Recommending that the House of Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Select Committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol.

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

Mr. Speaker, the select committee has now conducted over 800 interviews and depositions of witnesses who have knowledge of the events of January 6. This includes more than a dozen former Trump White House staff members.

Mr. Speaker, when you hear my colleagues make political, partisan attacks on the select committee, I hope that all of us can remember some basic facts: Through these interviews, we have learned that President Trump and his team were warned in advance, and repeatedly, that the efforts they undertook to overturn the 2020 election

would violate the law and our Constitution; they were warned that January 6 could, and likely would, turn violent; and they were told repeatedly by our State and Federal courts, by our Justice Department, and by agencies of our intelligence community, that the allegations of widespread fraud, sufficient to overturn an election, were false and were unsupported by the evidence.

Yet, despite all of these specific warnings, President Trump and his team moved willfully through multiple means to attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power, to halt the constitutional process for counting votes, and to shatter the constitutional bedrock of our great Nation.

As a Federal judge has recently concluded, the illegality of President Trump's plan for January 6 was ``obvious.''

We are here today to address two specific witnesses who have refused to appear for testimony before the committee.

The committee has many questions for Mr. Scavino about his political social media work for President Trump, including his interactions with an online forum called ``theDonald.win'' and with QAnon, a bizarre and dangerous cult.

Mr. Scavino worked directly with President Trump to spread President Trump's false message that the election was stolen and to recruit Americans to come to Washington on January 6 to ``take back their country.'' This effort to deceive was widely effective and widely destructive, and Donald Trump's stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking the violence on January 6.

On this point, there is no doubt. The committee has videos, interviews, and sworn statements from violent rioters demonstrating these facts.

Mr. Navarro will also be a key witness. He has written a book boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the activity of January 6. We have many questions for Mr. Navarro, including about his communications with Roger Stone and Steve Bannon regarding the planning for January 6.

As Judge Carter recently concluded: ``Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.''

In the case of both of these witnesses, Mr. Speaker, the committee would rather have their testimony than have to move this contempt citation. When you hear my colleagues attack the select committee, remember Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro have chosen not to appear. They did not have to make this choice, but they did.

In America, no one is above the law. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro is some form of royalty. There is no such thing in America as the privileges of the crown. Every citizen has a duty to comply with a subpoena.

Mr. Speaker, when you hear my colleagues challenge the committee's legislative purpose, remember the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed our legislative purpose. Too many Republicans are, once again, ignoring the rulings of the courts, as many of them did in the run-up to January 6.

Mr. Speaker, the tale of what happened following the 2020 election, resulting in the violence of January 6, is a tale of stunning deceit. It is a tale of lies about our election and contempt for the rulings of our courts.

The election claims made by Donald Trump were so frivolous and so unfounded that the President's lead lawyer did not just lose these cases; he lost his license to practice law. The New York Supreme Court found: ``There is uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Giuliani communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020.''

Mr. Speaker, those in this Chamber who continue to embrace the former President and his dangerous and destructive lies ought to take a good, hard look at themselves. At a moment of real danger to our Republic, when the need for fidelity to our Constitution is paramount, they have abandoned their oaths in order to perform for Donald Trump. That will be their legacy.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a close call. Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino have chosen not to comply with a congressional subpoena. They are in contempt. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important, as our colleagues consider their vote on this resolution, to keep in mind the facts.

Number one, neither Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro has appeared in front of this committee. As I mentioned earlier, we have interviewed over 800 witnesses. The vast majority of them have cooperated fully and answered our questions. Some of the witnesses have taken the Fifth. Some of the witnesses have answered some questions and asserted a privilege on other questions.

But the notion that somehow the former President can instruct someone not to appear, that is not sustainable, that is not found anywhere in the law. If Mr. Scavino or Mr. Navarro wants to assert some kind of a privilege--and again, our questions for them have to do with their activities that are political activities that are not covered by executive privilege, but if they wish to assert that privilege, they can appear and do so.

Madam Speaker, I would also note that in Trump v. Thompson, the D.C. Circuit held, and then we were upheld in the Supreme Court, that the committee's need for this information outweighs the former President's rights to any kind of confidentiality.

I think it is important for those facts to be clear and to be on the Record.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

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

I know my colleague and friend, Mr. Armstrong, knows very well that, first of all, executive privilege is a qualified privilege.

Secondly, former President Trump has not asserted executive privilege.

Third, I have tremendous respect, obviously, for Justice Kavanaugh, but my colleagues continue to quote Justice Kavanaugh without noting that the opinion in the D.C. circuit, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, in that opinion the judge found a number of things, including ``to allow the privilege of a no-longer sitting President to prevail over Congress' need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its constitutional operations would gravely impair the basic function of the legislature.''

The Court also held that under any of the tests advocated by former President Trump, the profound interests in disclosure advanced by President Biden and the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol far exceed his generalized concerns for executive branch confidentiality.

And I would just repeat again, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro both have chosen not to appear in front of the committee to answer questions that are clearly outside of any potential claim of privilege they may have, and even if they believe there is a claim of privilege, they are obligated to appear and make that assertion. They cannot simply refuse to respond to the committee's subpoena.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

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

I think it is again very important as our colleagues are contemplating their vote on this resolution that they keep in mind the facts. And we are hearing a number of things that are not consistent with the facts.

First of all, with respect to the establishment of the committee, Mr. Davis knows, and my colleagues know that we initially attempted to have a bipartisan commission, which, in fact, Leader McCarthy instructed Mr. Katko to negotiate with Chairman Thompson. Mr. Katko did that, secured everything the Republicans asked for, at which point, Mr. McCarthy walked away from the bipartisan commission, and then went over to the Senate side and lobbied against the establishment of a bipartisan commission.

The establishment of the select committee, again, is not what we would have hoped. The 35 Republicans who voted for the bipartisan commission wanted a bipartisan outside commission, but we cannot let this attack go uninvestigated.

Mr. Davis also knows that with respect to the membership of the committee, Speaker Pelosi said that she would not name two Members who had been identified by Mr. McCarthy; that is completely consistent with the resolution. And Mr. McCarthy then himself withdrew the other three and determined that he would not participate.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I continue to hear this allegation that the committee is not investigating what happened at the Capitol, not investigating what happened with respect to the Capitol Police, not investigating what happened with respect to security that day. That is just not true. The committee has an entire team that is very focused on and investigating what happened with respect to security at the Capitol.

And it is also the case, though, Madam Speaker, we must all remember that the former President provoked a violent assault on this body, and the extent to which there were security lapses, the extent to which people did not anticipate that there would be a violent assault on the Capitol, provoked by the former President, is not the fault of the Capitol Police. That is the responsibility of the former President.

And I would also note, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Davis voted ``yes'' on the bipartisan commission when it came up.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my good friend and colleague.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it does not feel really good today. It feels sad, and it feels tragic that so many in my own party are refusing to address the constitutional crisis and the challenge that we face.

The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee went to law school. I am not sure if he passed the bar. But he knows that we all have an obligation to abide by the rulings of the courts.

So, yes, it was a false story. Yes, it was a big lie. In fact, former Vice President Pence has said that what President Trump wanted him to do was ``un-American.'' It was also unconstitutional, and it was illegal.

Mr. Speaker, what gives me tremendous hope though is although so many in my party in this body have put loyalty to Donald Trump ahead of their oath to the Constitution, the committee has interviewed scores of Republicans from around the country who, in fact, have shown the kind of tremendous bravery and dedication to public service that every American can be proud of: Republicans who were appointed by President Trump to posts in the Department of Justice; Republicans who stood firm; Republicans who threatened to resign and who refused to participate in President Trump's efforts to corrupt the Department of Justice with the stolen election lies--yes, lies--that led to January 6.

We have heard from Republicans serving in State legislatures, in State and local governments who also stood firm.

Mr. Speaker, it is crucially important that this body hold these gentlemen in contempt. It is crucially important that they have to abide by their subpoena.

I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-284) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1037) recommending that the House of Representatives find Peter K. Navarro and Daniel Scavino, Jr., in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start our debate by talking a little bit about what the American people ought to expect of their leaders, of those who hold positions of public trust and the responsibilities that come with it.

I have been thinking about those responsibilities for more than 50 years, in all the time I have been fortunate enough to hold a position of public trust. It doesn't matter if you are an alderman, a mayor, Member of Congress, President of the United States, or a staff member working as a civil servant, or a political appointee. When you work for the public, when the people's taxes pay your salary, those jobs come with serious rules and serious obligations.

Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro both held positions of public trust. Mr. Scavino was a top communications official in the Trump White House. Mr. Navarro was a trade adviser. They each drew salaries paid by the American people to the tune of over $180,000 per year. They both were to abide by certain rules and obligations. They both swore oaths of allegiance to the Constitution.

The select committee wants to talk to both of them, but about a lot more than their White House jobs. We want to talk to them about their roles in trying to overturn the 2020 election. We subpoenaed them for their records and testimony. They told us to buzz off. Not a single record. No-shows for their deposition.

Their excuse was: As former White House employees, the information we wanted--again, information about overturning an election--was shielded by executive privilege, a protection for the President to make sure sensitive, official conversations stay private.

In other words, they are arguing that their roles in trying to overturn an election had to stay secret because they had official roles as advisers to the ex-President.

If they want to make those claims, ridiculous as they sound, here is what the law requires: They need to show up and make those claims on the record, under oath. They refused to do that. That alone means they are in contempt of Congress. But I want to dig a little deeper into the argument these men are making.

As I mentioned before, these are rules and obligations that bind public servants. One of the most important rule is that you can't do campaign work on government time or using taxpayer money. Pretty straightforward. Plenty you can do on your own time, but not when you are on the clock. That is the law.

If you have heard of the Hatch Act, it has probably been when a Cabinet Secretary or White House official had crossed the line from their official duties into political matters. In fact, in 2020, Mr. Navarro was dinged by a government watchdog for violating the Hatch Act by using his official role to attack President Joe Biden. That law prohibits, among other things, someone from using ``official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the results of an election.''

Sounds familiar? In the case of Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino, trying to affect the result of an election wasn't knocking on doors or putting signs in people's front yards. They were trying to help a defeated President stay in power. It is not conceivable that their involvement in that effort could have legally overlapped with their official duties.

But beyond that, it was a betrayal of the oath these men took. It was a betrayal of the public trust. Even if you do it on your own time, trying to overturn an election is still trying to overturn an election. We know that the people who stormed this building on January 6 had the same goal: trying to overturn an election. That is what the select committee is investigating. That is why we need to hear from Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro.

But as the select committee works to provide answers to the American people, these two are saying: ``I worked at the White House when all this took place. Even if I was plotting to overturn the government, I was collecting a government salary at the time, so I don't have to talk about it.''

Can you imagine? I have served my community and my country most of my life. Like my colleagues in this body, I have labored to uphold my oath and do right by the people I serve. I know my constituents expect that of me.

To run into this kind of obstruction, this kind of cynical behavior, as we investigate a violent insurrection, is just despicable. It can't stand.

Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro must be held accountable for their abuses of the public trust. They must be held accountable for their defiance of the law. They are in contempt of Congress, which is a crime, and I call on my colleagues to do their duty to defend this institution and the rule of law and to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, just for the record, let me say that we are here for this contempt process today, but the President's own daughter complied with the wishes of the committee. I would think that if his daughter complied with the wishes of the committee, everyone else should, even the people who worked for him.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), a distinguished veteran of the Air Force and a member of the select committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chairperson of the Committee on House Administration and a member of the select committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), a veteran of the United States Navy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record, if there is any Member on the other side who feels the strength to come and testify before our committee, I invite them, right now, to let us know and we will gladly entertain whatever information they have as to what happened on January 6. Some of them ran out of this building fearing for their lives, so there is no question that something happened.

And H. Res. 503 says, absolutely, we have to find the facts and circumstances as to what happened and why and make recommendations; and that is what we have to do.

We have the constitutional power to issue subpoenas. If people do not follow subpoenas, we have the right to bring them before this body and recommend contempt citations; and that is what we are doing today.

So it doesn't matter if they were a father, a mother, a sister, or a brother, had children; if they break the law, they break the law. No one is above the law, and that is the point we are trying to make.

We asked the individuals, subpoenaed them to come before the committee, and they chose not to come and, therefore, they broke the law, and that is why we are here today.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, when I testified before the Rules Committee, it is absurd that there should be any disagreement at all about why we are here for this contempt resolution.

If you listen to the arguments from some of my friends on the other side, they have very little to say of substance of this matter. We hear excuses. We hear attacks about process. We hear scare-mongering about the select committee.

Let me remind my colleagues, we have conducted over 830 interviews and depositions. And again, I invite any of them to come talk to us if they want to. Now, if, for some reason, they are reluctant or afraid, then I feel sorry for them.

Our constitutional democracy was challenged on January 6. We have to fix this. Over 200 years, we have operated in complete freedom, and all of a sudden, this institution was attacked; and we have to fix that.

We are the number one democracy in the world, but we lead by example. Democrats are leading by example. The select committee is leading by example by bringing these two gentlemen who broke the law, who decided that it is better to deal with the law of Donald Trump rather than the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, especially my friend from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member to support adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her courage in standing for the truth.

I disagree with many things that the previous speaker said. I disagree with his premises and with his conclusion in many respects. But I do agree with him on one thing: This vote is about the character of the House--I agree with him on that--which is why 435 of us ought to vote for this resolution, so that the House can do its duty.

Madam Speaker, once again we are forced to take this step, asking the Justice Department to charge individuals with criminal contempt for refusing to answer subpoenas as issued by the committee investigating the attack on our Capitol and our democracy on January 6, 2021.

The two gentlemen of which the previous speaker spoke I don't know. I have no quarrel with them individually. But we are a Nation of laws, not of men, and if we are to be a Nation of laws, then we need to respond to legal process; and if we think the assertions are wrong, we need to make our case.

On the merits of this resolution there should be no doubt, and it is about the character of this House, the courage of this House to seek honesty, to seek truth. The individuals in question had intimate knowledge of the former President's actions and decisions on that day. No matter who their children are, no matter what their life has been, they have knowledge that it is important for the American people to have through their Representatives in Congress.

Americans must have a full accounting of what transpired on January 6 and in the weeks leading up to it and perhaps subsequent. That is what the bipartisan select committee has been tasked with undertaking, by a vote of this House. Sadly, I expect maybe most of my colleagues across the aisle will vote against this resolution. It is about the character of this House.

Perhaps they agree with the Republican National Committee, which has said that the violent Trump-led insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the deaths and injury of U.S. Capitol police officers, and an effort to prevent the certification of an election was, and I quote the Republican National Committee, ``legitimate political discourse.''

How can anybody make that assertion? How can anybody in the Republican National Committee vote for it? Why doesn't everybody on the Republican Party side of the aisle say, ``That is not what we believe''? Silence prevails.

There is no doubt that the insurrection on January 6 itself was a danger to our democracy, but I agree with The Washington Post columnist and former White House speech writer for Republican President George W. Bush, Michael Gerson, who wrote on December 16, ``It is Republican tolerance for the intolerable that threatens American democracy.''

Very frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle ought to be celebrating those in their ranks who have the courage to stand up for the truth. I have told Liz Cheney, if John Kennedy were writing his book on Profiles in Courage today, I would urge him to include her and Adam Kinzinger in that book.

January 6 was a day of peril for America, but the greater crisis is when one of our two main political parties has become so hijacked by extremism and so enthralled to a dangerous demagogue that it condones, even celebrates insurrection and violence.

Madam Speaker, how can the same party that claims it honors law enforcement simultaneously declare that violent attacks against police officers are legitimate? How can one of our two political parties be so craven for short-term partisan gain that it is willing to encourage and condone insurrection? How can its Members use their sacred votes in the House, the people's House, in an effort to impede the investigation of this dark and dangerous day in the history of our democracy?

That is what this vote is about. Not only the character of this House, but the character of this country, the character of the people who demand, hopefully, truth, because that is what will set us all free.

Because that is what this vote is about: Whether you believe that the violent attack on January 6, one in which a mob threatened the life of the Republican Vice President and threatened the life of the Speaker of this House--the Speaker of all the House--in an attempt to overthrow our democracy, does that constitute legitimate political discourse? Madam Speaker, I can't believe Americans believe that.

We must reject that theory, that the violence that we saw on January 6, the hate that we saw on January 6, is somehow legitimate political discourse, because if people believe that, then our democracy is in grave danger. This vote is about whether you believe a certain individual can be held above the law in our country. It is about whether you believe the American people deserve to know all the facts about January 6 and whether those responsible for the attack ought to be held responsible. And most fundamentally, Madam Speaker, it is about whether the Congress can fulfill its constitutional responsibility and ability to determine the truth.

Madam Speaker, this vote will reveal to us who was willing to show tolerance for the intolerable. It will reveal to us who is willing to stand up and defend our democracy and the rule of law, irrespective of party, irrespective of personality. That is a call to patriotism, to love of country and to love of Constitution.

My fellow colleagues, let us do our duty to the Constitution, to the Declaration, to our democracy, and to the people we represent. Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The majority leader, just a few minutes ago said--used the term ``danger to our democracy.'' Danger to our democracy.

Think about this. Democrats have closed the Capitol, allowed proxy voting, kicked Republicans off committees, won't let Republicans serve on this select committee--the first time in the history of the Congress the minority leader was not allowed to put on a select committee the individuals he or she selected; first time in the history of our Nation.

The Democrats are trying to end the electoral college; trying to end the filibuster; trying to pack the Court.

This committee, the January 6th Committee, altered evidence and presented it to the American people as if it were true. And they accuse us of being a danger to our democracy?

Mr. Gaetz was right. We have got a border that is complete chaos. We have $6 gas in California, $4 gas everywhere else in the country. We have crime at record levels in every major urban area in this Nation. And we have an inflation problem that is at a 40-year high.

And this committee has more contempt resolutions for a purely political reason. I think the whole committee is pure political, designed to do one thing; keep President Trump off the ballot in 2024.

The gentlewoman from Wyoming, in her opening comments, used the term, ``false message.'' False message. She used to say big lie. Now I guess it is false message. When she said it, I started jotting things down.

Think about all the false messages we have got from them in the last few years. They told us the protests in the summer of 2020 were peaceful. We got a billion dollars' worth of damage around our cities that says it wasn't.

They told us the dossier was real. They told us it was Republicans, Republicans who wanted to defund the police. That one is almost laughable, if it wasn't so serious for our law enforcement and for the families who live in those areas where mayors and city councils did defund the police.

They told us the FBI didn't spy on the Trump campaign. We know that wasn't true. We have got inspectors general reports that tell us all kinds of things of what they did in front of the FISA Court.

They said Trump colluded with Russia. We have got a Mueller report, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 30 million hard-earned American tax dollars in that report that said that false message was just that, false.

They told us COVID didn't start in the lab; sure looks like it did.

They told us the lab wasn't doing gain-of-function research; sure looks like it was.

They told us the vaccinated can't get it. We know that is wrong. Every day there is a new announcement: Member of Congress is getting it; fully vaccinated, boosted, and everything else.

They told us those who are vaccinated can't transmit it. They told us that was wrong.

And you talk about the biggest false message, the biggest false message that has just been confirmed in the last week, how false it was? The Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. The Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.

October 22, 2020, 2 weeks before the election, Candidate Biden, in a debate,

is asked about his son's business dealings with foreign companies. He says: ``Nothing was unethical.'' He said: My son has not made money with business interests--with companies with an interest in China.

And we all know there are 4.8 million reasons why that statement was not accurate. And how do we know? Washington Post told us. Not me, not President Trump, not Republicans, The Washington Post told us last week, two stories last week, a week ago today, one at 11 a.m., one at 11:04 a.m.; two eight-page articles, 4 minutes apart, confirming what we knew, but what big media, big tech, Democrats colluded to keep from the American people just days before, just days before the most important election we have, the Presidential election, who is going to be our next Commander in Chief.

The laptop was real. The eyewitness was real. The emails were real. The only thing fake was that collusion from those individuals, those entities to keep important information from we, the people, in the run- up to the most important election we have.

And oh, by the way, they were joined by 51 former intel officials, joined in the collusion.

You know what is also interesting? It is funny how that story has changed. Eighteen months ago, it started off, it wasn't his laptop. It quickly switched to well, it was his laptop, but it was Russian disinformation.

And now it is, well, it wasn't Russian disinformation, but Joe Biden had nothing to do with it. Now it was, well, Joe knew what was going on, but he wasn't really involved in anything wrong. Ron Klain told us that, the Chief of Staff told us that Sunday.

We need to be focusing on the issues that the American people want us to focus on. You want to talk about danger to our democracy and the biggest false message. I would say what happened--one of the biggest dangers to our democracy and one of the biggest false messages is what happened 18 months ago, where that story was kept from the American people. We could dig into that, find out what went on there, why that happened.

And we could also focus on the record crime, record inflation, record price of gas, and the chaos on our southern border that is about to get worse.

It is about to get worse as the Democrats look to--as the Biden administration looks to repeal title 42. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope this is the last time that we do this. Just last week, we watched members of the January 6th Select Committee criticize the DOJ for not jailing their political opponents fast enough.

Now the committee is trying to refer two more of President Trump's advisers to the DOJ for criminal prosecution. The same DOJ, by the way, that has slandered concerned parents as domestic terrorists; a DOJ overseen by a President who said President Trump should be prosecuted.

So let's be clear, we aren't voting today to rename a post office. So, please, let's be honest with ourselves. A vote to hold Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro in contempt of Congress is a vote to put them in jail for a year. Neither of these men deserve this. The party line isn't a good enough excuse today. Disliking their politics isn't an excuse.

Mr. Scavino has two boys. He is a good dad. He doesn't deserve this. His boys definitely don't deserve this. So before we vote today, I have got to ask, could anyone here explain to those boys why their dad deserves to be behind bars for a year?

Mr. Scavino grew up in a working-class family in New York City. He is a former caddy who worked his way up to the White House through hard work and determination. Mr. Scavino lived the American Dream. Now, thanks to the select committee, he is living an authoritarian nightmare.

The select committee will say that it is Mr. Scavino's fault for refusing to cooperate. That is simply not true. Mr. Scavino asked time and again for the committee to follow the rule of law and provide him with a narrow and specific legislative purpose for the information that they were seeking. He asked, ``How is what you want from me pertinent to your investigation?'' And they refused to explain.

But remember what they said last week. The January 6th Committee must enforce its subpoenas. But contempt is not enforcement; it is punishment. Contempt won't get the committee any information. Only the court can do that. But they don't want to go to the judiciary. They don't want neutral arbitration. They want political punishment.

The select committee has never been interested in factfinding. In fact, Jim Jordan and I were both blocked from sitting on the committee because we promised to fully investigate the security failure at the Capitol. The Democrat leaders don't want that. They claim they blocked us for being too partisan.

Meanwhile, the committee's lead staffer signed his name to a false letter calling the Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation. Apparently, lying to undermine democracy is a key qualification for employment of this committee.

If the January 6th Committee gets its way, Congress will have referred four former Trump officials for prosecution in under 6 months, another record for the 117th Congress.

The select committee aims to do two things: silence legitimate questions about the breakdown of security at the Capitol and punish their political opponents. It is that simple.

Dan Scavino is accused of listening to his boss, the former Commander in Chief, who told him to ``invoke all applicable privileges and immunities.'' Today's vote is not about wrongdoing, and it isn't about anybody's character, no matter what they say.

Today's vote is about the character of this House. It is about abusing the seat of our democracy to attack American democracy. The question is, do we live in a country where you can go to jail for working for the wrong politician? Would you want to live in that country? The question is, will you help create that country? Because I think we have had a pretty good thing going for the last 240 years, and that is exactly why I urge all of my colleagues

to vote ``no'' on this resolution today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis.)

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it might feel really good today for my opponents on the other side of the aisle. It might feel really good in a vindictive sort of way, to vote to put their political opponents behind bars. That might feel really good for my opponents across the aisle.

But I guarantee you, the history will not look back kindly on those actions in the years to come. I guarantee it. It couldn't be anymore un-American what they want to do today, to vote to put two men behind bars purely because they disagree with their politics and the man that they worked for.

I can't think of a bigger reason for my opponents to vote ``no'' on such an un-American resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' and do the same.

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

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