Protecting Our Democracy Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Protecting Our Democracy Act.

Transparency and accountability are the bedrock of our democratic system. They are the essential guardrails that protect against unchecked executive power. Unfortunately, the Trump administration exposed certain vulnerabilities in the fabric of our democracy by engaging in conduct that was once unthinkable, and like the reforms enacted post-Watergate, we must now act to prevent similar abuses from a future President.

Although many of these provisions were informed by our experience with the prior administration, they are pointedly not anti-Trump measures. Rather, they are forward looking, and they protect against the abuses by future Presidents of any party. Importantly, many of them are also based on proposals that have bipartisan support.

I am especially proud of the provisions in this bill that fall within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction.

These include requiring an expedited, streamlined process for enforcing Congressional subpoenas in court. This would prevent an administration from stonewalling Congressional oversight and then evading accountability for years while the courts resolve the issue.

To address abuses of the clemency power, the bill requires additional transparency, and it reaffirms that abuses of the clemency power can form the basis of a bribery scheme and that self-pardons are prohibited.

It pauses the statute of limitations on Federal offenses during a President and Vice President's term in office to ensure that they can be held accountable for criminal conduct just like any other American.

And it addresses improper communications between the White House and the Department of Justice, an all too common occurrence under the last administration.

Madam Speaker, when the Nation's Founders wrote the Constitution, after having just fought a war against a tyrant, they stood fast to a key principle, that the executive must not be a king and must instead be accountable to Congress, to the people, and ultimately, to the rule of law. It is vital that we reassert this important principle.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act would restore these and other checks and balances that are so fundamental to our democracy.

I urge all Members to support this vital legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this en bloc amendment, and particularly to the Burgess amendment.

The Burgess amendment would strike one of the most important provisions in the bill, one that ensures that a sitting President or Vice President can be held accountable for their actions, just like every other American.

This provision is necessary in order to close a dangerous loophole in the law created by DOJ policy, most recently embodied in the legal opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, which holds that a President cannot be criminally prosecuted during his or her term in office.

Under current law, throughout the entire period that a President is presumed by some to be immune from prosecution, the statute of limitations continues to run on any offenses he or she may have committed. Since most Federal criminal offenses carry a 5-year statute of limitations, a President who is not prosecuted while in office for a crime he or she may have committed could end up evading justice altogether if the statute of limitations runs out before their term is over, particularly if they are elected to a second term.

Allowing complete immunity from criminal prosecution merely because of the office a person holds would make a mockery of the rule of law. It is a maxim of our system of justice that no man is immune from the law, that no man can be a judge in his own case.

Statutes of limitations are an important element of criminal law. As a general matter, they provide a necessary balance between protecting defendants from delay and allowing prosecutors adequate time to investigate and charge cases. But the law has also long recognized that certain limited exceptions to this general rule are necessary. The case of a sitting President, whose prosecution is barred under Justice Department policy, fits comfortably among such exceptions.

It is necessary, therefore, to simply pause the statute of limitations to ensure that the Presidency is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. We must not strike this essential provision, because every person, no matter his or her title or office, must be held accountable under our laws.

I urge strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention one other thing. We have heard our friends across the aisle talk about Donald Trump, and they say that former President Trump did nothing wrong. Democrats, by and large, say he did a lot of things wrong. But that is irrelevant to this debate.

This bill has nothing to do with President Trump any more than the post-Watergate reforms had to do with Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon's conduct taught us certain lessons, and Donald Trump's conduct taught us certain lessons. The legislation before us is the result of those lessons.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, those lessons are for us to use to protect the future. That is what this legislation is about, to protect the future from a President, of any party, who may violate the law, who may aggrandize power. That is what this is about: the future, not the past.

So when I hear our Republican friends talk about Donald Trump and talk about how he wasn't convicted, et cetera, it is irrelevant. We are talking about the future, not the past. For the future, it is necessary to pass this bill, and for the future, it is necessary to defeat this en bloc amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source