WASHINGTON - House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.) today called on Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to honor the Committee’s bipartisan agreement on the subpoena issuance process and hold a business meeting to vote on the subpoena she intends to issue to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.
On Jan. 29, 2019, the late Chairman Elijah Cummings made an agreement with then-Ranking Member Jim Jordan that the Committee would hold a business meeting to vote before the issuance of any subpoenas, if the minority requested such a meeting, to allow for an open and transparent process. Despite this agreement, Chairwoman Maloney yesterday unilaterally announced she intends to issue an overly broad subpoena to Postmaster General DeJoy as part of the Democrats’ ongoing and baseless conspiracy theory about the U.S. Postal Service. She failed to even notify or consult Republicans in advance of the change of policy.
In the letter to Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer objects to issuing the subpoena at this time and calls on her to hold a vote in honor of the Committee’s agreement. He also requests that she provide an explanation as to why she unilaterally changed the policy without first consulting or notifying Republicans.
Below is the full text of the letter.
Dear Chairwoman Maloney:
Yesterday, on Aug. 31, 2020, your staff informed us of your intention to issue a subpoena to Postmaster Louis DeJoy for a voluminous number of documents. On the same day we learned of this subpoena, we also learned that you have decided, at least in this instance, not to honor the agreement the late Chairman Elijah Cummings made with then-Ranking Member Jim Jordan on Jan. 29, 2019. Under that agreement, the Committee would hold a business meeting to vote before the issuance of any subpoenas, if the minority requested such a meeting. This agreement served the Committee well by allowing an open and transparent process that gave all Members of the Committee the ability to provide input on whether a subpoena was appropriate. Your decision to renege on holding these business meetings was done without even notifying or consulting me in advance of the change. As such, I respectfully request that you convene a business meeting to vote on your subpoena.
As you may know, the agreement between the late Chairman Elijah Cummings and then-Ranking Member Jim Jordan describes congressional subpoenas as “a powerful and coercive tool." Additionally, it states “[t]he Chair intends to avoid the use of unilateral subpoenas whenever possible. In the normal course he hopes to work with the Ranking Member on proposed subpoenas well in advance." In fact, the agreement was intended to ensure that the Committee’s practices are transparent, stating that “the Members deserve the opportunity to go on the record for some of the most important work they will do, and the public deserves the opportunity to see them do that work in the open." Unfortunately, to date, the process of issuing your subpoena to Postmaster DeJoy has been anything but open and transparent.
In this case, it appears your decision to unilaterally issue a subpoena for the first time is directly related to the fact that the information being subpoenaed is overly broad, would be burdensome to produce, and therefore would be difficult to defend during a Committee meeting on its appropriateness. The subpoena schedule consists of four pages of voluminous document requests, some of which may not even exist. This comes one week after Postmaster DeJoy voluntarily testified before the Committee for over five hours and made a good faith effort to answer questions from all Committee Members despite being unfairly attacked by Democrats, including one Member suggesting he was engaged in a vast criminal conspiracy and at least four others calling for his resignation.
One media publication even questioned whether the hearing, “at times riddled with technical difficulties," was a waste of time. Now you are attempting to keep your unfounded attacks on the Postal Service alive by issuing an overly broad subpoena without even conducting a transparent process.
I object to the subpoena at this time under these circumstances. If you intend to proceed with this subpoena, I request a vote of the Committee pursuant to the Jan. 29, 2019, agreement. If you will no longer honor this agreement, please provide an explanation as to why you are unilaterally changing this policy and why you decided not to consult or notify me of such an abrupt change to Committee practice in the 116th Congress.
Sincerely,
James Comer
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform
