Providing for Adoption of H. Res. 979, Recommending Miers and 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

Floor Speech

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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: 12:30]

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.''

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

[Page: H952]

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 Sánchez, 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source