Collins statement on Democrats' move to authorize Whitaker subpoena

"It is unfortunate, however, that the first subpoena to be issued by this committee constitutes such a departure from the norms that have governed subpoena usage here in Congress."

WASHINGTON — Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-Ga.) made the following statement at the beginning of today’s House Judiciary Committee markup. Below are the remarks as prepared: Ranking Member Doug Collins: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for agreeing to hold a vote on this subpoena. In keeping with our agreement at the committee’s organizing meeting, I believe today’s vote properly allows the entire committee to be heard on the merits and propriety of this subpoena. It is unfortunate, however, that the first subpoena to be issued by this committee constitutes such a departure from the norms that have governed subpoena usage here in Congress. As I have said before, a subpoena is a powerful and coercive tool. And it is a tool that should be used as a last resort, especially when its use implicates the balance of powers that exist between Congress and another branch of government. You asked the Acting Attorney General to come testify. He agreed. Both parties engaged in a back and forth regarding scheduling. That is normal. You and the Acting Attorney General agreed upon tomorrow’s testimony. That is exactly how the process should work. But you have taken it a step further. As the D.C. Circuit stated in United States versus American Telephone, “each branch should take cognizance of an implicit constitutional mandate to seek optimal accommodation through a realistic evaluation of the needs of the conflicting branches in the particular fact situation.” That is not happening in this case. A subpoena should only follow the breakdown of an accommodation process, and as a last resort against persons seeking to frustrate the legitimate oversight of this committee. There has been no breakdown here. A subpoena should signal that all other avenues to acquire the information or testimony at issue have been exhausted. Those avenues have not been exhausted here. A subpoena should not be used as a supplement where the committee is merely worried that a witness might not answer questions to the extent of the committee’s liking. There is no indication whatsoever the Attorney General will not show up and answer questions to the best of his knowledge and within the confines of the law, similar to every Attorney General, Republican or Democrat, who has come before him. It further concerns me that what was originally posed as a general oversight hearing, appears to actually be intended for the sole purpose of embarrassing a witness — asking him questions this Committee knows he will not be able to answer. These include questions that prior Attorneys Generals have refused to answer, and this Committee — like other Committees of Congress – have respected the institutional prerogative and privilege afforded to our nation’s chief executive. This subpoena is nothing short of political theater, choreographed by the Chairman and starring the Acting Attorney General as some mythological protector of secrets. Nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot recall a single instance in which this this Committee authorized a subpoena for an Attorney General for the sole purpose of forcing him to invoke a privilege or risk revealing his conversations with the President. As we have both said before, a subpoena is a powerful and coercive tool and we both believe it is a tool that should be used as a last resort. We are nowhere near that place today. I ask, Mr. Chairman, for you to stand up to the loud and angry far left forces in your caucus and withhold a vote on this subpoena until such a subpoena actually becomes necessary. If and when that time comes to compel his appearance, I will stand by you in supporting a subpoena for the Acting Attorney General.