Vote Notes on Legislation

The House issued a subpoena ordering the Attorney General to produce the audio recording of the Robert Hur interview with President Biden. The administration based its decision not to prosecute Mr. Biden on Hur’s assessment that a jury would view him sympathetically as an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Meanwhile, the same administration is vigorously attempting to jail President Trump for the same offense. Knowing the full context of this interview requires all of the non-verbal cues that a written transcript cannot fully and faithfully reproduce. This understanding is essential to inform the House whether a double standard is being applied and what statutory changes may be necessary to correct it. The Attorney General has defied the House subpoena, making specious claims of executive privilege that are certain to be struck down by the courts. The House has held the Attorney General in contempt, but the Department of Justice that he heads refuses to prosecute him. This produces a second glaring double standard, since that same Justice Department has already prosecuted and jailed two Trump administration officials for the same offense. To enforce its subpoena, the House is pursing the matter in court in order to obtain a ruling on the legality of the Attorney General’s refusal to comply. This is the appropriate response, and the same process that ultimately compelled Richard Nixon to turn over tape recorded conversations in the Watergate investigation. Nevertheless, a resolution proposing to invoke “Inherent Contempt” against the Attorney General was brought to the floor. It levies a fine against the Attorney General of $10,000 a day until he complies. “Inherent Contempt” is an established – although seldom used -- power that Congress holds to defend its own proceedings, including the issuance of subpoenas. Under several Supreme Court decisions, this allows the House to arrest individuals and bring them to the bar of the House to answer for their conduct. The last time the House invoked this power was in 1934. This resolution is a gross misuse of this power and I oppose it.

This bill is a collection of several minor bills I support, including greater reporting of Fentanyl traffic and Iranian human rights violations, and tightened sanctions on Iranian oil and weapons exports. But it also includes two major provisions that I cannot support. One is the ban on TikTok, which I believe is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The other is the REPO act, that would seize sovereign Russian assets. This would be an unprecedented peacetime act and runs a high risk of discouraging foreign investments in the United States, particularly U.S. Treasury notes. These provisions set very dangerous precedents.