[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8794-8795]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       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

[[Page 8795]]

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.

                          ____________________