Res. 982, yet I feel a great sense of disappointment that Congress 
has been put in the position to take such action. This resolution 
recommends that the U.S. House of Representatives finds White House 
Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet 
Miers in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas 
issued by the Committee on the Judiciary. Furthermore, H. Res. 982 
authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in 
judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.
  Over the past year, Congress has been investigating the firing of 
U.S. Attorneys by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales based on 
what appears to be purely political grounds. Congress has been 
investigating with the intent of exposing any wrongdoing and to restore 
integrity and transparency to the Justice Department. Clearly, Congress 
and the American people will not tolerate an Attorney General, our 
Nation's top law enforcement officer, politicizing the conduct of the 
Department of Justice. Congress and the American people have the right 
to know what role Bush administration officials have played in the 
dismissal of these Federal prosecutors--including the former U.S. 
Attorney for Minnesota.
  In July of 2007, Congress subpoenaed Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers after 
previous requests for information from them had been denied. At the 
direction of the White House, Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers refused to 
comply with the Congressional subpoenas. They cited executive privilege 
in an apparent attempt to avoid answering questions under oath as to 
their involvement and their knowledge of the involvement of others in 
the firing of the U.S. Attorneys.
  Now, Congress has decided it must hold Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers 
responsible for their failure to appear. A subpoena from Congress is 
not to be ignored. Their decision to dismiss the Congressional subpoena 
like a piece of junk mail is regrettable and has serious consequences 
as H. Res, 982 demonstrates.
  The Executive Branch--regardless of occupant of the White House--must 
be held accountable by both Congress and the American people. The Bush 
administration too often forgets that Congress is a co-equal branch of 
government and deserves open and honest cooperation when conducting 
oversight duties. H. Res. 982 reflects the House of Representatives' 
frustration with the conduct of this White House in impeding legitimate 
oversight and I strongly support the passage of this resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 982 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the 
     following:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before 
     consideration of any order of business other than one motion 
     that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a 
     procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign 
     intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment 
     thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the 
     Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without 
     intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.

[[Page 2190]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I demand a 
recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 32, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 173, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               AYES--223

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                                NOES--32

     Aderholt
     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Gallegly
     Hall (TX)
     Hoekstra
     Johnson (IL)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LoBiondo
     McHugh
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Poe
     Ramstad
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Weller
     Wittman (VA)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Porter
       

                            NOT VOTING--173

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 4 minutes remaining to vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
is 1 minute remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1423

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 60 on H. Res. 982, 
Contempt on Miers and Bolten, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. By the adoption of House Resolution 982, 
House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980 stand adopted.
  The text of House Resolution 979 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 979

       Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the 
     refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to appear 
     before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 
     as directed by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for 
     the District of Columbia, to the end that Ms. Miers be 
     proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law; and 
     be it further
       Resolved,  That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the 
     refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to 
     testify before the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
     Administrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the United 
     States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that 
     Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form 
     provided by law; and be it further
       Resolved,  That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the 
     refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to 
     produce documents to the Subcommittee on Commercial and 
     Administrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the United 
     States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that 
     Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form 
     provided by law; and be it further
       Resolved,  That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
     report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the 
     refusal of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to 
     produce documents to the Committee on the Judiciary as 
     directed by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the 
     District of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bolten be proceeded 
     against in the manner and form provided by law.

  The text of House Resolution 980 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 980

       Resolved, That the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary is authorized to initiate or intervene in judicial 
     proceedings in any Federal court of competent jurisdiction, 
     on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, to seek 
     declaratory judgments affirming the duty of any individual to 
     comply with any subpoena that is a subject of House 
     Resolution 979 issued to such individual by the Committee as 
     part of its investigation into the firing of certain United 
     States Attorneys and related matters, and to seek appropriate 
     ancillary relief, including injunctive relief.

[[Page 2191]]

       Sec. 2.  The Committee on the Judiciary shall report as 
     soon as practicable to the House with respect to any judicial 
     proceedings which it initiates or in which it intervenes 
     pursuant to this resolution.
       Sec. 3.  The Office of General Counsel of the House of 
     Representatives shall, at the authorization of the Speaker, 
     represent the Committee on the Judiciary in any litigation 
     pursuant to this resolution. In giving that authorization, 
     the Speaker shall consult with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
     Group established pursuant to clause 8 of Rule II.

                          ____________________