Collins opening statement at Barr hearing

"Unfortunately, ludicrous demands from the chairman made it impossible for the attorney general to join us here today. . . . Over the 206-year history of this committee, staff have never questioned witnesses in such a hearing. Never. Not once. So, to say Chairman Nadler’s demands are unprecedented would be an understatement. . . . Chairman Nadler has stolen from all members and the Americans they represent the opportunity to exercise our oversight duties by questioning and hearing from the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. "

WASHINGTON — Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, released the following opening statement ahead of the Barr hearing. Below are the remarks as prepared. Ranking Member Collins: Over one month ago, Attorney General William Barr offered to testify before the House Judiciary Committee today to answer questions about the Mueller report and the attorney general’s decisions surrounding it. Every single member on this committee was looking forward to the attorney general’s testimony. Unfortunately, ludicrous demands from the chairman made it impossible for the attorney general to join us here today. On behalf of the northeast Georgians I represent, I had planned to ask the attorney general several questions, as had my Republican colleagues. I imagine my friends across the aisle had some questions for the attorney general as well. This would have been the day we got to ask those questions, but the chairman insisted staff ask questions of the attorney general at today’s oversight hearing. Over the 206-year history of this committee, staff have never questioned witnesses in such a hearing. Never. Not once. So, to say Chairman Nadler’s demands are unprecedented would be an understatement. Chairman Nadler claims he wants staff to question the attorney general because five minutes per member is not enough time. I agree, and so do the rest of the Republicans on the committee. That’s why yesterday we unanimously supported the chairman’s motion to extend questioning of the attorney general by 30 minutes per side. The chairman could have used these 30 minutes all in a row to ask the attorney general sustained questions himself. He could have divided the 30 minutes among separate members. He could have delegated the entire 30 minutes to another member for sustained questioning. The concern the chairman raised was answered yesterday — we passed a motion to add time to our hearing. Apparently, however, that was not good enough, and the chairman pushed for more. Many of the 24 Democrats on this committee are successful former prosecutors and trial lawyers. No one doubts they are more than capable of questioning witnesses — we’ve seen them engage witnesses first-hand — and I, for one, am thankful not to have been on the receiving end! Yet, since Chairman Nadler insists on delegating questioning to outside counsel rather than trust his deep bench of elected officials appointed to this committee by their peers in Congress, it begs the question, why? Is the committee worried that one lone witness will eclipse an entire dais of legal talent? That seems unlikely. Perhaps the members themselves prefer to abdicate their constitutional oversight role to lawyers who have never stepped foot in their districts — but would elected leaders who find themselves at the center of history-in-the-making siphon their duties off to staff? That seems even more unlikely. Perhaps the only motivation here is optics. Maybe we’re all sitting here at a hearing without a witness because Chairman Nadler bet he could use staff questioning — which has only been done at this committee under impeachment proceedings — to give the impression they are, in fact, conducting an impeachment proceeding, but this isn’t an impeachment hearing, and that bet didn’t pay off. Until Chairman Nadler and Speaker Pelosi pass a resolution on the House floor launching an impeachment inquiry, everything Chairman Nadler does here constitutes congressional oversight. The procedural and legal perks of impeachment do not apply, and the chairman can’t have it both ways. He can’t try to pacify his liberal base by pretending to do impeachment without actually taking the plunge. The reality of our chamber and this distinguished committee is that when it comes to impeachment, you’re either in, Mr. Chairman, or you’re out, and, right now, you’re out. To distract from their distinct lack of an impeachment agenda, then, Democrats have slandered the attorney general’s reputation without ceasing. The chairman says the two-time attorney general is trying to “blackmail” our committee and he is “terrified” of appearing before us when he just spent the day with Senators Harris, Whitehouse and Leahy. To be precise, the attorney general sat through nearly six hours of questioning across the Capitol yesterday — including a second round of questions conducted solely by Democrat senators! He would have been here today but for the chairman’s extraordinary decision to change the committee’s procedures for the first time in over two centuries. Since Attorney General Barr could not join us today, it’s worth remembering he shared with us what the special counsel agreed were accurate principal conclusions and delivered to us the special counsel’s report as soon as possible so the entire country could read it for themselves. Amazingly, Democrats have used the attorney general’s openness as ammunition for their misguided attacks against him — attacks they are apparently too afraid to make in person. As a result of Chairman Nadler’s desperate tactics, we’ve lost another chance for closure. My fellow Republicans won’t be able to ask the attorney general questions about the special counsel’s investigation or other legitimate Justice Department issues that are important to their districts. Chairman Nadler has stolen from all members and the Americans they represent the opportunity to exercise our oversight duties by questioning and hearing from the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. More than that, Democrats continue to turn their backs on the work that sits before the Judiciary Committee, to bring integrity back to our immigration system, protect American innovation and foster a growing, competitive economy. This is a regrettable, unprecedented, entirely avoidable situation. Mr. Chairman, I implore you to respect the history and traditions of this committee and conduct its business accordingly.