I appreciate the Chairman’s commitment to fulfilling this Committee’s oversight responsibilities, and I take those responsibilities very seriously myself. Sometimes the only way to stop the federal bureaucracy from taking a silly or dangerous action is to shine the spotlight of congressional oversight hearings on the matter.

I would like to work with the Chairman on this matter. I have stated before that I did not agree with the President’s decision to grant clemency to the FALN prisoners. Furthermore, I have heard nothing to make me change my view that his decision was wrong from the hearings held in this Committee or in the Foreign Relations Committee or in press reports.

I appreciate the Chairman’s frustration that his requests for documents and witnesses have been denied while the Department of Justice reviews the requests and consults with the White House on how to respond. If the President wishes to assert that the Chairman’s requests call for information that is confidential and privileged, he and the Justice Department should have simply said so instead of beating around the bush and stalling for more time.

That being said, I would like to hold over the request for issuance of subpoenas in order to work with the Chairman on how best and effectively we may proceed. We have just gotten a copy of the resolution, and it appears to grant the Chairman sole authority to issue subpoenas for the testimony of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Pardon Attorney, but also for a number of documents from law enforcement investigative and other files.

Before we proceed with this resolution and grant such authority, I would like to talk to the Chairman for some insight into the Committee plan for future hearings on this matter. We have already held one, how many more are planned and for when? When will they conclude? Does the Chairman contemplate issuing subpoenas for any witnesses other than the three named and, if so, who will those witnesses be? What input will I or others have in the selection and order of witnesses? With respect to the use of the Committee's subpoena power, what documents are needed from the Justice Department that require subpoenas? Does the Committee intend to recognize claims of privilege, such as attorney-client or work product or executive privilege, during the course of its hearings?

I would also like to discuss with the Chairman about following the model we used in the Ruby Ridge hearings. As I recall, to ensure the bipartisan nature of the investigation, the Subcommittee Chairman issued subpoenas only with the consent of the Ranking Member. This is an issue that members from both sides of the aisle agree on, namely, that clemency should not have been offered to the FALN defendants. I see no reason to turn our legitimate oversight inquiries into a partisan battle.

The resolution also proposes to grant the Chairman authority to issue subpoenas for both documents and witnesses. It may make more sense to take this one step at a time, and get the documents first before we start pulling in witnesses to testify.

We also need to determine answers to technical legal questions of first impression about whether documents generated and information collected by the Department of Justice in reviewing clemency petitions are subject to privilege-- if a privilege is at some point asserted to congressional requests for either documents or testimony.

Consideration of these legal and procedural questions are matters I would like to discuss with the Chairman before proceeding precipitously with authorization to grant him broad subpoena authority in this matter. I am confident we can work this one out.