Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 114 (Wednesday, July 10, 2024)

[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 10, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4570-H4577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Florida offer the
resolution?
Mrs. LUNA. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 1344

Whereas, on February 27, 2024, Merrick Garland, Attorney
General of the United States, was duly served with a subpoena
to produce a narrow and specific set of materials possessed
by the Department of Justice and related to Special Counsel
Robert K. Hur's investigation of President Joe Biden's
``willful'' mishandling of classified documents to the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the
House of Representatives in Washington, DC;
Whereas Attorney General Garland has, in disobedience of
such subpoena, failed to produce the set of materials; and
Whereas the set of materials possessed by the Department of
Justice is material and necessary in order that the House of
Representatives may properly execute the functions imposed on
it and may obtain information necessary as a basis for such
legislative and other action as the House of Representatives
may deem necessary and proper: Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That--
(1) Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States,
is found in contempt of the House of Representatives for
disobeying the February 27, 2024, subpoena; and
(2) the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall
impose a fine, which may not be paid with appropriated funds,
on Attorney General Garland of $10,000 per day, until such
time as Attorney General Garland complies with the subpoena
of the House of Representatives by turning over the audio
tapes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution qualifies.

Motion to Table

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Clark of Massachusetts moves to lay the resolution on
the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207,
nays 209, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 346]

YEAS--207

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Duarte
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McClintock
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NAYS--209

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Lopez
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McCormick
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOT VOTING--17

Armstrong
Crenshaw
Evans
Fletcher
Garamendi
Granger
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Jackson Lee
LaTurner
Massie
McHenry
Moore (WI)
Moskowitz
Pascrell
Peltola
Smith (NJ)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1733

So the motion to table was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Motion to Refer

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Clark of Massachusetts moves to refer the resolution to
the Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we have already taken up way
too much of the House's time, of the American people's time. Let's get
back

[[Page H4571]]

to doing the work that they sent us here to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and move the
previous question on the motion.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to refer.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207,
nays 211, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 347]

YEAS--207

NAYS--211

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Lopez
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McCormick
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOT VOTING--15

Crenshaw
Evans
Fletcher
Garamendi
Granger
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Jackson Lee
LaTurner
Massie
McHenry
Moore (WI)
Moskowitz
Pascrell
Peltola

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1733

Ms. PETTERSEN changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to refer was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I regretfully missed four roll call votes
today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call Vote
344, NO on Roll Call Vote 345, YEA on Roll Call Vote 346, and YEA on
Roll Call Vote 347.

{time} 1745

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crawford). Pursuant to clause 2 of rule
IX, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna).
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have a deep distrust in our ability
to govern effectively. The executive branch's blatant disregard for
Congress as an institution, shown most recently by the Department of
Justice's failure to prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland,
undermines the effectiveness of this body. It also begs the question:
What is Attorney General Garland hiding?
On February 27, 2024, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees issued
subpoenas to Attorney General Garland to provide a narrow and specific
set of materials related to Special Counsel Robert Hur's investigation
into President Joe Biden's willful mishandling of classified documents.
Instead of complying with the lawfully issued congressional
subpoenas, Attorney General Garland refused to hand over unredacted
audio recordings and materials.
This is why House Republicans voted to hold Garland in criminal
contempt of Congress. However, on June 14, 2024, the Department of
Justice informed us that they would not uphold the law and prosecute
the Attorney General for contempt of Congress. While we all expected
DOJ's response, the dangerous precedent it set cannot be overstated.
In order for the House of Representatives to do its job, we must have
access to the information that will allow us to make informed decisions
on behalf of our constituents.
With Attorney General Garland and the Department of Justice refusing
to follow the law, we have been left with no choice but to rely on
inherent contempt, our constitutional authority to hold an individual
accountable for refusing to comply with congressional demands.
Inherent contempt is within our Article I authority. It was first
used in 1795 and was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1821 in Anderson v.
Dunn. Since then, it has been reaffirmed many times by the Court.
If we fail to hold Garland accountable, we will signal to whoever
controls the White House that it is impervious to congressional
oversight and that the constitutionally recognized power of the House
of Representatives is merely a suggestion and not to be taken
seriously.
If an American is presented with a lawful subpoena, he or she is
expected

[[Page H4572]]

that they comply or face the consequences of their defiance. Why should
the Attorney General of the United States be held to a different
standard? No one is above the law.
We have reached a turning point where the urgency of this situation
cannot be overlooked.
I want to remind my colleagues that House Republicans have already
agreed that Merrick Garland must be held accountable for defying two
lawfully issued subpoenas. Today's vote will hold Attorney General
Garland in inherent contempt of Congress and fine him $10,000 per day
until he complies with our subpoenas by turning over the audiotapes.
Over the past couple of days, I have heard false statements being
made about this resolution, one of which was a claim that this violated
the bill of attainder. This is simply untrue. In fact, the Supreme
Court rejected the idea that inherent contempt is a bill of attainder
in the 1927 case of McGrain v. Daugherty. This means that it is a
constitutional right within our authority under the Necessary and
Proper Clause.
Another false statement is that the fine can be paid with
appropriated money. However, this resolution clearly states that it is
personal funds that will be used.
I would like to remind my colleagues that this Congress is not
subordinate to the executive branch. It never has been, and it never
will be. This resolution will protect the integrity and independence of
the legislative branch.
To each one of my colleagues, your constituents and this institution
are relying on you to be on the right side of law and order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Van Orden).
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple issue. The United
States of America is a republic that is designed specifically, and our
duties are articulated in the Constitution of the United States of
America.
When we are speaking to the executive branch as a coequal branch, we
are not sending requests. A subpoena is not an ask. It is a task. For
the Attorney General of the United States to completely ignore the
Congress is unlawful. It cannot be tolerated.
This should be the most bipartisan bill that would pass in this
Congress because my Democratic colleagues also have been emasculated by
the Attorney General. So, I am asking them to cross the aisle. Let's
work together and make sure that we, collectively, are respected as
Members of Congress, as articulated in the Constitution of the United
States.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any further
speakers?
Mrs. LUNA. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, we have lots of speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. McCormick).
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, we have a quick decision to make, and I
understand this is contentious because of who is President and because
of who is in control of the floor.
In the near future, we will have maybe a new President, a new Senate,
and things will be looked at very differently. I think the most
important thing here is empowering the legislative branch to do its
duty, to have representation by the people in its most basic way.

We saw something in the debate that we have never seen before,
probably the most epic and historic debate ever as far as exposing the
President and how he thinks, what his mental capacity is, and his
ability to lead this great Nation forward in the next 4 years.
This is about the survival of our Nation, about the representation of
ideas, about the health of the most powerful person in the world. If we
can get to the bottom of that, we can make great decisions on who we
elect. We can also, at the same time, have the best representation from
the legislative branch.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a stupid resolution. Republican leadership knows
this is a stupid resolution. Their own Members know this is a stupid
resolution, but they are beholden to the craziest MAGA members in their
Conference.
So, this is what we get: stupid resolutions on the floor because they
are too chicken to stand up to the extremism in their own party.
The Attorney General turned over the exact transcripts of the
interviews that Republicans demanded, but that wasn't good enough
because this isn't about a dispute over a recording. Let's be real.
Republicans want to get these recordings because they think the RNC can
use them in attack ads.
This is Republicans weaponizing the government to go after their
political opponents, and it is sick.
The hypocrisy on the other side is stunning. It takes my breath away,
Mr. Speaker. Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, Scott Perry all ignored
congressional subpoenas. I can go right down the list: former Speaker
Kevin McCarthy, former Attorney General William Barr, former Commerce
Secretary Wilbur Ross, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former
Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino all were ordered to testify, and what
did they do? They ran and hid, following the lead, by the way, of their
corrupter in chief, Donald Trump, who ignored his own congressional
subpoena. It is like a national pastime for Republicans--golf, fishing,
and ignoring subpoenas.
Now, they have the nerve to come down here and lecture anyone about
the rule of law. Get lost. Get lost. Get out of here with this
nonsense.
Contrast what Republicans did with what Attorney General Garland is
doing. Not only is he taking the subpoena seriously, he is doing his
best to comply. He has legitimate concerns about releasing the tape
after the transcript has already been made public. He is not ignoring
it like they do on their side.
In fact, he made the entire underlying report public. He made the
transcript public. He allowed the special counsel to testify in public
for hours to explain his investigation. He sent a detailed letter,
supported by the facts, the law, and the precedent, detailing why he
would not release the audio recording because our side respects the
rule of law while the other side uses it as a phony talking point.
By the way, not only is this resolution a BS political stunt, it is
not even a good BS political stunt. This is a bad resolution that could
do massive damage to this institution's standing. If they go down this
road, Mr. Speaker, if this half-baked idea actually passes, this House
will almost certainly lose, doing irreparable damage to our own
constitutional authority.
So, I guess, you can pat yourselves on the back. Well done. Not only
have you cooked up * * * a plan that will undermine any future
legitimate attempts to use all our tools if it comes to a contempt
proceeding.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
Mr. GRIFFITH. To ask that the words be stricken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be
seated.

{time} 1815

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
offending words.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the offending words are
withdrawn.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I say for the Record that this is the
second time there has been an attempt to silence me by the freedom-
loving Republican Conference. So much for the First Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I get it. They are desperate to distract from their
failures. Their own Members are saying that they have done nothing, and
clearly they have deserted the American people in deference to Trump. I
get it. They want to distract from Project 2025.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the
Office of President.

[[Page H4573]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to think of what I can say. I
get it. They want to distract from Project 2025, distract from their
own nationwide abortion bans, distract from their giveaways to big
donors of special interests, and what do we get? We get unserious stuff
like this on the floor.
I say to the American people: You might not agree with Democrats on
everything. You might not think we are perfect, but we are focused on
our job. We are focused on fighting inflation, focused on getting
prices down, focused on bringing jobs back from overseas, on standing
up for democracy, and on protecting the freedom of our constituents.
Contrast that with what Republicans are focused on: wasting more time
on political stunts instead of working with us to get things done. It
is as simple and as sad as that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida has 24 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. Greene).
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, since Merrick Garland took over
as Attorney General in March of 2021, he has completely subverted and
weaponized the Department of Justice. This weaponization of the DOJ has
resulted in the persecution of the left's political enemies in a two-
tiered justice system. From investigating parents who protest their
school boards, to going after pro-life activists and Catholics, to
persecuting former President Donald J. Trump, Merrick Garland's
corruption knows no bounds.
The DOJ's persecution of Joe Biden's primary political adversary,
President Donald J. Trump, is illegal and an actual assault on
democracy. Raiding President Trump's home for legally declassifying
documents in a transparent violation of justice and persecuting a
declared candidate for President of the United States is nothing short
of election interference.
In the meantime, Merrick Garland has refused to comply with a lawful
congressional subpoena, claiming executive privilege, the same defense
argued by Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Georgia.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. For Merrick Garland and Joe Biden, it is rules
for thee, but not for me.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican Conference to support this
resolution, reclaim our congressional authority, and hold Merrick
Garland accountable for his hypocritical and illegal actions that spit
in the faces of all Americans' rights to a fair justice system.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid to say anything now. I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, there is so much to cover here
from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
First, I address something that my colleague from Wisconsin said when
he said that the Constitution lays out very clearly in Article I the
powers of Congress. I would ask him or any of my colleagues on the
other side if you could point me to where in the Constitution it
confers subpoena power on Congress. You won't be able to because it is
something established by the Supreme Court that is derivative from
Congress' power to legislate.
The Supreme Court has set forth exactly what a congressional subpoena
is authorized to do. In a recent case, which you may remember, the
Trump v. Mazars case, Donald Trump sued his accountant to prevent them
from providing documents to Congress pursuant to a subpoena.
Congressional authority, that is what we are worried about here.
Well, the Supreme Court reiterated that there must be a legitimate
legislative purpose in order for a congressional subpoena to be valid.
Mr. Speaker, I asked in our Oversight Committee when we debated this:
What is the legitimate legislative purpose that any one of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle can identify to justify a
contempt finding here where they have the substantive information of
the recording included in the transcript and everything else requested
in that subpoena was provided to them? Nonetheless, they are insisting
on getting the audio of that transcript that they have.
Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly, in the Oversight Committee, which has
no jurisdiction over this anyway, they offered nothing. I did hear in
the Judiciary Committee my friend from North Carolina, who is here,
refer in a subsequent hearing to demeanor evidence as a legitimate
purpose for this subpoena.
Mr. Speaker, demeanor evidence sounds like sophisticated legal speak
that is very esoteric and only for trial lawyers, but really it is
completely irrelevant to Congress' legislative role because we don't
try cases. There is no trial here. There is no demeanor evidence. As
much as you may want to prosecute Joe Biden, there is no congressional
prosecution of Joe Biden, and his demeanor evidence is no legitimate
basis for this subpoena.

Mr. Speaker, you of course know, and I don't even think you would
argue, that there is a legitimate legislative purpose to use the audio
recordings in a political ad to support your dear leader, Mr. Trump, so
that clearly falls outside of the range.
Of course, my friends on the other side of the aisle should refocus
from demeanor evidence to basic concepts, like due process or executive
privilege, because the President of the United States asserted
executive privilege over this audiotape. You may not like it. You may
not agree with it, but you have no authority to determine that that is
not a correct assertion of the executive privilege.
Do you know who else doesn't have authority to determine that? The
Attorney General, who you are trying to hold in contempt. Due process.
You are going to fine someone $10,000 without notice or an
opportunity to be heard? You are going to say: We are going to fine
you, and you have no opportunity to make a defense, and there is no
neutral adjudicator?
You can go to court all you want, and that is where you went, and
that is where you belong. That is why this resolution is so bogus. I
have a warning for you, my friends: You will reap what you sow.
In June of 2019, then-President Donald Trump said he would defy all
congressional subpoenas. That is exactly what he did. During the first
impeachment investigation, every single executive branch agency defied
a lawful subpoena from Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. The State Department was subpoenaed. The
Defense Department was subpoenaed. Not a single document was received.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to whoever one day is the Republican
Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense to be held in inherent
contempt and fined $10,000.

{time} 1830

There were more than a dozen witnesses who refused to comply with the
subpoena, and I am not even talking about the five House Republicans
who defied subpoenas in the last Congress that were determined by a
court to be lawful and who would also be subject to inherent contempt
because, of course, if this case where the audiotape is not provided,
then blowing off a subpoena is definitely contempt.
You ought to be careful about the precedent you are setting because
it is going to hurt you and your dear leader far more than us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members, again, are reminded to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that audio recordings
were used against both Trump and Nixon during impeachments. Also, I
believe the precedent has already been set as there are Republicans in
jail for ignoring subpoenas, and the Attorney General is not above the
law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Fry), my colleague.

[[Page H4574]]

Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution to
hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in inherent contempt of Congress.
This is not a decision that I take lightly but one that is rooted in
the fundamental principle and appreciation of our separation of powers.
Merrick Garland claims that he will ``not back down from defending
democracy,'' but he has gone to great lengths to ignore and discredit
our legislative oversight.
Merrick Garland claims that there have been ``unprecedented'' and
``unfounded'' attacks on the justice system, but all the while his
Department of Justice has weaponized our government in unprecedented
and unfounded ways. Merrick Garland claims, again, that he will
continue to do the right thing.
The right thing here, Mr. Speaker, would be to comply with a lawfully
issued subpoena. We have the transcripts. You cannot now claim
executive privilege over the tapes themselves.
The Supreme Court case of McGrain v. Daugherty put it best: ``A
legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence
of information . . . and where the legislative body does not itself
possess the requisite information . . . recourse must be had to others
who do possess it.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will note for the record that the
gentlewoman from Florida can say whatever she wants about President
Biden and the DOJ, but I can't say what I think about this resolution.
Maybe that is the way it works in the Kremlin, but we are in the United
States Congress, and we are supposed to be able to say what we believe
and be able to express ourselves freely. That is the First Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my colleague.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, at what point will the United States House
of Representatives stand up and say we aren't going to take it from the
executive branch anymore?
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is not
about Democrats versus Republicans; this is about Congress versus the
executive branch.
If the executive branch had a problem with the subpoena, they should
not have filed a motion to quash. They should have taken it to the
third branch of government and made sure that the subpoena was proper.
They didn't do that. They decided to be executive across the board to
dictate to this House, elected by the people, what the terms were going
to be. I won't stand for it anymore. It is time we used our inherent
contempt and hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Alford).
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that we are here today.
Look, no one wanted to take it to this step. This has been forced
upon us by the Attorney General of the United States of America. He has
thumbed his nose at this very institution.
Mr. Speaker, if you look in the drawer right below you there, because
I was up there 2 days ago, and you pull out the drawer, there is a book
this thick, the ``Jefferson's Manual.'' On page 142 through 147, you
will find delineated and described caseloads of inherent contempt,
upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now, I will grant you this: This tool in the toolbox of the U.S.
House of Representatives has not been used in some time, but that does
not mean it is ineffective and should not be used.
This body is precious. We need to protect this body, and when another
branch of this government thumbs its nose at this body, we have to act
to protect the reputation and prestige of this body, or we will lose
it.
The Attorney General is not above the law. Merrick Garland, as a
Federal judge, if someone had ignored his subpoena, he would have them
in jail, locked up that night. Our option under ``Jefferson's Manual''
is to do that very thing: to have the Sergeant at Arms go and arrest
the Attorney General.
We are choosing not to do this but instead issue a $10,000 fine until
he turns over those tapes. At this point, this is not about what is on
these tapes. This is about the principle of the United States House of
Representatives protecting its reputation and bringing to justice,
bringing to light the information on that tape and securing the
liberties of the United States of America.
If we do not do this, our Republic will be lost. This is so important
to our body and the future of what we must do here.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of things that I have
heard on the floor today that I find offensive, but I am not a
snowflake, and I am not going to try to silence anybody.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues across the
aisle, this is about the quality of the evidence. Surely everyone
recognizes that the Oversight Committee is the body of authority of
Congress that has responsibility to hold the executive branch
accountable.
In the process of our committee work on the Oversight Committee, we
seek intelligence and data from the executive branch all the time.
Sometimes it is voluntary. Sometimes it requires a subpoena.
In this case, we had to use subpoena authority, which we did. That is
a process that we went through. It provided us a description of the
evidence. A transcript is not an audio file; it is a description of an
audio file. If you have a crime committed, in the evidence you are not
going to look at a picture of a knife or a description of a bloody shoe
or a glove. You need the knife or the shoe or the glove.
We could provide our own description. We don't know if the transcript
is accurate or not because we don't have the audio file. There is zero
value to a transcript in a process like this without the original
quality evidence. My attorney friends over there know this.
As an investigator I say it is quite simple: Give us the original
evidence. What do you have to hide?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida has 17 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here, the reason that the Attorney
General of the United States has already been held in contempt, is
because Special Counsel Hur interviewed the President of the United
States and the Attorney General provided to Congress, at our request, a
transcript rather than an audio recording.
We believe the audio recording is necessary for us to understand the
extent to which the President was able to answer the questions before
him and why Special Counsel Hur chose not to pursue charges directly as
a result of what he put forward as the likelihood that the President
would not be found effectively competent to stand trial. We believe
that is central to the question.
In terms of legislative purpose, what we are talking about here, by
the way, is an impeachment inquiry and the tools of the House through
the Judiciary Committee includes our ability to go forward and get the
appropriate information, and we have a purpose which is the impeachment
inquiry. It is nothing more. It is nothing less.
Now, in the Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General of the United
States in a question that I asked him, his response was that the
evidence was the same. The transcript and the audio were the same.
If that is true, then the Attorney General has no real basis, having
already waived privilege on the transcript, not claimed privilege on
the transcript, has no real basis for not giving the audio to the
United States Congress to carry out its duty for an impeachment
inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that my colleagues on
the

[[Page H4575]]

other side of the aisle have not said one single word about Jim
Jordan defying a congressional subpoena, but then, again, this debate
is not on the level.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).
Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Luna for yielding to
me.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, Congress held Attorney General Merrick
Garland in criminal contempt of Congress. He refused to comply with two
congressional subpoenas and hand over the tapes of the President's
interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur.
After the interview, Robert Hur called the President ``a sympathetic,
well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,'' and that is a quote. It
is clear the Attorney General is trying to cover up our President's
mental decline, but it is not working.
Every single person can see that the President is not well. The House
already voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in criminal
contempt of Congress a few weeks ago for defying the subpoenas, but
there are three different kinds of contempt, Mr. Speaker: criminal,
civil, and inherent contempt of Congress.

Holding someone in criminal contempt puts the Justice Department,
which is controlled by Merrick Garland, in charge of taking action
against the person.
By holding him in inherent contempt, we put the responsibility back
in the hands of Congress where it belongs. This resolution fines the
Attorney General $10,000 every day he continues to defy the
congressional subpoenas and hand over those tapes.
Some folks don't want us doing this right now, and I understand that.
It is an election year. I think this is exactly what we need to do,
though, right now. These tapes will show the American people that our
President is not well and not fit to be President of the United States.
No one, not even our Attorney General, is above the law. He needs to
be held accountable and hand over those recordings to Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President to include making
reference to other sources that would have been out of order if spoken
in the Member's own words.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Anna Paulina Luna, the
Representative from Florida, for leading this important resolution.
I just have one question: What is the Biden administration trying to
hide?
Attorney General Merrick Garland's refusal to produce evidence
establishes a clear pattern of obstruction by the Department of
Justice, or rather injustice during this administration, to cover up
Joe Biden's wrongdoings.
Joe Biden has lied to the American people about his mishandling of
classified documents. Never mind the stories about his uncle being
eaten by cannibals. We are not touching that today, but he has also
repeatedly denied knowing about or being involved in his family's
influence peddling schemes, which the Oversight Committee can now show
has raked in $18 million from foreign individuals and entities for
Biden family members, including Joe Biden himself.
After the debate, it has grown increasingly apparent that Joe Biden
has repeatedly made false statements to the American people about his
ability to even lead this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Colorado.

{time} 1845

Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. Biden's Department of
Justice has taken every step to insulate him from any consequences,
whether it is hiding these audio recordings or attempting to give
Hunter Biden a sweetheart deal. This is absolutely unacceptable.
The House of Representatives cannot serve as a necessary check on the
Presidency if the executive branch is free to ignore the House's
subpoenas. It is clear the Biden crime family believes they are above
the law.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important resolution
and force Biden's crooked DOJ to hand over the tapes and hold Attorney
General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to formally ask that her words be taken
down, but the hypocrisy here is astounding. I get silenced for
characterizing a bill in a negative way, and they continue to insult
the President of the United States and his family and everybody else.
This is outrageous. It has to stop. This is the House of
Representatives. This is not some rightwing radio talk show. This is
where we are supposed to have serious debate. This is just wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mills).
Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I would love to first start by thanking my
colleague from Florida for allowing me this time.
I have heard the other side of the aisle talk about constitutionality
and what our roles and responsibilities are here in Congress, but the
one that they fail to understand the most is oversight and
accountability. That is something that is afforded to us under Article
I as the legislative body.
In doing so, we are requested to ensure that we have not just the
written but the audio and other testimony that was actually provided,
which, by the way, is paid for by the U.S. taxpayers and, therefore,
has the right to be heard.
Special Counsel Robert Hur made it very clear when he was
investigating the improper maintenance and keeping of classified
documents that were not protected by executive privilege by President
Joe Biden in his garage and University of Pennsylvania--that is what we
are demanding, is to hear the further testimony to this and not just
sit here and look at the written or the ``elderly man with a poor
memory,'' a quote from Robert Hur.
Again, I ask the question, what is it that they are trying to hide?
Is it either that he is not mentally and physically fit and capable to
be the Commander in Chief, and, therefore, the 25th Amendment should be
invoked, or is it the fact that he is mentally fit and therefore should
be indicted and treated in the same manner that Special Counsel Jack
Smith treated President Trump? It has to be one or the other.
The Trump audio was actually demanded by Congress during their
continuation of the Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine
witch hunts.
We will also note that the House has actually done this to hold
people in contempt. We have right now Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon
who have been in prison for this very same thing.
I urge all of my colleagues to support Mrs. Luna's resolution,
ensuring that we, as Article I congressional bodies, uphold our
constitutional oath and responsibility to guarantee that the rule of
law is maintained and kept at all times.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members again are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing the
resolution.
To address the other side's claims about subpoenas to Members, they
are invalid when you get your buddies together, predetermine the
outcome, and then have an illegitimate committee, so-called, that
doesn't follow and comport with the rules of the House.
By the way, some of the Members accused here were never even served
those subpoenas, so let's be careful about disparaging our colleagues.
On the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker, this was a criminal investigation
conducted by Robert Hur, a criminal investigation on the President of
the

[[Page H4576]]

United States for classified documents for which he was not authorized
to have because, at the time he had them, he was not the President. He
was the Vice President or a Senator and, in either case, not authorized
to have those documents outside the chain of custody and outside a
SCIF. He had no courier orders. They were just stored in his garage or
at the Penn Biden Center.
That is the crime. The crime was committed. That is actually not in
question. Robert Hur essentially said that there was a crime committed.
The question is of the evidence of the crime committed. What the
administration, the Department of Justice, and Merrick Garland have
said is: You can't have the evidence. We are going to tell you our
version of the evidence.
That is not how it goes in criminal trials. We don't say to the
defendant: Give us your version of the evidence, and we will see if
that is good enough. Prosecutors go get the evidence and then determine
where it leads.
This House of Representatives demands the best evidence, not somebody
else's version of the evidence, but the actual evidence, and the best
evidence available, not because the House of Representatives inherently
needs it, but because the American people need to judge for themselves
about the crime that was committed and then why Robert Hur decided not
to prosecute that crime.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members again are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just for the record, the Attorney General is not
ignoring anything, like they do on their side. In fact, he made the
entire underlying report public. He has released the entire transcript.
He has done everything that was expected of him.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I need to point this out for the record: My
Republican colleagues don't care when Republicans ignore subpoenas.
That is okay, but they have a different standard for Democrats. Just
like in debate, Republicans can say whatever they want: personal
attacks against the President, personal attacks against the Attorney
General, you know, awful things. That is fine. That is okay. They can
say whatever they want. I characterize a bill in a way that they don't
like, and they threaten to silence me, to take my words down.
This is not the Kremlin, my friends. This is the United States House
of Representatives, and we still live in a democracy where people can
express themselves. That has not changed, at least not yet.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, what I find intriguing is we have had
references repeatedly tonight that this is not the Kremlin and
assertions that some of us received subpoenas and didn't respond. This
individual doesn't know the facts. When a subpoena was issued, does he
know whether service was ever made? Does he know that? The answer is
no, and it wasn't.
Let's talk about why we are here today. The other side says: Wait a
second, Mr. Garland was in compliance because he provided a written
transcript that was accurate--except for what happened 3 weeks ago now,
the DOJ itself in pleadings to the court said: We made changes to the
transcript, but don't worry, don't worry about those changes. They were
de minimis. We took out repeat words. We took out pauses. We took out
all kinds of things that were just small in nature.
How do we know? We don't know. However, there was an audio recording.
Isn't that fortunate? There was an audio recording.
Just like in the Nixon tapes--and this is the controlling law here--
the Court said if you change the written transcript, you have to
provide the audio recording. That is what the Court said. My friends
across the aisle said we have to rely on what the Court said. The Court
said if you have doctored or altered or changed or edited the
transcript, the written transcript, you have to provide the audio
recording.
That is all we are asking for. Comply with that. Comply with the law.
Comply with the subpoena you were given, the subpoena that you didn't
contest, that you admitted you were served with, that you admitted
controls.
Now, you claim executive privilege, but you can't claim executive
privilege because you waived it.
The courts have ruled on that, too. It has to be timely. They didn't
make a timely objection. It has to be related to official duties. This
wasn't related to official duties.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, it wasn't related to official duties. They
have waived the privilege. Merrick Garland waived the privilege. He now
needs to respond, and he continues to say no.
We have the authority. We have the inherent contempt authority, and
we need to use that authority if we are going to maintain our Article I
authorities and the separation of powers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding. I am sorry for this body that you have had to endure such
hypocritical conduct in silencing you. Luckily, I am not silenced, and
I am happy to respond to some of the bogus and egregious allegations
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
First, my friend from Georgia expounded upon the weaponization of the
Department of Justice by President Biden. It was interesting to me that
she mentioned that the Department of Justice is apparently, under Joe
Biden's direction, persecuting Catholics. Joe Biden is Catholic, so
that is an interesting weaponization of the Department of Justice.
You would think that if someone were going to weaponize the
Department of Justice for political purposes that he would intervene or
interfere in a prosecution of his own son, but, no, he didn't do that.
In fact, the only people who intervened and interfered in that
investigation were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who
inappropriately and improperly intervened in an ongoing Federal
criminal case by urging a judge to reject the plea agreement in the
Hunter Biden case.
Now, they say we are here because congressional power must be
protected. Apparently, congressional power is meaningless if it is used
against their buddies, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, who completely
blew off a congressional subpoena and had no basis, no rationale, no
defense for not showing up. They are in jail not because of inherent
contempt. They are in jail because they were convicted of a crime,
because they blew it off.
Now, you can say what you want about the January 6th Committee. You
can say it was unlawful. Federal judges determined it to be lawful.
If your excuse as to why you did not comply is that you did not
receive service of the subpoena, it is laughable.
Finally, I would like just to point out that the basis they have
mentioned about why they need this recording, one of my colleagues
said, was to determine whether President Biden was able to answer
questions before him and why the special counsel did not pursue
charges. It is not a legitimate legislative purpose for Congress to
second-guess Federal prosecutorial discretion. You may want it, but you
have no legitimate reason for it.
If your argument is that executive privilege is waived, maybe it is,
but you don't get to decide that. A court decides it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is a political stunt
solely designed to placate and support Donald Trump, their nominee for
President. They are making sure that they do everything possible to
provide him with fodder for his campaign because there is no basis for
any contempt, much less inherent contempt, and it is shameful that you
have stood here trying to call

[[Page H4577]]

upon congressional power and separation of powers when you refuse to do
so for any Republican, including your own colleagues who defy subpoenas
right, left, and center. Be careful because what goes around comes
around.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I have heard this motion called a
political stunt. Let me assure my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, this is no
political stunt. Congress must use its inherent authority when it deems
it proper. This is a proper use of that.
I would say to the gentleman, my feelings on this have nothing to do
with the current situation politically. I advocated to then-Speaker
John Boehner that we use this measure on Eric Holder if he chose to
come to the floor of the House for a State of the Union Address after
having been found in contempt.
It may very well be, Mr. Speaker, that on the general contempt, the
criminal contempt, the Department of Justice headed by Merrick Garland
can use prosecutorial discretion, which they did, which is also why it
is inherent on Congress to use its inherent contempt power because if
we only can rely on the Attorney General to hold himself or charge
himself with contempt, Congress no longer has the power to subpoena,
Congress no longer has the power to do its oversight, to do its
investigations into any part of the Federal Government, and we will be
taking away all of the power. We will be emasculating the United States
Congress.
It is not appropriate. We should have used this power 10 years ago.
We should have used this power 8 years ago. Now, we must restore the
ability of the United States Congress to get its subpoenas answered
from the executive branch of this country.
If there is a problem, Mr. Speaker, if the executive branch thinks we
have overreached, if the executive branch thinks we have done something
wrong, we have a third branch to make a decision on that, but the first
step is for us to recognize and defend our constitutional prerogatives
to do our job and to defend the United States Congress with inherent
contempt against the executive branch.

{time} 1900

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I feel very sad for our country based on what is
happening right now on the House floor. I don't believe this is a
serious effort. I believe it is very political, quite frankly.
What this really is about is Republicans are upset that they can't
get their hands on an audio recording so they can use it in an RNC
attack ad. That is really what this is all about.
When Republicans get subpoenas, they run and hide.
The Attorney General, in my view, and I think in the view of most
people, has complied, has done what he is supposed to do, what he is
expected to do.
We are faced with so many challenges in this country. I mentioned in
my opening statement that we need to focus in on how do we help the
American people, how do we continue to move in the direction of
lowering inflation, creating more jobs, creating more opportunities for
young people, helping our veterans, and protecting our environment. All
of those things are incredibly important, and this is what we are
doing. This is what we are doing here today. It is really sad.
Quite frankly, it is chilling and it is scary when you think about
what could happen if they get more power. Just read Project 2025. It
tells you all you need to know about what the plan is.
I have got to say again, Mr. Speaker, and then I will close, that I
am astounded at the latitude that has been afforded the Republicans
during this debate to say whatever the hell they want to say, to
disparage the President in any way they want.
When I disparaged their resolution, they threatened to take my words
down and have me silenced if I didn't withdraw those words. I can't
believe it. I have never seen anything quite like this happen.
The freedom-loving Republicans, the way they respond in debate is to
try to silence comments by people that they disagree with. This is
chilling. This is not what this institution is about. This is not what
this country is about.
I would urge the Speaker to take note of this. We have to find a way
forward here where it is not so one-sided, where they can say whatever
they want to say, but I can't say anything, basically. I have to watch
every single word I say on this floor. This is unprecedented.
I will say, Mr. Speaker, they have a set of rules for themselves, and
they have a set of rules for us, people they disagree with. If this is
the coming attractions, God help our country. We need to do better.
Again, I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. I would
like to be able to characterize it, but I am afraid my colleague will
take offense and want to take my words down again.
This is not serious. This is beneath this institution, and I would
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is not a decision that we have reached lightly, but the actions
of the Attorney General cannot be ignored. No one is above the law, yet
the Attorney General has sought to put himself above the law, and the
DOJ failed to do their job, which is why we are using inherent
contempt.
Despite what my colleagues may think, this is not a stupid idea but
actually our constitutional duty and is well within the scope of our
legislative authority to assert the House's power in this manner.
The arguments against the House standing up for itself are a last-
ditch effort made by people who are intent on covering up for President
Biden and Attorney General Garland.
The issue at hand is the enforcement of a congressional subpoena, a
fundamental tool of oversight that is being undermined.
If this body is to continue, we cannot sit by any longer. The House
of Representatives must not be ignored, and the time for action is now.
This resolution is more than Merrick Garland. It is about whether or
not the House of Representatives will be able to function properly. As
the court said in Anderson v. Dunn, without the power of inherent
contempt, the House would be exposed to every indignity and
interruption, that rudeness, or even conspiracy, may mediate against
it.
We cannot allow this to happen, Mr. Speaker. If we do not assert our
authority, we risk setting a dangerous precedent where the House's
power is eroded and our ability to fulfill our congressional duties is
compromised. The consequences of inaction are grave.
In conclusion, we must remain vigilant and assert our authority to
ensure the balance of power in our Republic.
I urge all of you to support this resolution and defend the integrity
of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate having expired, without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the resolution.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________