There are three subpoenas, several nominations _ most of whom will be held over _ and some noncontroversial legislation on the agenda. I think it is important to first allow me to summarize each of these subpoenas, what necessitates their consideration, and then we can consider and debate each one individually. I would also note that, since each of these is presented on the Committee's agenda for the first time, any member may request that they be held over for one week.

The first subpoena is a subpoena for documents related to the Holy Saturday raid. My colleagues and the Department of Justice were on notice as of last week that this subpoena was likely. I noted last week at our meeting _ and there were representatives of the Department of Justice present at that meeting _ that if the Department did not produce the documents, I would have to consider issuing a subpoena.

The second subpoena is to the Attorney General for documents related to her decision not to appoint an independent counsel for campaign finance. I will get into greater detail in a minute, but by way of background, we have requested these documents in one form or another since 1997. On April 5, 2000 I requested them again in a joint letter with Chairman Henry Hyde. We have also subpoenaed Director Freeh for any of the documents he has in his possession. The Justice Department has assumed the lead in responding to both the April 5th letter and the subpoena to the Director. Over a month has gone by and we still do not have all the documents, despite the fact that the most responsive items have already been identified. To remove any ambiguity as to what the legal duties of the parties are, I believe it is appropriate to authorize a subpoena so that it is crystal clear that BOTH the FBI and the Justice Department have an independent, legal duty to produce these documents.

The third subpoena is directed at the Chief of White House Security for the computer tapes containing the missing White House e-mail. These e-mails represent an significant gap in the factual record that we should remedy.

Before we engage in a discussion of the subpoenas and take up the other items on the agenda, I would note that there were statements made by some that a contempt resolution would be on today's agenda. Setting aside the material question of whether the Attorney General can be held in contempt for not producing documents covered by a subpoena served on the Director fo the FBI, I would like to note that such a contempt resolution is not on the agenda. However, if the subpoenas on today's agenda are not complied with, we'll have to consider such a step.

I should also note that I have received a letter from the Department of Justice's Robert Raben which outlines what the Department has done, to date, to comply with this Committee's oversight requests. Mr. Raben has a tough job and he has acted professionally but simply listing the documents and briefings provided to date does not address the issue before _ has the Department fully complied with our requests or are they holding important documents back from our review. Whether the Department of Justice has provided us with 100 or 1 million pages of documents is irrelevant if there are responsive documents _ which are not the subject of a legal privilege _ being withheld. That is the case with respect to each of the subject areas covered by today's subpoenas.

Finally, insofar as notice is concerned, I am not surprised by the concern some may have regarding the notice they may be getting concerning the placement of subpoenas on the agenda. Sen. Specter has been vigilant and productive in his oversight efforts. I commend him for his work to date. My hope, however, is that _ henceforth _ he will endeavor to obtain a majority of the Senators on the subcommittee's written support for a subpoena being placed on the agenda before he requests such a matter be placed on the agenda.