Finish the Wall Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 848 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

general leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 848. The rule provides for consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-216, under a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.

Mr. Speaker, after producing 9,000 pages of documents that he conceded to be nonprivileged in any way; after saying he would comply with the subpoena to appear before the January 6th committee on December 8; after negotiating and rendering preliminary cooperation with the January 6th committee, Mark Meadows' book came out with tons of startling and eye-popping revelations about January 6th and the role that then-President Donald Trump played.

Ex-President Trump exploded and called Mr. Meadows' book fake news. Amazingly, Mr. Meadows agreed that his book was fake news, and then he suddenly pulled the plug on his agreement to testify in formal deposition before our committee on December 8.

Instead, he went to court and alleged that our committee has no valid legislative purpose.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Meadows' sudden vanishing act is plainly a delay tactic designed to run out the clock on one of the most important investigations in the history of the United States of America. If we don't have a legislative purpose in investigating the most sweeping, violent attack on the U.S. Capitol since the War of 1812, and the most serious and most dangerous threat to American constitutional democracy since the Civil War, then we really don't have a legislative purpose for anything we do here.

If this investigation into a dangerous assault on the American Government is not necessary and proper under our Constitution, then nothing is. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution gives Congress of the United States the power to provide for: calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

Obviously, we have a legislative purpose in what we are doing to investigate an attack on this building, on this Chamber where more than 140 of our officers were wounded and injured, hospitalized, people came back with broken necks, broken jaws, broken vertebrae, broken arms, broken legs, traumatic brain injuries, and to this day, continue to suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

The counting of electoral college votes was interrupted for the very first time in American history for several hours. This was the most serious, destabilizing, domestic threat to American constitutional democracy that any of us have seen in our lifetimes.

Now, the committee has bent over backwards to accommodate Mr. Meadows' multiple requests. It is now clear he has no intention of complying with the subpoena, even when his testimony could have no theoretical connection to an executive privilege claim. This is the key point.

He is categorically refusing to show up to testify about 9,000 pages of documents that he has already turned over to the committee and for which he has thus nullified any hypothetical assertions of executive privilege by President Biden, or a former President. He is refusing to testify about statements that he made in his book that are now all over the country, published last week, and that he has repeated in the media about what took place on January 6.

He is willing to talk about it in his book. He is willing to talk about it in public, but he is unwilling to undergo the questioning of our committee despite having been subpoenaed to do so in deposition.

This is another category of statements which has nothing to do with executive privilege because it has already been completely waived, completely obviated, and completely nullified by his own actions.

This witness, Mr. Speaker, must testify. He must come and render truthful, honest, and complete testimony like 300 other witnesses before him have done, either voluntarily and patriotically, as the vast majority have done, or at least under compulsion of a legal subpoena.

The Supreme Court has been perfectly clear about that. We have the same authority to ask for people's testimony that a court does in pursuit of our official constitutional duties. And if anyone we have called as a witness knows in his bones that he must testify before this committee, it is Mr. Meadows himself, a former member of this body who repeatedly through his career in Congress insisted that high-ranking executive branch officials must comply with congressional demands for information and congressional subpoenas for their testimony.

By the way, you don't get to choose and say: Well, I will send you my documents, but I am not going to testify. That is not how going before Congress works or going before a court works.

In the last administration, multiple times, Mr. Meadows found high- ranking officials hiding information from Congress, withholding relevant documents, or ``even outright ignoring congressional subpoenas.''

And here is what he had to say about that: ``This level of conduct, paired with the failure to even feign an interest in transparency, is reprehensible. And whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, this kind of obstruction is wrong, period.

``For 9 months we've warned them consequences were coming, and for 9 months we've heard the same excuses backed up by the same unacceptable conduct. Time is up and the consequences are here.''

We have multiple statements by Mr. Meadows like that, who was a distinguished member of the Oversight and Reform Committee. He, of all Members, continually insisted that people and high-ranking government officials respect the authority of Congress to do its job.

Our investigative powers are implicit in, and intertwined with our powers to legislate as the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized.

The Meadows' lawsuit against individual members of this committee is extremely dubious in light of the Speech or Debate Clause and multiple other constitutional roadblocks, and its substantive allegations are frivolous, such as the central absurd claim that Congress has no legitimate purpose in investigating and reporting to the American people on a violent attack on our Capitol, our Presidential election, and on the peaceful transfer of power.

We must hold him in contempt for his refusal to participate in these proceedings, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, on the matter of the phone records, what has been subpoenaed is simply the metadata establishing where the phone calls were going amongst different parties that were involved in the January 6 insurrection and the attempted political coup against Vice President Pence, but not the actual communications themselves. There has not been a single word that has been subpoenaed from the telephone companies of the actual conversations that took place.

All of that, in any event, is an irrelevant distraction. Let's be very clear about what is going on here, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Meadows began to cooperate. He turned over 9,000 documents of extraordinary relevance to this investigation. We were getting exactly what we wanted, up until the point at which he pulled the plug on his participation.

Look at some of the texts which we released over the last 24 hours that came in as part of his discovery with the committee. This is from some Republican lawmakers and others:

``We are under siege up here at the Capitol,'' was one text he received.

``They have breached the Capitol.''

``Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows on doors. Rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?''

``There's an armed standoff at the House Chamber door.''

``We are all helpless.''

Here is what came in from some members of the media that Mr. Meadows turned over to the committee.

Laura Ingraham: ``Mark, the President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.''

Brian Kilmeade sent this to Mark Meadows: ``Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.''

Here is Sean Hannity: ``Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.''

Trump family members also were texting, according to the materials turned over by Mark Meadows. Donald Trump, Jr.: ``He's got to condemn this'' excrement ``ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.'' Meadows responding: ``I'm pushing it hard. I agree.'' Donald Trump, Jr.: We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.''

Mr. Speaker, all of these texts and hundreds more like them lead to hundreds of questions that we have about the sequence of events on January 6: Who did what in response to different pleas from lawmakers, Democrat and Republican alike? Who did what in response to these pleas coming in from members of the media and from members of the Trump family? What was the sequence of events? How was the National Guard involved? How did this interact with other parts of the Federal Government?

Then Mr. Meadows, though, did a U-turn when Donald Trump called his book ``fake news.'' Meadows decided to agree with him and hurriedly said it was fake news and then said he would not appear on December 8, a date, by the way, which had been postponed from two other dates to testify because we wanted to accommodate his schedule and the schedule of his lawyer. But now he decides to go completely cold.

They are left in a completely untenable posture legally because he is refusing to testify about things that he has already conceded there is no privilege covering. He has said: None of this is privileged. I am turning it over to you.

We want to ask him questions about it, and now, suddenly, he runs back to the idea that there is some privilege, although one can see his eroding faith in that argument as the D.C. Circuit rejected the claims of executive privilege unanimously in Trump v. Thompson.

So now that is why he is saying we have no legitimate legislative purpose, which is perfectly absurd. If we don't have a legislative purpose in defending our own institution, our own Constitution, our own government, then we have no legislative purposes here at all if we can't even have an investigation into an attack that goes to the very survival of our form of government.

Mr. Speaker, Mark Meadows has to testify. He has to come in like 300 American citizens have patriotically and lawfully done. What makes him special? The fact that he knows a former President of the United States? I am afraid not.

In Jones v. Clinton, a case that my colleagues applauded on the other side of the aisle, the Supreme Court held that even a sitting President of the United States is not immune to civil actions, even a sitting President.

We don't have an office of former President. When you are no longer President of the United States, under our Constitution, you are a citizen like everybody else. You can't wave a magic wand over your friends and say that they don't have to comply with lawful subpoenas.

So this witness is in contempt of our committee and the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate, of course, the temptation to just change the subject and talk about something completely different because there are no arguments left on their side.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Trump v. Bennie Thompson case, in an opinion of more than 50 pages, reviewed all the arguments on both sides about executive privilege and said executive privilege is a claim which, of course, belongs primarily and principally to the existing President of the United States, not to a former President of the United States. To the extent that a former President of the United States can raise it, the presumption is that the people in our constitutional democracy have a right to all the information they seek in order to govern themselves.

That is what the investigative power of Congress is about. We have a right to obtain the information we need in order to legislate. So the presumption is that we get it. That can only be overcome if a sitting President--or in perhaps some exceptional cases, a former President-- demonstrates there is some compelling need that would override the fundamental right of the people to get the information we want.

The D.C. Circuit panel found unanimously that not only had they not shown there was a compelling need on Donald Trump's team, they didn't even identify a potentially compelling need. Of course, there isn't one. Why? The Supreme Court has already found that executive privilege does not cover criminal activity; much less could executive privilege cover insurrectionary activity or activity designed to promote an insurrection or a coup against the United States of America.

So I welcome my colleagues talking about anything else because it simply demonstrates their abandonment of the executive privilege argument, an argument also that has been abandoned by Mr. Meadows himself, who voluntarily turned over 9,000 pages worth of documents to our committee, thereby saying there was no privilege at all.

But now he is refusing to testify about it, apparently because of Donald Trump's explosive reaction to the publication of Mark Meadows' book. I am sorry, that is not a constitutional defense to being called to testify before Congress. You can't say a former President is mad at me and wants to wave a magic wand so I don't have to testify. That doesn't work in our system of government.

Mr. Meadows must come and testify, like hundreds of people have come to testify before our committee about this brutal attack on our system of government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlewoman for her very insightful remarks. The committee has referred often to the passage that the gentlewoman identifies by the Supreme Court saying that a subpoena to come and testify is not an invitation to a game of hare and hounds. That is a little old-fashioned. Basically, the court is saying it is not a game of hide-and-seek or cat-and-mouse.

You are told to come and testify, and you must. That is what the vast majority of people have been doing in our investigation and the vast majority of Americans do all across the land when they are subpoenaed to come to court. It seems like a tiny handful of people who think that somehow they are above the law because they know a former President of the United States.

I am sorry, that is just not how our legal system works. We have no kings here, as Judge Chutkan emphasized at the district court in rejecting Donald Trump's claims against our committee. We have no kings here. Everyone is subject to the law. We have no nobles. We have no lords. Congress cannot award titles of nobility here. We are all equals, and we are all subject to the law. It is a crime in the District of Columbia not to comply with a subpoena, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $100,000 fine. Very serious business. Now, if you think you have got some kind of legal privilege against testifying, like the marital privilege or the priest-penitent privilege or the doctor-patient privilege or the executive privilege, you come, you show up, you testify, and you invoke it as to a specific question.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why this case is overwhelmingly easy, we would argue 100 percent easy, is because we are talking about testimony by Mr. Meadows that he has been subpoenaed to give relating to 9,000 documents that he has already admitted are not privileged by the executive privilege or the Fifth Amendment or anything else. He has said, here, take them. This is evidence about what happened. And rightfully so did he do that.

I will express my personal disappointment that Donald Trump's explosive rage about the publication of Mr. Meadows' book occasioned some kind of change in his attitude about it, but regardless of his subjective attitude, he has a legal obligation to show up and to answer the questions of this committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to emphasize that in his distinguished service in this Chamber, Mr. Meadows would never tolerate an executive official simply deciding to blow off a subpoena of the U.S. Congress. He said, ``Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, this kind of obstruction is wrong, period.''

He repeatedly complained about intransigence and delays by the executive branch. So I think he understands exactly why this is a matter of such gravity to our body.

Now, as I was saying, as a member, not just of the Rules Committee but also of the January 6th Select Committee, we have seen overwhelming participation and cooperation by the people we have called. Most people are doing their legal duty and their civic and patriotic duty by coming forward and voluntarily saying, here is what I know, and here is the information I have got to help you put together a report for the American people.

It just seems as we have gotten closer and closer to Donald Trump, that is where we are running into the obstructionism, as from Steve Bannon, as from Jeffrey Clark. And now we have got this problem we are in with Mark

Meadows, who had been on the path of cooperation, had turned over these thousands of documents, and now he is in the very awkward position of saying he is not going to testify about thousands of documents that he already turned over to us, which demonstrate how radically dangerous that day, in fact, was.

Let me just read a few more of the texts that Mr. Meadows disclosed to our committee: One text said, ``We are under siege here at the Capitol.'' That came to him on January 6.

Another, ``They have breached the Capitol.''

``Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows on doors. Rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?''

``We are all helpless.''

Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, urged immediate action by the President, ``POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protesters to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed.''

And, of course, several people died on that day and within days of the attack on January 6.

In another, ``Mark, he needs to stop this now.''

A third in all caps, ``TELL THEM TO GO HOME.''

A fourth, and I quote, ``POTUS needs to calm this''--expletive deleted, excrement--``down.''

Multiple FOX News hosts themselves knew the President needed to act immediately. They texted Mr. Meadows. He turned over those texts to us. ``Mark, President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy,'' wrote Laura Ingraham.

Brian Kilmeade texted, ``Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.''

Sean Hannity urged by text, ``Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.'' And so on.

We need to find out what actions were taken in response to all of those entreaties from Members of Congress, from members of the media, from members of Trump's own family, what sequence of events took place afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman invokes the oath of office. Former President Trump swore an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution, and we have all of these tweets which clearly indicate he wasn't doing that.

H. Res. 503 authorizes and obligates our committee to get to the particulars and details of what took place on January 6, what were the causes behind it, and what do we need to do to defend ourselves in the future against these kinds of attacks on our election process, on the peaceful transfer of power, and on the workings of Congress.

That is what we are doing.

And with their January 6 case collapsing all around them, my colleagues now head for the border in their rhetoric, and I don't blame them for doing that. But they are not going to fool the American people. People understand exactly what is happening here.

The prior speaker said that it is a crime not to show up for a subpoena, and he said you know who does that, undocumented aliens. Well, then it is undocumented aliens, Steve Bannon, and Mark Meadows who are violating the law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people have come forward to testify about the violent and dangerous events of January 6, and there are just a handful of people, like Mr. Bannon and Mr. Meadows, who somehow think they are above the law.

We are not a banana republic because we hold everybody to equality under the law. And we are not communists, as the gentlewoman from Georgia suggested. Those are just the friends of the former President, who you lionize, like the dictator of North Korea, who he loves, and Vladimir Putin, who said that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, those are your friends. Don't put them on our side.

They are saying that the Select Committee on the January 6th Attack is out to persecute and bankrupt their opponents. On the contrary, we are out to write a report, under H. Res. 503, to the American people about the most violent, sweeping, and dangerous attack on the Republic since the Civil War or the War of 1812.

Mr. Bannon is raising money on it. Far from bankrupting Mr. Bannon, he is trying to get rich on it. And Mark Meadows has written a book where he tells all the stories he wants about January 6. It is just that he doesn't want to face the rule of law and the questions of this bipartisan committee, which is making tremendous progress in terms of getting the truth of what happened on that day.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend to all of my colleagues who invoked the rule of law today that they read the D.C. Circuit Court opinion, which obliterates every single argument that they have made about executive privilege. It is basically gone now because the way the law works is the people have a right to get the information we want unless there is a compelling interest on the other side. They haven't even pretended to invoke a compelling interest.

What is the compelling interest in being able to prepare an insurrection, a coup against the government? Is that what we want to establish a precedent for, that outgoing Presidents can try to organize an insurrection against the Vice President and encourage people who go out and stage a riot against the Vice President of the United States and the Congress? I don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of the speakers said it was absence of legislative purpose. This is the central purpose of our government, to make the government survive and to go out and serve the people. That is what this committee is doing.

Mr. Speaker, he is in contempt. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman of the January 6 Select Committee for yielding.

I serve as the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, which, collectively with the Judiciary Committee, may ultimately be addressing the legislative aspect of what we are here for.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day. I served with our former colleague, Mr. Meadows, a Member of the United States Congress. I believe that it was a number of years that he rose and took an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America.

In that oath he should have recognized the fact that the Article I body which we stand in today indicates that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

All legislative powers. In order to have legislative powers, one must have the facts. That is what is being asked for today.

I think the American people need to understand that although there may be many concerns--I am from Texas as well; I know the border is not in crisis. It should be addressed. We as Texans know how to address it, and President Biden and Vice President Harris know how to address it, as other Presidents have. People are fleeing for their lives.

But our Constitution says of the Congress ``to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.''

We are vested with a lot of powers. One of them is to be able to find the truth, to determine how we preserve our democracy, and how we need to legislate to do so. So I stand on the Constitution as I proceed with why we should move forward.

Again, this is a very sad day, but Mark Randall Meadows, former White House chief of staff, had a part in the perpetration of the big lie of the election fraud, and we must investigate it. Mr. Meadows was one of a relatively small group of people who witnessed the events of January 6 in the White House with the former President. He was there. Firsthand knowledge.

Some of these that I will recite have already been recited, but they are only a small measure with the huge bounty of documents that he and his lawyer consented to give to this committee. Consented to give. Consented to give. Voluntarily.

And so one must understand that when you do that, there is a question of waiver of the so-called alleged privilege that you are alleging, the executive privilege. But the courts have already indicated that the privilege lies with the existing President, not the former President.

With that in mind, should we not recognize that the very allies, the media allies of the President--the former President, Laura Ingraham said to Mark, ``The President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us.''

Brian Kilmeade, ``Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.''

Sean Hannity, ``Can he make a statement?''

And Donald Trump Jr., in profanity, said, Please help us.

But I want to just say, the United States v. Bryan says, ``A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity. We have often iterated the importance of this public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.'' We must do this, sadly, in order for his remarks to save the democracy to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 851, ``Recommending That The House of Representatives Find Mark Randall Meadows In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on The United States Capitol.''

It is with a heavy heart that I stand here today; this resolution will find a former colleague in contempt of the very body he once faithfully served.

However, protecting our democracy is the ultimate duty for each of us in this body, so we will do what must be done.

It is my sincere hope that during the course of this day, Mr. Meadows will reverse course and agree to comply with this lawful subpoena, in order to protect the dignity and sanctity of Congress.

On January 6th, the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States proudly wore symbols of White Supremacist groups, waved confederate flags, hung a noose on the lawn, and they shouted racial epithets.

Mark Randall Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff, had a part in the perpetuation of the Big Lie of election fraud, and we must investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power'' that Mr. Meadows was involved in.

Mr. Meadows was one of a relatively small group of people who witnessed the events of

January 6 in the White House and with the former president.

Mr. Meadows was with the former president on January 6 as he learned about the attack on the U.S. Capitol and decided whether to issue a statement that could stop the rioters.

In fact, according to documents already handed over to the Committee, as the violence at the Capitol unfolded, Mr. Meadows received many messages encouraging him to have the former president issue a statement that could end the violence.

According to the records, multiple Fox News hosts, and the former president's son knew that the former president needed to act immediately.

They texted Mr. Meadows, and he turned over these texts to this Committee.

These are some of those texts:

Laura Ingraham texted, ``Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.''

Brian Kilmeade texted, ``Please, get him on TV destroying everything you have accomplished.''

Sean Hannity texted, ``Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.''

Donald Trump Jr. texted, ``he's got to condemn this shit ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.''

To this last text, Meadows responded, ``I'm pushing it hard. I agree.''

One former White House employee reportedly contacted Mr. Meadows several times and told him, ``[you guys have to say something. Even if the president's not willing to put out a statement, you should go to the [cameras] and say, `We condemn this. Please stand down.' If you don't, people are going to die.''

As time passed without the former president intervening, Donald Trump Jr. again texted, ``we need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.''

But still, hours passed without necessary action by the president.

Moreover, Mr. Meadows reportedly spoke with Kashyap Patel, who was then the chief of staff to former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, ``nonstop'' throughout the day of January 6.

Mr. Meadows apparently knows if and when the former president was engaged in discussions regarding the National Guard's response to the Capitol riot, a point that is contested but about which Mr. Meadows provided documents to the Select Committee and spoke publicly on national television after the former president left office.

But Mr. Meadows knows much more than just what happened during the attack.

Prior to the January 6 attack, Mr. Meadows received text messages and emails regarding apparent efforts to encourage Republican legislators in certain States to send alternate slates of electors to Congress, a plan which one Member of Congress acknowledged was ``highly controversial'' and to which Mr. Meadows responded, ``I love it.''

Mr. Meadows traveled to Georgia to observe an audit of the votes days after then- the former president complained that the audit had been moving too slowly and claimed that the signature-match system was rife with fraud. That trip precipitated the former president's calls to Georgia's deputy secretary of state and, later, secretary of state.

In the call with Georgia's secretary of state, which Mr. Meadows joined, the former president pressed his unsupported claims of widespread election fraud, including claims related to deceased people voting, forged signatures, out-of-State voters, shredded ballots, triple-counted ballots, Dominion voting machines, and suitcase ballots, before telling the secretary of state that he wanted to find enough votes to ensure his victory.

Mr. Meadows was chief of staff during the post-election period when other White House staff, including the press secretary, advanced claims of election fraud.

In one press conference, the press secretary claimed that there were ``very real claims'' of fraud that the former president's re-election campaign was pursuing and said that mail-in voting was one that ``we have identified as being particularly prone to fraud.''

Mr. Meadows participated in a meeting that reportedly occurred on December 18, 2020, with the former president, the White House counsel, an attorney associated with the campaign, White House staff, and private citizens, on proposals relating to challenging the 2020 election results.

Mr. Meadows reportedly sent an email--subject line: ``Constitutional Analysis of the Vice President's Authority for January 6, 2021, Vote Count''--to a member of then-Vice President Pence's senior staff containing a memo written by an attorney affiliated with the former president's re-election campaign.

The memo argued that the Vice President could declare electoral votes in six States in dispute when they came up for a vote during the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021, which would require those States' legislatures to send a response to Congress by 7 p.m. EST on January 15 or, if they did not, then congressional delegations would vote for the former president's re-election.

Mr. Meadows was in contact with at least some of the private individuals who planned and organized a January 6 rally, one of whom reportedly may have expressed safety concerns to Mr. Meadows about January 6 events.

It is apparent that Mr. Meadows's testimony and document production are of critical importance to the Select Committee's investigation, and Congress, through the Select Committee, is entitled to discover facts concerning what led to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, as well as White House officials' actions and communications during and after the attack.

Mr. Meadows is uniquely situated to provide key information, having straddled an official role in the White House and unofficial role related to the former president's reelection campaign since at least election day in 2020 through January 6.

Mr. Meadows was required under federal law to turn over documents to investigators and appear for a deposition in accordance with a subpoena the committee issued, but he did not comply by the dates set in the subpoena.

An individual--whether a member of the public or an executive branch official--has a legal (and patriotic) obligation to comply with a duly issued and valid congressional subpoena, unless a valid and overriding privilege or other legal justification permits noncompliance.

In United States v. Bryan, the Supreme Court stated:

A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity. We have often iterated the importance of this public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.

The Select Committee seeks testimony from Mr. Meadows on information for which there can be no conceivable privilege claim.

In fact, the non-privileged nature of some key information has been recognized by Mr. Meadows's own documents which he has previously handed over to the Committee.

Congress is entitled to Mr. Meadows's testimony on that information, regardless of his claims of privilege over other categories of information.

In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-16 (1974), the Supreme Court recognized an implied constitutional privilege protecting presidential communications.

The Court held though that the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and that it is limited to communications made ``in performance of [a President's] responsibilities of his office and made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.''

Mr. Meadows has refused to testify in response to the subpoena ostensibly based on broad and undifferentiated assertions of various privileges, including claims of executive privilege purportedly asserted by former-President Trump.

However, his claims of testimonial immunity and executive privilege do not justify Mr. Meadows's conduct with respect to the Select Committee's subpoena.

His legal position is untenable in light of Mr. Meadows's public descriptions of events in the book that he is trying to sell and during his numerous television appearances, and his own previously produced documents.

Even if privileges were applicable to some aspects of Mr. Meadows's testimony, he was required to appear before the Select Committee for his deposition, answer any questions concerning non-privileged information, and assert any such privilege on a question-by-question basis.

After promising to appear, Mr. Meadows has now reversed course and resumed his contemptuous behavior.

Mr. Meadows's conduct in response to the Select Committee's subpoena constitutes a violation of the contempt of Congress statutory provisions.

The contempt of Congress statute makes clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

Further, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.''

The Supreme Court also recently reinforced this clear obligation by stating that ``when Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to cooperate.''

DOJ's legitimacy and effectiveness depends on the public's confidence that its administration and enforcement of federal laws is done

impartially, free from actual or perceived partisan or political influence.

Mr. Speaker, the January 6 insurrection caused tragic loss of life and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, congressional employees, and the Capitol Police.

It bears repeating often that the Congress and the Nation owe undying gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely, on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who love their country.

And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured.

Mr. Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives on January 6th, but to all Americans to figure out what happened and how that day came to be.

We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose of the January 6 insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress to tally the votes of Presidential electors and announce the results to the Nation and the world--from every occurring again.

This attack on our Capitol Building was the greatest threat to the American experiment since the Civil War when the pro-slavery forces decided to wage war, rather than let the Nation survive, and the pro- freedom forces would accept war rather than let the Nation perish.

The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to determine the causes and events that transpired during the insurrectionist attack.

Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include:

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex.''

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power.''

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.''

Understanding the full role that Mr. Meadows played in the events that led up to the January 6th attack is crucial to preventing anything like this from ever happening again.

Rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the trauma this Nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Meadows has simply refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena.

Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake.

For this reason, I rise in total support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 851, ``Recommending That The House of Representatives Find Jeffrey Bossert Clark In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on The United States Capitol.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, our country is facing a crisis of our own making. Republicans and Democrats alike have contributed to the rampant spending in Washington over the last several decades. But it is time for someone to stand up and say enough is enough.

I am here tonight with some of the greatest minds in Congress to talk about our floor-ready plan to tackle wasteful spending and restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government.

In December, Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks asked me to lead the Budget Task Force for the 117th Congress, and I gladly accepted. I put together a team of incredible fiscal conservatives to help repair our fiscal year 2022 budget.

I thank these intelligent, hardworking colleagues for rising to the occasion, working diligently to meet our ambitious goals, and putting together a fine product that will serve all Americans. They are Chairman Jim Banks, Roger Williams, Trent Kelly, Ralph Norman, Ron Estes, Michael Cloud, Ben Cline, Byron Donalds, and Bob Good. Thank you, gentlemen.

In addition to my task force members, I would like to thank a man who is integral to the work of the task force and is a huge reason for the success of this final budget, Richard Stern.

When I said yes to drafting the budget for fiscal year 2022, I committed to creating a thorough, floor-ready budget that reflects the conservative values that gave us the greatest economy in the history of the world before the pandemic. I believe, as do my colleagues, that the pro-growth policies of the Trump administration are proven tactics to grow the economy and give Americans more control of their own money.

Everyone in Washington seems to forget that we have no money of our own. Everything we appropriate in this Chamber, every dollar, comes from the American taxpayers. None of it belongs to us.

In the last year, we spent $7.6 trillion, largely due to an unprecedented global pandemic. The Biden administration has shown no sign of slowing down and is starting to alarm more than just conservatives. It is our responsibility to hold this administration accountable and prove to the American people that there is someone left on Capitol Hill who cares about our debts.

We need to return to federalism, where the Federal Government, the State, and the individual have their own distinct roles.

In order to combat aggressive spending, we need an aggressive plan. That brings us to this year's budget, aptly named ``Reclaiming Our Fiscal Future.''

President Trump's budget proposal to Congress would have balanced in 15 years. That was our starting point, and we knew we were capable of balancing in less than 10.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that our budget will balance in just 5 years. Many of you would ask how that is even possible. There are two parts to that answer. The first part is due to changes in inflation and interest costs following the COVID-19 pandemic. The second is due to pro-growth policies like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

When we give Americans more control of their own money, the result is market growth, wage growth, consumer confidence, and, yes, increased revenues for the Federal Government.

We are making provisions from the Tax Cuts and Job Cuts Act permanent, reducing the tax burden by $1.9 trillion, almost $16,000 per household.

We are shielding the middle class from capital gains taxes, eliminating the death taxes, and repealing market-distorting tax carve- outs.

Our budget is the most pro-life budget ever introduced, with 17 pieces of pro-life legislation included. Our budget stands strong for the issues Americans care about, and we are crystal clear about how to pay for it.

We are securing our border and building the wall. We are protecting your Second Amendment rights. We are supporting our police officers and ensuring our communities remain safe for everyone.

Our budget includes over 30 specific deregulation bills ensuring liberty for American job creators and workers alike.

We are putting Medicare and Social Security on a path to solvency without cutting immediate benefits. Whether you call them earmarks or community project funding, we are getting rid of it for good. We are reforming the budget process to be transparent and effective. To put it simply, we are fighting for Main Street America.

Tonight, you will hear from me and my colleagues who helped shape this budget, whether as a member of the task force or by contributing legislation that is included in our budget. These Members all have something very important in common, a deep respect for the American taxpayer.

It is our job to ensure that Americans' tax dollars are being spent wisely, that the government is making every effort to prevent waste and promote efficiency. It is pretty clear this hasn't been the case in Washington for a long time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my dear friend from the 21st Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I would yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), the 15th Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), the co-chair of the Border Caucus from the 36th Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Fourth Congressional District of Iowa (Mr. Feenstra).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Virginia (Mr. Good). He is also a task force member who gave us a tremendous amount of input on our process, and I want to thank him for his work. It was a 5-month journey that we went through to arrive at this budget and a lot of sleepless nights. I really appreciate the gentleman's inputs and his thoughts.

Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi reminded us about 3 years ago when she infamously said: Show me your budget, and I will show you your values.

That phrase and that statement have been made so many times by leaders talking about budgets.

In America, individuals have budgets, counties have budgets, communities have budgets, cities have budgets, schools have budgets, businesses have budgets, and States have budgets. The United States of America has gone 3 years now without a budget from the Budget Committee that is run by my colleagues from the Democratic Party, the people in power.

We have a budget that we are asking to get on the floor, a budget that is built on the pro-growth policies that we saw 16 months ago yield the greatest economy in our lifetime, the lowest unemployment rate, the most people employed with all diversity, of all ethnicities, of all countries of origin, women, African Americans, and Hispanics. Everywhere, people have seen the greatest jobs they have ever seen. There were double-digit increases for the lowest earning wage earners among us.

We know these policies work. This budget builds upon them. The American people are demanding that we be accountable for the dollars they send us. What we are seeing now in the budget that was just put out by the President in a piecemeal fashion is a budget that sends jobs overseas and that destroys jobs in our energy-producing companies, some of the highest wage earners we have in this country. We see our defense budget being cut below the inflation rate.

As we speak about inflation, the President promised the American people that he wouldn't raise taxes on anybody making less than $400,000 a year. Madam Speaker, I will tell you the greatest hidden tax in America is inflation, and what we are seeing right now is inflation rising at an annualized rate of 5, 6, and 7 percent that spans everybody in America on top of the proposed tax increases that the President is talking about.

He is proposing looking at changing the tax rates for our multinational companies, our companies that were starting to move jobs back to America. Now we are seeing a deal is being struck by Secretary Yellen to try to take the G7 to tax our companies to the point that we are going to see jobs leave our country and return back to where they moved their headquarters overseas, to lower tax nations.

To my colleagues out there, all we are asking for is to put a budget on the floor, our budget, to get your vote to be responsible to the American taxpayers so that we can see, once and for all, where everyone is on doing the right thing for the American taxpayers.

For all of my colleagues that joined us tonight, what we have heard over the last hour was a clear vision for America, an outline of how conservatives intend to govern. It is sad that we have to call it a conservative budget. It is a budget for the American people. This is the future of our Nation. This is the hope of democracy.

Before I finally close, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Kansas

(Mr. Estes), my dear colleague, a member of the task force, to give his thoughts on what he saw and worked on, on our budget.

Madam Speaker, the Biden administration has put themselves on the side of Big Government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy.

To paraphrase the great President Ronald Reagan, he said: You can't be for Big Government and still fight for the little guy.

Our budget is a clear outline for middle and working-class Americans that their government hasn't left them behind. We have a plan and it will benefit all Americans.

I am proud of the budget we put together this year, and I am ready to defend it in front of any committee and any Member of this House.

We have spent the last hour talking about conservative principles. Well, I want to make it clear that this budget is not just for conservatives. It is not just for Republicans. It is a budget for all Americans.

It doesn't matter if your children grow up to be Republicans or Democrats. They will be paying for our debts regardless, long after we are gone. That is why it is important to have leaders who are thinking about our grandchildren and great-grandchildren's future.

It is clear that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer would rather auction off that future in order to pay for an unpopular radical agenda.

The American people need to know that we are the captains of this ship and we will not let economic doomsday destroy America's future.

Fiscal responsibility does not have to be partisan, which is why I am calling on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help us bring this budget to the floor for a vote.

I thank everyone who supported this budget tonight and to everyone who helped us put it together.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland and from the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the select committee is acting to fulfill a predetermined narrative. It seems increasingly clear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to prolong this political process to distract Americans from the very real issues concerning this country.

We have record-high inflation, a flood of immigrants at our southern border, a workforce and supply chain crisis, and instead of working toward real ways we can combat these crises, or, in fact, even admitting that these crises exist, we are back here, arguing if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation of questionable motive and purpose.

That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved before we can continue with this vote. The courts have found that the power rests with Congress over subpoenas to private individuals if they serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the leaders of the D.C. National Guard and the Sergeant at Arms so that we can find out what gaps in communications and authorities need to be filled and find solutions to ensure this doesn't happen again.

But have those been issued? Unfortunately not. Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into President Trump and their political opponents who voted against the certification of the election, something that they themselves did just 4 years before.

What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for a legitimate legislative purpose? It seems the majority keeps moving the goalposts for what qualifies them to hold someone in contempt.

This recipient has been cooperative, providing almost 9,000 pages of emails and other documents. But when the majority couldn't find what they wanted, the committee subpoenaed Verizon, looking for other information from his personal phone, invading his privacy.

There is no valid legislative purpose for this subpoena. Where does it stop? When will they be satisfied with the information they receive? They cannot continue punishing people just because they aren't getting the answers that they want.

Furthermore, criminal contempt is not subpoena enforcement. This decision will still not achieve the stated intent of obtaining the records.

The committee should seek a civil judgment and legally obligate a person to comply with the subpoena. Instead, my colleagues are going forward with this political ploy. Holding someone in criminal contempt is purely punitive. It leads me to wonder what the real mission of this committee is.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this committee and its investigation were predestined to be a sham

when it tilted representation in favor of Democrats, rejecting two Republican Members selected to serve on the commission by the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set today because the majority is blinded by their own political agenda. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional consideration of H.R. 2729, the Finish the Wall Act, authored by Representative Higgins.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, while the majority is playing their political games in Washington, a real crisis situation at our southern border remains. Illegal immigration is at a record high, and there are real human costs associated with that.

Between the dangerous journey to get to our border and the dangerous people coming across and continuing to commit crimes, people are dying in huge numbers because of this crisis.

It is no secret that fentanyl is coming across the southern border. This year, Border Patrol has seized twice as much of this deadly drug as last year, and more than 100,000 Americans have died from overdoses.

Because we essentially have an open border, there is no way to effectively keep criminals from crossing into our country.

Immigrants need to know there is a process for becoming an American and doing it in the wrong way will have consequences.

Finishing the wall would be a huge deterrent for these bad actors. We must finish the wall to slow the massive numbers of illegal immigrants we are seeing before we can have a serious conversation about immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this select committee is clearly operating outside the realm of its intended purpose.

They do not like the information they are receiving, and they know they aren't getting anywhere. So, instead, they criminally punish those who they politically disagree with.

There isn't adequate minority representation, and because of that, the majority has been able to turn the committee into a vehicle to push their own narrative. It is clearly more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize the January 6 attack rather than conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into security failures leading up to that day.

Again, this is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to distract from the very real issues facing Americans every day. I look forward to getting back to the real work of solving the supply chain crisis, reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to live their lives without government interference.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma and appreciate his work on this important matter, and my colleagues on the Republican Study Committee.

I am happy to be working on a task force to advance healthcare freedom, personalized healthcare, the ways that we believe we can get the American people to see the doctor of his or her choice without having to see an insurance bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat and be able to get access to care. And that is all germane, by the way, to this question of spending.

I think it is really important here, and I am going to talk in a minute about how good I believe it is that we have a 5-year balanced budget that the Republican Study Committee has put forward, and proving that it can, in fact, be done.

But let's talk for a minute about the irresponsible budgeting and spending of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Most Americans hear these large numbers and they don't know how to put them in context. What our national debt is, over $28 trillion. But nobody knows what that means. It doesn't mean anything to the average person. We divide it and we say how much it is per person or family. We got numbers here, $226,000 per taxpayer, $85,000 per citizen. People still don't know what that means.

If you set out to count the roughly $28.2 trillion debt we have now, how long do you think that would take, Madam Speaker? 900,000 years if you counted one per second; one Mississippi. It would take you 900,000 years to count to $28.2 trillion. It is just absurd.

We are literally destroying the fiscal health of our country by the second. We are destroying it by the second. Our children and grandchildren are going to inherit this. But what is the real problem? We are killing our economy in the process. We are killing the American Dream in the process. We are killing small businesses in the process.

We just spent $6 trillion appropriated in the process of spending. $6 trillion in a year in the name of COVID, as my friend from Oklahoma and my other colleagues well know. $6 trillion. Some of that was worthwhile. I think there was some PPP money in there that helps small businesses that I was happy to support, but $6 trillion.

Would it interest the Madam Speaker to know that we spent $4.1 trillion for all of World War II, in current dollars? All of World War II, from the very beginning, from Pearl Harbor all the way to the second bomb in Japan, $4 trillion over 3\1/2\ years.

We just spent $6 trillion in a year, effectively shutting down our economy, scaring the heck out of our children, forcing them to wear masks, shoving them into the corners of the classroom, forcing people not to go to the doctor of their choice, all so that Anthony Fauci could find himself on the cover of another magazine, while perpetuating a whole lot of myths that scare the hell out of the American people. That is just what occurred over the last year.

And what is the impact of that? Well, last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that year over year consumer prices rose 5 percent in May. Has anybody gone to go buy a sheet of plywood? Two times, three times, four times. Anybody talking to the builders in your districts? How is their pipeline looking down the road?

Did anybody go talk to the small restaurants and businesses out there? They are devastated, unable to hire people. Why? Because we are paying people more not to work than to work. How many people do you talk to that are in your district that say, well, I have got a help wanted sign up, but I can't get anybody to work.

How is that going to bring back the economy and bring back jobs and bring back opportunity and bring back prosperity for the American people? And, oh, by the way, how is it ever going to allow us to have any fiscal responsibility as a nation? And that is what we are talking about here.

And we are talking about a plan that Republicans are putting forward. Meanwhile, our Democratic colleagues have not passed a budget. We just had a deeming statement, or whatever it is we adopted, for $1.5 trillion, it just slid in this week. $1.5 trillion. It is like Monopoly money. Nobody even understands what we are doing here.

And so we have got a budget that we put forward that balances in 5 years. Why don't we debate it? For all the C-SPAN viewers out there, look how many people are in the Chamber. About, what, 10 of us. Ten Members, election certificates, in here. Why don't we have a bill on the floor and why don't we debate it?

How many Americans would love to hear that the people's House has not had an amendment offered on the floor of this Chamber since May of 2016 in regular order, an open amendment? Congressman Roy offers an amendment to a bill. Not since May of 2016, 5 years. It is all done in committee and rules and some smoke room in the back up here, just drop down, and we all go up and we vote ``yes'' or ``no'', and then we go out and give speeches. That is no way to govern. The American people know how to balance their own budgets at home. Businesses know how to balance budgets. Yet, this irresponsible government doesn't.

Madam Speaker, I would implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to follow the great work of the Republic Study Committee, and look at the budget that we put forward that balances in 5 years, bring it to the floor of the House, and allow us to have an open debate. Go through the Budget Committee, go to the floor, and actually have a debate about the fiscal health and responsibility of this country so that our kids and grandkids can inherit the greatest country in the world, rather than $30 trillion in debt, and leaving us crippled and unable to carry forward for the good of our country.