Congressional Record: June 28, 2007 (House)]
[Page H7347-H7390]
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Amendment offered by Mr. Emanuel
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Emanuel:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE IX
ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any of the following:
(1) The care, operation, refurnishing, or improvement of
the official residence of the Vice President.
(2) Any expenses of the Vice President, including the hire
of passenger motor vehicles, official entertainment expenses,
and services described in section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code, and section 106 of title 3, United States Code.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, June
27, 2007, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I offer a simple amendment that bars the executive branch from being
used to fund the office that does not exist in the executive branch,
the Office of the Vice President.
Last week, we all received a tutorial in U.S. Government history from
the Vice President's office. Apparently his office is not an entity
within the executive branch.
There have been 46 Vice Presidents in U.S. history, and not one of
them knew this or ever claimed this position. Perhaps the Vice
President thought he occupied an undisclosed fourth branch of
government.
His claim flies in the face of the Constitution and was offered in an
attempt to avoid following the rules governing the treatment of
classified information and documents. This claim was particularly
ironic this week, given the four-part series the Washington Post ran
about the Vice President's role in this administration. And rather than
claim that he wasn't part of the executive branch, it sounds like, from
reading those stories, he is the executive branch.
Yesterday, the Vice President was forced to admit what even an eighth
grade student knew, there is no ``Cheney branch'' of government.
While the Vice President's excuses may change, his desire to ignore
the rule remains just as strong as ever. The Vice President is
unwilling to risk that the documents detailing the flawed intelligence
and faulty assumptions that led us into the war in Iraq. He has been
held unaccountable for 6 years, and now he wants to be unaccountable in
the historical record.
Whatever his reasons, this penchant for secrecy is not new. Shortly
taking office, the Vice President, in meeting with oil and gas
executives and not wanting to turn over that information, claimed he
was part of the executive branch.
After the Vice President excluded himself from the executive branch,
my amendment follows up on the Vice President's assertion and restricts
the executive branch funding for the Vice President's office. It leaves
intact his Senate presidency office. It delivers two messages. If the
Vice President is not in the executive branch, then there is no
executive branch office to fund. And perhaps more importantly, it
underscores that the Vice President is not above the law and cannot
ignore the rules. The law should follow him, whatever branch of
government he chooses to hang his hat in.
Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to ensure that no individual in our
government, no matter how powerful, is allowed to ignore the rules. And
when the Vice President is avoiding accountability, it is the Congress'
responsibility to demand that accountability.
The Vice President must know that no matter what branch of government
he may consider himself part of on any given day or week, he is not
above the law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman and Members of this body, I am sure that the
sponsor thinks he is going to improve the operations of the government,
but I think this is probably offered for political purposes.
We cannot deal with the constitutional responsibilities in this bill,
and the Vice President does have constitutional responsibilities as
President of the Senate. The Senate Legislative Branch appropriations
bill provides funding for his salary and legislative operating
expenses. In fiscal year 2008, his requests equal $2.3 million.
I think it's important that I take time to oppose this amendment
because it is setting a bad precedent. I think the sponsor must be
making an assumption that they will never have a Vice President,
because you are setting a precedent here that might come back to haunt
you at some time in the future.
The Vice President's office also receives $4.8 million to fund the
executive branch duties of the Vice President and pay for his
residence. We decided that, for security reasons, the Vice President
needs to have a residence. There was a time that that was not the case.
And I don't think that because some Members may not like the current
Vice President, or any future Vice President, doesn't mean Congress
should use its power of the purse to eliminate funding for the office.
That is not how the Founding Fathers envisioned the separation of
powers operating.
Eliminating funding to maintain the Vice President's residence and
the 25 Federal employees funded by this object is irresponsible. I
think it is disrespectful of the Constitution and the Office of the
Vice President. Whether we agree or not, the Vice President's office
serves an important executive and legislative function.
And let me just say again to my colleagues, this sets a very bad
precedent. Where do we stop if we determine that we're going to, by
using the power of the purse, pass judgment on the policies of people
that serve in government?
It's a political activity. It's a political attempt to embarrass the
Vice President. I would hope my colleagues reject this.
Just remember, you may have a Vice President, too. And once you set a
precedent, I'm not sure that you would want that to be part of your
legacy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield back his time? The gentleman
had moved to strike the last word.
Mr. REGULA. I do claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is permitted to strike the last word and
to claim time in opposition.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REGULA. And I reserve my time. Just let me say again, this is a
bad, bad precedent. And it's an example, you better be careful what you
wish for, because you may decide that it's not something you want to
happen.
Mr. EMANUEL. I would like to say that it's true, there is an
important constitutional precedent here, and that's why the Vice
President should never have claimed that he wasn't part
[[Page H7366]]
of the executive branch, something any eighth grader knows.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New York (Mr.
Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
Responding to the gentleman's suggestion that we not do this because
we may have a vice president one day, we may have a vice president one
day, but that vice president will admit to being vice president. The
current Vice President refuses to admit that he is Vice President.
{time} 1300
Now, we have heard in Washington flimflam and rope-a-dopes and
evasions and half truths. This one takes the cake. This turns the
theory of plausible deniability into undeniable irrationality. The Vice
President is part of the executive branch. If he is going to state that
he is not part of the executive branch, he should act accordingly.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of the Financial
Services Committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The Vice President has violated a number
of rules, maxims, constitutional provisions; but he has clearly
violated one that I would have thought him wise enough and old enough
to understand. No matter how difficult the situation in which your own
misactions have put you, and no matter what kind of a corner you have
gotten yourself into, try to avoid saying something that no one will
believe.
When the Vice President offered his justification for his refusal to
follow the fundamental principle of openness, he made a statement that
no one would believe. Apparently, in this case, even he didn't believe
him, which was a new reach for him. He is now trying to take it back.
The gentleman from Ohio said to be careful what you wish for. Well,
here is what I wish for, I would say to my friend from Ohio: a Vice
President of the United States who will follow the law, who will not
show contempt for the norms of a democracy.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative
Emanuel's amendment to allocate only the budget of the Senate president
to Mr. Cheney. We have known for the Vice President to go to
undisclosed locations, but never to an undisclosed branch of
government. I turned to my Constitution for some help. It looks to me
like article II does include the Vice President in the executive.
The Senate itself seems confused, having subpoenaed Vice President
Cheney yesterday for records on the administration's spying program.
The other body doesn't seem to appear to embrace Vice President Cheney
as one of its own. The Vice President can't have it both ways. This
amendment helps him sort it out. We will defund his executive office,
leaving him with a vastly reduced budget but giving him what he wants,
at least on some undisclosed days.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is a very interesting and important
issue that the gentleman has brought up. I am just thinking, as I had
prepared this bill, and sent it over to the executive for a signature,
maybe I should declare myself as part of the executive for that period
of time and get all the Secret Service protection and all that goes
with it. If we start doing that, we could get to a big problem. He
brings up an interesting point. It has to be dealt with. The Vice
President has to decide if he is part of the Senate or is he a part of
the executive branch. We can deal with it later once he tells us what
he wants to do.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I support my friend from Illinois' amendment.
Everybody, everybody, in our system is accountable. It doesn't matter
what you call yourself. It doesn't matter how you define yourself. When
it was convenient for him to avoid scrutiny over the energy bill, the
Vice President in 2002 said he was a part of the executive branch and
preserved by that privilege. When it was inconvenient for the Vice
President to comply with everybody else's requirements regarding
classified information in 2005 and 2006, he said he was not part of the
executive branch, he was part of the legislative branch.
Under our Constitution, what you call yourself does not define your
responsibility. What the Constitution says is your responsibility is
your responsibility, even if you are Vice President of the United
States.
Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman very much for yielding. I thank the Chair of the Democratic
Caucus, Mr. Emanuel, for his amendment, upon which I decided not to
offer my amendment on this issue.
Let me explain why I believe that the American people understand that
no one is above the law: secret energy task force; secret wiretapping
of Americans in violation of the FISA Act; a clandestine campaign to
gut critical environmental protections; and new rules developed in
secret governing the treatment of foreign terror suspects held by the
United States.
The Vice President said he is part of the legislative branch. That
means we can expel him. But in this instance, I believe we must say to
the American people, he is not above the law.
This is a nonfunding of the Vice President's residence on the basis
of his declaration that he is not part of the executive. I think this
is an appropriate vehicle. I think we must say to the American people
that not one of us, not one legislator, not one executive person, none
of us is above the law. I wholeheartedly support this amendment.
I am proud to join as a cosponsor with my good friend, the gentleman
from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel, in sponsoring this amendment to H.R. 2829,
the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of
2008. I also rise to commend Chairman Serrano and Ranking Member Regula
for their leadership in shepherding this bill through the legislative
process. I declined to offer the amendment that I filed so unity could
be exhibited under one premise--no one is above the law--including the
Vice President.
Among other things, this legislation provides funding for the Supreme
Court and the Federal judiciary, the District of Columbia Government;
and several independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission.
The bill also funds the Executive Office of the President and other
executive branch agencies, including the Treasury Department and the
Internal Revenue Service.
While most Americans do not know that this legislation also provides
funding to operate the official residence of the Vice President, they
do know that the Vice President is a member of the Executive Branch of
the Federal Government. This fact apparently is news to the current
occupant of the office, Vice President Cheney, who it has been reported
resisted compliance with an executive order issued by President Bush in
2003 regarding the handling of classified information on the ground
that the Vice President and his office is not a unit of the executive
branch.
Mr. Chairman, if it were not so serious and not part of a long
pattern of disturbing conduct, the Vice President's claim would be
merely laughable and his weak grasp of the facts might even be
charming.
But this Vice President has a long, disturbing, and disastrous record
of asserting as fact things that he plainly knows to be untrue.
This is the same Vice President who said this about the war in Iraq:
``I think it will go relatively quickly . . . [in] weeks rather than
months.'' In the run-up to the war, this same Vice President went on
national television and confidently assured the nation that there was a
connection between 911 and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Vice President Cheney proclaimed in March 2002 that Saddam Hussein's
Iraq possessed ``biological and chemical weapons,'' and confidently
assured the nation less than a week before the launch of the Iraq War
that, yes indeed, ``we believe [Iraq] has, in fact, reconstituted
nuclear weapons.'' In each instance, the Vice President was proven
wrong by the facts.
With his preposterous claim not to be a member of the executive
branch, history is repeating. But as the saying goes: ``history
repeats; the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.''
Indeed, perhaps the only person in the whole history of the United
States who has been more wrong more often about more things of great
consequence than the Vice President is the current President, who after
all, is the nation's Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the
Armed Forces.
[[Page H7367]]
Let us set the record straight and get our facts right.
The Vice President is a creature of the Executive Branch of the
Federal Government as Article II, section 1 of the Constitution makes
clear. The Vice President is not a ``member'' of the Legislative
Branch because membership in that branch is governed by the first
clause in sections 2 and 3 of Article I. No member of Congress is
elected to serve a four-year term as is the Vice President. And no
member of Congress is provided an official residence as is the Vice
President and the President.
A member of the Federal legislature can be involuntarily removed from
office if his or her colleagues, by a \2/3\ margin, vote to expel. The
Vice President can be involuntarily removed from office after
impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, the Vice President is extremely intelligent and no
doubt knew his claim to be a member of the legislative branch was and
is specious. The claim was simply a dodge to evade accountability and
compliance with the requirements of the law. We have been down this
road before: Secret Energy Task Force, secret wiretapping of Americans
in violation of the FISA Act, clandestine campaign to gut critical
environmental protections, new rules developed in secret governing the
treatment of foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to have spent the majority of my time in
Congress protecting and defending the separation of powers that is the
hallmark of our democracy. I have consistently opposed this
Administration's abuse of executive powers and prerogatives. That is
why I introduced H.R. 264, the Congressional Lawmaking Authority
Protection Act, challenging the president's misuse of bill signing
statements.
Similarly, I introduced the Military Success in Iraq Act (MSIA or
``Messiah'') to deliver American troops from Iraq by terminating the
authorization to use military force and requiring a new vote to
continue offensive military operations in Iraq. A third example of my
resistance to this Administration misuse and abuse of authority is H.R.
267, the Military Commissions Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007,
which I introduced to repeal the restriction on the jurisdiction of
courts, justices, and judges to hear or consider applications for writs
of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of certain aliens detained by
the United States.
Mr. Chairman, no person is above the law and certainly not Vice
President Cheney. That is why I joined with Congressman Emanuel to
resist his latest attempt to avoid accountability and evade
responsibility.
The intent of the amendment is straightforward: to limit the
availability of funds for the Office of the Vice President only to Vice
Presidents who are members of the executive branch of the Federal
Government and subject to the executive authority of the President of
the United States. The appropriated funds are not available to members
of the legislative branch. A person is a member of the legislative
branch only if they are so qualified by virtue of compliance with
Article I, section 2, clause 1 or Article I, section 3, clause 1.
Acting as President over the Senate is not sufficient to make one a
``member'' of the Senate, and thus a member of the legislative branch.
Although our amendment will save the taxpayers $4.752 million from
being used by the Vice President, it does not restrict funding for the
Vice President's secret service protection and does not affect the
funds Cheney would receive as President of the Senate. The Senate
version of the FY08 Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill provides the
President of the Senate with $2.3 million.
Mr. Chairman, if the Vice President does not think he is a member of
the executive branch there is no reason he should impose upon the
taxpayers to fund the perquisites of his office. Democrats were
entrusted by the voters with the majority to restore fiscal
responsibility, oversight, and accountability to government. The new
majority is committed to ensuring that government operates in an open,
transparent, accountable and fair manner.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the
amendment. Let me again thank Chairman Serrano and Ranking Member
Regula for their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in
putting together this excellent legislation.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, now that the gentleman from New Jersey has
shot down any chance of me being part of the executive branch,
reminding me that the Constitution doesn't allow it, I will just keep
quiet on that and yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel),
our caucus chairman.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I want to make two closing points really
quickly to my colleague from Ohio, if I can: one is I don't come to
this amendment lightly. The Vice President's unprecedented act of
declaring that he was not in the executive branch is the reason I
submitted this.
To the second point, you had said, we may have a Vice President.
Having worked in the executive branch, Vice President Cheney is the
Vice President of all of us. He is not yours. He is all of ours. That
is why all of us were outraged by the position that he took that he was
not part of the executive branch so he can avoid accountability. He is
the Vice President of all of us. We ask him to abide by the law, to
understand that when there is a rule in place that he is accountable
and responsible to that, both for the historical purposes and when it
relates to national security matters. That is why all of us were
outraged when he made the decision to keep his meetings with oil
executives secret.
At every step of the way, he has chosen secrecy over sunshine;
obstruction over accountability. We would ask seriously that the Vice
President operate with that seriousness.
We didn't come to this lightly. He took an unprecedented step. It is
not one we would have done gingerly, messing with his office. But I
want to remind everyone here, the reason we are speaking up is because
he is our Vice President. We would like him to act accordingly, in the
office that he has and the responsibilities that come with the office.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman is correct. This
is a very serious matter. This administration, this Vice President,
whether on torture, whether on prisons, whether on their behavior in
spying on Americans, has told us over and over that they are above the
Constitution. What this says is that they are not above the
Constitution. No one is. The Vice President certainly is not.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Number one, of course, you are going to abolish the residence. I
assume you are going to get a Katrina trailer to provide for the Vice
President, since we historically have provided housing and you don't
offer any substitute for the existing residence. So I would think you
would want to give that some thought.
Secondly, we have elections. This is not the place to establish an
amendment to the Constitution or to define what you may or may not like
about the operation of the Vice President's office.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Blunt), the distinguished whip.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the Vice President is a talented man. He is a former
Member of this body, a former whip of this body. I would like to think
that any former whip of the body or current whip could confuse people
as much as the Vice President appears to be able to do.
Certainly my good friend from Illinois is a smart man. He knows what
branch of government the Vice President is a part of. There are only
three, after all. We know he is not part of the judiciary. We know he
is not part of the legislative. So he must be part of the branch that
is funded in the bill.
This amendment may be lots of things, but it is not a serious
amendment about really defunding the Vice President's office. It is an
amendment about something other than that, and we know it. It has
nothing really to do with moving this issue forward. There will be some
discussion as the day goes on today about whether or not an amendment
on our side was really an important part of the debate on the bill.
This amendment is an amendment in search of a press release. In fact,
let me take that back. This amendment is an amendment that is following
a press release. We have already had the press release. We have already
had the comments to the press about how we take advantage of a moment
about who has access to what records. We all know that defunding the
Vice President's office is not the way to do that.
{time} 1315
I was glad to hear my friend from Illinois say in his concluding
remarks, or what I believe would have been his concluding remarks, I
may find that was not right, is we understand the Vice President of the
United States is our Vice President, we understand that his office is
funded under this bill, and we
[[Page H7368]]
understand that is the work that needs to be done by the Congress. We
know what branch of government he belongs to. No matter how confusing
that may seem, there are only three. We know which one he is part of.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield for a short
question for the whip?
Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois to ask a short
question of the whip.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, question number one to the minority whip,
I would say to you that, of course, there are three branches of
government. I don't think anybody in room or in the Chamber needs that
explanation. It is the Vice President's lawyer that needs that
explanation.
Second, you do believe if he is in the Vice President's office, he
should observe all the laws and regulations that come with that as it
relates to the responsibility of that office.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Ohio will yield, based
on the gentleman's time on the topic we are discussing, my personal
view is that the Vice President and the President are bound by the same
standards. But that is only my personal view. And, after all, we are
not the judicial branch of government. Which branch of government would
we be? The legislative branch. We know where the Vice President's
office is. We know what branch he belongs to.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate, not a legitimate debate, about
whether or not the Vice President is in one branch or the other. After
all, he presides over the U.S. Senate. So if we did not decide to put
the funding into this particular appropriations bill, we would have to
put it in the other.
This is a raw grab for power to defund an essential constitutional
office, and it is wrong. And if it even comes close to passing, if it
is not on a bipartisan basis defeated, the gentleman from Illinois
will, in fact, have undercut the very underpinnings of the
Constitution.
This is an important vote. It is an important vote because how dare
we, how dare we use a maneuver like this, to try to stifle any
constitutional officer, including our own.
I am ashamed to belong to a branch that would even consider this, and
I am ashamed that the gentleman would do such a thing.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on
Information Policy, Census, and National Archives, I rise in strong
support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois, Mr.
Emanuel.
In light of recent events, in which various Executive Branch
officials, including the Vice President's former Chief of Staff, I.
Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, have acted with reckless disregard for the
protection of classified information, I applaud Mr. Emanuel's
leadership in introducing this amendment.
This amendment would eliminate funding for the Office of the Vice
President in light of the Vice President's refusal to comply with
Executive Order 12958.
Executive Order 12958, as amended by President Bush in March 2003,
requires the Information Security Oversight Office, ISOO, within the
National Archives and Records Administration to establish a uniform
system to protect classified national security information throughout
the Executive Branch.
In 2004, the Office of the Vice President refused to submit to an on-
site inspection. In doing so, it made the astonishing claim that it was
not an Executive Branch entity and therefore not covered by the
Executive Order.
The director of the ISOO wrote the Vice President's office to contest
the claim and also asked the Department of Justice to evaluate the Vice
President's argument. The Vice President and the Justice Department
repeatedly ignored these communications. Moreover, we learned this week
that the Vice President's staff has proposed amending the Executive
Order to eliminate the ISOO.
Congress should not tolerate this effort by the Vice President to
exempt his office from oversight and retaliate against the agency
charged with maintaining our Nation's most sensitive secrets.
The Vice President is making a mockery of the law and our system of
checks and balances.
If the Office of the Vice President insists upon defining itself as
not being an Executive Branch entity, then clearly it should not be
funded like one.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address this important
issue--accountability.
All of us in government service have an obligation to be accountable
for our actions and we all take an oath to follow the laws of this
country.
Unfortunately, it appears the Vice President believes he should be
held to some different standard that applies only to him.
The news that the Vice President as advanced a legal argument that he
is not a part of the executive branch and not a part of the legislative
branch but has some special status which means he does not have to
comply with Executive Orders or the law in safeguarding classified
material is nothing less than shocking.
As a member of the House Intelligence Committee I can report to my
colleagues that if we stand by and allow the Office of the Vice
President to exempt itself from the same rules that apply to any
employee in our intelligence services, we will deal a serious blow to
the morale of these patriotic Americans defending our country.
I will therefore support every measure in this Financial Services
Subcommittee bill, at every step in the process as it becomes law to
compel the Vice President to follow the law of the land.
The Vice President should be leading by example. He should be setting
the highest standards of conduct and accountability.
[...]
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, over the past week, the country did a
collective double-take, as one commentator said, when they heard that
Vice President Cheney does not believe he is part of the executive
branch. That's why Representative Emanuel has proposed his amendment
today.
This issue first came to the public's attention last week when I
wrote to the Vice President asking why he blocked efforts by the
National Archives to conduct security inspections of his office, as
required by the President's own executive order. The response was that
the Vice President's office was not an entity within the executive
branch.
Legal experts ridiculed this argument, and late-night comics got some
good new material. But the Vice President's extreme aversion to any
oversight whatsoever, by Congress or even by his own Administration, is
not a laughing matter.
The Vice President has claimed special privileges that even the
President doesn't have. The Vice President has unilaterally claimed an
absolute exemption from inspections, while other White House offices
comply with the executive order. Take the National Security Council,
which is an entity within the White House. It had the wisdom to allow
an inspection.
The fact is, until the Vice President took this unprecedented stance,
nobody at the White House had ever blocked any security inspections by
the Archives.
And this is not the only time the Vice President has acted to prevent
oversight. He went to court to stop GAO from examining the actions of
his energy task force. He blocked the Secret Service from disclosing
visitors to his residence. In fact, he even refused to provide
information to Congress about his employees for the annual Plum Book.
His argument is--and I quote--``The Vice Presidency is a unique
office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the
legislative branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the
latter.'' Even school children know this is preposterous.
The reality is that since 2002, there's been no oversight, no
monitoring, and no reporting in the Vice President's office. That's an
invitation to exactly the kind of leaks and criminal violations that
have occurred in Mr. Cheney's office. We are a government of laws and
rules, not arbitrary decrees.
The Vice President can't unilaterally decide he is his own branch of
government and exempt himself from important, commonsense safeguards
for protecting classified information. And he can't insist he has the
powers of both the executive and the legislature branches, but the
responsibilities of neither. The Vice President is not above the law.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois will be
postponed.
[...]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Emanuel
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209,
noes 217, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 596]
AYES--209
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--217
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
[[Page H7403]]
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Obey
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Abercrombie
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Forbes
Fortuno
Hastert
Hinojosa
LaHood
McNulty
Ortiz
Sessions
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute
to record their vote.
{time} 1808
Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[...]
