Disclaimer: This article may contain the personal views and opinions of the author.
If Republicans win control of the House in November, they’re already considering how to aggressively oversee the Biden administration. One key concern is how to compel witnesses to testify and turn over evidence when the Justice Department remains in Democrat’s hands.
One conservative is offering a novel solution: defund individual bureaucrats who don’t comply with subpoenas.
It’s a tactic that would put pressure on individual officials, rather than the Justice Department as a whole, to comply with congressional investigations. And it could force Democrats to choose between protecting their president and protecting their power.
The idea was first floated by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) in an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity.
“What do you do when the Justice Department, come January, is still run by people loyal to Biden and Kamala Harris?” Jordan asked. “I think what we have to do is go after the individual bureaucrats.”
“Defund them,” Hannity replied.
Jordan said he’s already talking to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and other GOP leaders about the idea.
“I think it has a lot of merit,” Jordan said. “I think it would go a long way to making sure that we get the information we need.”
Rep. Andy Biggs on Just the News: “I think that they don’t have the right to turn down that subpoena. It seems to me that we’re going to be able to hold you in contempt. Our problem, of course, is the contempt law, the way it’s written, we end up having to go to, of all places, [Attorney General] Merrick Garland. That means getting the Department of Justice, trying to get him to help us enforce that subpoena.
“We’re probably going to have to look very carefully at how you change that law. Because you can’t go to the enforcer who is not willing to participate.”
The tactic could backfire, of course, by giving Democrats an easy way to turn the tables if they win back the House in 2024. But for Republicans, it could be a way to keep the pressure on the Biden administration while avoiding a showdown with the Justice Department.
After last week’s news that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) is considering using the Holman Rule to defund a specific government employee as a way to compel testimony, some in the GOP are optimistic that they could get answers to questions they’ve been seeking for months if they win back the House in November.
“It’s a great idea,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has been a leading voice in Congress for using the rule to go after officials he believes have been stonewalling investigations.
“I think it would be a very powerful tool,” he added. “It would give us the ability to go after specific people.”
The Holman Rule is a regulation that was established in 1876 by an Indiana congressman. The rule allows any member of Congress to amend an appropriations bill to cut funding for a specific government program or employee. For the amendment to be passed, it must be approved by a majority of lawmakers in both the House and Senate.
The rule was used sparingly in the past but was effectively repealed in 1983. Some conservatives have been pushing for its revival in recent years, and Chaffetz’s comments last week indicate that he is seriously considering using it if he becomes chairman of the House Oversight Committee next year.
“If you want to come into my courtroom and spit on the floor, you’re going to pay a price,” Chaffetz said on “Just the News, Not Noise.”
“And so, under the Holman Rule, what we can do is we can defund specific employees,” he added. “We want to Lobotomize this place.”
Critics of the Holman Rule argue that it would be abused by lawmakers if it were revived.
