Recommending That the House of Representatives Find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with A Subpoena Duly Issued By the Committee on the Judiciary

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to refer to the current President or the presumptive nominee. For my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer to the history of this body because I think the study of the history of this body should tell Members on both sides of the aisle that this is an appropriate contempt. It will lead eventually to compliance and, again, to holding this body as a coequal branch of government.

I might remind my colleagues, some of them here in the room, Mr. Speaker, that in 2007, this body held the White House counsel on behalf of the President of the United States, then-President Bush, in contempt for refusing to show up before this very committee, Judiciary.

In 2012, this body held a previous Attorney General--in a very similar situation affecting the same two committees that have been speaking here, Oversight and Accountability and Judiciary--Eric Holder, in contempt because he told us that if we would take 200-and-some documents, that was all that was left, and end our case, he would give them to us. Otherwise, he would withhold them.

We held him in contempt, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an appointee of President Obama, held several things, including that President Obama had clearly falsely claimed an executive privilege, probably based on being misled by then-Attorney General Eric Holder.

In fact, 10,000-plus documents were turned over to the United States Congress. The then-Attorney General had lied. The then-Attorney General Eric Holder had lied to this body and to the chairman of the committee and ultimately was held in contempt on a bipartisan basis with 12 Members of the other party voting for that contempt.

After a long period of time, we managed to get the equilibrium this body deserves. I call, Mr. Speaker, on this body and all my colleagues today to live up to the standard that we learned in 2007 when a White House, then of a Republican, refused to deliver a witness.

Then, in 2012, when the Attorney General claimed that we were not entitled to the best documents we sought and that we were entitled to the documents related to Fast and Furious that he believed were appropriate, he failed, and he failed based on a judge appointed by President Obama. Why?

He failed because this body does have the obligation and the right to seek all of the best evidence it believes--not that the other side believes; it believes.

There has been no call for an in-camera review, no call for any kind of compromise. Once again, we are to take the word of an Attorney General working for the current President that there is nothing there.

I have watched a lot of television over the years. I am not going to believe these are not the droids we are looking for. This, in fact, could be important evidence. Whether it is or isn't, isn't germane.

What is important is that this body, in fact, lives up to its obligation. I call on every Member--those on the other side who did or didn't join with me in 2012 but who voted in 2007 to hold the White House in contempt--to consider whether once again we are balancing the power and the rights of this body.

Mr. Speaker, many are arguing against the best interests of the United States House of Representatives, and for that, shame on those who do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source