Today, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers testified before the Committee on Rules in support of statutory contempt and civil litigating authority resolutions against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.
Text of Resolution as Introduced (pdf) >>
Full text of his statement below:
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Drier, members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on two related resolutions: 1) H. Res. 979, the Judiciary Committee’s 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 duly issued by the Committee, and 2) H. Res. 980, a privileged resolution I introduced today authorizing the Committee to initiate or intervene in civil judicial proceedings to enforce those subpoenas.
Recommending that the House cite someone for contempt of Congress is a step that the Committee, and I as Chairman, take with great reluctance. Unfortunately, it is a step that is clearly necessary to preserve the role and constitutional prerogatives of Congress as an institution, in addition to getting to the bottom of the U.S. Attorney controversy.
The Judiciary Committee voted on July 25 to recommend the contempt resolution because, despite months of effort to secure voluntary compliance, the White House has refused to provide access to crucial information requested by the Committee. In fact, as of today, I have written nine letters over more than eight months trying to resolve this matter. But despite duly issued subpoenas, the White House has 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.
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 bipartisan responsibility to protect it. As our former colleague, Republican Mickey Edwards, has explained, taking action is crucial in order to defend Congress “as a separate, independent, and completely equal branch of government.”
Because the White House has refused to reconsider its confrontational position, I believe we have no choice but to bring this contempt resolution to the floor promptly and to ask that this Committee adopt a rule to facilitate doing so.
Along with the contempt resolution, I ask the Committee to include in its rule the appropriate process for consideration of H. Res. 980, a privileged resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to initiate or intervene in civil litigation to enforce these two subpoenas. The need for this resolution became clear just last week, when the Attorney General unfortunately testified before our Committee that he is inclined to follow the White House’s view and forbid enforcement of the contempt resolution.
Under the contempt statute, the U.S. Attorney “shall” refer the contempt citation to a grand jury for action after receiving it from the Speaker. Unfortunately, only last week Attorney General Mukasey testified before our Committee that he is inclined to follow the view of the White House and not enforce contempt despite the clear statutory command.
In light of that, the privileged resolution introduced today follows the suggestion first made by former Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner last year and authorizes the House general counsel to file a civil suit to enforce the subpoenas. That way, if the Administration refuses to enforce the contempt finding, we can take action in the courts to vindicate Congress’ authority.
Although Mr. Sensenbrenner suggested a civil lawsuit as an alternative to contempt, the courts have made clear that statutory contempt must be tried first. In a lawsuit in the 1980s, when the Justice Department tried to get a civil court ruling after the House had found a former EPA Administrator in contempt, the court ruled that it should “defer to established statutory procedures” on contempt and that a civil lawsuit could be pursued only after statutory contempt remedies are exhausted. Here, a civil suit would be filed only after the Administration refuses to allow statutory contempt to go forward.
Accordingly, I request that these two companion resolutions be considered together by the Committee and referred for action on the floor as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Here’s a conjecture. Obama’s decisive wins are putting some spine into at least some Democrats. I don’t think Conyers would have done this as openly as he did — i.e., without getting the get-go from Nancy and Steny ahead of time — without the resounding victories and the huge Democratic advantage in the primary votes. This will pick up steam because if Obama gets the nod for the Dems in the next couple of weeks, he will be in a position to support the subpoenae. As a Constitutional lawyer — which is what he taught — he knows the stuff inside-out. This is a win-win situation for him and for us. He puts the Administration on notice that this is going to be an election issue.
What’s the issue? That nobody is above the law. This plays well in a lot of places, not just here.
This also makes sense of the “impeachment is off the table” thing from last year – hashing this out now makes the 2008 election an explicit referendum on the Bush Administration, a referendum that the Republicans can not defend, putting the GOP on the defensive or, better yet, on our side of the argument. We could actually see the GOP drafting articles of impeachment in order to save their own hides before it’s over with, or they can go down with the ship. They’ve been forked.
Of course, we are talking about the Democratic Leadership here so it’s also possible that this fortunate set of circumstances had nothing to do with their planning…
and this will accomplish what exactly?
seriously, l’d really like to know.
neither ag muckasey, nor the d.c. district court is going to enforce it. are they going to send the sergeant at arms out with a posse of federal marshals and bring them in dead or alive?
it’s just another harshly worded letter…total waste of time…aka: bullshit posturing.
with impeachment off the table he’s trying to operate under the new rules:
this is nothing but another kabuki, and a poor one at that…l am neither impressed, nor amused.
You’re actually quite close, Dada. Congress is empowered to act on it’s own, and without the assistance of a U.S. Attorney nor the A.G.
Congress can issue a contempt citation and have either the Sergent at Arms or a deputized federal marshal execute it. They can even have a person arrested.
This specific question came up previously and was answered by a legal authority.
l understand what they can do…but l don’t believe they will do.
the kabuki kontinues…
[should have used a <snark> tag]
i will believe it when i see it.
otherwise, i am not impressed.
ooh, big words. and maybe a sternly worded letter.
I am reminded of Joe Strummer’s comments when he was aksed what he thought of the new Led Zeppelin album.
“I don’t even have to listen to it, I can tell it’s crap just by the cover.”
that’s what happens when you make promises you don’t intend to keep. no one takes you at your word anymore.
Almost a year after he got the finger?
What bravdo!