Providing for Consideration of H. Res. Insisting Department of Justice Comply with Requests and Subpoenas
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 970, which insists that the Department of Justice comply with the request of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from Congressman Jim Jordan, a fellow Judiciary Committee member, as well as Ranking Member Jerry Nadler. We also heard from Congressman Mark Meadows and Congressman Scott Perry and engaged in a vigorous discussion that lasted a while in the Rules Committee yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, oversight of the executive branch is one of the House's most important responsibilities and authorities. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the Department of Justice and the FBI, it is a responsibility that I take very seriously.
I believe the administration has an obligation to comply with the committees of jurisdictions' legitimate oversight requests and subpoenas. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has not fully complied with numerous of these requests, many of these which stretch back several months. To illustrate this, let me lay out a timeline for you.
On November 3, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy, along with additional Members, sent a letter to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, requesting five specific categories of documents. The deadline listed in the letter was November 17, 2017. That deadline was not met.
On December 12, 2017, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Gowdy, and additional Members sent a letter reiterating the expectation that the Department of Justice provide the requested documents. The deadline listed in that letter was December 19, 2017. Again, the deadline arrived, and again, the deadline was not met.
On February 1, 2018, Chairman Goodlatte sent a third letter requesting documents relating to potential abuses under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
On March 22, 2018, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein compelling him to produce documents and communications referring to internal DOJ or FBI management requests to review, scrub, report on, or analyze any FISA collection involving the Trump campaign or the Trump administration.
It also compelled the production of communications relating to defensive briefings provided by the Department of Justice or the FBI to the 2016 Presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Finally, he compelled production of all documents and communications referring to proposed, recommended, or actual FISA coverage on the Clinton Foundation or persons associated or in communication with the Clinton Foundation. The deadline for this subpoena was April 5, 2018. The Department of Justice is in the process of complying with this subpoena, but complete compliance has not yet occurred.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in regard to the subpoena, the Department of Justice is trying to comply and is in the process of doing so but, yet, has not at this point.
I also share the frustration of my colleagues and the American people that this process is taking way too long. We need the answers, and we need transparency. It is our duty to conduct oversight. The law charges us with shining light where the government has fostered shadows instead of providing answers. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to produce these documents and yet has not made them available.
The resolution provided for by this rule speaks to the core of our democracy, the inherent tension between branches of government that our Founders intended and our responsibility as a coequal branch to act as a check upon the other branches.
Could this debate not happen at a more appropriate time as we look toward the Fourth of July and our country's founding? This is why we were set up the way we were.
The inherent tension has arisen most recently out of the Department of Justice's failure to timely comply with congressional oversight. Some of the documents this body seeks relate to congressional inquiries that have extended almost the length of the 115th Congress. They deal with some of the most pressing issues in our government today.
Has the Department of Justice abused its FISA authority?
Was an investigation of national importance affected by bias?
I believe that these investigations need to play out, but I also believe they can't last forever. I also believe that evidence of bias, a library of extremely troubling texts, and key personnel removals at the FBI illustrate the heightened need for robust congressional oversight.
As James Wilson, an architect of the Constitution and Associate Justice on the first Supreme Court so eloquently stated: ``The House of Representatives . . . form the grand inquest of the state. They will diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things.'' As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will continue to take that charge seriously.
Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee considered a similar resolution. Today, the whole House has a chance to responsibly exercise its oversight responsibility and reiterate to the Department of Justice the need to fully comply with our legitimate requests.
It is important to note that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has been similarly stymied by delays to requests for information and that certain documents have been provided to only select members of that committee.
This resolution insists that the Department of Justice comply with the requests, including subpoenas, of these committees--one of which I proudly serve on--so that the American people can get answers and we can exercise our proper constitutional duties. The American people demanded answers, and that is why Congress, Representatives of the American people who answer to the American people, are demanding that the DOJ answer to us.
Let this also serve as a reminder to the Department of Justice that the U.S. Congress was created by our Founders, and its authority and responsibility arise directly from Article I of the United States Constitution.
The Department of Justice, on the other hand, was created by Congress. Its powers arise from those given to it by Congress. And just as those powers are given by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure that they are not abused; and, if necessary, it is Congress' responsibility to limit these powers.
Woodrow Wilson, who was among the first to use the term ``oversight'' in reference to the investigation of the executive branch, stated:
Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of the administration.
Today, we show that we are taking oversight of the executive branch seriously, particularly the Department of Justice, and we are working to prevent bias in government. We demand accountability because the American people deserve no less.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. At this point in time, as the gentleman from Massachusetts and I have discussed many times--and he has his opinions on things and process; I have mine as well--we can agree and disagree. But I think one thing is let's take a step forward today.
This is a process of what we are doing forward. We are warning and requiring from an Article I to an Article II agency. Let's do that and continue that process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. If the gentleman is ready to close, I will be as well.
Mr. Speaker, we can discuss this and continue to discuss it, as we have.
I respect my friend from Massachusetts and his opinion and the issues of transparency. I want to see that same transparency. I want to see us work. And I think we have an opportunity to do that. By saying that we bring this rule and this resolution here today, to disparage this institution, when we are asking for what we are required and can't get, I am not sure how that is.
Now, we can discuss other issues you want to investigate and other areas you want to go to, and you can do that and we can discuss things, but there is nothing undermining the investigation. The Mueller investigation is still going on, the FBI investigation. All of that is still going on. Nothing is undermining it except the DOJ that has had obvious issues of telling the truth and obvious issues of not giving us the documents we have requested. This is Article I, Article II.
We can have discussions about everything else. And I know if I were in a position on the other side, I would want everything investigated, because when you have seen what we have been able to do in the last year and a half with the economy, with jobs, with regulations, with small business, when you start looking at that, I would yell at everything else, too, Mr. Speaker, because the President has done what he said he was going to do. And our economy is better, our jobs are better, and we are working toward a system in which America is safer.
But I would also want to investigate everything else, too, because if I was going into a cycle, I would want to throw off and look other places and tell the American people things aren't really right when they know that it is.
Also, the American people, when I go back home to Georgia, want to know: If the Congress asks an agency for documents, why do they not get to produce them?
And don't go to the fact, well, it is classified.
We have SCIFs up here. We have got classified areas up here. What is problematic here is we are hiding behind the fact of things that look like--after they are produced, after they are compelled to produce--it looks like they are just trying to keep it from us to hide embarrassment, and that is not a reason to hide documents.
So we have a simple proposal here. Do what you are required to do. Let Congress be the oversight that it is supposed to be, and we can discuss whatever else we want to for oversight. That is the part of two parties working.
But in this one, this is pretty simple. You can vote ``no'' and say no, Congress shouldn't do that, in an area in which we have responsibility and oversight protection. If you want to do that, go right ahead.
Again, when you want to throw off everything else in the world--I think it is when you look at the President and you look at the administration and you look at what we have done in the last 18\1/2\ months, you see a light at the end of a tunnel, you see an economy coming back, you see a good thing for businesses and small businesses.
When people get up and do not care, Mr. Speaker, what happens on this floor. They really don't. All they want to do is get up in the morning, get their families ready, pay their bills, get a good job, have a possibility of a promotion, or go start that business they want to have. We have provided that.
Now, up here, in the internal workings of government, in the mesh of web that is inside this beltway, when you have got a government agency and government employees who do not want to do what they are supposed to do, it is time for Congress to act. That is exactly what we are doing today.
John Stuart Mill stated: ``The proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the government, to throw the light of publicity on its acts, to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which any one considers questionable.''
Today the Republicans in the House are doing that, Mr. Speaker. We are taking our oversight responsibilities seriously. We are abiding by the checks and balances of the Constitution to ensure that the government is acting appropriately to ensure that the American people--who, by the way, we represent--have the answers that they deserve, one way or the other.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source