[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 11313-11314]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 H. RES. 711, RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND ERIC 
   H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IN 
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED 
          BY THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 12, 2012

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution holding Attorney General 
Eric H. Holder, Jr. in contempt of Congress and the accompanying report 
approved by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have 
significant flaws. Although some are simply misleading, others are 
significant legal deficiencies and factual errors that may call into 
the question the validity of the Resolution itself. These flaws are 
described in detail in a document available at http://go.usa.gov/vSU 
and are hereby incorporated for the record into these remarks.
  For example, the Resolution and report would hold the Attorney 
General in contempt for not producing documents that were never 
demanded by the Committee's subpoena. The Committee's subpoena was 
issued on October

[[Page 11314]]

11, 2011, and it explicitly demanded documents up to the date it was 
issued. Documents created after October 11, 2011, clearly fall outside 
of the scope of the subpoena.
  Yet, the Resolution and report would hold the Attorney General in 
contempt for not producing documents created between October 11, 2011, 
and December 2, 2011. The Resolution states, ``That Eric H. Holder, 
Jr., Attorney General of the United States, shall be found to be in 
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional 
subpoena.'' The report explicitly covers documents from the date the 
Department sent a letter to Senator Charles Grassley on February 4, 
2011, to the date it formally withdrew that letter on December 2, 2011. 
The report states that the Attorney General should be held in contempt 
for not producing documents regarding ``why it took so long for the 
Department to withdraw the letter.''
  Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa reiterated his demand for 
documents covering this time period before an ``emergency meeting'' of 
the Rules Committee. When asked about this deficiency, the 
interpretation he provided of his own subpoena was incorrect. He 
stated: ``. . . [runs to the end of this Congress].'' In contrast, the 
text of the subpoena itself states: ``With the exception of paragraphs 
4 and 5, the time period covered by this subpoena is from August 1, 
2009 to the present, unless otherwise specified.'' Since the subpoena 
was issued on October 11, 2011, it clearly covered documents only until 
October 11, 2011. Under the Chairman's interpretation, the subpoena's 
reference to ``the present'' actually would mean ``the future.''
  The Committee's full subpoena is available for review at http://
go.usa.gov/wuD and is hereby incorporated for the record into these 
remarks.
  It should come as no surprise that the Resolution and Committee 
report contain such obvious deficiencies because Republican House 
leaders rushed to schedule the Floor vote only one week after the 
Committee voted on a strictly party-line basis to approve them.

                          ____________________