2007年VOA标准英语-Congressional Panel Gears to Cite White House O

The legal confrontation¹ between President Bush and Congress over documents and other information sought by lawmakers could soon escalate². VOA's Dan Robinson reports, the House Judiciary Committee meets later Wednesday to vote on whether to cite one current and one former White House official for contempt of Congress, in a constitutional standoff likely to end up in the courts.

The Democratic-controlled House judiciary panel, and its Senate counterpart, have moved steadily³ closer to an all-out constitutional clash with the White House over investigations⁴ into the firing of eight U.S. federal prosecutors⁵.

Although prosecutors are subject to replacement⁶ at any time under any administration, some of those dismissed told Congress earlier this year that they received inappropriate contacts from Republican lawmakers or staff about criminal investigations.

George Bush

Democrats⁹ pressed ahead with subpoenas¹¹ to compel the White House to provide documents and other material, and allow testimony¹² by current and former White House aides.

Acting¹³ on behalf of President Bush, White House lawyers claimed executive privilege, asserting that there is no requirement to share information concerning internal administration deliberations with Congress or permit testimony.

In another step last week, the White House announced it would not allow the Justice Department to prosecute¹⁴ members of the executive branch for contempt of Congress.

After one former White House aide, Harriet Miers, failed to show up, a House judiciary subcommittee formally ruled White House explanations legally invalid¹⁵.

Congresswoman Linda Sanchez said White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, who is the subject of a subpoena¹⁰, is required to produce documents.

"The White House is refusing not only to produce documents pursuant to the subpoena, but also to even explain why the documents are being withheld," she said. "In effect, the White House is asking Congress and the American people to simply trust on blind faith that the documents are appropriately being kept secret. Our system of government does not permit the White House to demand this type of blind faith and secrecy¹⁶."

Republicans accuse Democrats of engaging in a political charade¹⁷ designed to damage the president.

"It is a core responsibility of Congress to oversee¹⁸ the executive branch," said Congressman¹⁹ Chris Cannon²⁰, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee. "But after all the investigations we have done on this matter, it is resulted in no evidence of wrongdoing in the removal of the U.S. attorneys. Instead, we have damaged the Justice Department, diminished Congress, and have landed at the threshold of contempt proceedings²¹ against Harriet Miers and the White House."

Alberto Gonzales testifies on Capitol Hill before  Senate Judiciary Committee, 24 July 2007

Gonzales, who has President Bush's support, has resisted calls for his resignation, pledging to fix problems at the Department of Justice emanating²² from he calls mistakes under his watch.

Senate judiciary chairman Pat Leahy had this exchange with the attorney general.

Leahy: If a house of Congress certified²³ a contempt citation²⁴ against former or current officials for failing to appear or comply with a congressional subpoena, would you permit the U.S. attorney to carry out the law to refer the matter to a grand jury and therefore fulfill²⁵ the constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law, or would you block the execution of the law?

Gonzales:  Mr. chairman, your question relates to an ongoing²⁶ controversy which I am recused from. I am not going to answer that question.

Leahy: Is there anybody left in the Department of Justice who could answer the question?

Gonzales: Of course there is.

Leahy:  Who?

Gonzales:  With respect to these kinds of decisions it would be made by the solicitor²⁷ general.

Gonzales received this warning from the ranking Senate committee Republican Arlen Specter

"The chairman has already said that the committee is going to review your testimony very carefully, to see if your credibility has not been breached²⁸ to the point of being actionable," he said.

Specter termed patently unreasonable²⁹ the White House's continuing insistence³⁰ that any testimony take place without transcripts³¹, although he held out hope that Congress and the White House can reach some accommodation.

Referring to the administration's order blocking Justice Department action on a potential congressional contempt citation, Senator Leahy warned Gonzales that questions about alleged³² executive branch lying to Congress, perjury³³, or destruction of evidence or obstruction³⁴ of justice would soon be "real issues [and] not just debating points."