Va. congressman: ‘I think we are about to enter a constitutional crisis’ – By Jessie Bur (Federal Times) / April 26 2019
U.S. Representative Gerry E. Connolly, D-Va., said that the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas challenges authority granted by the Constitution itself. (Rob Curtis/ Staff)
Political experts and members of Congress have long speculated whether findings in the special counsel report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election or potential obstruction of justice concerning that report could trigger a constitutional crisis in the U.S.
But according to Virginia Democratic Representative Gerry Connolly, the crisis may be triggered by a far more mundane problem with the Trump administration: the refusal to comply with subpoenas and document requests from the oversight committees in Congress.
“I think we are about to enter a constitutional crisis. When the president of the United States says, ‘I’m not going to comply with any subpoena request of the legislative branch,’ you are in a constitutional crisis,” said Connolly April 25 at a Juniper Networks town hall.
“This is a problem because Congress is a separate but coequal branch of government.”
In both legislation and sections of the Constitution, Congress is required to perform oversight of executive branch programs and operations.
Connolly, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, said that his subcommittee and the larger Committee on Oversight and Reform has consistently struggled with getting the necessary officials to testify and respond to subpoenas.
Congressional subpoenas have the authority to compel a witness or documents to appear before the committee, and must meet three requirements to be legally sufficient: the committee investigation must be authorized by its chamber, the subpoena must serve a legislative purpose and the inquiry must be pertinent to a subject matter authorized for investigation.
The White House sued earlier this week to prevent the Oversight and Reform Committee from subpoenaing his financial records, but according to Connolly, the committees also have legal recourse for executive officials who refuse to comply.
“We will do whatever it takes to compel compliance. We will put them in jail, we will fine them, we will hold them in contempt,” said Connolly, though Congress hasn’t used its jail power since the 1800s.
“There is apparently a little room in the Capitol where somebody can be held. It looks like we’re going to need a bigger room.”
More specifically, Connolly said that his committee has struggled to get the testimony and documents it needs to provide oversight of the administration’s proposal to break up the Office of Personnel Management and split its responsibilities across other federal agencies.
Acting OPM Director Margaret Weichert was supposed to come before the committee May 1, but the agency backed out and also opted to delay the requests for documents that accompanied her planned testimony.
“We’re not so sure that’s a good idea. We’re not so sure they have the legal authority to do that. They’ve refused to even come before us. They’ve refused all document requests. Now, what am I supposed to do? I’m not trying to do anything to anybody other than get at, ‘what is your thinking here, what is it you’re really proposing and why?’” said Connolly.
“The fact that they have not produced a single piece of paper justifying any of this reorganization makes me suspicious. Like, maybe you haven’t got one? Maybe someone decided, ‘let’s get rid of this agency, it’s a clunker, we don’t like it, and we can claim that we’ve got rid of bureaucrats and a whole agency.’”
The White House this week began the process of removing OPM responsibilities from the agency, as Trump signed an executive order April 24 transferring the background investigation responsibility from OPM’s National Background Investigation Bureau to the Department of Defense.
“Maybe that’s a good idea, I don’t know. DoD already has a backlog problem. You want to add to it. Are you going to add resources to it so that we can eat into the backlog and expedite it?” said Connolly.
“Maybe by moving to DoD you’re going to speed it up and make it more efficient, and better, and more thorough. In which case, you’ve got my support. But if that isn’t the case, and, in fact, you don’t have any plan at all, and you can’t answer the question, ‘Does this not just add to the problem we’ve already got?’ then I don’t support it.”
