Contempt citation endgame doesn’t faze House freshmen

A contempt citation against the White House has some surprising allies: endangered freshman Democrats and moderates with a history of bucking their party’s leadership.

Despite their skittishness on other signature Democratic issues, most of the Democrats’ “Frontline” members wholeheartedly back sanctions against the White House for rebuffing the House Judiciary Committee in its investigation of the U.S. attorney scandal.

{mosads}“At some point, the process has no credibility if people aren’t willing to testify,” said Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), who beat a Republican incumbent in 2006 by less than 100 votes.

The contempt vote had been scheduled for this week, but then was put off until December. House Democratic leadership aides said the decision to delay related to strategic timing, not a lack of votes.

“We don’t want it to be the last thing on people’s minds as we leave for the year, so it will likely be in the middle of the December session,” one aide said.

Democrats who have been quietly whipping the bill say they found only one or two vulnerable House Democrats wary of voting for it on the House floor.

One of those is believed to be Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.). But the former law professor said in a brief interview that he just wasn’t familiar with the measure.

“It hasn’t been widely discussed in the meetings I attend,” he said.

Still, Marshall said, he understood the logic of such a measure.

“If it’s appropriate for a witness to testify, and he or she doesn’t testify, then contempt is the remedy that’s available. I don’t know of any other.”

In an interview, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said he is committed to passing the measure before Congress wraps up for the year, most likely in early December. He added he has been whipping the bill “with vigor.”

He brushed aside a suggestion that he is making Democrats in tough reelection races vulnerable to Republican attacks if he insists on moving forward with a vote.

“This is a responsibility for both House Democrats and Republicans,” he said. “We would be vitiating any possibility of anyone coming before our committee in the future if we don’t hold [the White House] accountable.”

Only one vulnerable Democratic member, Rep. John Barrow (Ga.), openly expressed serious reservations about moving forward with the bill.

“There has been a serious lack of oversight of this administration,” Barrow said. “But at the same time, I don’t think we should be picking fights we can’t win.”

A few Democrats contacted for this article, however, were unsure about engaging in a constitutional showdown with the White House over the matter and said they needed more time to study it.

“I’d have to see specific legislation before I could comment,” said Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.). Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) also declined to comment until he had time to study the matter.

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) said he wholeheartedly supports the citation, but added he would prefer if Democratic leaders waited until January to schedule a vote because there is so much other outstanding work to do by the end of the year.

The Judiciary Committee on July 25 passed contempt resolutions against White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former legal counsel Harriet Miers. The two had failed to respond to subpoenas issued by the committee in the U.S. attorneys investigation.

President Bush, citing executive privilege, refused to allow Miers or Bolten to testify before the panel or make certain internal White House documents available to congressional investigators. The White House also declined to provide documents relating to the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year. Democrats say those papers could show that politics played an improper role in their ouster.

A contempt citation would force a dramatic late-year legal showdown between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the White House over the issues of executive privilege and whether top aides to President Bush can be subpoenaed to testify.

“I’m going to support this on principle,” remarked Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). “I think we need to have some determination on these subpoenas and exactly what happened here. I think we should rule on it.”

Several freshman Democrats portrayed support for a contempt measure as standing up for the powers assigned to Congress in Article I of the Constitution.

When Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) was asked about the contempt vote, he pointed to a copy of the Constitution sticking out of his suit jacket pocket.

“I’m all for it,” he said. “I think it’s perfectly appropriate to be holding this administration accountable for its actions. It’s part of our oversight responsibilities as laid out in Article I of the Constitution.”

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) noted that he served many subpoenas when he was a county sheriff. But he offered slightly more conditional support.

 “Has the rule of law been decided, that they are subpoena-able? That’s the big question. Are they obliged to appear? If they are, then sure,” Ellsworth said. 

 CONTEMPT

The House is expected to vote in December on whether to hold the Bush administration in contempt for refusing to allow staffers to testify in the U.S. attorneys investigation. A surprising number of endangered and centrist Democrats support the politically charged provision. 

Yes

Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.): “I’m going to support this on principle.”

Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.): “[The White House] works for the American people. They’re so desperate to hide information, it’s just ridiculous.”

Rep. Joe Courtney (Conn.): “At some point, the process has no credibility if people aren’t willing to testify.”

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.): “Has the rule of law been decided, that they are subpoena-able? That’s the big question. Are they obliged to appear? If they are, then sure.”

Rep. John Hall (N.Y.): “The president is trying to have things both ways. He wants to claim executive privilege over private conversations and negotiations and then say that the White House wasn’t in the loop on the [U.S. attorney] firings.”

Rep. Paul Hodes (N.H.): “If witnesses are in contempt, they should be treated accordingly.”

Rep. Steve Kagen (Wis.): “I’m in favor of it.”

Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.): Favors contempt citation but wants to wait until January.

Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.): “I’m all for it. I think it’s perfectly appropriate to be holding this administration accountable for its actions.”

Rep. Tim Walz (Minn.): “The White House has a total disregard for our subpoenas. We have to stay consistent.”

No

Rep. John Barrow (Ga.): “There has been a serious lack of oversight of this administration. But … I don’t think we should be picking fights we can’t win.”

Undecided

Rep. Jim Marshall (Ga.): “It hasn’t been widely discussed in the meetings I attend. If it’s appropriate for a witness to testify, and he or she doesn’t testify, then contempt is the remedy that’s available.”

Rep. Chris Carney (Pa.): “I’d have to see specific legislation before I could comment.”

 Rep. Allen Boyd (Fla.): Declined to comment until he had time to study the matter.