Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents

Office of the Press Secretary

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PROMOTING THE RULE OF LAW THROUGH IMPROVED AGENCY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

 
    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that Americans are subject to only those binding rules imposed through duly enacted statutes or through regulations lawfully promulgated under them, and that Americans have fair notice of their obligations, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Policy.
  Departments and agencies (agencies) in the executive branch adopt regulations that impose legally binding requirements on the public even though, in our constitutional democracy, only Congress is vested with the legislative power.  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies, in exercising that solemn responsibility, to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to provide public notice of proposed regulations under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, allow interested parties an opportunity to comment, consider and respond to significant comments, and publish final regulations in the Federal Register.

    Agencies may clarify existing obligations through non binding guidance documents, which the APA exempts from notice-and-comment requirements.  Yet agencies have sometimes used this authority inappropriately in attempts to regulate the public without following the rulemaking procedures of the APA.  Even when accompanied by a disclaimer that it is non-binding, a guidance document issued by an agency may carry the implicit threat of enforcement action if the regulated public does not comply.  Moreover, the public frequently has insufficient notice of guidance documents, which are not always published in the Federal Register or distributed to all regulated parties.

    Americans deserve an open and fair regulatory process that imposes new obligations on the public only when consistent with applicable law and after an agency follows appropriate procedures.  Therefore, it is the policy of the executive branch, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to require that agencies treat guidance documents as non-binding both in law and in practice, except as incorporated into a contract, take public input into account when appropriate in formulating guidance documents, and make guidance documents readily available to the public.  Agencies may impose legally binding requirements on the public only through regulations and on parties on a case-by-case basis through adjudications, and only after appropriate process, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.

    Sec2.  Definitions.
  For the purposes of this order:

    (a)  "Agency" has the meaning given in section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended.

    (b)  "Guidance document" means an agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior of regulated parties, that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue, or an interpretation of a statute or regulation, but does not include the following:

        (i)    rules promulgated pursuant to notice and comment under section 553 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

        (ii)   rules exempt from rulemaking requirements under section 553(a) of title 5, United States Code;

        (iii)  rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice;

        (iv)   decisions of agency adjudications under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, or similar statutory provisions;

        (v)    internal guidance directed to the issuing agency or other agencies that is not intended to have substantial future effect on the behavior of regulated parties; or

        (vi)   internal executive branch legal advice or legal opinions addressed to executive branch officials.

    (c)  "Significant guidance document" means a guidance document that may reasonably be anticipated to:

        (i)    lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

        (ii)   create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

        (iii)  materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

        (iv)   raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles of Executive Order 12866.

    (d)  "Pre-enforcement ruling" means a formal written communication by an agency in response to an inquiry from a person concerning compliance with legal requirements that interprets the law or applies the law to a specific set of facts supplied by the person.  The term includes informal guidance under section 213 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121 (Title II), as amended, letter rulings, advisory opinions, and no-action letters.

    Sec3.  Ensuring Transparent Use of Guidance Documents.
  (a) Within 120 days of the date on which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency or agency component, as appropriate, shall establish or maintain on its website a single, searchable, indexed database that contains or links to all guidance documents in effect from such agency or component.  The website shall note that guidance documents lack the force and effect of law, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.

    (b)  Within 120 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall review its guidance documents and, consistent with applicable law, rescind those guidance documents that it determines should no longer be in effect.  No agency shall retain in effect any guidance document without including it in the relevant database referred to in subsection (a) of this section, nor shall any agency, in the future, issue a guidance document without including it in the relevant database.  No agency may cite, use, or rely on guidance documents that are rescinded, except to establish historical facts.  Within 240 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum, an agency may reinstate a guidance document rescinded under this subsection without complying with any procedures adopted or imposed pursuant to section 4 of this order, to the extent consistent with applicable law, and shall include the guidance document in the relevant database.

    (c)  The Director of OMB (Director), or the Director's designee, may waive compliance with subsections (a) and (b) of this section for particular guidance documents or categories of guidance documents, or extend the deadlines set forth in those subsections.

    (d)  As requested by the Director, within 240 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, an agency head shall submit a report to the Director with the reasons for maintaining in effect any guidance documents identified by the Director.  The Director shall provide such reports to the President.  This subsection shall apply only to guidance documents existing as of the date of this order.

    Sec4.  Promulgation of Procedures for Issuing Guidance Documents.  (a)  Within 300 days of the date on which OMB issues an implementing memorandum under section 6 of this order, each agency shall, consistent with applicable law, finalize regulations, or amend existing regulations as necessary, to set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents.  The process set forth in each regulation shall be consistent with this order and shall include:

        (i)    a requirement that each guidance document clearly state that it does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract;

        (ii)   procedures for the public to petition for withdrawal or modification of a particular guidance document, including a designation of the officials to which petitions should be directed; and

        (iii)  for a significant guidance document, as determined by the Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Administrator), unless the agency and the Administrator agree that exigency, safety, health, or other compelling cause warrants an exemption from some or all requirements, provisions requiring:

            (A)  a period of public notice and comment of at least 30 days before issuance of a final guidance document, and a public response from the agency to major concerns raised in comments, except when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates such finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor into the guidance document) that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest;

            (B)  approval on a non-delegable basis by the agency head or by an agency component head appointed by the President, before issuance;

            (C)  review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under Executive Order 12866, before issuance; and

            (D)  compliance with the applicable requirements for regulations or rules, including significant regulatory actions, set forth in Executive Orders 12866, 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 13609 (Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation), 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), and 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda).

    (b)  The Administrator shall issue memoranda establishing exceptions from this order for categories of guidance documents, and categorical presumptions regarding whether guidance documents are significant, as appropriate, and may require submission of significant guidance documents to OIRA for review before the finalization of agency regulations under subsection (a) of this section.  In light of the Memorandum of Agreement of April 11, 2018, this section and section 5 of this order shall not apply to the review relationship (including significance determinations) between OIRA and any component of the Department of the Treasury, or to compliance by the latter with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 13609, 13771, and 13777.  Section 4(a)(iii) and section 5 of this order shall not apply to pre-enforcement rulings.

    Sec5.  Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609.
  The requirements and procedures of Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609 shall apply to guidance documents, consistent with section 4 of this order.

    Sec6.  Implementation.
  The Director shall issue memoranda and, as appropriate, regulations pursuant to sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, and other appropriate authority, to provide guidance regarding or otherwise implement this order.

    Sec7.  General Provisions.
  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

        (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

        (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    (d)  Notwithstanding any other provision in this order, nothing in this order shall apply:

        (i)    to any action that pertains to foreign or military affairs, or to a national security or homeland security function of the United States (other than guidance documents involving procurement or the import or export of non-defense articles and services);

        (ii)   to any action related to a criminal investigation or prosecution, including undercover operations, or any civil enforcement action or related investigation by the Department of Justice, including any action related to a civil investigative demand under 18 U.S.C. 1968;

        (iii)  to any investigation of misconduct by an agency employee or any disciplinary, corrective, or employment action taken against an agency employee;

        (iv)   to any document or information that is exempt from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act); or

        (v)    in any other circumstance or proceeding to which application of this order, or any part of this order, would, in the judgment of the head of the agency, undermine the national security.


                        DONALD J. TRUMP

 
THE WHITE HOUSE,
    October 9, 2019.

President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate and Appoint Individuals to Key Administration Posts

Office of the Press Secretary
President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate and Appoint Individuals to Key Administration Posts
 
Today, President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key positions in his Administration:

Amanda Wood Laihow, of Maine, to be a Member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission for the remainder of a six-year term expiring April 27, 2023.

Amanda Wood Laihow currently serves as the Chief Counsel to Chairman James J. Sullivan, Jr. at the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.  In this role, she is the primary legal advisor to the Chairman, giving critical, independent, and innovative legal advice on all pending matters.  Previously, Ms. Laihow was the Director of Labor and Employment Policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, where she advocated for significant labor issues pertaining to employee health and safety under the Occupational Safety and Health Act and workforce issues related to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and anti-discrimination laws.  Before joining the private sector, Ms. Laihow served as Deputy General Counsel for the United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and served as Assistant General Counsel at the General Services Administration.  A Maine native, Ms. Laihow earned her J.D. from the University of Maine School of Law and her B.A. in Political Science from the University of New Hampshire. She currently resides in Arlington, Virginia, with her husband and two daughters.

Almo J. Carter, of the District of Columbia, to be a Commissioner of the United States Parole Commission for a term of six years.
 
---

Today, President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to be Members of the Commission on Presidential Scholars:

George Mentz of Colorado
Somers White Farkas of Virginia
Janet Richmond Whichard of California
Jeanne J. Smoot of North Carolina
Guido M. Pichini of Pennsylvania
Marc Andersen of Virginia
Rose C. LaVerghetta of New York
Dean Reuter of Virginia
Joseph C. Stewart, Jr. of Missouri

Today, President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to be Members of the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships:

Ryan E. Mackenzie of Pennsylvania
John DeStefano of Missouri
Barrett Karr of Texas
 
---

Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump appointed the following individual to a key position in his Administration:

Kirstjen Nielsen of Virginia, to be a Member of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council.

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP IS COMBATING BUREAUCRATIC ABUSE AND HOLDING FEDERAL AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE

Office of the Press Secretary

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP IS COMBATING BUREAUCRATIC ABUSE AND HOLDING FEDERAL AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE

“We are reforming the bureaucracy to make it lean, responsive, and accountable.  And we are ensuring our laws are enforced fairly.” – President Donald J. Trump


RESTORING TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS: President Donald J. Trump is protecting Americans by restoring transparency and fairness to the bureaucracy.

  • Today, President Trump signed two Executive Orders that will improve the transparency and fairness of government agencies and ensure that they are held accountable.
  • The “Improved Agency Guidance Documents” Executive Order requires agencies to put their guidance documents on easily searchable websites so individuals are able to access them.
    • To ensure Americans have their voices heard, the Order will also require government agencies to seek public input on the most important guidance they issue.
    • Americans will be able to ask agencies to withdraw guidance they believe is wrong.
  • The “Transparency and Fairness” Executive Order prohibits agencies from enforcing rules they have not made publicly known in advance.
    • The order also instructs agencies to offer opinion letters to individuals and businesses who request them, so people who want to comply with the law can learn how.
COMBATING BUREAUCRATIC ABUSE: The Trump Administration is taking action to end the administrative abuse that hurts American families and small businesses.
  • Under the Obama Administration, a lack of transparency and accountability allowed Federal agencies to commit horrible abuses against the American people.
  • Agencies abused their power by imposing unlawful and secret interpretations of regulations, as well as by threatening families and businesses with unfair and unexpected penalties.
    • In 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) threatened a family with up to $20 million in fines for building an environmentally-friendly pond for livestock without first seeking EPA permission, even though Congress had exempted these ponds from EPA’s reach.
    • A 77-year-old United States Navy veteran was imprisoned and ordered to pay $130,000 after the EPA – under the Clean Water Act – declared several small ponds the veteran created to fight wildfires as federally protected navigable waters.
  • Going forward, agencies will have to give people fair notice of any complaint against them and a chance to respond.
UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENTERPRISE: These actions build on President Trump’s historic efforts to unleash economic growth and increase prosperity through regulatory reform.
  • President Trump has delivered on his promise to cut burdensome and unnecessary regulations that stifle economic growth and hurt small businesses.
    • The removal of agency mandates affords small businesses the opportunity to use their profits to invest in job creation and grow instead of wasting them on compliance costs.
  • The Administration has cut 14 regulations for every new significant regulation implemented.
  • These actions are reversing a long track record of a highly ineffective federal bureaucracy that has harmed American businesses and families to no end.
Office of the Press Secretary

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP IS COMBATING BUREAUCRATIC ABUSE AND HOLDING FEDERAL AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE

“We are reforming the bureaucracy to make it lean, responsive, and accountable.  And we are ensuring our laws are enforced fairly.” – President Donald J. Trump


RESTORING TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS: President Donald J. Trump is protecting Americans by restoring transparency and fairness to the bureaucracy.

  • Today, President Trump signed two Executive Orders that will improve the transparency and fairness of government agencies and ensure that they are held accountable.
  • The “Improved Agency Guidance Documents” Executive Order requires agencies to put their guidance documents on easily searchable websites so individuals are able to access them.
    • To ensure Americans have their voices heard, the Order will also require government agencies to seek public input on the most important guidance they issue.
    • Americans will be able to ask agencies to withdraw guidance they believe is wrong.
  • The “Transparency and Fairness” Executive Order prohibits agencies from enforcing rules they have not made publicly known in advance.
    • The order also instructs agencies to offer opinion letters to individuals and businesses who request them, so people who want to comply with the law can learn how.
COMBATING BUREAUCRATIC ABUSE: The Trump Administration is taking action to end the administrative abuse that hurts American families and small businesses.
  • Under the Obama Administration, a lack of transparency and accountability allowed Federal agencies to commit horrible abuses against the American people.
  • Agencies abused their power by imposing unlawful and secret interpretations of regulations, as well as by threatening families and businesses with unfair and unexpected penalties.
    • In 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) threatened a family with up to $20 million in fines for building an environmentally-friendly pond for livestock without first seeking EPA permission, even though Congress had exempted these ponds from EPA’s reach.
    • A 77-year-old United States Navy veteran was imprisoned and ordered to pay $130,000 after the EPA – under the Clean Water Act – declared several small ponds the veteran created to fight wildfires as federally protected navigable waters.
  • Going forward, agencies will have to give people fair notice of any complaint against them and a chance to respond.
UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENTERPRISE: These actions build on President Trump’s historic efforts to unleash economic growth and increase prosperity through regulatory reform.
  • President Trump has delivered on his promise to cut burdensome and unnecessary regulations that stifle economic growth and hurt small businesses.
    • The removal of agency mandates affords small businesses the opportunity to use their profits to invest in job creation and grow instead of wasting them on compliance costs.
  • The Administration has cut 14 regulations for every new significant regulation implemented.
  • These actions are reversing a long track record of a highly ineffective federal bureaucracy that has harmed American businesses and families to no end.

Bill Announcement

Office of the Press Secretary
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, the President signed into law:


H.R. 1590, the "Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel Exercise Act of 2019," which requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop and conduct an exercise related to the detection and prevention of terrorist and foreign fighter travel; and

S. 239, the "Christa McAuliffe Commemorative Coin Act of 2019, which requires the Department of the Treasury to mint and issue coins in recognition of Christa McAuliffe.

ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RUSS VOUGHT: TRUMP KEEPS PROMISE TO TAME BUREAUCRACY THAT RUNS ROUGHSHOD OVER AMERICANS

Office of the Press Secretary
ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RUSS VOUGHT: TRUMP KEEPS PROMISE TO TAME BUREAUCRACY THAT RUNS ROUGHSHOD OVER AMERICANS 

“The impact of these two new Executive Orders will massively multiply the work President Trump has already done to drain the D.C. swamp. President Trump is not only returning control over the government to the people and state and local governments, he is revitalizing the economy so Americans from all walks of life, and from every state, have the opportunity to prosper. He is making the federal government work for Americans again.”

Trump keeps promise to tame bureaucracy that runs roughshod over Americans
By Acting OMB Director Russ Vought
Fox News
October 9, 2019

When President Trump took office in 2017, he promised the American people that he would clean up Washington’s regulatory overreach. He pledged to make government accountable to the people. And he has made good on his promises by driving the largest deregulation effort since President Reagan took office over 30 years ago.



This week, the president will build on his success by signing two Executive Orders that will level the playing field for American families and small businesses and shine a light on the Federal bureaucracy that runs roughshod over American citizens.

President Trump’s “Transparency and Fairness” Executive Order protects Americans against secret or unlawful bureaucratic interpretations of rules and guards against unfair or unexpected penalties for non-compliance. American families and entrepreneurs are not the enemy, and it is long past time D.C. stopped treating them as such.



President Trump’s “Bringing Guidance out of the Darkness” Executive Order stops agencies from skirting the laws that let the American public provide input on government rules that can limit their freedom. Too many agencies have found it easier to impose costly and excessive mandates through informal interpretations buried on their websites instead of going through the regular public review process Congress requires for agency rules.

Put simply, large government agencies often allow political agendas to improperly influence their interpretation of the law and how it applies to you. Worse still, they deny you a seat at the table when they do it.



Americans should expect that government of, by, and for the people will respect those very same people. This administration is committed to making government agencies transparent and accountable to the taxpayers. It is not only the right thing to do—it is a big boost to the economy, too.

Deregulation has real-dollar consequences for American families. Government-wide regulatory reform actions will save the average American household $3,100 in coming years. And benefits are already being felt across the economy—the Trump administration reduced regulatory costs by $33 billion in its first two years alone. In stark contrast, the Obama-Biden administration *increased* regulatory costs by more than $245 billion during its first two years.



Thanks to President Trump’s vision and leadership, this administration has been laser-focused on rolling back the abuses and high cost of the regulatory deep state.

From his first week in office, President Trump challenged the government to roll back two old regulations for every new one. In Fiscal Year 2017, we far surpassed his goal and rolled back 22 regulations for every new one. In FY 2018, we rolled back 12 rules for every new rule.

...

Read the full op-ed here.

 

West Wing Reads Why Can’t Dems Treat Trump as Fairly as Republicans Did Bill Clinton?

West Wing Reads

Why Can’t Dems Treat Trump as Fairly as Republicans Did Bill Clinton?


The White House informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday that “the Executive Branch won’t play along with the lawless ‘inquiry’ that House Democrats have been engaged in,” the New York Post editorial board writes.

“White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s letter to Pelosi spells out the problems. While the Constitution clearly gives the House the power to begin impeachment proceedings, it does not give the speaker the privilege of declaring them all by herself.”

Precedent is on President Trump’s side here, the Post writes. Unlike impeachment inquiries against Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, Speaker Pelosi never called a floor vote to open proceedings. Instead, House Democrats are deposing witnesses behind closed doors, denying Republican colleagues fair time to ask questions, and “leaking negative info and withholding favorable facts — feeding fanatically anti-Trump media to repeat slanted interpretations as fact.”

Click here to read more.

The letter: Read the White House’s full response to Democrat leaders.
Once again, the media got a key detail wrong about the “whistleblower” attack against President Trump. “The whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election,” Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner. 
“First lady Melania Trump announced on Tuesday afternoon that she had—ceremonial shovel in hand—marked the start of construction for a new White House tennis pavilion on the South Lawn,” Kate Bennett reports for CNN.
“President Trump awarded the Medal of Freedom Tuesday to Edwin Meese III, calling the former attorney general ‘a titan’ and ‘a star,’” Marisa Schultz reports for the New York Post. Meese served as U.S. Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan.

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AT PRESENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM TO EDWIN MEESE Oval Office

Office of the Press Secretary
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP
AT PRESENTATION OF THE PRESIDENTIAL MEDAL OF FREEDOM
TO EDWIN MEESE

Oval Office
 

4:47 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  And I want to thank everybody for being here.  This is a very special event.  Today, it's my tremendous privilege to present our nation’s highest civilian honor to a absolute titan of American law and a heroic defender of the American Constitution: former Counselor to the President and Attorney General of the United States, Ed Meese.  Very special man.  (Applause.)

Ed, congratulations on receiving a really incredible award.  This is something that -- we have the Congressional Medal of Honor and we have the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  And this is something that's very special for me to present it to you.  I've heard so many incredible things over the years about you.  So, congratulations.  It's my honor to be with you.

We're delighted to be joined by Vice President Mike Pence; Attorney General William Barr -- Bill; Acting OMB Director Russ Vought; and Heritage Foundation President Kay Cole James.  Hi, Kay.  Also -- he did a good job, didn’t he?  (Laughter.)  Huh?

Also with us is Ed’s terrific family: his wife of 61 years, Ursula.  Thank you, Ursula.


MRS. MEESE:  You're welcome.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  It's a long time.  Good husband, right?  (Laughter.)  He was a good husband.

MRS. MEESE:  First 38 years.

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughs.)  At least for the first 38 years.  (Laughter.)
Along with his children, grandchildren, and his great grandson, Liam.  I know you.  Huh?  (Laughter.)  He grabbed me.  I said, "I like this guy."  Good.  Thank you for being here. 

Ed Meese was born into a deeply patriotic family committed to public service.  His father worked in local government for five decades, including many years as police court clerk.  His dad’s stories of -- I mean, and he had some incredible stories, from what I was told.  His stories of serving the people of Oakland inspired Ed’s lifetime of passion.  And his law enforcement career was unparalleled.

After graduating from Yale in 1953, Ed attended the University of California at Berkeley Law School and served two years of active duty in the United States Army.  He remained in the Reserves for another two and a half decades, retiring as a Colonel in 1984.  I didn’t know that, Ed.  That was pretty good, right?

Ed married Ursula, the love of his life, in 1958.  And they wanted me to say that, and he meant it.  Truly, the love of his life.  That's a beautiful thing.

He then became Deputy District Attorney of Alameda County, California, the same county where he had grown up.  He regularly rode with local police on patrol.  One officer later said about Ed, “Finding someone around here who doesn’t like Ed Meese is like trying to find a four-year-old who doesn’t like Santa Claus.”  (Laughter.)  So, in other words, he was a popular guy.

When chaos and violence broke out on the campus of UC Berkeley, Ed was instrumental in restoring order, peace, and public safety.

In 1966, still the deputy district attorney of his native county, Ed was introduced to Governor-elect Ronald Reagan for the first time.  At the end of a 30-minute one-on-one meeting, the new governor offered Ed a job.  He said, "This guy has the potential to be great."

Ed joined the administration as Legal Affairs Secretary and quickly earned Governor Reagan’s trust.  Just two years later, he became Chief of Staff.  In that position, Ed worked tirelessly to serve the people of California.  He helped negotiate the first major welfare reform in the nation, fought for the Governor’s legislative priority, and helped propel Ronald Reagan onto a national stage.  And it was a stage that was a truly great one; he became a great President.

After Governor Reagan narrowly lost the 1976 presidential primary campaign, Ed joined the faculty of San Diego University Law School and became the founding director of its Center for Criminal Justice Policy and Management.

In 1980, Ed became a key leader in Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign.  And Ed knew that was going to happen; it was just a question of time.  After Reagan’s victory that November, he oversaw the presidential transition.

In the new administration, Ed was appointed Counselor to the President and was the only White House staff member included in President Reagan’s Cabinet.  In that position, he drove sweeping reforms of the executive branch and ensured the departments worked together to achieve the administration’s goals.  And he was a star.

Ed was among President Reagan’s closest advisors as the administration implemented tax cuts, a dramatic defense build-up, and a relentless campaign to defeat communism.  Ed helped spearhead an initiative to fight organized crime and public corruption, supported a task force on victims of crime, and chaired the first White House meeting on missile defense that led to the Strategic Defense Initiative -- a strategy that helped win the Cold War.

In 1984, President Reagan nominated Ed Meese to be Attorney General.  We have our Attorney General with us, and he’s also doing a great job, I will tell you that.  (Applause.)

In the course of a grueling nomination process, he showed incredible grace and grit.  The Democrats tried to derail his nomination, but Ed stayed strong.  And after 13 months, he was finally confirmed.  That sounds like the kind of things we go through.  (Laughter.)  You know, if you get -- if you win by one vote today, it’s like considered a landslide.  That sounds no different.  Boy, things don’t change very much, do they?  Do they, Kay?  I don’t think so.

Over the next three years, Ed would deliver monumental change for the American people.  As Attorney General, Ed led the battle against drugs.  He aggressively targeted traffickers and their assets.  He also chaired the National Drug Policy Board and coordinated the administration’s response to the drug crisis.

In the years that followed, the strategy proved successful.  Between 1982 and 1992, drug use by young adults plummeted by 50 percent nationwide.  Would you like to make a comeback?  That’s a pretty good number.  (Laughter.)  You know, we’ve got it down 18 percent, but I like 50 percent better.  But we’re dealing with a whole new set of drugs, unfortunately.  It’s getting -- it’s a very tough situation.

Perhaps Ed’s greatest contribution to American law has been his unwavering advocacy for the legal principle that judges must adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution, setting aside their own personal and political views.

Through the decades, Ed has been one of the most eloquent champions for following the Constitution as written.  To ensure fidelity to our founding documents, Ed supported the growth of the Federalist Society and worked to confirm supremely qualified judges, including the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whose son just became the Secretary -- you know that -- Secretary of Labor.  Gene.  Just had him in, and it was a great ceremony we had.

After concluding a historic tenure as Attorney General, Ed joined the Heritage Foundation.  Over his 30 years at Heritage, he helped create the Foundation’s Legal and Judicial Studies Department, which is now named in his honor.  And we’re talking about judges.  And I will say, Heritage has been very helpful with us also, as you know.  And I just had, on that desk, a little while ago, another six.  And we’ll be up to, very soon, about 182 federal judges and 2 Supreme Court judges.  That’s not including two Supreme Court.  So we really -- (applause) -- we really have made tremendous strides.  It’s a number that few people have been able to even come close to.  So, it’s great.  And we appreciate all the work you’ve done, too, Kay.

Ed has advocated for effective law enforcement against over-criminalization, and is always in defense of the Constitution and the system of government designed by our Founders.

Ed, you are a loyal fighter for freedom, a champion of law and order, mentor to young Americans, and faithful defender of our Republic.  You are an inspiration to liberty-loving citizens everywhere.  You’re just an inspiration, period.  Everybody that knows you uses that word: You're an inspiration.  On behalf of the grateful nation that I love and that we serve, I want to thank you.  I want to thank you for your incredible lifetime of exceptional service and of devotion to our country.

And I just want to say to your family that this is an extraordinary man, and I looked at all of your wonderful children and grandchildren and your great-grandson and you.  I’m especially talking about you.  (Laughter.)  You have very good genes.  Just remember the President -- you have great genes between the two of them.  Okay?  Great genes.

So it is now my honor to ask the military aide to come forward and present Edwin Meese III with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Thank you.  Congratulations, Ed.  (Applause.)  Ed, I think we may -- we’ll do this first.  Okay?

MILITARY AIDE:  Edwin Meese III has long been thought -- a thought leader and strong conservative voice on matters of law and policy.  As Counselor to President Ronald Reagan, Mr. Meese helped to craft the foreign policy strong enough to help end the Cold War and played a pivotal role in helping to secure historic tax cuts.

As Attorney General, he promoted federalism and the original public understanding of our Constitution.

Since leaving public service, Edwin Meese has continued to champion our nation’s founding principles through his extensive work at the Heritage Foundation.

The United States proudly honors Edwin Meese III, who has dedicated his life to serving our nation and protecting our liberties.

(The Medal of Freedom is presented.)  (Applause.)

MR. MEESE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you very much both for this very fine award -- an award which I will cherish, obviously, forever -- but also for the kind words that you gave and what you have mentioned, but particularly for the privilege of being here with you and to have my family here to meet you and also to listen to this particular ceremony.

It’s just a great privilege that I appreciate very much, and appreciate all that you have done to make us welcome here, and, as I say, for those kind words.

I’m also very grateful to the Vice President for being here.  Mr. Vice President, you and I have been friends since the day you were in Congress here, not so many years ago.  And it was great to have known you and followed your career also.  And I think you and the President make one of the finest teams we’ve had in our country.  And I’m very grateful particularly to have this award coming from the two of you.  And I thank you.  (Applause.)

I also want to mention Bill Barr, and I thank you, Bill, for this.  You and I started work together in the first term of Ronald Reagan; you were in the Office of Policy Development.  And you’ve risen to continue the string of great Attorneys General in this country, and I certainly appreciate what you’re doing now.  I must say, from my own experience, I understand what you’re going through now.  (Laughter.)  So it’s even better to wish you well in the fine work you're doing.  (Applause.)

     Mr. President, I'm also really honored by the members of your administration who are here today.  As I look around, I see so many good friends here.  I can't name them all or it would take up the rest of the afternoon, but so many of them and so many who've I've appreciated the chance to work with as I look around.  And, really, I'm very honored that you would all come out to see this particular ceremony.

     As I stand here today, I can't do anything other than to thank and praise God for the opportunities and the blessings that I have received in the course of my life.  And, of course, one of the greatest blessings in my life has been wife, as you point out, of over 60 years, who is with me today and who is my best friend, a partner in everything I have done, and a great teammate.  Particularly, I attribute to her the handsome family of kids we have here.  (Laughter.)

     And also, to my whole family.  Family has been my foundation throughout our married life, and it's just great to see and to be with all of them today.  And, Mr. President, you honor me by allowing them to participate in this particular event.  And, you know, it's just great to know that we have here today four generations of Meeses.  And so, it's a great, great honor to have them here.

     You spoke about the privilege that I had of working for Ronald Reagan.  And I will always be indebted to him not only for the honor he did by having me honored -- or appointed to serve under his leadership for 30 years, from 1967, when I first served, as you pointed out, as his Legal Affairs Secretary, to 1997, when he went into the social -- total security -- total isolation, really.  And I had that privilege to work for him in the state of California; here, as you pointed out, obviously in Washington, D.C.; and then following that both in the building of his library and then -- and today, I still have the privilege -- in the Young America's Foundation, they now have taken over his ranch in Santa Barbara, and I have the privilege of serving as the co-chairman of that Ranch Board of Governors.  So Ronald Reagan was a pivotal part of my life, and I am always grateful to him.

But, you know, the things that you mentioned -- and you were very kind and generous in all that you said -- the things that you mentioned are something that I could not have done by myself.  I was always very lucky to have a team of people that I was able to work with.  And over the period of time, I can't think of better people than anyone could have as teammates and people participating in the work of the United States of America, both obviously in my early days, but particularly over the last 30-some-odd years as I was privileged to work here in Washington, D.C.

     One person who has been a friend, a counselor, literally, and also a great teammate has been Ken Cribb, who is here today.  And he has -- (applause) -- Ken has always been there by my side and giving me excellent advice and help, and, as they say today, always having my back.  And I am very grateful, Ken.

     Another person who was with me -- and who will join me -- in the Department of Justice -- two people, actually, that are here today that I want to mention: One is Mark Levin.  This was before he became famous.  (Laughter and applause.)

     He was just kind of a young, mild-young -- you know, easygoing, young man.  (Laughter.)  And we're happy to have him here with his wife, Julie.

     And a third one was Becky Dunlop who was in the Department of Justice with me and did a terrific job.  (Applause.)  So it's great to have them.

     And, of course, Bob McEwen, who is here, has been an advisor and a helper to me in the conservative movement, and an inspiration, as well as a great teammate.

     And then, also, it is great because, as you pointed out when I was privileged -- when I left the government in 19- -- the end of 1988, I was privileged to be asked to join the Heritage family,  And under Kay's leadership, and Kim Holmes, and now today with John Malcolm heading up the legal center, and with Bridgett Wagner, who is here -- Becky was with us there -- we've had a -- just had a great time and a great team of people that I was privileged to work with there.

It's been just a great thing for me to have all of these opportunities, as I mentioned earlier.  And it's -- I'm very grateful to all of those people that are here.

     I also am grateful to another guest, our pastor, Pastor Bill Barr -- Bill Mann.  Bill Mann has been a great spiritual leader for our family, and I'm grateful very much for that.

     I'm just -- as I say, there's so many things to be grateful for today.  And the only thing that I would do, Mr. President, is mention a couple of things that particularly are meaningful to me.  You've done so many things, but there are three things that have been particularly meaningful.  You've mentioned one of them, and that it your commitment to the Constitution and your commitment to making sure that it's interpreted as it actually reads.  And for that, you have appointed these outstanding judges now, which is a monument to justice and the rule of law that will last literally -- literally, for decades.  And I'm grateful for that.

     The second thing is your emphasis on religious liberty.  Your speech to the United Nations was, I believe, the first by any President to talk about that subject before this august buddy -- body.  And there's no group that needed that encouragement more on that particular subject.  (Laughter.)

     And finally, I am grateful and Ursula is grateful, because of our family, for your support for the Armed Forces of the United States.  You have not only given them leadership, you've given them the resources they need, but you've gone beyond that.  You have shown your personal respect for every man and woman in uniform.  And that's something that really is not only good for them, but also for their families so that their families can see the dignity that you appreciate in the work that our military folks are doing.

     All of these things are very important to us.  And as a result, today I couldn't be happier and I couldn't be more grateful to any person for what you've given us here today.  Thank you, sir.

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Ed.  That's so nice.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  Beautiful.

     Well, you know, you're right about Mark; he has become a star.  Maybe I'd like to have Mark say a few words and the Attorney General say a few words, and our Vice President say a few words.  Could we do that?  Come on up first, Mark.  Just nice and easy now, Mark.  Nice -- (laughter).  Good.

     MR. LEVIN:  Well, it's a great honor to be here with two great men, President Trump and Attorney General Meese.  And it was an honor to work for you as Special Assistant, then Chief of Staff, through the good, the bad, and the ugly.

And you accomplished many, many things as Attorney General of the United States.  And you've always been wonderful to my family, you and Ursula.  You're family to us, and you always will be.  And this is a great honor, and I can't think of a better person to receive it.

     And, Mr. President, I want to thank you -- (laughter) -- I want to thank you for everything you're doing for this country.  I've known two great Presidents: Ronald Reagan and you.  And I'm sorry you're going through what you're going through, but I want you to know there's tens of millions of people who stand with you.  So, God bless you.  (Applause.) 

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  Bill?  Mike?  Come up.  Come up.  Please.

     THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And it really is my great honor to serve alongside this President and to be able to share this moment with you, Attorney General Meese, and with your wonderful family.

     It is extraordinary to think of the life of consequence that you have lived, coming alongside one American President, but also being there every step of the way as this President brought forward a vision to rebuild our military, revive our economy, reground the courts of this country to constitutional principles of limited government.

And on behalf of the President and on behalf of a grateful nation, it's my honor to add my congratulations to you on the President Medal of Freedom.  Congratulations.  (Applause.)

     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.) 

                                            END                5:11 P.M. EDT
 

BACKGROUND PRESS CALL BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ON LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Via Teleconference

Office of the Press Secretary
BACKGROUND PRESS CALL
BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
ON LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Via Teleconference
 

5:20 P.M. EDT

     MR. GIDLEY:  Thank you so much everyone.  We appreciate you joining the call.  This is a background briefing regarding the letter to the House Representatives.  Keep in mind that this call is attributable to a senior administration official, so on background only.  It is also embargoed until the conclusion of the call.

     With that, I’m going to turn it over to [a senior administration official] to give you a brief overview of the letter.  And then I have [senior administration officials] to answer questions after the presentation.

So, with that, I’m going to turn it over to [senior administration official].

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you, Hogan.  Thank you everyone for being on the call.  Today, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and to the chairmen of the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform committees of the House of Representatives, explaining the President’s and the administration’s position with respect to recent requests for information in connection with what the House has characterized as an impeachment inquiry.  And the letter explains that there are legal and constitutional flaws that make what has been labeled a so-called “impeachment inquiry” invalid as a constitutional matter.

     For the first time in our nation’s history, the House of Representatives is now purporting to proceed on an impeachment inquiry against the President without conducting a vote on the House floor.  This has never happened in the history of the country.  There’s always been, in every prior inquiry into a presidential impeachment, a vote on the House floor.

And here, the House is purporting to proceed simply on the basis of a news conference that the Speaker of the House had.  And that is simply not sufficient to establish the sort of accountability to show the will of the House to embark on this that is required out of due respect for the separation of powers and for the vote of the American people that was taken in the last election.

     Even more importantly, the second legal and constitutional flaw is that the House is purporting to proceed without providing any of the due process protections that have been provided in all modern presidential impeachment inquiries in the past.  The House is not providing any rules to provide the President any of the basic procedural rights that would apply in any proceeding that is designed to achieve a real search for the truth.
     They have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts as testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present -- all of these.  And these have been in the 1970s, in the inquiries into President Nixon; in the late 1990s, the inquiries into impeachment with President Clinton.  All these rights were available.  It is unprecedented that they are being denied here, and it violates basic due process standards.

     In addition to that, by failing to have any resolution on the House floor, the House has avoided giving even the minority on the committees the right to subpoena.  So, in all prior modern presidential inquiries into presidential impeachment, the minority party has had co-equal authority to issue subpoenas to gather information along with the majority.

This is the first time ever that someone -- that a House has tried to pursue such an inquiry while denying the minority that right.  And it simply guarantees that this would be a one-sided inquiry, a one-sided effort by one party to gather the information that it finds favorable, without the same power on the other side to gather other information.

And that’s contrary to one of the basic tenets of our adversarial system of justice, which is that, in having an adversarial presentation of evidence -- two sides trying to get at the truth -- that is the best way to get at the truth of something.  Again, it’s denial of basic fairness, fundamental fairness in this process.

And so, the letter explains that there are these flaws denying fundamental fairness and due process, contrary to all history and precedent in the country, and explains that the reason the Democrats are proceeding in this fashion is that this is really nothing but a political strategy.  It’s a political stratagem because the Democrats want to overturn the results of the 2016 election and they want to use impeachment as a political strategy to influence the results of the 2020 election.  And this, again, is unprecedented in the history of our nation to use such a grave constitutional proceeding for such raw political ends.

It’s something that was denounced even by Chairman Nadler in the context of the Bill Clinton impeachment.  He explained then that there should never be a narrowly voted impeachment, or impeachment supported by one political party and opposed by another -- that that’s simply not the proper use of impeachment.

The letter goes on also to explain that there are some serious questions raised by some of the conduct of the committees -- with Chairman Schiff, for example, first denying that he had any contact with the whistleblower, then having to admit that that was not true.  And that these are questions that ought to be explored.  But given the current procedures -- the constitutionally flawed procedures that the committees have adopted, there is no opportunity either for the President or for the minority, so the Republicans in the House, to explore these issues.  There's no subpoena power for them.  There’s no way for them to get access to evidence.  There’s no opportunity for the President to confront witnesses at all or cross-examine them.  So the entire process is flawed from the outset.

     And the letter concludes by explaining that, given these constitutional flaws and the President’s obligations under the Constitution and to future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, that he cannot have his administration participate in this unconstitutional procedure, and that, under the current circumstances, at least as currently framed, that he and his administration will not participate in this process.

     I think that’s a good summary of the letter, and we’d be happy to take questions.

     Q    Thank you.  Alex Ward from Vox here.  We were talking to House Democrats today who said any action along these lines could be seen as something that could lead to articles of impeachment over obstruction of justice.  I’m wondering how you view those statements by Democrats.

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, asserting rights under the Constitution cannot ever properly be framed as obstruction of justice.  Democrats may try to spin it that way politically, they may try to make that argument politically, but that’s a political argument; it’s not a legal argument.  Standing on rights and asserting rights under the Constitution, under the separation of powers and under the due process clause, is not obstruction of justice; it’s part of the constitutional system we have.

     Q    Hi.  This is Andrew Feinberg with Breakfast Media.  Thanks for doing the call.  I have two questions.  The first is: Aren’t you putting the due process cart before the horse here?  Because the opportunity to question witnesses against the President, wouldn’t that come in a Senate trial?

     And second, since Democrats took over Congress, you guys have argued that their oversight requests aren't legitimate without a legitimate legislative purpose.  You're now arguing that the impeachment inquiry that you said -- that you guys previously said that the administration would cooperate with -- have the obligation to cooperate with -- is illegitimate because there hasn't been a House vote.

What's to stop you from arguing that an impeachment inquiry, should the House take a vote, is illegitimate because not enough Republicans voted for it?  I mean, isn't the real (inaudible) you don't see the Democratic House as having any legitimate authority over a Republican administration?
   
     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, no, that's not accurate at all.  And the answer to both of your questions, really, is grounded in precedent.
   
     As to the first one, the ability to question witnesses in all modern presidential impeachment inquiries -- even at the inquiry stage in the House -- the President was afforded the ability to question witnesses.  President Clinton's counsel questioned witnesses in the House.  So that's before the Senate trial.

What is unprecedented is the denial of that ability under the current procedures that the House is pursuing right now.  And in terms of oversight, you'll see towards the end of the letter, we point out that Congress can't have it both ways here.  It can't have -- purport to be pursuing an impeachment inquiry without the requisite procedures and then try to rely on its oversight authority to be doing that.

And the precedent is that for impeachment inquiries, there is, for a presidential impeachment inquiry, a vote in the House.  That's what authorizes the inquiry to go forward.  If the House wants to revert to regular order on oversight and not have an impeachment inquiry, we would be -- we would respond to those requests, as we have according to the constitutionally mandated accommodation process and according to longstanding principles that have governed our approach.

Q    Oh, hi there.  It's Josh Wingrove from Bloomberg.  Thank you for taking the time.  Can you give us sort of a practical sense of what this means?  This means that all members of the administration will not testify; they will decline subpoena requests?  It will not provide documents either in response to subpoenas or requests, as was the case with the Vice President?  Basically, it's just a full halt on the part of the administration.  Is that correct?
   
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That is correct.  The administration's policy, under the current circumstances -- at least as these rules are currently framed -- that the administration will have a full halt because this is not a valid procedure for going forward on an impeachment inquiry.

Q    Hi.  This is Yamiche Alcindor with PBS News Hour.  I have a question about what happens if the House does hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry.  Does the White House then say that it would provide documents and allow witnesses to testify?

And then the second question is, there's going to be criticism that this is really the President stonewalling Congress because he doesn't like this investigation and this impeachment inquiry.  Can you say -- can you answer both of those things please?
   
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don't want to speculate about what would happen in various hypothetical situations.  You know, we'll take this step by step.  We have one concrete situation now that we're confronting; we've addressed it.  If the House wants to engage and alter the current circumstances, then we'll have to evaluate that as it goes along.

     And in terms of your second question, this is really a situation where the President has an obligation to the institution, to the Executive Branch prerogatives and to future occupants of the Office, to protect certain principles and not to engage in a process that we believe is constitutionally defective.  And it would set a precedent then for future proceedings by lowering the bar for starting an impeachment inquiry and making it much easier to use an impeachment inquiry simply as a political tool, when it should be an extraordinary remedy that is very rarely invoked, only for the gravest of circumstances.

     Q    Hi, it's Steven Portnoy from CBS News.  Thanks for taking this call.  Gentleman, the Constitution doesn’t have too much to say about impeachment, but what it does say, you know, is rather powerful.  It seems you're going to have answer a threshold question if this is tested in court.  And that question might be: How do any of the premises you've put in your letter -- the discussion of precedent, you cite the Alcee Hastings case in a footnote -- how does any of that outweigh the Constitution's clear statement that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment?  Starting from that very simple basis, what's the legal, not political, but the legal argument that the President can have anything to say about this at all?

     SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, as you probably know, particularly in the area of separation of powers, the Constitution doesn’t say very much explicitly.  It's a principle that’s derived from the structure of the Constitution.

And in that area in particular, courts tend to look at the practice -- the precedent of the way that branches have handled inter-branch conflicts, and treat that as gloss in many circumstances on what the Constitution requires.

So here, the fact that precedent is completely on our side, and it's not really disputed that it's on our side, that precedent itself provides a powerful gloss on what the Constitution requires in terms of separation of powers.

And I think both for having the vote in the House to establish that is actually the action of the House -- the elected representatives of the people -- that they want to embark on this course of a very grave inter-branch conflict requiring a vote -- for that is consistent with case law in other areas, such as the courts have required a vote from the House to authorize as to engage in litigation, because it's that vote from the House that shows the will of the body, the institution, to engage in an inter-branch conflict.

And on the due process clause, or due process protections, these are fundamental protections that are regarded as essential for the search for the truth under our system of laws.  And to say that in one of the gravest proceedings that affect the entire nation to remove the President from office, that the Constitution doesn’t imply that there is any process protection, I think would be untenable.

Q    This is Ben Tracy from CBS.  Could you specifically say what is the bar for cooperation?  Is it simply taking this vote?  Do you feel like you will get these due process issues settled?  Or do they have to meet all of these requirements you've outlined in this letter?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I'm not going to try to provide particular red lines or things like that.  The letter, I think, speaks for itself about flaws.  We have to see what the House wants to do to try to remedy them.  And as I said before, I don’t want to speculate.  We'll take it as the situations develop, and day by day as things change, be able to reevaluate.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Moderator, we have time for one more question.  Thank you.

Q    Hi, this is Noah Bierman of the LA Times.  You are not willing to answer what circumstances would cause you to cooperate?  A lot of people will take that as, basically, an open-ended statement that you're not going to cooperate at all and not willing to get ahead of the President, who may change his mind on a whim.  Is that an accurate characterization of what's going on here?

And how do you respond to people who are concerned about that -- that this is a constitutional prerogative of Congress that is being ignored here, basically?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think by saying that we don’t want to speculate about hypotheticals or draw red lines, or predict the future, we are definitely not saying that -- we're avoiding saying that there is no way we'd ever cooperate and laying down something definite.

What we have done in this letter is explain the flaws under the current circumstances and how changes could address those flaws and what that might hold for the future.  I don’t want to try to predict now because we'll have to see how it develops. 

     MR. GIDLEY:  Thank you very much, Moderator.  Just as a reminder to all the reporters on the call, this call is attributable to a senior administration official.  Again, it's a background call attributable to a senior administration official.  And, of course, the embargo is now lifted.  Thank you so much for your time. 

                                                 END                     5:39 P.M. EDT