[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

     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--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.

                          ____________________