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.

This resolution substantially broadens the grounds for expulsion that the House has observed for nearly 2 ½ centuries. I do not condone the conduct that is alleged. Indeed, I condemn it. After all I have read about Mr. Santos, I feel a little like Thaddeus Stevens when he was asked if there was anything Simon Cameron wouldn’t steal. He said, “I don’t think he would steal a red hot stove.” When Cameron objected, Stevens gladly withdrew the remark. The power of expulsion negates the right of the people to choose the representative they most want to speak for them in Congress. Such an extreme power should be used with extreme care. Until now, the precedent for expulsion has been limited to acts of disloyalty (joining the confederacy) and conviction of serious crimes involving the office. Santos has been charged with such crimes, but has not been convicted. Although Congress is not required to wait for a verdict, I believe it should. Trial by a jury of one’s peers is an essential element of our jurisprudence, and a congressional committee, buffeted by partisanship, political pressures and personal relationships is a poor substitute. Given the heightened political passions that are afoot these days, I think we should resist expanding the traditional grounds for expulsion and trust our justice system and our citizens to resolve the issue, as surely they will.

The continuing resolution we tried to pass under McCarthy had significant spending reductions and a strong border security component. Sadly, this was defeated by a handful of self-proclaimed conservatives joined by every Democrat, and we lost that opportunity. The six-week CR then adopted was to give us enough time to finish the appropriations process and press conservative policies in negotiations with the Senate. This was thwarted when McCarthy was removed by self-proclaimed conservatives, joined by every Democrat. Ironically, this Continuing Resolution, supported by every Democrat but two, has NO spending reductions, NO border security, extends the Pelosi levels of spending for another three months and includes a one-year extension of the farm bill, which means no reforms to the bloated food stamp program. We have met the big spenders, and they is us.

Alejandro Mayorkas is the worst cabinet secretary in American history, guilty of malfeasance, neglect of duty and maladministration. He has implemented Biden’s open border policy that has produced the worst mass illegal migration ever recorded. Elections have consequences, and this is one of them. The grounds for impeachment are explicitly laid out in the Constitution: “Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Treason and bribery are well defined. But from the beginning, politicians have tried to stretch the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to apply to political disagreements, and that is antithetical to the fundamental architecture of the Constitution.