The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H4652-H4653 on June 7, 2017.
The Department is one of the oldest in the US, focused primarily on law enforcement and the federal prison system. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, detailed wasteful expenses such as $16 muffins at conferences and board meetings.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, we waste a lot of time in the House Judiciary Committee passing bills we have already passed year after year that go nowhere. But now evidence is growing that our elections were interfered with by a foreign adversary, evidence that the President and Attorney General have been less than truthful about their meetings and relationship with this foreign adversary. And other committees in this body and the Senate and at the Justice Department have launched investigations into the behavior and truthfulness of the President, his subordinates, his family; but from the House Judiciary Committee, we have heard exactly nothing, not a peep, not a hearing or a subpoena, nada, zip, nothing. Just crickets.
When I joined the Judiciary Committee, I remember hearing something about how the committee has jurisdiction over the enforcement of laws, the courts, the conduct of the executive branch, especially when it comes to law enforcement agencies like the FBI, Justice Department, activities that may or may not be criminal.
And guess what. I was right. You need look no further than the committee's website, where it proudly proclaims: ``The committee's weighty agenda has frequently placed it in a central role in American politics, most notably during its consideration of impeachment charges against Presidents of the United States in both 1974 and 1998.''
So with all due respect to the Intelligence Committee, the Oversight Committee, and our colleagues in the Senate, it is the Judiciary Committee in the House where impeachment begins. We are like the grand jury of the House of Representatives when it comes to impeachment.
Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director investigating the President, will not be able to indict him while he is President no matter what he uncovers. Most legal scholars argue a sitting President cannot be indicted in criminal court.
So it is the Judiciary Committee that will bring charges if there is evidence of ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' as provided in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
But here we are with evidence that the Attorney General lied to a committee of Congress about his contacts with senior Russian officials and lied on his security clearance application about contacts with Russian officials who are suspected by our government of being covert espionage operatives, with evidence that hacking and other activities, in fact, took place directed by Russia. And nothing from the Judiciary Committee.
The Attorney General publicly recused himself from any matters at the Justice Department related to the investigation of Russia contacts, but the Attorney General played a role in the firing of FBI Director James Comey. And we know now, because the President said so, that the firing of Comey, the FBI Director that was investigating him, was done because the President said he was ``under great pressure'' from the Russia investigation. And still nothing from the Judiciary Committee.
Now, let's go back to those two dates when the Judiciary Committee says we played a central role in American politics. In 1974, we had a criminal conspiracy that involved tampering with elections that went all the way to the Oval Office. It involved firing senior Justice Department officials who were part of the investigation. They asked the intelligence community to discredit those investigations in 1974. And there were secretly recorded conversations.
Sound familiar?
President Nixon soon resigned because he knew what was coming.
In 1998, the issue of whether the President of the United States had lied to a grand jury about an extramarital sexual encounter with a consenting adult who was a subordinate, that is what that was about. House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde of the great State of Illinois, who, as it turned out, knew a thing or two about extramarital sexual encounters with consenting adults, passed four Articles of Impeachment, along an almost exclusively party-line vote. An impeachment trial was held in the Senate, which became an epic embarrassment to the Republican Party and to this body. But now, given all of the evidence of electoral tampering, the apparent efforts to cover it up, the actions of the President and the Attorney General to deflect and derail investigations, that, to me and to others, appears to be attempts at or actual obstruction of justice.
From the committee of jurisdiction that is supposed to be in charge and taking action, what do we have? Not a peep, not a hearing, not a subpoena, nada, zip, nothing. Just crickets.
Mr. Speaker, that has got to change, and I suspect it will, because it has to. The Constitution says it has to.
Judiciary Committee, it is time to act and fulfill your constitutional responsibilities.
____________________
