DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—House H5556

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record—House H5556 H5556 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE May 22, 2007 section 546 in two critical respects. First, it ef- tigation, which they surmised may have led to Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield fectively removed district court judges from the their forced resignations. back the balance of my time. interim appointment process and vested the Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act Reau- The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. PAS- Attorney General with the sole power to ap- thorization provision on interim United States TOR). The question is on the motion of- point interim United States Attorneys. Second, Attorneys should be repealed for two reasons. fered by the gentleman from Michigan the Act eliminated the 120-day limit on the First, Members of Congress did not get an op- (Mr. CONYERS) that the House suspend term of an interim United States Attorney ap- portunity to vet or debate the provision that is the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. pointed by the Attorney General. As a result, current law. Rather, the Republican leadership 214. judicial input in the interim appointment proc- of the 109th Congress slipped the provision The question was taken. ess was eliminated. Even more problematic, it into the Conference Report at the request of The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the created a possible loophole that permit United the Department of Justice. Not even Senate opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being States Attorneys appointed on an interim basis Judiciary Chairman ARLEN SPECTER, whose in the affirmative, the ayes have it. to serve indefinitely without ever being sub- chief of staff was responsible for inserting the Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that jected to Senate confirmation process, which provision, knew about its existence. I demand the yeas and nays. is plainly a result not contemplated by the Second, it is now clear that the manifest in- The yeas and nays were ordered. Framers. tention of the provision was to allow interim The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Mr. Speaker, excluding changes in adminis- appointees to serve indefinitely and to cir- ant to clause 8 of rule XX and the tration, it is rare for a United States Attorney cumvent Senate confirmation. We know now, Chair’s prior announcement, further to not complete his or her 4-year term of ap- for example, that in a September 13, 2006 e- proceedings on this question will be pointment. According to the Congressional Re- mail to former White House Counsel, Harriet postponed. Miers, Attorney General Chief of Staff, Kyle search Service, only 54 United States Attor- f neys between 1981 and 2006 did not com- Sampson wrote: plete their 4-year terms. Of these, 30 obtained I strongly recommend that, as a matter of NO OIL PRODUCING AND Administration policy, we utilize the new EXPORTING CARTELS ACT OF 2007 other public sector positions or sought elective statutory provisions that authorize the At- office, 15 entered or returned to private prac- torney General to make U.S. Attorney ap- Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move tice, and one died. Of the remaining eight pointments. to suspend the rules and pass the bill United States Attorneys, two were apparently Mr. Sampson further said that by using the (H.R. 2264) to amend the Sherman Act dismissed by the President, and three appar- new provision, DOJ could ‘‘give far less def- to make oil-producing and exporting ently resigned after news reports indicated erence to home-State Senators and thereby cartels illegal, as amended. they had engaged in questionable personal get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) The Clerk read the title of the bill. actions. do it far faster and more efficiently, at less po- The text of the bill is as follows: Mr. Speaker, in the past few months dis- litical cost to the White House.’’ H.R. 2264 turbing stories appeared in the news media re- Regarding the interim appointment of Tim Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- porting that several United States Attorneys Griffin at the request of Karl Rove and Harriet resentatives of the United States of America in had been asked to resign by the Justice De- Miers, Mr. Sampson wrote to Monica Good- Congress assembled, partment. It has now been confirmed that at ling, Senior Counsel to the White House and SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. least seven United States Attorneys were Liaison to the White House on December 19, This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Oil Pro- asked to resign on December 7, 2006. An 2006 the following: ducing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007’’ or eighth United States Attorney was subse- I think we should gum this to death: ask ‘‘NOPEC’’. quently asked to resign. And we learned on the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet SEC. 2. SHERMAN ACT. May 10, the day the Attorney General testified with him, give him some time in office to see The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) is before the House Judiciary Committee, we how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, amended by adding after section 7 the following: ‘no never’ (and the longer we can forestall learned that a ninth United States Attorney ‘‘SEC. 7A. (a) It shall be illegal and a violation that, the better), then we can tell them we’ll of this Act for any foreign state, or any instru- had been asked to resign as part of the purge. look for other candidates, and otherwise run mentality or agent of any foreign state, to act The names of the fired United States Attor- out the clock. All of this should be done in collectively or in combination with any other neys are as follows: ‘good faith,’ of course. foreign state, any instrumentality or agent of H.E. (‘‘Bud’’) Cummins, III, U.S. Attorney Finally, we now know that after gaining this any other foreign state, or any other person, (E.D. Ark.); John McKay, U.S. Attorney (W.D. increased authority to appoint interim United whether by cartel or any other association or Wash.); David Iglesias, U.S. Attorney (D. States Attorneys indefinitely, the administration form of cooperation or joint action— N.M.); Paul K. Charlton, U.S. Attorney (D. has exploited the provision to fire United ‘‘(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum prod- Ariz.); Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney (S.D. Calif.); States Attorneys for political reasons. A mass Daniel Bogden, U.S. Attorney (D. Nev.); Kevin uct; purge of this sort is unprecedented in recent ‘‘(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural Ryan, U.S. Attorney (N.D. Calif.); Margaret history. The Department of Justice and the gas, or any petroleum product; or Chiara, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Mich.); and Todd White House coordinated this purge. Accord- ‘‘(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint P. Graves, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Mo.). ing to an administration ‘‘hit list’’ released in of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2007, the Judici- March of this year, United States Attorneys product; ary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commer- were targets for the purge based on their when such action, combination, or collective ac- cial and Administrative Law held a hearing en- rankings. The ranking relied in large part on tion has a direct, substantial, and reasonably titled, ‘‘Restoring Checks and Balances in the whether the United States Attorneys foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, Confirmation Process of United States Attor- ‘‘exhibit[ed] loyalty to the President and Attor- or distribution of oil, natural gas, or other pe- neys.’’ Witnesses at the hearing included six ney General.’’ troleum product in the United States. of the eight former United States Attorneys Mr. Speaker, until exposed by this unfortu- ‘‘(b) A foreign state engaged in conduct in and William Moschella, Principal Associate violation of subsection (a) shall not be immune nate episode, United States Attorneys were under the doctrine of sovereign immunity from Deputy Attorney General, among other wit- expected to, and in fact did exercise, wide dis- the jurisdiction or judgments of the courts of the nesses. cretion in the use of resources to further the United States in any action brought to enforce Six of the eight former United States Attor- priorities of their districts. Largely a result of its this section. neys testified at the hearing and each testified origins as a distinct prosecutorial branch of the ‘‘(c) No court of the United States shall de- that he or she was not told in advance why he Federal Government, the office of the United cline, based on the act of state doctrine, to make or she was being asked to resign. Upon fur- States Attorney traditionally operated with an a determination on the merits in an action ther inquiry, however, Messrs. Charlton and unusual level of independence from the Jus- brought under this section. Bogden were advised by the then Acting As- tice Department in a broad range of daily ac- ‘‘(d) The Attorney General of the United States may bring an action to enforce this sec- sistant Attorney General William Mercer that tivities. That practice served the Nation well tion in any district court of the United States as they were terminated essentially to make way for more than 200 years. The practice that has provided under the antitrust laws.’’. for other Republicans to enhance their creden- been in place for less than 2 years has served SEC. 3. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. tial and pad their resumes. In addition, the Nation poorly. It needs to end.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SENATE—Tuesday, March 7, 2006
    March 7, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 2723 SENATE—Tuesday, March 7, 2006 The Senate met at 9:45 a.m. and was We will be returning to the lobbying side our borders, burning the American called to order by the PRESIDENT pro reform bill today. We will begin consid- flag is intended to intimidate, not to tempore (Mr. STEVENS). ering amendments. Therefore, in addi- engage in constructive speech. tion to the LIHEAP bill, we will have I believe the amendment process is PRAYER votes in relation to the amendments to the appropriate remedy to the Court’s The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- the lobbying reform bill. 1989 decision. As Harvard law professor fered the following prayer. I also expect the Senate to recess Richard Parker explains: Let us pray. from 12:30 until 2:15 for the weekly The amendment process is essential to the Our Father in heaven, today we party luncheons. Constitution’s deepest foundation—the prin- praise You because Your loving kind- I say again to all colleagues who ciple of popular sovereignty affirmed in its ness endures forever. You have blessed want to finish the lobbying bill this first words, ‘‘We the people.’’ Making use of week that we certainly want to allow this process reaffirms and thus preserves this land with freedom and abundance. that foundation. Thank You for spacious skies and adequate time for Members to offer amber waves of grain. amendments. I urge Members to come Since I first came to the Senate in Teach us to be thankful even when forward early.
    [Show full text]
  • White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas Hearings
    WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 6 AND 7, 1997 Serial No. 105–61 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45–405 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Jan 31 2003 08:13 May 28, 2003 Jkt 085679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\45405 45405 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E.
    [Show full text]
  • Depoliticizing the Interim Appointments of US Attorneys
    LIVE AND LEARN: DEPOLITICIZING THE INTERIM APPOINTMENTS OF U.S. ATTORNEYS t Laurie L. Levenson The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.' I. INTRODUCTION U.S. Attorneys play a special role in our federal criminal justice system. As the representatives of the federal government, they have the responsibility of enforcing federal laws in their respective districts.2 3 Although U.S. Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President," the4 goal is to have a fair and impartial prosecutor administering the laws. The recent firing of eight U.S. Attorneys has called into question at- tempts to politicize the role of this vital Office. By attempting to give the Attorney General the power to make indefinite interim appointments, I Professor of Law, William M. Rains Fellow & Director, Center for Ethical Advocacy, Loyola Law School. Thank you to John McKay, a man of true integrity, for inviting me to participate in the Symposium at Seattle University School of Law. His courage, as well as that of his fellow U.S. Attorneys, Paul Carlton, David Iglesias, Bill Cummins III, and Carol Lam, should serve as an inspi- ration for others dedicated to public service. I also wish to extend my gratitude to the editors of the Seattle University Law Review and to my wonderful research assistants, Emil Petrossian, Lindsay Meurs, William Smyth, and Mary Gordon.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2009 Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward Daniel C. Richman Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Daniel C. Richman, Political Control of Federal Prosecutions: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 58 DUKE L. J. 2087 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2464 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL CONTROL OF FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS: LOOKING BACK AND LOOKING FORWARD DANIEL RICHMANt ABSTRACT This Essay explores the mechanisms of control over federal criminal enforcement that the administration and Congress used or failed to use during George W. Bush's presidency. It gives particular attention to Congress, not because legislators played a dominant role, but because they generally chose to play such a subordinate role. My fear is that the media focus on management inadequacies or abuses within the Justice Department during the Bush administrationmight lead policymakers and observers to overlook the
    [Show full text]
  • 1- United States District Court for The
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 08-0409 (JDB) HARRIET MIERS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This dispute pits the political branches of the federal government against one another in a case all agree presents issues of extraordinary constitutional significance. The heart of the controversy is whether senior presidential aides are absolutely immune from compelled congressional process. But as is often true of lawsuits that raise important separation of powers concerns, there are many obstacles to the invocation of the jurisdiction of the federal courts that must first be addressed. The Committee on the Judiciary (“Committee”), acting on behalf of the entire House of Representatives, asks the Court to declare that former White House Counsel Harriet Miers must comply with a subpoena and appear before the Committee to testify regarding an investigation into the forced resignation of nine United States Attorneys in late 2006, and that current White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten must produce a privilege log in response to a congressional -1- subpoena. Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten (collectively “the Executive”)1 have moved to dismiss this action in its entirety on the grounds that the Committee lacks standing and a proper cause of action, that disputes of this kind are non-justiciable, and that the Court should exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction. On the merits, the Executive argues that sound principles of separation of powers and presidential autonomy dictate that the President’s closest advisors must be absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress, and that the Committee has no authority to demand a privilege log from the White House.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation Into the Removal of Nine U.S
    U.S. Department of Justice An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Office of Professional Responsibility September 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1 I. Methodology of the Investigation ....................................................... 2 II. Organization of this Report ............................................................... 4 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND.................................................................. 7 I. U.S. Attorneys .................................................................................. 7 II. Selection of U.S. Attorneys................................................................ 8 III. Department Evaluation and Interaction with U.S. Attorneys ............. 9 IV. Backgrounds of Department Officials.............................................. 10 A. Alberto Gonzales ................................................................... 11 B. Kyle Sampson ....................................................................... 11 C. Monica Goodling ................................................................... 11 D. Paul McNulty ........................................................................ 12 E. Michael Elston ...................................................................... 12 F. David Margolis ...................................................................... 13 G. William Mercer .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of Justice
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 10, 2007 Serial No. 110–58 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:30 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 H:\WORK\FULL\051007\35245.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35245 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:30 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 H:\WORK\FULL\051007\35245.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35245 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 10, 2007 Serial No. 110–58 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35–245 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:30 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\WORK\FULL\051007\35245.000 HJUD1 PsN: 35245 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C.
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment Inquiry: William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States Presentation on Behalf of the President
    IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PURSUANT TO H. RES. 581: PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT DECEMBER 8 AND 9, 1998 Serial No. 68 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 52±320 WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 1 VerDate 21-DEC-98 10:55 Jan 12, 1999 Jkt 053320 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\RENEE\53320P2.000 53320p PsN: 53320p COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas JERROLD NADLER, New York ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California ED BRYANT, Tennessee MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts BOB BARR, Georgia ROBERT WEXLER, Florida WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas THOMAS BARRETT, Wisconsin EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah JAMES E. ROGAN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARY BONO, California (II) VerDate 21-DEC-98 10:55 Jan 12, 1999 Jkt 053320 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\RENEE\53320P2.000 53320p PsN: 53320p MAJORITY STAFF THOMAS E.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Investigation of the US Attorney Firings in 2006
    School of Economic, Political and Policy Studies Haphazard, Systematic, or Both? An Empirical Investigation of the US Attorney Firings in 2006 UT Dallas Author(s): Banks Miller Rights: ©2018 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved. Citation: Miller, Banks and Brett Curry, "Haphazard, Systematic, or Both? An Empirical Investigation of the US Attorney Firings in 2006," Journal of Law and Courts 6, no. 2 (Fall 2018): 379-403. This document is being made freely available by the Eugene McDermott Library of the University of Texas at Dallas with permission of the copyright owner. All rights are reserved under United States copyright law unless specified otherwise. Haphazard, Systematic, or Both? AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE US ATTORNEY FIRINGS IN 2006 BANKS MILLER, University of Texas at Dallas BRETT CURRY, Georgia Southern University ABSTRACT In 2006, the Bush administration directed nine US attorneys to resign. This decision was a partial cause of the attorney general’s departure from the administration, and it prompted investigations and congressional hearings. Seen as largely ad hoc, we argue that theory predicts a more systematic decision-making process. We investigate this empirically and find, consistent with literature on principal-agent theories and bureau- cracy, that performance on easily monitored metrics and adverse-selection concerns predict the firings. We explore the implications of these findings for efforts to centralize decision-making in the Department of Justice and to exert political control over US attorneys. As the federal government’s principal litigators, US attorneys (USAs) occupy a central role in the justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • Impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton
    106TH CONGRESS DOCUMENT 1st Session SENATE 106±3 "! IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD PURSUANT TO S. RES. 16 VOLUME VII Transcript of October 5, 1998 presentations of David Schippers and Abbe Lowell, and debate on H. Res. 581, beginning an impeachment inquiry. Committee Print, Ser. No. 8, December 1998 Printed at the direction of Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate, pursuant to S. Res. 16, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999) JANUARY 8, 1999.ÐOrdered to be printed 1 105th Congress Ser. No. 8 2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT "! AUTHORIZATION OF AN INQUIRY INTO WHETHER GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE IM- PEACHMENT OF WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MEETING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HELD OCTOBER 5, 1998 PRESENTATION BY INQUIRY STAFF CONSIDERATION OF INQUIRY RESOLUTION ADOPTION OF INQUIRY PROCEDURES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS HENRY J. HYDE, Chairman DECEMBER 1998 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 53±446 WASHINGTON : 1998 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERROLD NADLER, New York ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California ED BRYANT, Tennessee MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio WILLIAM D.
    [Show full text]
  • Ffffil:::L}:H,Ä:Re Available on Rhe Senate and House Judiciary -2
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information and privacv Telephone: (202) S I 4-3642 llashington, D.C. 205 30 JUL | 7 2008 Kevin S. Bankston, Esq. Re: DAG/05-R0327 Electronic Frontier Foundation OLP/O5-R0329 454 Shotwell Street oLA/05-R0330 San Francisco, CA 94II0 CLM:LAD Dear Mr. Bankston: This is aftnal response to your Freedom of Information Act request dated January 13, 2005' and received in this office on January 24,2005,for records pertaining to ,,DoJ,s understanding and use of its statutory authority to conduct InternefsurveiilÃce using so-called 'pen registers' and 'trap and trace devices,' both before and after the passage of the usA patriot Act'" This response is made on behalf of the offices of the Deputy Attomey General, Legal Policy and Legislative Affairs. I apologi ze forthe delay oiflrir^r"rpon.., *úirh was caused by the need to consult with other Department components. 'we have completed our searches in the offices of the Deputy Attorney Policy General, Legal and Legislative Affairs and have located lwenty-six documents, totaling two-hundred and eighty-five pages that arc responsive to your request. I have determined that seventeen documents, totaling one-hundred and ninty-ttref pug.. *. upp.opriate for release without excision and copies are enclosed. Please úe a¿viseithat portions of these documents contained information that was outside of the scope of your request. we have redacted such information and marked it accordingly. Additionalþ, ¡"o ¿ocumr"ir, toturirrg five pages are appropriate for release with excisions made pursuant to Exemptions 5 anã 6 of the rorn,"s us.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Ilnitrd ~Tatts ~Fnatf RICHARDJ
    PATRICKJ. LEAHY. VERMONT. CHAIRMAN EDWARD M. KENNEDY. MASSACHUSETTS ARLEN SPECTER.PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH R. BIDEN. JR.• DELAWARE ORRIN G. HATCH. UTAH HERB KOHL. WISCONSIN CHARLES E. GRASSLEY. IOWA DIANNE FEINSTEIN. CALIFORNIA JON KYL. ARIZONA RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD. WISCONSIN JEFF SESSIONS. ALABAMA CHARLES E. SCHUMER. NEW YORK LINDSEY O. GRAHAM. SOUTH CAROLINA ilnitrd ~tattS ~fnatf RICHARDJ. DURBIN. ILLINOIS JOHN CORNYN. TEXAS BENJAMIN L. CARDIN. MARYLAND SAM BROWNBACK. KANSAS SHELDON WHITEHOUSE. RHODE ISLAND TOM COBURN. OKLAHOMA COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY BRUCEA. COHEN.Chief Counsel and Staff Director WASHINGTON, DC 2051Q-6275 MICHAELO·NEILL.Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director May 16,2007 Fred Fielding, Esq. Counsel to the President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Fielding: I have reached out to you many times during the past two months seeking voluntary cooperation from the White House with the Judiciary Committee's investigation into the mass firings and replacements of U.S. Attorneys. To date the White House has not produced a single document or allowed even one White House official involved in these matters to be interviews. It appears from the evidence gathered by the Committee in five hearings, eight interviews with current and former officials from the Department of Justice, and review of the limited documents produced by that Department that White House officials played a significant role in developing and implementing the plan for the dismissals. Indeed, the plan seems to have originated in the White House and was formulated by and with coordination of the White House political operation. Along with nine other Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I sent you a letter on March 22,2007, explaining why your "take it or leave it" offer of off-the-record backroom interviews was unacceptable because it would constrain the Committee's and the public's access to key information and prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
    [Show full text]