For most, in many cases really helps, statutes, house signals authority reaches that office. Ournd, whether constitutional gaps there are constitutional gaps raises questions. Did you state the house itself has the power . Power to issue a subpoena, the house itself . Mr. Consovoy not the constitutional power. The house itself because your argument to me sounded like it was all about the delegation of the committee not being explicit. I have no i find no argument that the house itself he said that house had to be explicit that it was giving what he had to the committee. Mr. Consovoy im sorry, im not getting the house rules state j. Millett including subpoena power . The vast majority, which is whether a subpoena is constitutional. Your first just on constitutional argument given your issues about legislative just to understand, i am understanding trying to understand what your argument is. The house itself would issue a subpoena and we would be over on the rest of the brief oral argument. It is just whether they give it to a committee . Mr. Consovoy correct. Let me present the franklin case. Does the house also where the Committee Issues the subpoena preserves house rules or the house issues itself . Your position as i understand it, whichever body does it, it has to identify the president , right . Mr. Consovoy correct. It is a question of authority, not a question of power. Are two points to that argument has a understand it. Statement, youar the Supreme Courts decision franklin and our decision, right . Those seem different to me than this case because in franklin, the question was whether the theident is an officer and court said we will not subject the president of the United States to arbitrary and capricious review unless the congress expressly says that is what it needs, right . That as g, we said unless Congress Speaks clearly, we will not imply action against the president of the United States because it would significantly alter the balance between congress and the president. This seems very different. This is a subpoena that relates to rules requiring, laws requiring Financial Disclosure. Significant altering of the relationship between the president and the congress. There is no subjecting president of arbitrary and capricious review in franklin. This is just Financial Disclosure, which president s for years have been doing. Mr. Consovoy you are talking about one issue with interest the Financial Disclosure. I am talking about house rules. The house rules dont give General Authority to the committee j. Tatel you are not challenging the authority of the committee. You are challenging this subpoena and the subpoena seeks documents regarding the president s Financial Disclosures. Mr. Consovoy i am saying no one disputed that Committee Power j. Tatel lets stick with your clear statement. Mr. Consovoy absolutely. J. Tatel what do you think about my suggestion that the cases you rely on her quite different . Mr. Consovoy i respectfully disagree they are quite different j. Tatel but why . Mr. Consovoy they are both on the same legal principle, a referendum that any statute or house role that seeks to get to the president directly must use a clear statement. Aboutel are you talking the letter said the same thing. You are focusing on the subpoena j. Tatel you dont have standing to challenge the house rules. You can only challenge the subpoena. Mr. Consovoy the court has a to read statute first. J. Tatel i agree but isnt it a question of whether the subpoena is authorized by the rules . Isnt that the question . Mr. Consovoy correct, and j. Tatel this subpoena. Mr. Consovoy this subpoena is directed that the president and the house rules do not authorize this committee to the subpoena. J. Millett that may be a different question. It is directed at a thirdparty who happened to have documents given to them by the president. Correct . Whether the subpoena tells the president to issue things . On the legal side, footnote 14 answers this question. Practically the document, but it is still not the same thing, just like a deposition the president would be different than a deposition of a thirdparty who would be telling them what the president said. Just because you are not interfering with the daytoday activities of the president. Mr. Consovoy i think a thirdparty subpoena would subpoena the president after. J. Millett are you asserting a privilege recognized by state law or common law in these documents . Mr. Consovoy fear of loss statement, we relied on that they are completely a. R. Completely. J. Tatel let me pursue this clear statement. Lets say you are right for a minute that we do have a clear statement rule. Jurisdictione has over the ethics of Government Act, right . And the ethics in Government Act expressly covers the president of the united dates, right . Mr. Consovoy it does. J. Tatel why isnt that the clear statement . Mr. Consovoy the clear statement must be in the rule itself and that is how the question is stated. J. Tatel in your view, what is missing is the ethics in congress act is not expressly listed in the house ruling . Is that it . Mr. Consovoy i would resist that, as well. This is an easy thing for the house to do the very important thing. The power here is not the power to subpoena documents. This same rule the committee relies on is the power to subpoena testimony. This court would have to say that the house of representatives as a body is to subpoena the president j. Tatel the only question before us is this subpoena. That is it. Cat is the only question before the court right now. Know what you are saying, but i just dont understand why lets assume you are right, that the house role is excessively. Road in other respects try it this way. Suppose for example it expressly prohibits the Oversight Committee to subpoena the president. Would you be making the same argument . The subpoena or the house rules . Mr. Consovoy if the house rules specifically cite the president , we would not be making this particular j. Tatel that is my point. That is all we are talking about. The only question is the authorization of the committee. This subpoena. It has nothing to do with testimony or any other aspects of the house rules. Mr. Consovoy well, in particular, the legal question scenarios thato can be avoided in answering the question. Mr. Consovoy your view, then, is that any action against any president of the United States a clear statement with regard to the president of the United States. So what do you do with the language i cited in both franklin and armstrong . Mr. Consovoy i think franklin and armstrong raise concern that proves my point, and other statutes made as well. There was five usc, 535 b, any executive official as the attorney general argued for Legal Counsel in that case that you had to name the president to include it didnt matter. 1968was the subpoena for cited by dillinger in 1995. Time, i case every think this is a good rule. It allocates the congress, makes its intentions clear which is the basis of rules. We want to know for sure the house of representatives wants to revoke a constitutional tolett if you could the constitutional avoidance argument you make. As i understand it, you are not asserting any kind of executive immunity so maybe you could see more about what specifically is the constitutional interest of the president in this case . Ill take the most obvious and most controversial in order. If the court holds in these lacksthat the subpoena legislative purpose, the subpoena exceeds congresss constitutional power. Every subsidiary question we raise in this case goes to whether there is legitimate purpose itself. On conflict of interest. As questions are hard. They are serious, they are important separation of powers interests. J. Rao what are those separation of power interests raised here . Unique to the office of the president . Mr. Consovoy yes, so the president is different than all other constitutional offices. It was created by the constitution just like sources is of the justices of the Supreme Court. Congress has a special ability take for example, the president ial record which is much less intrusive than what we are talking about here. J. Tatel you cited concurrence. That is his view. The majority view about this asue set forth in nixon 2, statute disrupts the proper balance between the court and prevents new executive branch from accomplishing its constitutional approach. It is not just a prevents. That is the majority of the Supreme Court. Mr. Consovoy could prevent. Could Financial Disclosure requirements prevent the government, a president from fulfilling his constitutional mr. Consovoy 100,000 pages of Financial Disclosures once a month to discuss them. J. Tatel that is interesting that those arent the statues congress is considering. The only one that has any work to do here is mazars. The only one whose time is mazars. Mr. Consovoy congress has to have a legislative persis purpose. J. Millett how mazars is turning down over documents already in its possession impedes the president s execution of his own duties . They are two different questions. Doesion one is how subpoena as i was saying, the president s special j. Millett you responded with a hypothetical instead of how the subpoena would prevent the president from executing exercising his powers. How it would impede upon his time and energies. This is not the beginning of the end, there are also two questions that arise j. Tatel this is the subpoena thenst the president court dealt with that issue. Mr. Consovoy it straddles the line, judge tatel. Congress is asserting a right over the president. This is a subpoena to j. Tatel that is a good point, yeah. Point made inyour the case is exactly my point. J. Tatel that is a dissent. It was a dissent. Mr. Consovoy it applies , which is when it comes to the president , the person in office are one and the same and the office are one and the same. J. Tatel that is the burden many of the arguments raised on behalf of President Trump relate to the unique constitutional status of the presidency and infringement on his authority. Why is the department of justice not here participating to protect the office of the president , because that is the primary basis of your argument . They subpoenawhen to the president s personal accountants, the president this happens in these times of case, the that department of justice participated in addition to private attorneys. If the argument here are really about the office of the presidency, why is the department of justice not participating . J. Millett they showed up in clinton versus jones, as well to represent the presidency. Mr. Consovoy i can only speak for my participation. J. Tatel your companion argument here is not just that as ainterferes with this constitutional requirement to the presidency, right . Your argument also is the Legislation Congress is considering on the ethics constitutionally adds to the qualifications to be president . Mr. Consovoy correct. In two ways. An easier one is the power of interest rules. There is an interest wife statutes on the president. Congress or hold money in a certain way. Businesses or anything like that would be unconstitutional. J. Tatel what about Financial Disclosure . Mr. Consovoy no different. J. Tatel why . Mr. Consovoy for reasons there is a strong argument that there is a hardline drawn on the presidency just like this up in court justices. J. Tatel i understand the general language, but before and after the ethics of government packed, anybody who was constitutionally eligible to run for president over 45, naturally born citizen, anyone who meets those can run for president before and after. Limitsot like u. S. Term where the states try to limit the terms of congress. Limits see why this anybodys ability to run for president. Does it . Differently than common interests. J. Tatel the concept of , those could prevent a president from from either running because he has a conflict of would prevent him from exercising the power of the presidency. Im just asking about the disclosure. So you talk a lot about conflict of interest in other aspects of this but suppose we just look at the fourth justification in just the letter, fourth 20 him which is whether the president of the United States accurately reported his finances to the office of government. Just that. Settingthat aside, looking beyond the question of the house rules and whether that authorizes us. If i think there is no dostitutional problem there, we have to deal with all four aspects in cummings letter or is focusing on one enough . Mr. Consovoy let me give you two answers. There is an argument to be made that just one is enough. Weve disputed that one is legitimate and need to address that but there is a question of what the real object, which is plain language. You have to say it is actually the reason they are doing it based on public record. J. Tatel i completely agree with that. Explain to me if i am looking at just this one, that is the aggregate adequacy of the Financial Disclosures, why that is not congress pursuing a legitimate legislative agenda . Why is it Law Enforcement . Mr. Consovoy the committee isnt searching for illegalities. J. Tatel isnt that what congress always does if it seeks to amend a piece of legislation . If Congress Things there is a problem with the federal communications act, or some it, is it a goal to companies are on complying on it and whether they need to amend the statute . Mr. Consovoy if there was a industryorwardlooking in the market, i would have a harder time saying this is a Law Enforcement. When you are hyper focused on individual and say over and over again that what we have here is proving legal conduct and the speaker of the house says i want to see the president in prison, j. Tatel he also says, cummings letter says pursuing legislation. There are several bills pending. The statements you put are the only ones. The same i was quoting from goes on to say they need this information to consider legislation, right . If i could answer and reserve the balance of my time. What is shown is you cant investigate legal and then that could be done at any time and any place. Second, i think the statement to the committee, Supreme Court v sanchez, it was determined the court does not have to be naive. The court does not have to accept these sort of, here is a legislation of counter arguments and j. Millett first of all, there is legislation, bills that have gone to the house and graph tools pending draft bills pending and we are to say that is all up tos . Mr. Consovoy the ones pending mostly deal with j. Millett the ones that deal with ethics, contracting, there are draft ones and ones that have been passed, correct . Adependent past that house Financial Disclosure and contracting . On your naive. , we would have to say that is all a ruse. Mr. Consovoy what i didnt get to say is whether there is a genuine j. Millett how would you say it is not genuine . Well give you plenty of time. Mr. Consovoy i would say lets look at what the numbers sex. Say. J. Millett is that what our task is . Dont we have to look at everything j. Tatel if you look at Just Congress and, cummings in this letter and other communications in this case say they need this information to evaluate to pursue legislation. Sos it many times and hr 1, which has passed the house, i think, would amend the ethics in Government Act to closely held corporations. That is directly employed. Six would require president s and candidates to submit their tax returns. These bills have passed the house and they are directly related to the subject of the subpoena. Do we just ignore those . Mr. Consovoy one, we think that legislation constitutional. Nevertheless, the court has an obligation to look at how this all started. Whether it was issuing a subpoena and their own memorandum says the very percent hence they are looking to see whether the president engaged in illegal conduct. What is the answer . There is legislation out there but the court says look at options. We dolett im asking how that because this is you realize this is a delicate area and we have all these presumptions. You have pointed to statements politicians have made and lets look at the ones before the subpoena issue, not after, to support your cause. There are statements by the and there cummings, are actual bills so do you have can you than naivete, tell me what your legal tester rule is in saying that statements you cite have control over the other evidence or how i should evaluate it . Is thesovoy i think it appellate, over 300 pages this year, we have the memorandum the starting point. We had the statements made j. Millett which has legislation, the memorandum. Mr. Consovoy but think in the comments made and liketack up ones that look they wanted to see the president violating the law and the others where they say this is really just a general concern about legislation j. Millett the other bucket has to include draft bills and bills that have passed the house. Mr. Consovoy happy to include them because i think my pile is way higher. You said delicate. That is why the statute of the court is so important because these are hard questions. Before the Court Pronounces rock subpoena of the president , we should make their or the house has authorized the committee to subpoena them. J. Rao what justification is there that we should look for the real purpose and how is that different than a search for motive each both parties agree on . Where do we draw the line between looking at the motive of the committee, which stopped the table, and the real purpose as you say in your brief . Mr. Consovoy a difference between what had why. There is a what question, is this a lawenforcement is that investigation or investigative and corey legislative inquiry . Where is the evidence and what is it . Legislation or for Law Enforcement . Motivated . Rly was it because they are mad at the president . We are not relying on political motives to prove up our case. J. Rao even though a question, the Supreme Court has said on a number of occasions there can be some incidental lawenforcement type purpose on the way to investigating something for legitimate legislation. Have both, if you why is it not a legitimate legislative purpose . Mr. Consovoy it is a primary purpose. For the reasons ive articulated j. Tatel which basis . I think the real object here, if you look at what want to seey something illegal was done and if it helps legislatively, maybe that would be ok to but that is not what this is about. Memillett i just let explain to you how i am thinking about this argument as to whether legislation could be had in the Supreme Court, legitimate legislation could be had in the Supreme Court test. Us a very generous for generous test of the legislature. It seems to me you would have to show that no law could come out of be related to this information. It could not inform any proper legislation. You identify legislation that you argue and raise a substantial question over whether it is constitutional or not when it replies ash applies to the president. Is your task to show no legitimate legislation could ensue . I disagree. the court was really struggling with whether congress can enact legislation. It can read across state lines, probably night or maybe they can do other things. Overongress was on its own even that wasnt enough to clear the hurdle. There would be no constitutional question. There is not a precedent in this court answer the question. J. Tatel here you have a bill passed by the hospitably as to the disclosure requirement. That is it. To add to disclosure requirement. That is it. Mr. Consovoy congress explaining how these issues have been untested. Just spoke about is based on existing Financial Disclosure laws. It is not a serious question those are laws to let directly operating on officials but what if Congress Gets to set the president salary. You can diminish it during term. It is in the constitution. Couldnt pass one now that would change President Trump salary this term, but they could startss now a law that january 2021, there are two salary options. The president complies with conflict of interest and , wencial disclosure laws think that puts him a step up on supervising the Public Welfare and we get salary acts. Any president that does not comply with those requirements that we are now in acting, the ones we have enacted, he will get a salary but it will be half the amount. Any question they could do that . Mr. Consovoy off the top of my head, constitutional conditions with j. Millett it is not, you can run and you can picture salary. If you take the Supreme Court case, or you could submit to a random breathalyzer. J. Millett people have constitutional rights. Does a president ial candidate have a constitutional right to a certain salary . I dont think so. They get to set the salary. There is no dispute about that. There is plenty of legislation they could pass and say no shall use agency appropriated funds to execute policies or programs affected by conflict of interest with the president. That would be perfectly fine. Mr. Consovoy i think it would be deeply controversial and const usually problematic. J. Millett your view is that when it comes to the president s conflict of interest, Nothing Congress can do . J. Rao that is why you say Nothing Congress could do regarding governmental agencies, employees, allocated salaries or appropriate in funds to protect the people of the United States, the public treasury from the president s conflict of interest . Mr. Consovoy yes, but secondly, the salary shows the framers wanted to set a condition on the presidency to give congress discretion. Let me ask you about the two questions. One is on your clear statement argument, this is a hypothetical, if i wasnt persuaded that the rule applied, do you have any argument that the normal reading of the rule authorize this subpoena, would not authorize the subpoena . Mr. Consovoy can i interest you in constitutional j. Tatel no, i agree with you. Lets just stick with either one of them. Suppose i think that is a good point. Suppose i think neither doctrine applies here. Suppose i think neither constitutional avoidance or click statement applies. Do you concede than that these rules authorize the committee to pursue . I think they do apply. J. Tatel i understand that if thedo you think presumptions dont apply . Mr. Consovoy they do apply but i think j. Tatel the hypothetical theconsovoy i would say use of all, but it doesnt name the president. It includes intended to include the president. Millett to your argument on the isnt limited to subpoena power. The power even to have oversight at all, is that right . Where did this grants any Oversight Authority with respect directly to the office of the president. A Public Committee couldnt even send a polite letter that would theyif you wouldnt mind, dont have the power to even look . Mr. Consovoy not the subpoena power. J. Millett i just asked you, because the rule is about all power. I want to make sheer i fully understand your argument. Is your argument the Community Committee on oversight has not been given any power of oversight as to the office of the president . Or is it they have only not been given subpoena power . Which means they cant even look. They cant ask questions, look. I would object if someone said a letter that had no compulsion j. Millett but under your theory of the rule of the acts of this clear statement, there is no Oversight Authority at all that has been conferred or invoked by congress. Consovoy j. Millett im asking what your argument is. It is not confined to subpoenas. J. Tatel let me want to constitutional avoidance. I am trying to understand how your theory works, you want this court to apply. I understand the way you are saying lets set aside the pieces of Legislation Congress has passed. Lets set that aside. That theheory constitutional avoidance istrine would apply if there a constitutional doubt as to any possible action that congress could take . Is that your point mr. Consovoy i dont think it is. If there was any doubt whether the subpoena is constitutional, it can j. Tatel that ducks the question. The antecedent question to that is Congress Considering we all agree congress has Investigative Authority has brought as its legislative authority. My question is i thought you were arguing legislation with congress either has pastore is considering may well be unconstitutional and that is what triggers the constitutional avoidance principle. Mr. Consovoy one of the things, not the only thing. J. Tatel how can we apply the doctrine to legislation, propose legislation that doesnt even exist . We dont know what congress will propose if it gets this information and has hearings. To upholds also sworn the constitution. Mr. Consovoy that totally answers the question for us. This is literally what tobi was struggling withn. We dont know what the legislation might look like. It might be constitutional, it might not. It is precedent. J. Millett does your position applied to president ial candidate . Mr. Consovoy this is not a candidate j. Millett there is coverage of a subpoena during the time of president ial candidacy, so does it apply to president ial candidates . Sure, and Financial Disclosure obligations and filings but then included within the subpoena so i just want to make sure. This asonly challenging it applies to the extent it seeks documents the cover him while he was president. Mr. Consovoy we are challenging the purpose of the subpoena as being unconstitutional. If the purpose was constitutional. J. Millett im back to the question of whether legislation could be had and if there is no there is anyu that constitutional implications requiring president ial candidates to file a Financial Disclosure form, and for congress to enact obligations to file Financial Disclosure forms, then that legislation would be had, covered by the subpoena. Mr. Consovoy arguing there is no basis for the court provision of in ethics in government that might sustain this legislation. Financial disclosure arguments, the subpoena covers the presidency and you also have to show im asking if youve shown met your task of showing no legislation could be had as to what is covered by the subpoena. Is thesovoy one subpoena covered and the second is in the conversations we have had, the reason for issuance, and there is no evidence on record the committee has relied on candidate issues as a basis for being subpoenaed. You are asking about the generous standard when it comes to constitutional legality starting with tobin, but another congressdont believe gets that in a separation of powers case. When you are talking about congress j. Millett we presume legitimate action by congress. We start with the presumption of legitimacy. Even the separation of powers. Mr. Consovoy those are not separation of power cases. Mr. Consovoy in an area in which the presumption is congress whether the president or the Supreme Court, it is a statue just like these tested against the justices as well. Whatever you say here j. Millett we started with this question. You dont deny the house has this power. Beis just you want them to explicit when they are invoking it and send it off to committee. I thought i got a clear answer from you on that. Im asking so you are saying, you dispute whether the house passed the resolution written just as you want, assuming it had good legislative it just doesnt have this power . Mr. Consovoy there are two questions. J. Millett congress to his not have this power to oversee the president in any capacity . Mr. Consovoy the legislation that has been articulated here, j. Millett i dont want to be unfair to you. I am really trying to understand what your position is. I had thought your starting position was, we recognize that congress has Oversight Authority over the entire executive branch including the president. But because particularly exercises in that can start pushing on constitutional faultlines, we are not going to assume the house invoked that power unless they say so explicitly. But they do have that power. It might be packaged wrong in a particular case, but they have that power as long as it is tied to legitimate legislative ends like what should the salary of the president be Going Forward. Right . If your argument is the very predicate of whether assuming they had a laundry list of perfectly constitutional statutes and were ready to enact, they still just do not structurally have any oversight er as to this one little this one isolated spot in the executive branch called the office of the presidency. So, if i could state our position and who believe will clear it up. The first question for us is does the committee has statutory authority, whether they can name the president. Presuming the statutes is everything or wanted to say, then congress does the subpoena have a legitimate legislative purpose. As part of the inquiry, they have to show valid legislation could be had. Congresshere to say has no power ever against any statute. Im saying the statute date has passedoposed here and are not founded for reasons stated. J. Millett congress does have but i am giving you that youve got your clue statement. That got alling you laundry list of perfectly constitutional legislation that reacts to president ial corruption, alleged. Im not saying here. Hypothetical president ial corruption. It doesnt make the president do anything. It just regulates appropriations, salaries, and Agency Appropriations elsewhere. One the house have oversight power over the office of the president and two, would it includes subpoena . Mr. Consovoy i would have to know what the legislation says. J. Millett ive told you the hypothetical assumed that it is appropriations for people other than the president. Mr. Consovoy if the legislation said no appropriated to any agency j. Millett can you tell me what statute they could pass . Mr. Consovoy any statute inmillett imagine they have the future the most corrupt president known to humankind, openly flaunting what law could Congress Pass . Mr. Consovoy it is very difficult j. Millett you cant think of one. Just look at the president ial record. That would be the most innocuous one and has survived. Even there, the courts bring their hands about it because it required president ial records but even there, at the most gentle touch j. Millett that was by the office of the presidency. I am telling you know legislation operates on the office of the presidency. J. Tatel let me give an example. As a result of these hearings, congress decides to strengthen the Enforcement Powers of the office of government ethics. That is all they do. Is that what it is called . Suppose that is all they do. They give it more money, and they increase its authority to look at documents. That is all they do. Is that unconstitutional . Mr. Consovoy i think it is a much harder question and the one here. J. Tatel why is it even close . Mr. Consovoy even assuming it is constitutional, that is not what is happening. J. Tatel we dont know, and what we do know is one that congress is looking at is the government of office of government ethics. There is a statute that falls right within the category that is being talked about. Mr. Consovoy back to where i was early about the genuine purpose of the subpoena, i think j. Millett we are still at what your position is. J. Rao in the hypothetical, would you be left arguing about the pregnan pertinencey of the subpoena. Mr. Consovoy the other would be whether that is the object of the subpoena. There are two scenarios. Knowwe just really want to if the president is committing illegal acts, but we know we have to come up with some legislative thing so we will tack this on. Shelton says that is not ok. J. Tatel shelton, that is not what shelton says. You didnt quote the whole sentence of shelton. Legislationt is that could be had, the fact it might also be lawful theoena grain was making point about what the real object was. J. Tatel shelton makes very judge raotly what said earlier. Congress is pursuing a legitimate legislative objective, it is not illegitimate because some of the information that would be revealed would be relevant to Law Enforcement. Mr. Consovoy i dont disagree but at the same time, shelton doesnt say the committee can holdt the president and the president for nonlegitimate reasons. J. Tatel thats true but how do we make the judgment you argue these reasons are illegitimate but if you just look at the straight record, over and over again, they are talking about legislation. They passed legislation. How do we disregard all that . If you were writing this part of the opinion, how would you do that . How would you disregard all that . Mr. Consovoy i would start with the first sentence. Legal, to hold public hearing. J. Tatel what about the rest of it where it says it is pursuing legislation . Mr. Consovoy i think actually j. Tatel you, excuse me . 107, madison forms, multiple laws and proposals under our jurisdiction. Mr. Consovoy the first, the purpose says the president engaged in illegal conduct, has conflict of entrance interest, or inaccurately j. Tatel all those things have to do with legislation otherwise, why would it consider legislation . Mr. Consovoy to come up with a rationale j. Tatel but what i am asking , this is ansovoy serious question. What is the principle that applies to disregard the evidence in the record . Lets say this is just a ruse. How do we do that . Is notsovoy i think it that we disregard the evidence that that is overcome by a mountain of contrary evidence. Mr. Consovoy the principle comes from case law, which is what sources to answer the question at all. J. Tatel that is a different argument. Let me take that argument. Weve got it. I see. I see. Mmo which fairly took a best possible substitute. Then you go to the hearings, which shelton and other cases by other statements made and dontand finally, risk disregard with the speaker is saying publicly. J. Millett can you look at pending legislation . Mr. Consovoy yes. We assume there was a legitimate legislative purpose stated in the memo from the chairman, what would then be our argument about the problems with the subpoena . Mr. Consovoy the underlying legislation being pursued, as well. And stated the purpose check that off the lists. Assuming it is the real object. Mr. Consovoy the second question is if the legislation they are pointing to constitutional or not. Third, there is a connection between the two. Ce to thenen request. There is no constitutional avoidance. J. Rao say more about the last part because we talked about the first two. Why is there no connection here in your view between the subpoena and the legislative purpose . There are j. Tatel start with the fourth. Mr. Consovoy lets start with communications, notes, and engagement letters. Thereis no pertinence between those and whether the definite pertinence. J. Tatel no communications and notes . We dont know what they say. If congress thinks that the one issue here is are they adequate to capture the real testimony . N the congresss decision whether to strengthen the law. What congress is not permitted to do. And office of the United States government. Whether an office of the United States government violated that. Is that ok . You are talking about a particular individual. You are talking about whether it is being violated by an office. Im not saying which office. Committee,ersight there is an office within the government, executive ranch office. We want to see that executive office ranch if it is complying with the law. That, ss did the individual is also an office. Executive branch office. It is not part of the executive branch. In the conventional sense. Agency, i will give you that. I am not about a statute we want to investigate corruption in an office of the west. We pickedsking like an individual off the street. The thing i wanted to follow undertake anngress investigation to expose corruption . Or is that Law Enforcement . With respect to the office you cant keep saying they cant do Law Enforcement. Are you saying is that right or not . Engage in Law Enforcement investigations, everybody but the president . They can engage in oversight and mismanagement. Probe,they undertake a probe to expose corruption in the office of the president . To somethingback you said a few minutes ago which i found stunning. Congress is worried about whether facebook and other violation of the antitrust laws. Laws adequateust to deal with facebook and twitter. Are you telling me congress could not have a hearing about that . The onlyfacebook and question is whether they are complying with antitrust laws . Is that what you are saying . Im not going to answer your question directly. Wager 99 times out of 100. It cant be, right. Interestedress was in whether Financial Disclosures are adequate. Look at they want to the Financial Disclosure forms . Why is that relevant . I get your point. I still dont understand why congress is interested in determining whether the Financial Disclosure laws are adequate. I take your point. But i dont think it is. What they would say, when you takeone person, health care laws. They say, we want to know what the average american is worth. We heard you might have had a medicaid issue. Those are private people. , thee talking about here flick and do it for private people, we can do for Government Officials. The salaries are paid by the people of the u. S. I dont think it is fair to equate the office of the this hubbub may be when you cut but, president , you are going to be involved with the other Political Branch . Look. The question is whether there is anything to look at expose corruption. To make wise judgments about the appropriation of funds. Went an it comes to the individuals,like anybody else in the government, congress can get no information. Cannot ask questions to ask the president. Cant check to see whether protecteds being properly. Whether funds are being wasted. I have been frustrated. Whether it is the agency. If he is absolutely immune from any oversight until the next election. If they are in a second term, meaning from any oversight whatsoever is that right . What can congress do . I would like another example. Raisedone that has been what can be done. Theoryave a rule about that. Name one other thing they can do to exercise oversight. Whether you want to call it the president or the office of the president. Corporations. The power of the purse. That is not going to affect a sitting president. I dont think i am breaking new grounds to suggest the fight between the president and congress is mostly a political one. Not a judicial case. You have it argued a political question. I am trying to argue why dont think it fits. We will give you some of your time back. Mr. Leonard. May it please the court. The general counsel. Moment thefor a deputy general counsel. The associate counsel. My intent is to ask my friend a number of probing questions. I intend to march through them. I wanted to start out by saying i dont get to say this very often. This is one of those instances where the District Courts extremely strong brief. Especially with regards to the Supreme Court position. Which answers a lot of these questions. The district statement, we owe some deference to congress is wrong. Those come from cases where the president is not involved. Between twospute branches. Why would we give any difference to congress at all . Why would we want objectively as a court, whether congress is pursuing this objective . Changent to get would the standards the Supreme Court has set. Cases all the cases that articulate the deferential do not involve two branches of government. Understand why wouldnt we stop that. Why we wouldstand adopt the standard. Court,ted the district saying you didnt agree. Youst dont see why, when have the president in one side and the congress on the other, you would defer to one or the other. We would win under whatever standard. Your power and congress, the Supreme Court has made it is clear. It is a practical reason for that. More power to question the congress. I dont mean to interrupt you. Wheret know of a case that principal has been articulated. I would like you to respond to my question, which is why would we grant that level of deference to congress when what you have here the separations of power. The president on one side and the congress on the other. Is on the others. Members of congress cannot their functions as legislatures. What we are saying is it is quite limited. And it doesnt matter whether on the other is side of the break you disagree with my statement. The president versus the congress. I think that is correct. Can i follow up . Cased difficult about this the complaint is donald h trump. President or as clinton versus jones . The subpoena is not to him. Part of the subpoena most of the assuming his the years, a lot of covered are when he was not the president. On the other hand, i am not quite sure which box it goes in. What capacity do you see here . As some of the questions have this is not some sort of dispute between president and congress. Congress is looking at legislative possibilities. Some of which might not involve the president at all. That cannot be emphasized enough. He wants to make it seem like all we are talking about is if congress is going to pass legislation directed at the president. That is totally wrong. Therefore, we dont think this is some sort of conflict between the branches. There may be statutes congress could pass that would involve the separation of concerns. Those would have to be looked at. That is not what is involved. Are you suggesting somehow the standards dont apply because the a subpoena is directed to the neighbors and not the president . Does that make a difference how we think about this case . Box i dont think so, your honor. The i am saying is differences as you saw, are about what Congress Might do with this information. He is saying they are going to legislation. Tional what i am saying is there are all sorts of possibilities that Congress Might come up with that do not in any way involve separation of powers. The president o me is the president. What we are looking at here, some of the things we are looking at here, happened before he was the president. A significant amount of what congress is looking into are the Financial Disclosure forms. Also, as a candidate. Part of it involves while he has been president. Art of what we are looking into involves the president. I am not going to resist i think you do have to look at this in terms of the records of the president. Supposed also say, i these are records before he was the president. You have to take that into account. Do we turn it on and off . Is there a president somewhere . You cant ignore this is the president. Think it is a group. You try to say, if congress is doing things to interfere with the president s ability to carry out his job, maybe that would there would have to be some sort of special concern. Right if he is right, that would limit the president s ability to perform his article to responsibilities. You would have to take that into account. Is whether Anything Congress is considering falls into that category. It interfere with the president in the same way when it is directed at a Certain Party . It does not. The Supreme Court has said there is no client privileged. The notion that concerns me, over, herecould hand is my diary from the last 20 years. I am giving it to you as a friend. Subpoenaed, that is information i gave to you. I am worried about ignoring the fact it is a third party. You can suggest to the president he loses his protection to a third party and he cant touch it because it came from the president. I agree with you you entered it. It does make a difference. I am sorry. I thought we were green. You said it made no difference. I am sorry. I think i misunderstood the question. Ok. Hat is doesnt matter . Yes. Is to ars it thirdparty party, not to the president. Even in clinton versus the presidency by the way , we lost. Even there, the court said here, this would have very little impact at all on how the president carries out his functions. Saying, maybe i miss hearing or misunderstanding, you cannot ignore the fact what is being asked for here does involve records of the president. Even though they are primarily records from before he was the president. Records the president gave to a third party. Exactly. For which he has some privilege. I 100 agree with you read was dr. Tion it attorney, it would be different. Thise Supreme Court said, is like baking records. We know it is not protected. In the Deutsche Bank case, there is an argument there is the right to financial privacy. What about nixon . Privacy and his financial papers . Is definitely some privacy interests as we know. Records act isl constitutional. I am pleased to hear that. They destroyed their records. Congress came in in the wake and said, we are not doing that anymore. That is an instance when congress has significantly regulated the president carrying out the function. It could depending on how much it ties in with individual functions, yes. Hise writes a letter to daughter saying, i hope you do well in college, that is not covered. As we know, any number of things , if he isat tie in saying to his aid, i am going to lie on my Financial Disclosure in fact, help me to it, that is covered. I just want to get that out there. I am sorry. Does this leave us on whether there is presumptions or not . Legalot sure what that test is. To say it is different but we cant ignore it. What does that mean practically to how we analyze the subpoena . What we have shown here is obviously a legitimate legislative purpose. There are other cases where it would matter it was in the president. In this case, it does not matter at all. The argument about constitutional voices, there are serious questions about the type of legislation. There are not. How do we do that . That Government Act is unconstitutional. We have to declare it constitutional . What do we do . Serious constitutional questions are be to are to be avoided. What about the conflict of interest requirements . I get your point about the disclosure. What about the conflict of interest requirements . U. S. Some questions about this. I wanted to tie this down. Of the things being looked it prohibits a Government Official from doing business with gsa. Does that legitimately applied to the president . Committee need documents or resources to answer that question . Gsa would not necessarily have financial statements, et cetera. What would they not have in files . I want to make sure to come back to this. I have a question about that, too. Have my notes with a big star. Where the information, was it accurate . Gsa probably doesnt have any information. There is evidence that has been evidence everybody has to be concerned about, mr. Trump plays with financial statements. He has been doing that. Hope we can get a sense of the actual situation. Actual situation. What the financial situation actually is. To theplies for post office. What hisd to know relationship is with the business entity signing the lease. Michael might not have that information. If it does not, congress would pass a law. Before we get to that to have, dont we have some indication from the house that they have authorized the committee to take this action . The court said clearly it is important not to separate the use of responsibility for investigative power. What evidence is there the house has given the committee the authority to investigate the president . I dont understand. This has nothing to do with statute. That has nothing to do with statutory consequences. Once we understand that. Is from the rules, congress has given the Oversight Committee the power of the house. House, the entire powers of the house. Into oversight matters. That is there. Constable answered very early on congress could investigate the president. Can you point to any historical examples where congress has investigated the president or subpoenaed without a full vote . Or resolution . A single example where a house has investigated the president without a full vote . Example. Give you an my understanding during the civil war, there was a committee to investigate the conduct of the war. Not surprisingly, one of the things was how president lincoln no subpoenawas issued to the president. Was that done by the full house . It was a committee of the house. The house has changed considerably. The house arguably operates by committee. Committee does investigations. Even in the case of Committee Issues, they have been specifically authorized by the house. Can you provide an example where a committee has issued a subpoena . They have not been specifically authorized as a whole . I dont know any right now. Would you say this is unprecedented . We didnt issue the subpoena to the president. We issued a subpoena or the president s papers. It is not a subpoena. Subpoenaing his accountant . There is no legal privilege . It was given to the accountant. The main thing we are looking for our private citizens. Noen to his accountant under privileges. It to investigate wrongdoing of the president as the president , right . Violations of the ethics in Government Act. As president. You cant violate if you are a private citizen pyramid we are looking into what was done before he was president. Again, going back to i only argument that congress cannot do oversight investigations of the executive printshop. Anything that is important, a cabinet member is going to be consulted with the white house. You cant provide a single example where committees have exercised this process against the president. A questiont raise about whether that is permissible . We decided president you cannon. Has doneident something that has not been done before. I am not disclosing things. Mym not setting aside business opportunities. Done before. Been he put himself in this position. How does that action and Power Congress . Or a committee of congress to issue this process . Your question, you started outcome you said it right. Remember, this committee operates with the full power of the house. We have to say, could the house . Is there any limitation on the power of the house to delegate power to a single committee . Can we delegate the full ability . It sets its own rules. Case, saying, we cannot examine what they do with their own rules. I dont know if there were something the hoe said, we are delegating that power to the member. There is no question whatsoever and no court could refuse. It would operate by committee. Its investigative role. Let me see if we cant get control of this issue. Discussion,ood our if we are look to authorize. His argument is we have to apply an award sanctioning the principal. Either because it is the president or because it is constitutional. We are not going to do this. Do you think we think there is a clear statement required . Yes. Why . Understand the clear constitutional power of the house to investigate from day one is absolutely clear. This. Hing authorized that is his argument. You can read these rules. I assume i am next. That is my next question. Means,ear statement rule before the house can issue a subpoena to a private entity he is the president of the United States. Can issue ae house subpoena to a private entity to get records, covering the must say, the house we dont have that here. No such thing is required. Rule, it statement not involveey do the house doing investigations. Courtsrstanding why the have set up a clear statement the bill is passed. It is going to regulate the president. President has to want it. To vetoecide, i want that legislation. The clear statement rule serves the purpose saying, you are applying this to me . You cant do a sneak attack on the president. It has nothing to do with that. Been investigating the president for ages. Theres nothing that requires a clear statement rule to say, we are going to investigate the president. Statement rulear in the impeachment inquiry. Job is taking care of by the constitution. My point is we are not aware of any rules that would apply. This is not an impeachment inquiry. We are not relying on an impeachment inquiry, no. A limited point, a clear statement rule acquires applies and makes a lot of sense for the legislation. It does not apply for situations like this where the house, pursuant to its movement, granted by the constitution, is broad. It is as broad as the houses power to legislate. For the it make sense court to pay into this . It is whether personal, criminal. Said, congressrt has said its purpose was to look into amending the interstate compact. The court said it, that is a tough question. Have anything anywhere near close to that. Thingsr, the kinds of congress can do here. Decide the ethics office, office of government ethics needs more money. It needs removal protection. There are people who think that is a tricky constitutional question. Whether theytricky should be a lot more money. Removal power. Some sorthat would be of issue. Congress could pass legislation involving tsa. What is your response to why this case is not controlled . It was a very specific situation. That is true of all cases. Perfect. It is easily distinguishable. Why is it . For the reason i just said. Say it again. Congress said, the Investigation Committee said, we want these materials because we went to decide whether to amend an interstate compact that had been approved. This court said, that is difficult. Statement ofe any purpose from the Oversight Committee saying what we are thinking about is adding another condition. No such thing. Stage, clearly at this it is clearly inappropriate. There are all sorts of things. Said, it is a different standard from legislation that might be had. Courts a supreme statement. We dont really care what he says about it. I have a procedural question. We have been struggling with this. How it applies. Maybe not hybrid area. It was not in their. None of this citations, development of a clear statement. We need to have briefing from you, but i havent heard you mention it. Is, i donttanding think they ever used the word in this court. If this court wants to say the argument was not preserved, we do not have any problem with that. What is your opinion. It in the trial court. They only had the most glancing argument about this. I was trying to figure out what you did not have a heading. You do not understand the . Rgument they did not get us a brief. It has been primarily developed in their brief. The clear invoke statement rule. One possibility would be to , i wanted to consult one moment. Go ahead. I dont believe they said clear statement. I think you mention this concept. Most of it is about the president. The rule applies to statutes. I thought you would have addressed that. We addressed what we think of as serious arguments. The occasion, it has nothing to do with legislation here. On the topic of forfeiture, could you address the arguments raised . I am glad you raised that. It is absolutely and completely factually wrong. I dont know why they said this. Maybe you could address their argument. Or would prefer, we could set it out. Where we made arguments. Now. Do it whenever you prefer. Briefly. I will take the letter, too. Explanation of the committees investigation, we , pagesr opposition brief three and four. Quote. Not read the whole the committee was broken into. Interests, et cetera. The constitutional questions for the moments cause the moments ulments clause. Said, recordsourt will assist. As you well know, it can support the judgment. As long as you are supporting a judgment on any ground. No need to expand the record at all. If we had not addressed this in this court, which we did , we raised it anyway. The court can affirm on those grounds. Asked,same question i question, do the you think subpoena can happen just on the basis of congressman coming forward . Reporting . O the what . We thought the subpoena was just fine. Do we need to look at the other three at all . As you are concerned, they fully support, further the emoluments clause. You dont not have to. It supports our argument. What is the crime . You mentioned the engagement clause. It is important. If we are going to get the it comesthey have, down to garbage in, garbage out. What powers or responsibilities do they have . Are they supposed to do whatever mr. Trump gives them . Are they supposed to question back . We are prohibited from asking questions. You have to know what are the terms . Otherwise, you dont know. I may. This is something where congress can regulate the president. It is right there in the constitution. Congress cannot give consent. Obviously, it is Something Congress would want to think about. Consentt say can give only when asked by the president. Even if this happens, that is ok with us. In what has legislated is appropriate and what is not. There are proposals about that very thing. Clearly this is something constitutionally congress should think about. An example is starkly, conditional consent or whatever, give that to the state department, the department of interior. Is the theory there that is conditional consent . Congress could set up legislation saying, first of all, congress could try to define. This gets to one of our most important points. His weight of asking you to rule , wehe constitutionality have no idea what it would be. If there is legislation, as you know, you pay difference to whatever conference Congress Passes. You determine if it is constitutional . You do that all the time. You say there is a presumption of constitutionality. The Supreme Court said members you only have the final say. You give deference. You are interested. Here, if congress wanted to pass legislation saying here is what is in a million meant, here is not. It is ok. Congress obviously would want to find out what is going on. With the arguments are. What emoluments are happening. Draw a more precise connection . Even assuming congress has the power to regulate in the area. Betweenthe line specific financial records of the president. Who is just one person. Is the connection between those things . Where does Congress Need to know the specific facts . Especially with regard to hotels. What is his relationship to the hotel . What is going on with the hotel . Does he think those are assets of his or not assets . What is the those . I am sorry. The hotel assets, or they assets of mr. Trumps . If the saudis come in and say, entire to rent to the hotel for the year, name a price. Is that in the million meant . We want toant know how money is coming in and how it relates to mr. Trump. The post asset is office, hotel. That is mine. How it is statute address that problem . If the powers determine the orsident had a violation of contravention . Several possibilities. If the president is doing business with the Defense Department, lets say he owns a company that manufactures a key airplanes, the Defense Department is purchasing those. I am keeping says full ownership and knowledge about this company. That might be a violation. What of hisnow relationships with his various companies, what is he training . Why would that not be something that a proper inquiry, impeachment hearing, what is the legislative purpose for congress to determine they are getting past what they are doing . Congress might want to define what is going on. Some of the issues are difficult. Is there a statute that does that . That requires disclosure . Response should it be amended . Trump presents different issues. I dont know any modern president that has done what he has done. Second, as i said, congress could design. We think he is doing a good job. Consent to all the following things. It is right in the Constitution Congress could do that. Clearly these are things he would want to look into. I need a little bit of help tracing the time of this subpoena. Otherwise, we have an issue to talk about earlier about being president ial. I think you were talking about clause. Nt rules, set by candidates. Is that correct . Those only kick in what legitimized interest and records do you have prior to january, 2017 . It was turned in march, 2011. Candidacy requires the disclosure in january, 2014. Andhad a gap between when 2014. I dont understand why there is any interest, legislative interest getting material. How do you explain the Financial Disclosure over this time . Plea president ial. When you have what obviously would be a complicated financial he has a lot of assets. He has things like losses and some years that get carried over to other years. Disappear . Suddenly that he had losses suddenly disappeared in august of 2013, he already has the gsa. Is not even covered by the president ial reporting time. What is your interest . Is it going up, down, disappearing . Losses in he has 2013, 20 14, 15, 16. What happens if it shows up a couple of years and then drops out . Remember, n . How much spinning out to get to do . There. S a gap maybe something would have popped in and out not covered by 20 13. Something mysterious in that sixmonth time that will not show up anywhere else, you have 2015. You want to know, when did they start showing up, especially when doing things like real estate assets why do they show up ie question for 2011 dont know why they cant go back. It was so complicated, and lawsuits Going Forward mr. Trump says he has been under audit for years. He himself recognizes that these are the types of things which you share from yeartoyear. And heres the key thing, we need to know why they disappeared and that may show up because we need to know, are there interests under the influence of a foreign government, foreign state, foreign company, et cetera why do things show up or not show up . The Supreme Court said, quite to letswe get congressional investigations run into blind alleys, and we need to see it as an alley that doesnt go anywhere. That is why the investigative reporting is so broad, and why we dont have to how far could you go . Can we did we . How far you could. It would depend you go back to when you started your first business. Very unlikely, your honor. Im trying to find a frivolous rule here. You have connected him to specific things, but that doesnt cover the full time period. Pertinence is a major hurdle here for us to instance i think the argument of judge ramos if we were trying to get somebodys diary from when he was seven years old who was no could come upi with some hypothetical. He stole from me and i will never forget this and many years later that person is killed, you might say thats relevant. I dont want to say never. Sayt is your job not to never. I would not say never seek the diary we will never seek the diary of a president ial i have a question. The legislative purposes youve articulated are on the office of the presidency and the scene as it peaks financial records of the president. I have been wondering from the perspective of the committee, how does the committee attack that this does involve both regulation and investigation . Ways in which the committee should treat the president different from john q public in relation to a subpoena . Question with anything, it is greater from the oversight of the executive branch. The legislation you are seeking in part is regulation of the president , including other Government Officials, but its not about the presidency, its about the financial papers of the sitting president. Yes. As those questions brought out earlier, we do not ity that in some universe might be that congress is using its powers to prevent a president from being able to do anything, to carry out his or her job. It might very well be that would raise concerns that would reach the separations of powers level. We are nowhere near that. Is that the only limitation . A subpoena that would directly infringe on his ability to exercise the powers the presidency . The president , as you know, executive privilege. As you know the Supreme Court has said that is not absolute. Required to turn over records pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. There were also congressional investigations going on and then the circuit denied the tape to a senate. There may be certain circumstances in president ial communications, but view, thengly, in our govern, so it would account would take into much more, we are nowhere near that. Has the president been treated any differently from a cabinet secretary or any Government Official in the executive branch . Is the president the same as any Government Official . No, the president is obviously the Supreme Court has said so how does the committee account for that . Here, as ive said, this president has said to the American People i can make this hard for you because im mix up my going to personal capacity and my business capacity and im going to keep doing that even while i am president. How does that impact the authority of congress . At a certain point, you obviously need to do some sort of balancing. Point you need to balance it with the president but this case is nowhere near that. How does that balance drunk, with the president alan struck, ensuring that the full powers of congress have authorized the investigation . You have to come up with an example, with the full house or senate it is not authorized. Congresshouse works differently now. They often created committee for a specific purpose, to investigate a specific issue, and that committee will issue a subpoena with specific authorization. But again, thats not how the house works anymore. Only the house gets to decide that. The house gets to decide its own rules and the house wants to delegate certain investigatory chair, the Committee House can do that and it is not subject. , it iss no case laws exercising powers and we will insist that there is no case for obvious reasons. Its not a subject for enforcing. Nixon was saying the senate has jury, soke a regular everyone has to be in the jury box at all times, and the Supreme Court said no. In that case, there was specific authorization from the senate as a whole to that committee to try the case and to try the evidence, the specific authorization. It wasnt under some generalized authority. The senate said the Judiciary Committee can do this under present authority. But let me make clear, this court sayss supreme its not a project for you to examine, thats outside your lane. Ave to address one thing the Law Enforcement point there are any number of things that congress investigates in all criminal activity. 9 11,ngress investigated at the exact same time the criminal investigation was going on. Saidy could possibly have this involves hijacking and mass carlosand therefore cannot investigate, its ludicrous. Congress can investigate even if it means it is investigating its own activity, but thats not a Law Enforcement function. Just a few technical questions. Say that the Oversight Committee has jurisdiction over the ethics in government does that come from a ruling . Where does that come from . Is that the generic rule . It is in the rule 10 jurisdiction where we got that addendum . O its just generic or is it Something Else . Your honor, give me one second. [no audio] that law goes to the Oversight Committee pursuant to extermination by the parliament and the house, that the Oversight Committee has jurisdiction over the ethics in Government Action. Is that in the record . Would you submit it . Is it titled in the brief . [no audio] im sorry. Ist we can submit to you that the Oversight Committee has exercised jurisdiction ok. Last question. The current state of the discourse . Agreed notouse had to enforce the subpoena, right . Yes, correct. That is where things stand . There is no District Court . It is pursuant to an agreement thats correct. The District Court denied it. Ok, thank you. Time. D up all your great. Very quickly. Theapplication think there is not that much to help an in the tiein is it is ifing that weve done the committee thought it had the authority to get to the president , why didnt it just use a rule to include his office . It would have been january 2019, if they already had all the authority. It isry sample we found seeking to investigate president and that is why it is the leading case do you think that statement could come from the house rule . I think if the full house passes the that. I agree, it could do on the issue of the president s ability it answers this question the president understands that the person has been issued a subpoena in the subpoena. We have to treat to a thirdparty facility. Said there is he did not preempt well there ist as no privilege. Thinkhave cited what we on the emoluments clause, i think its a great example of in search of a rationale. I could spend a lot of time talking about domestic law only the foreign line we need to know what legislation every member violates the emoluments clause, they have said they are in a conflict of interest in the idea t courts are in the pocket they have to find wrongdoing in the relationship. Thank you. Helpfulu both for your argument today. The case is dismissed. Announcer cspan washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning, man roman from the National Alliance to end homelessness, will discuss the state of living on the street with the u. S. Then the atlantic well talk about the piece on the College Graduation gap between those living in rural and urban areas in the u. S. And Centennial Institute director jeff hunt will join us to talk about the state of conservatism in the u. S. , and the western conservative state. Be sure to watch washington journal life at 7 00 a. M. Eastern this morning. Join the discussion. Useouncer the hoy overwhelmingly approved a Victims Compensation for the 9 11 victims fun never runs out of money. The bill now goes to the senate, where Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell has agreed to call a vote before Congress Goes on its august recess. Thebill would extend Compensation Fund created after the 2001 terrorist attacks through 2090, essentially making it permanent. Heres the floor debate on the bill. Without objection. Mr. Nadler i yield myself such time as i may consume. Madam speaker, today this body will, for what i hope is the final time, meet its moral obligation to provide for survivors and responders suffering from 9 11 related illnesses. This obligation is twofold. First, on september 11, 2001, it was not just the city of new york and the pentagon that were attacked, it was the entire country. A National Attack is always required a national response. That is why respondants from around the country rushed to new york to aid in the rescue and Recovery Efforts in the immediate aftermath. Today responders and survivors live in all 50 states. This is a national problem