[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10105-10106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PARTISAN ACRIMONY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Tomorrow will be a peculiar day in 
Washington and in American politics.
  Republicans will denounce ideas that they enthusiastically supported 
until those ideas became associated somehow with the Obama 
administration. We expect to hear the ruling on the individual mandate 
across the street at the Supreme Court. The individual mandate was the 
centerpiece of Republican health care proposals until the Obama 
administration embraced it. Then the Republicans decided it was an 
outrageous infringement on personal liberty.
  Here in this Chamber, we will debate Operation Fast and Furious. Most

[[Page 10106]]

Democrats, including me, don't really even quite get what the supposed 
scandal is about, but have always thought that gun sales in large 
quantities to drug cartels was just generally a bad idea. For 
Republicans, on the other hand, the gun sales that were part of 
Operation Fast and Furious appear to be the only gun sales they've ever 
had a problem with. We will also have a 180-degree reversal on the 
issue of information that Congress can require as part of our oversight 
powers.
  I was an Oversight Subcommittee chairman for 4 years. I believe 
congressional oversight is an important check on the executive branch 
of government, an established, important part of our Republic system of 
checks and balances. I support investigations that might make an 
administration of my own party look foolish or worse. I want people who 
have the power of government, of either party, to be accountable for 
their decisions. I want them to pause over how they will explain their 
decisions in public; and if they can't explain them, maybe they 
shouldn't do it. Congressional oversight exposes and deters abuses of 
power and garden-variety stupidity of which there is plenty in the 
public sector, in the private sector, and in all activities in which 
human beings are involved.
  But the courts have also recognized that uninhibited, candid 
discussions improve decisions. Decisions are less likely to be stupid 
when they are carefully discussed, and the courts protect the privacy 
of some discussions within the executive branch to further the goal of 
fewer stupid decisions. The courts recognize a strong privilege for 
discussion between the President and his top advisers and a lesser 
privilege, a qualified privilege, for other debates within the 
executive branch.
  When I was an Oversight Subcommittee chairman, I read many of the 
court decisions that discussed those privileges. Anyone who says that 
the law is clear, in that what is privileged and what is not is well 
defined, is misinformed or dishonest.
  Five years ago, the Democratic majority disagreed with a Republican 
President over whether information we sought as part of our oversight 
powers was privileged. There was plenty of partisan acrimony at the 
time, but we found a simple solution. We filed a lawsuit to ask a judge 
to decide whether we were entitled to the testimony and the documents 
that we had subpoenaed. The Bush administration argued that the court 
shouldn't decide the case. The judge disagreed. The judge said that 
enforcing subpoenas and deciding what testimony or documents are 
privileged is something courts do every day. Judges expect lawyers to 
make careful, calm arguments based on the law and the facts; and they 
have little patience for tedious, dishonest talking points or personal 
attacks.
  The debate here tomorrow will not even remotely resemble a legal 
argument in court. So we could go now to a court to clarify the law. I 
would support that. Many Democrats would support that--but no. Instead, 
House Republicans are going to force a vote to prosecute the Attorney 
General for the crime of taking a plausible position on uncertain legal 
issues. Instead of asking for a careful, calm decision by a judge on a 
legal issue, House Republicans are choosing an intemperate, acrimonious 
debate here in this Chamber over legal issues about which few Members 
have the first clue.
  Why? The only possible reason is that House Republicans just like 
partisan acrimony.

                          ____________________