Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your courtesies. And I begin with a clarion call. The Speaker wears many hats, and we have been in meetings where we have focused our legislative prowess, legislative questions, on voting rights. So, I think it is appropriate to begin today to say that a crisis is pending.

I am stunned by this decision. I am aghast. I will not use the word ``enraged'' because action requires a calm and contemplative mind.

Today, the Supreme Court upheld voting restrictions. They might have written it and said they upheld voting laws. They upheld voting restrictions in Arizona and signaled that challenges in new State laws making it harder to vote--my God, I am going to say that on this floor--making it harder to vote in spite of the constitutional privilege that is ensconced in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that generates into the States the dignity of humanity, that citizens' birthright is the right to be precise in your desires of your representation.

And then, it signaled in this article that challenges to new State laws making it harder to vote would have a hostile reception from a majority of the Justices.

The vote was just as we expected. All the Court-packing--all the Court-packing--has borne fruit.

Forgive me. I wanted to be on this floor speaking eloquently, if you will, about a myriad of things, but a 6-3 vote, not even a light of difference: three who were not appointed by Republican Presidents, and then, of course, the packing by the former President of the United States.

By the way, I just want to make a public statement. I know the First Amendment has its privileges. I ask the media to call the former President ``the former President.'' He is not the President of the United States. He is not ``President'' and his name. He is the former President. He is not ``President'' and his name at the border. He is the former President at the border, creating havoc.

And havoc was created with this 6-3 vote. The decision was the Court's first consideration of how a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to voting restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on members of minority groups.

It was issued as disputes over voting rights have taken center stage. We are still suffering from the Shelby case of 2013 that indicated that the Section 5 provision is unconstitutional and has left us with no tools to deal with this.

As Republican-controlled State legislatures increasingly seek to impose restrictions, new voting rules, we are in the fight of our life.

I am on the floor of the House today to indicate that there is no divide in any of us, thanking the Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Beatty on the urgency of voting rights, and the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of that committee, the subcommittee chairmen of that committee, and all the Members and staff, we needed this decision to be able to craft the record that is going to withstand and fight the battle and be able to pass what the Supreme Court cannot undermine with its decision.

In fact, we must thwart its decision. We must protect the vulnerable. We must not allow the disabled to be videotaped in Texas. We must not allow the hungry and thirsty to be denied water and food in Georgia. We must not allow judges to overturn willy-nilly the elections in Texas.

We must not allow, if I might, the idea of a former officer of the United States--in fact, the Chief Officer of the United States. We must not allow that person to make a mockery of the order of government.

There is but one President of the United States. That is President Joe Biden. There is but one Vice President, Vice President Kamala Harris. And they are effectively leading this government and this Nation. They are caring people.

President Biden is, as we speak, either there or en route to the enormous tragedy in Surfside, Florida, to provide comfort but also to provide the strength of the Federal Government in any investigation that will proceed.

That is the able work of the Florida delegation and this President. They will do their job, particularly those Members who represent that area, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and many other Members.

But it is challenging to be thwarted in voting and to ignore the Constitution, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

So, today, I want to proceed with what I think is a necessary agenda that is so important to this Nation. I will talk about so many different aspects of the issue of governance, why voting is so important, and why we need to close the social and racial divide, or racial and social equity should be intertwined.

Let me emphasize, if you will, the enormous difference that what we are going to be working on over the next couple of weeks is going to make in lives, and that is, of course, the child tax credit.

Votes and winning the majority in 2020 of the House and Senate by Democrats, and, of course, the new President and Vice President, led us to the expanded and improved child tax credit.

It is a historical change that is a lifeline to the middle class and cuts child poverty. It provides children and their families with additional payments through the year that help them with

the cost of food, childcare, diapers, healthcare, clothing, and taxes.

I will be in my town, Houston, Texas, on July 3--yes, the Independence Day weekend--to be able to open the eyes of my mothers and fathers caring for children, that this is their legitimate opportunity to receive monthly payments, $250 per month per child and $300 per month for every young child. All the families in my community can feel more secure and better able to deal with the burdensome expenses that face them weekly and monthly.

Let me be very clear: This brings America together, this idea of the child tax credit. But, let me remind you, it was because of our votes that elected a Democratic majority, not a majority that does not include a desire to work in a bipartisan manner. We do desire that.

I think this is the first opportunity that I have had since the historic passage--maybe the second--a moment that I can say to the Chamber and to this historic Congressional Record a large thank you for bipartisanship that has brought about, after 38 years, the historic Juneteenth holiday that was celebrated because it was signed on June 17th, the first historic holiday on June 18th.

Thank you to Opal Lee. Thank you to the initiator of the State holiday in Texas, Al Edwards. But more importantly, thank you to that teacher in the airport who stopped me and said: Thank you for Juneteenth. I can now teach the original sin of slavery to even elementary schoolchildren, not out of anger and hatefulness, but the whole story of America's original sin and what liberation, emancipation, and freedom represent.

Thank you for the quote about President Joe Biden that said: He may be known for many things in his administration, but he will probably be remembered for signing the Juneteenth holiday.

I am grateful to my colleagues for allowing me to lead, to have introduced that bill, the first Member of Congress to do so. I am grateful to Members of the other body--Senator Markey and Senator Cornyn--who rallied so that the Senate could move and that, in 1 day, we could pass it in the House, the bill that I introduced that the Senate then took.

To the leadership here, how much we exalted this body when it was a 415-person vote. I hope with that vote that there are those thinking that: Wow, I voted for that. I am not finished because we are not finished.

If anything reinforces that our journey is not finished, it must be the idea that, today, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that completely turns upside down the writing of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, led so ably by my colleague and friend Congresswoman Terri Sewell, a bill that will come through the House Judiciary Committee. We will be able to be the fixers, the doctors, those who will hold the Constitution and say: The Supreme Court, though the highest body in the land, in this instance, because of the Court- packing, is wrong because the Founding Fathers did not intend for us to have a restraint on that unfettered right of voting.

My friends, we would not be in the midst of the debate right now on the INVEST Act that is going to provide such a new difference in our lives. That is because of the vote.

I thank the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. DeFazio, because now that first step will be toward rebuilding the Nation's roads, bridges, transit, rail, and we will be fighting against climate change.

Look at our Western region, where hundreds are impacted, thousands, millions, but then they have lost tens upon tens, maybe hundreds of people, maybe, but certainly numbers who died from the enormous heat.

We actually passed that historic bill today. I am very proud that part of it, working out of Energy and Commerce and working with Chairman Pallone, we have provided real dollars to communities for wastewater infrastructure. You know that is important. We have done that through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. We have provided, I want you to understand, the historic funding level for drinking water, the State revolving fund, making improvements to prioritize replacing lead service lines that have plagued so many of our Midwestern States and Southern States, our public housing, improving water quality in schools.

I know it well because my schools are old. Children before bottled water, with the historic water systems, were drinking out of those old water fountains and addressing needs in territories, reforming the broken standard-setting to make it work better as it relates to public health and to eliminate toxins.

The vote, the right to vote, is an extremely vital part, and as we have had the right to vote, and each Member has had the right, I am glad to publicly announce that I will have complete reformation of a historic street in my district, Scott Street--the right to vote--with the grant that was awarded through me to Houston and metro and the city of Houston, which we will be announcing soon.

Those of you living in and around Scott Street, the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, there will be a new light, a new opportunity. And then we will be able to expand on the Greenways project, neighborhood greenways. I have heard you. I have heard the neighborhood. And so we will have that opportunity.

And through voting, the Jackson Lee-Espaillat amendment, it is in now, it is law, and it is going to the Senate to be finally passed.

And I am going to be an optimist that we were able to have an amendment in the Safe Streets program where funds are spent to give local governments more control over where the funds for the new Safe Streets program are spent by requiring the State Department of Transportation that ignores local government.

They are ignoring local governments right now in my community on I- 45. They ignore them by expanding I-45 and taking out houses and schools and buying up historic neighborhoods. They are wrong. TXDOT, you are wrong. And we will continue to investigate until you realize that you are wrong.

But I have an amendment now that says that local governments must be heard, and they must be consulted with on the amount of dollars to help them carry out Safe Streets projects, and that is to use a Safe Streets program to set aside safety funds to reduce fatality and serious injuries on public roads with a focus on vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, scooters, and motorcyclists.

Why? People are dying.

In my district, a woman stopped her car to help a handicapped person in a wheelchair get across the street, and another car hit her and the handicapped person and killed them without even stopping.

Who needs to have the resources, but our local government?

And then, of course, we have seen death take a toll on motorcycle riders. Bike Texas has been fighting for this. And we lost a young man a few years ago as he was riding his bike in the Heights area. He lost his life. I promised his family.

The lady who lost her life pushing the wheelchair was Lesha Adams, 54, and she was helping Jesus ``Jesse'' Perez to cross. Ms. Adams pulled over and got out, and as I said, another vehicle struck them. And they were both killed.

And on March 7, 2019, right before the pandemic, I went to the spot where David Leon Loya was killed in a collision with a school bus while riding his bicycle. That was the way he got around in the Heights.

This is in their name, to make local governments take charge of those dollars and to help stop that kind of violence, which it is.

And then the motorcycle riders, they have motorcycle clubs, and they are ignored. And in the name of Jamal Harris that was killed around Mother's Day or in May, this amendment was put forward.

In the freeze we have suffered. People died. And so I have an amendment that was passed and will now become law that requires the EPA administrator to initiate a study on the distribution of wastewater infrastructure funds to rural communities, economically disadvantaged communities, and Tribal communities during the 20 fiscal years preceding.

And the reason is, there has been the understanding that wastewater resources in inner city infrastructure and

rural areas is poor, not working, and you feel the impact. I am grateful. But again, I am going to say voting.

And then, of course, we know the freeze. So many died in early February.

The President came to acknowledge something that we had never experienced. Our whole grid shut down, which is why we need the American Jobs Plan in its totality. I stand with my friends in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Budget Committee, and the Congressional Black Caucus, and all of the Democratic Caucus that we must go big. We must work with this bipartisan legislation, but we must get climate change. We must get the care economy. And we must deal with the broadband and cyber.

But the electric grids have been failing. And so my particular amendment implements a program under which the administrator may award grants to community water systems to carry out activities to educate and assist persons by the community water system in adapting and responding to bad acts and natural disasters, including sub-zero temperatures.

What does that mean? It means that our pipes froze. People were still suffering from freezing, and those pipes burst and destroyed homes. Not only did people die, they frozen to death because they had no electricity, and they had no water.

And I remember standing and giving out water to thousands, being part of giving out water to thousands all over our community. We were giving out water in 2021. They had no water. Not only did they have no water, but it took a very long time.

I will include a study to show you why wastewater is so important. The groundbreaking 2019 study and report is ``Flushed and Forgotten: Sanitation and Wastewater in Rural Communities in the US.'' And it was conducted by the Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise and the Columbia University Institute for the Study of Human Rights. It indicated, sanitation is essential to everyday functions such as urination and defecation. Without a system in place to dispose of wastewater, individuals experience environmental contamination. The perpetual appearance of wastewater in and around homes that occurs when systems are absent or failing takes a significant toll on mental health and the ability of individuals to live in dignity.

Do you realize that that is occurring in America? That is why I am here today.

And I am here today because no one is going to tell me with conditions like this that we don't need the American Jobs Plan and that we don't need the dollars that will stop flooding in Houston, which we have built up enormously.

No one is going to tell me that we don't need the child tax credit for each and every one of you. That is why we will be in Houston on July 3. We will be in Houston July 3 because these children need these resources.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining, please?

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to physically hold this poster up and to emphasize how important our children are before I raise another very vital point.

One, it was because of votes that we got the Children's Health Insurance Program. And it will be because of votes that we got the pandemic child tax credit that you will get $250 for older children and $300 for younger children every single month.

Meet me at the Saint John's Church at 10 a.m. on July 3 to ensure that you get the right information. This is not a sales job. This is what voting and representation is all about.

I will conclude my remarks with something that has been, Mr. Speaker, very important, and I hope that its explanation is one that is taken not historically in the way that it should, and we ought not ignore the attack on democracy and to acknowledge the leadership of this House for the January 6 committee. I have worked on the select committee. I am a Member who was here for 9/11. And when I say ``here,'' I was literally in this Capitol and among others that fled out of this Capitol and watched the billowing smoke that was a result of the hit at the Pentagon as we were escaping. And so I take very seriously the issues of January 6.

I will also briefly acknowledge the work that we have done with ensuring that Confederate statues were removed and put in a place of history but not a place that is a citadel of democracy when there were those that stood up against that democracy.

I acknowledge the validity of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and pay tribute to his family who has sacrificed so much to try to make things right.

But now I will proceed with what I think must be our next step with voting, and that is H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act. I want to take away any glare or misunderstanding that this is a figment of our imagination, this is something that we should do in passing, it is an impossibility, it is a third rail, if we do this, something will happen.

I welcome, and I am here, present, to speak to all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, but I want you to look at the back of this slave. The silence is deadening as to what occurred for almost a quarter of a thousand years; in bondage over 200 years.

We have difficulty in detailing the actual facts of the precise brutality in every plantation and every nuance and every northern State and every southern State and every western State and every eastern State because it was prevalent everywhere. There were different times when it ended. Certainly, December 1965 was when the 13th Amendment was so eloquently debated with difficulty, and it was passed.

But H.R. 40 is the distinct opportunity internationally for America's presence to be known that we are back, that we are willing to acknowledge the original sin. We are not here accounting for my neighbor, who will tell me that he or she did not have slaves. That is not the accounting that we are, in essence, looking at. We are not looking to be able to see whether or not my other neighbor just left slavery.

Slavery is a part of America's history. The DNA and the progeny of slavery are here in America. You cannot ignore them. They are the foundation of this Nation.

They built the place I now stand. Slaves.

They built the White House. Slaves.

They built infrastructure.

They created cotton and made it king, never to be given any compensation for years of work. No health insurance. No insurance. No workmen's comp. No salary.

But as the U.N. Human Rights Council has said, reparations should not only be equated with financial compensation, it should include restitution, rehabilitation, acknowledgment of injustice, apologies, memorialization, education, reform, and guarantees that such injustices won't happen again.

The legislation itself is a nonthreatening and serious legislation. It is a reflection of what General Sherman tried to do. He tried to remedy the back that we see here today. He tried to give 40 acres and a mule.

Can you imagine the conglomerate that would have occurred if 5, 6, 10, 20 slaves had come together with that?

And believe me, slaves did not ask in anger. In fact, as they did not get it, they made their way. But as they made their way, we can cite 19 sites, almost, in America where what slaves built were destroyed.

Greenwood, 100 years, is an example. Greenwood is an example of a cry for reparations. Mother Fletcher and Mother Randall. And our sergeant, her brother, articulate that they never got anything and all that they had in Greenwood was taken from them. What an unbelievable scenario that we are facing.

Mr. Speaker, so my plea today is that as you've listened to me, I leave here to go fight for voting rights. But I also leave here with a challenge and an encouragement for the understanding of all that I have said. But, more importantly, as I close, H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals, I look forward to working with our leadership and all others to ensure that we do make this an important step forward.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me for this Special Order during which I will discuss the removal of statues glorifying Confederate traitors from places of honor in the Capitol, the removal of the bust from the Old Supreme Court Chamber and replacing it with a

bust civil rights icon and legend, the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me make this brief comment.

Many of friends across the aisle, including Republican Leader McCarthy, have noted the fact that all of the persons affected by H. Res. 503 were Democrats and none were Republicans.

This is hardly revelatory.

After all, the Republican Party was founded in the 1850s because of its opposition to slavery that Southern Democrats like future Vice President of the Confederate States of America Alexander Stephens boasted was the ``cornerstone of America.''

In 1861, after the election of Abraham Lincoln as President, the eleven slave-holding states seceded from the Union, not to preserve their heritage, but to keep their slaves.

That led to the Civil War, in which more than 600,000 persons on both sides gave their lives and ended in the utter defeat and unconditional surrender of the Confederate Army led by its traitor general Robert E. Lee.

Also, as a consequence of the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were passed and ratified.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that at the time when it was needed most, the Republican Party was born and committed to the extinction of slavery.

It was the pro-freedom, pro-civil rights party.

The Democratic Party in those nightmarish days was centered in the ``Solid South,'' and proudly wore the label of the pro-slavery, white supremacy party.

This was not lost on the American people, and for a century Black Americans overwhelmingly self-identified with the pro-civil rights, anti-white supremacy Republican Party.

Even after the national Democratic Party renounced de jure racism and ``states rights'' at the 1948 DNC in Philadelphia, resulting in Strom Thurmond leading his fellow Dixiecrats out of the convention and running a failed bid for the presidency, Black Americans remained a core constituency of the Republican Party, while nearly all whites in the southern states were Democrats, distinguishing themselves from northern liberals by calling themselves ``Southern Democrats'' or ``constitutional Democrats''.

All of this changed in 1964.

That was the year the Republican Party nominated for president Sen. Barry Goldwater, an active and die-hard opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Southern Democrats saw in Goldwater's support for `states rights' a kindred spirit and vehicle to halt the federal government's commitment to extend the writ and guarantees of the Constitution to all persons in all regions of the country.

Mr. Speaker, the result of that realigning election remains with us to this day.

Before the Great Depression and the election of Franklin Roosevelt, the overwhelming majority of votes cast by Black Americans were for Republican candidates.

Even in the election of 1960, the parties closely competed for the votes of Black Americans, with Republican Richard Nixon winning more than 35 percent.

Fast forward to 1964.

Republican Barry Goldwater was routed 486-52 in an electoral college landslide and lost 43 states; Lyndon Johnson won the popular vote by 16 million votes (61-38 percent).

Goldwater won only his native state of Arizona and five Deep South I states--Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina.

It is interesting to note that the five Southern states that voted for Goldwater swung over dramatically to support him; for example, in Mississippi, where Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt had won 97 percent of the popular vote in 1936, Goldwater won 87 percent of the vote.

Lyndon Johnson would say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would cost Democrats the South for 50 years but it was worth it.

What accounted for this change in voting allegiance, which persists to this day?

The answer is simple and obvious, beginning in 1964 the Democratic Party became, and was perceived by Americans, as the party of civil rights; the Republican Party not so much.

So, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that yes, the Confederate traitors whose statues are being removed from the Capitol were then members of the southern Democratic Party.

The difference is that white supremacists have not been welcome or embraced by the national Democratic Party since 1948 and have been pariahs since 1964.

We Democrats are not reluctant to remove and banish those who bring shame and dishonor to our cause of advancing equal justice for all Americans.

I challenge our friends across the aisle to stop glorifying as `heritage' a history of terror, injustice, violence, and racism represented by the persons whose statues are being removed and anyone who proudly waves a Confederate flag, like the one that disgraced the Capitol when it was paraded by domestic terrorists during the January 6 insurrection and attack on American democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-152) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon 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, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 730) recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon 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, and ask for its immediate consideration

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

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

Madam Speaker, since Speaker Pelosi asked me to chair the January 6th Select Committee, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the importance of what we are doing, the weight of it, the urgency. We need to give the American people answers about what happened. There needs to be swift accountability. But there are longer-term considerations, too.

Madam Speaker, I am a grandfather, and when I talk to my grandkids about that horrific attack on our democracy on January 6, my mind jumps ahead to the future in store for them--questions about whether American democracy, as we know it now, will remain strong, whether it will withstand future tests.

That has to be the legacy of this committee's work. To be sure, we are going to answer questions about what happened on that day. But we also need to draw a roadmap for making sure our democracy remains strong tomorrow.

We will look backward at what happened and try to explain how and why the insurrection came about. But we will also look forward and generate recommendations for legislative policy and process changes that will help ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

When we get to the end of this process and look back, we are going to ask ourselves: Did we do everything in our power to uncover every fact? Did we use the tools at our disposal to get a full accounting, or did we let someone stand in our way without facing consequences? Did we learn what we needed to know for Congress to forge legislation to help ensure we never experience another January 6 again?

That is why we are taking up this resolution today, citing Steve Bannon with criminal contempt and referring him for prosecution by the Justice Department.

We didn't choose to be here. This isn't about punishing Steve Bannon. The select committee would prefer and, frankly, expect all witnesses to fully cooperate. But Steve Bannon has led us down this path by refusing to cooperate in any way with our investigation.

We believe Mr. Bannon has information valuable to our probe. He was deeply involved in the so-called stop the steal campaign. He was reportedly in a war room meeting the day before the riot and had been pressuring the former President to try to stop the counting of the electoral college ballots.

He himself warned that ``all hell'' would break loose on January 6. We believe he can help inform our inquiry as to how the riot came together and what it was intended to achieve. He is clearly an important witness.

We subpoenaed him. And unlike other witnesses who have engaged and worked with our team to find a way to cooperate, Mr. Bannon told us he wouldn't comply because the former President told him not to. He hid behind vague and baseless claims of privilege. That is just not acceptable.

The select committee told Mr. Bannon several times that he would face the consequences if he didn't change course. Well, he didn't change course, and his actions have brought us to this point.

Madam Speaker, we need to make it clear that no person is above the law. We need to take a stand for the integrity of the select committee's investigation and for the integrity of this body.

What sort of precedent would it set for the House of Representatives if we allow a witness to ignore us flat out without facing any kind of consequences? What message would it send to other witnesses in our investigation?

I am not willing to find out. I am not willing to get to the end of the select committee's work and look back wishing we had done more to uncover all the facts, not when we know what is on the line, when we know that our democracy isn't yet out of danger, when we know that the forces that tried to overturn the election persist in their assault on the rule of law.

Our investigation is going forward. We are hearing from witnesses, reviewing documents, and analyzing data. Mr. Bannon stands alone in his defiance, and we will not stand for it. We will not allow anyone to derail our work because our work is too important: helping ensure that the future of American democracy is strong and secure.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I heard the gentleman opposing this resolution. We are not actually seeking information from Mr. Bannon because of his opinions. We issued the subpoena because we believe he has knowledge of relevant facts that we need to discover. We are not violating anything and, certainly, not Mr. Bannon's First Amendment rights. The only violation we can talk about is the violation of this building on January 6, and Mr. Bannon's claim that the election was stolen helped foment that attack. Investigating that is also part of our charter.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois' statement, the first hearing of the select committee that we actually held interviewed four officers who put their lives on the line defending all of us who work here in this body. So I assure you, my directions to the committee have always been, we will look at all of the facts and circumstances surrounding what occurred.

We are genuinely interested in getting to the facts. We are working to get the answers. And that is why we are on the floor today, to get answers from Steve Bannon about what he knew, what he did leading up to January 6.

Also, to the gentleman from Indiana, I am glad he finally agrees that the select committee has a legitimate legislative purpose and that is why we are here today, pursuing that legislative purpose. So I am happy that the Record will reflect his comments.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), a valiant member of the select committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger), an Iraq and Afghanistan Air Force veteran and a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard.

Madam Speaker, just for the record, again, the gentleman from Indiana referenced the whistleblower. We have not talked to the whistleblower, but we have talked to the whistleblower's lawyer. We are doing our work. So, clearly, since he is quoting Politico, I want him to just get the record straight.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), who served two decades in the Navy and was among the first women to serve in the Navy's nuclear power program.

Madam Chair, the vice chair of the committee put in the Record the fact that the FBI and Department of Justice declared no such thing in terms of January 6, so the assertion that somehow they have conducted an investigation is just not true.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Over the last hour, we have heard a lot about what we are not debating today. The select committee is charged with investigating a deadly attack on the seat of our democracy and making recommendations to ensure it never happens again. I can't think of anything more serious, but many of our colleagues would rather talk about anything else.

I think I know why. I think they are performing for an audience of one.

I do, however, want to commend my colleagues on the select committee for laying out clearly why the House must cite Mr. Bannon for contempt. If our investigation is to succeed, if the House's constitutional authority to investigate and legislate is to remain robust, then we cannot let this man flout the laws with impunity.

The select committee is made up of people of character, of profound commitment to public service and our Constitution. They all elevate the committee's work.

I especially want to thank and acknowledge our vice chair, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), for her leadership and partnership. There is no doubt in my mind that history will record her courage in stark relief.

History will record all of what we do here today. We can be on the right side or the wrong side. I urge all my colleagues to remember that as we cast this vote.

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

Madam Speaker, today the House has been deliberating on the criminal contempt of Congress citation of Steven K. Bannon reported from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. This is a grave matter and not one the House takes lightly.

As I have said on many occasions, the Select Committee would prefer not to be in this position. We expect--and the law (2 U.S.C. Sec. 192) demands--witnesses comply with duly issued, lawful subpoenas of Congress. We lay out the factual record of Mr. Bannon's willful defiance of the Select Committee's September 23, 2021, subpoena in House Report 117-152.

There have been developments since the Report was written and adopted, and I memorialized some of those at the Select Committee's business meeting. To perfect the factual record in this case, I now include in the Congressional Record correspondence between myself and Mr. Bannon's attorney, Robert J. Costello, and further correspondence between the Office of White House Counsel and Mr. Costello, which states President Biden's position on issues relating to the subpoena to Mr. Bannon.

First, on Friday, October 15, 2021, I wrote Mr. Costello to reiterate to him and his client that the Select Committee would view Mr. Bannon's decision not to appear for his deposition as willful defiance that would lead to a business meeting of the Select Committee to consider a contempt report. I include that letter in the Record.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on

the United States Capitol,

October 15, 2021.

Mr. Robert J. Costello,

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

* * *

Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the

January 6th Attack (``Select Committee'') is in receipt of

your October 13, 2021 letter (the ``October 13 letter''), in

which you reassert that your client, Stephen Bannon, will not

comply with the September 23, 2021 Subpoena to him for

documents and deposition testimony (the ``Subpoena''). As you

know, the Subpoena demanded that Mr. Bannon produce documents

by October 7, 2021 and appear on October 14, 2021 before the

Select Committee to provide deposition testimony on a wide

range of issues relating to the January 6, 2021 attack on the

United States Capitol, as well as plans to interfere with the

count of the 2020 Electoral College results. Mr. Bannon has

now willfully failed to both produce a single document and to

appear for his scheduled deposition. The Select Committee

believes that this willful refusal to comply with the

Subpoena constitutes a violation of federal law.

As justification for Mr. Bannon's complete failure to

comply with any portion of the Subpoena, you continue to rely

on ex-President Trump's stated intention to invoke executive

privilege with respect to Mr. Bannon, and Mr. Trump's

purported request that Mr. Bannon not produce documents to or

testify before the Select Committee. As was explained in the

Select Committee's October 8, 2021 letter (attached), the

former President has not communicated any such assertion of

privilege, whether formally or informally, to the Select

Committee. Moreover, we believe that any such assertion of

privilege--should it be made by the former President--will

not prevent the Select Committee from lawfully obtaining the

information it seeks.

Further, your letter makes no attempt to justify Mr.

Bannon's failure to comply with the Subpoena's demand for

documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not

involve communications with the former President. As is clear

from the Subpoena and accompanying letter, and as underscored

in the Select Committee's October 8, 2021 response letter,

the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony on

numerous other matters, including Mr. Bannon's communications

with Members of Congress, presidential campaign

representatives, and other private parties concerning the

events of January 6, 2021, that could not conceivably be

barred by a privilege claim.

Moreover, even if the Select Committee were inclined to

accept the unsupported premise that executive privilege

reaches communications that the Select Committee seeks to

examine between President Trump and Mr. Bannon, Mr. Bannon

does not enjoy any form of absolute immunity from testifying

or producing documents in response to a Congressional

subpoena. Your citation to Committee on Judiciary v. McGahn,

415 F. Supp. 3d 148 (D.D.C. 2019) actually supports the

Select Committee, not your client. In McGahn, the district

court unequivocally held that even senior White House aides

are not entitled to absolute immunity from testifying in

response to a Congressional subpoena. Id. at 214 (``To make

the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court . .

. that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides,

absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply

does not exist.''). Indeed, the footnote in McGahn that you

selectively quote makes clear that a President lacks legal

authority to order an aide not to appear before Congress

based on a claim of executive privilege. See Id. at 213, n.

34 (``But the invocation of the privilege by a testifying

aide is an order of magnitude different than DOJ's current

claim that the President essentially owns the entirety of a

senior-level aide's testimony such that the White House can

order the individual not to appear before Congress at all.''

(Emphasis in original)).

Accordingly, the Select Committee views Mr. Bannon's

failure to produce documents by the October 7, 2021 deadline

as willful non-compliance with the Subpoena. Mr. Bannon has

persisted in his refusal to produce any documents to the

Select Committee, and he has failed to provide a privilege

log identifying specific, asserted privileges. Mr. Bannon has

now further compounded his non-compliance by refusing to

appear on October 14, 2021 at the Select Committee deposition

to which he was summoned to provide testimony. The Select

Committee will therefore be meeting on Tuesday, October 19,

2021 to consider invoking the contempt of Congress procedures

set forth in 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192, 194.

If Mr. Bannon believes that there are any additional issues

relating to his non-compliance with the Subpoena that have

not been addressed, please submit them in writing to the

Select Committee by 6:00 p.m. E.S.T. on Monday, October 18,

2021 for the Select Committee's consideration in its

deliberations.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, at 6 p.m. on Monday, October 18, 2021, Mr. Costello replied to that letter and requested a 1-week ``adjournment'' to respond. Mr. Bannon's attorney said they needed time to ``assess'' the Select Committee's requests for documents and testimony in light of litigation filed by former President Trump in DC District Court. I include Mr. Costello's letter in the Record.

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

Attorneys at Law, * * *,

October 18, 2021.

Re: The Subpoena for Stephen K. Bannon dated September 23,

2021.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman, House Select Committee to Investigate the January

6th Attack,

Dear Congressman Thompson: We write on behalf of Stephen

Bannon. We have just been advised of the filing of a lawsuit

in federal court for the District of Columbia entitled Donald

J. Trump v. Bennie Thompson, et al., 21-Civ-02769 (D.D.C.

2021). In light of this late filing, we respectfully request

a one-week adjournment of our response to your latest letter

so that we might thoughtfully assess the impact of this

pending litigation.

Very truly yours,

Robert J. Costello.

Madam Speaker, the former President's lawsuit, however, is immaterial to Mr. Bannon's defiance of our lawful subpoena. As House Report 117-152 makes clear, Mr. Bannon had a duty to produce documents and appear before the Select Committee. His flat refusal to comply with the subpoena is unacceptable. I made that clear in a letter to Mr. Costello before the Select Committee's business meeting on Tuesday, October 19, 2021. I include in the Record my response to Mr. Costello's October 18th letter.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on

the United States Capitol,

October 19, 2021.

Mr. Robert J. Costello,

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

Dear Mr. Costello: The Select Committee to Investigate the

January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (``Select

Committee'') is in receipt of your October 18, 2021, letter

requesting a one-week ``adjournment'' of your response to my

October 15, 2021, letter. The only basis for your request is

yesterday's filing of litigation by former President Trump

against the Chairman, Select Committee, Archivist of the

United States, and the National Archives and Records

Administration. That litigation relates to the Select

Committee's requests for documents in the possession of the

National Archives and is immaterial to the Select Committee's

demand for documents and testimony from Mr. Bannon. The

investigation of the Select Committee is extremely important

and urgent for the nation, and further delay in compliance by

Mr. Bannon undermines the ability of the Committee to timely

complete its essential responsibilities. Accordingly, no

grounds exist for any ``adjournment'' or other delay and your

request is denied.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, meanwhile, with regard to Mr. Bannon's claims that executive privileges somehow precluded his production or appearance pursuant to the Select Committee's subpoena, on Monday, October 18, 2021, the Office of White House Counsel wrote a letter to Mr. Costello and specifically stated that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' It further stated that President Biden ``has already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with respect to certain subjects within the purview of the Select Committee.'' I include the full White House letter in the Record.

The White House,

Washington, DC, October 18, 2021.

Robert J. Costello,

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

* * *.

Dear Mr. Costello: I write regarding the subpoena for

documents and deposition testimony issued on September 23,

2021, by the House Select Committee to Investigate the

January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (the ``Select

Committee'') to your client, Stephen K. Bannon.

As you are aware, Mr. Bannon's tenure as a White House

employee ended in 2017. To the extent any privileges could

apply to Mr. Bannon's conversations with the former President

or White House staff after the conclusion of his tenure,

President Biden has already determined that an assertion of

executive privilege is not in the public interest, and

therefore is not justified, with respect to certain subjects

within the purview of the Select Committee. Specifically,

President Biden determined that an assertion of executive

privilege is not justified with respect to a set of documents

shedding light on events within the White House on and about

January 6, 2021, and with respect to documents

and testimony concerning the former President's efforts to

use the Department of Justice to advance a false narrative

that the 2020 election was tainted by widespread fraud.

President Biden's determination that an assertion of

privilege is not justified with respect to these subjects

applies to your client's deposition testimony and to any

documents your client may possess concerning either subject.

Please contact me if you have questions about the matters

described herein. Please note, however, that at this point we

are not aware of any basis for your client's refusal to

appear for a deposition.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Su,

Deputy Counsel to the President.

Madam Speaker, after the Select Committee's October 19th business meeting, I wrote to Mr. Costello yet again to urge Mr. Bannon to change course and comply with the Select Committee's subpoena of September 23, 2021. I reiterated that Mr. Costello's stated reasons for Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide documents and appear at a deposition have no legal basis or support. I provided him with a link to the Select Committee's adopted report on a contempt citation to review the detailed basis for our recommendation to the House. I include my October 19th letter in the Record.

Select Committee To Investigate the January 6th Attack on

the United States Capitol,

October 19, 2021.

Mr. Robert J. Costello,

Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP,

* * *.

Dear Mr. Costello: I write yet again to urge your client

Stephen K. Bannon to change course and comply with the

September 23, 2021, subpoena from the Select Committee to

Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States

Capitol (``Select Committee'').

As explained in our prior correspondence, your stated

reasons for Mr. Bannon's flat refusal to provide documents

and appear at a deposition have no legal basis or support.

Because of Mr. Bannon's continued refusal to comply with the

subpoena, the Select Committee has unanimously voted to

recommend that the House of Representatives find Mr. Bannon

to be in contempt of Congress. The detailed basis for that

recommendation is contained in the Select Committee's report,

a copy of which is available at the following link: https:// docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114156. Should the House of

Representatives agree with that recommendation, the Speaker

of the House will certify the relevant statement of facts to

the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia,

``whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand

jury for its action.'' See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 194.

Additionally, President Biden's recently communicated views

relating to your client's reliance on executive privilege as

a basis for his non-compliance provide further support for

the Select Committee's position. As you know, in its October

18, 2021, letter, the Office of the White House Counsel

concluded that ``at this point we are not aware of any basis

for [Mr. Bannon's] refusal to appear for a deposition.'' The

letter further noted that President Biden has ``already

determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in

the public interest, and therefore is not justified, with

respect to certain subjects within the purview of the Select

Committee.'' In short, the current President's statements

should remove any doubt regarding the inappropriateness of

Mr. Bannon's reliance on assertions of executive privilege as

grounds for his noncompliance with the subpoena. Mr. Bannon

has no basis in law to continue to defy the appropriate use

of congressional subpoena authority.

These developments underscore the folly of any continuing

defiance of the Select Committee subpoena by Mr. Bannon. The

Select Committee remains focused on expeditiously obtaining

the testimony and documents necessary to meet our

responsibilities and we continue to expect immediate

compliance by Mr. Bannon. Should Mr. Bannon choose to change

his posture, please notify Select Committee staff * * *.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, the importance of our investigation, and the recommendations we make for legislative and other policy changes that result from our investigation, require the participation of witnesses who have clear knowledge of the events leading up to and during the January 6th attack. Mr. Bannon's own actions in defiance of our lawful subpoena for a valid legislative purpose demand the consequences reflected in the House resolution citing him with contempt and referring his case to the Department of Justice.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 504 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), 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 be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 504, providing for consideration of H.R. 2662, the IG Independence and Empowerment Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, makes in order six amendments, provides for en bloc authority, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3005 under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It combines the Rules Committee prints for the surface transportation and clean water provisions of the bill, self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman DeFazio, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule additionally provides for consideration of H. Res. 503, Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested rollcall votes on suspension bills considered on June 28 or 29, and this authority lasts through July 1.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule for four measures that address some of the most fundamental issues upon which Congress may act as we continually strive to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for all of us and our descendants.

In passing these three bills and in creating a select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. House of Representatives is putting forward real solutions to repair our physical infrastructure, protect our systems of accountability, acknowledge our relationship with the past, and establish a shared understanding and plan to address the deep wounds inflicted upon this building, those who serve and protect here, our government, and our democratic Republic by the attack on the Capitol on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the Members and committees that worked on the bills we consider here today, in particular, the Herculean efforts by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Oversight and Reform Committee, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Majority Whip Clyburn, and Majority Leader Hoyer for their leadership to remove symbols of hate from the Capitol Building.

Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that our Nation's infrastructure is in a shameful state of disrepair. For decades, we have heard a lot of talk about infrastructure while efforts to build and maintain the networks and systems on which we all rely have been grossly underfunded. Whether it be roads and bridges or ports and rail lines, year after year, we fail to muster the political will to properly fund infrastructure, and the consequences are increasingly dire.

My district, Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District, is home to Philadelphia's airport, port, rail yard, and, as a key part of the Northeast Corridor, dozens of miles of interstate highways and passenger rail lines, as well as regional commuter and light rail lines that link Philadelphia and its suburbs.

True to its position, PA-05 sits as a transportation keystone to a vast interstate and international economic network. The problems facing my district's transportation infrastructure are not that different from those of other regions. Our infrastructure is

aging and, in some cases, beyond usable lifespan. It is heavily used, and State and local authorities don't have enough money to meet maintenance needs, much less to make investments in modernization, expansion, or other improvements. Anyone who travels our roadways knows that axle-bending, tire-rattling potholes are the norm.

Nationwide, the situation is no better: aging and inadequate electrical grids, shamefully deficient water infrastructure, 47,000 structurally deficient bridges. You can go to any congressional district and find a litany of projects in desperate need of funding.

We have heard lip service about infrastructure week for so long that it has become a sick national joke. We must act now.

While the U.S. has sat on its hands, our allies and adversaries around the world have forged ahead with advancements in transportation networks, from high-speed rail that puts ours to shame to building up broadband and 5G networks.

China spends 8 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. Our European partners spend 5 percent of their GDP on infrastructure. Here in the United States, we spend a meager 2.4 percent.

We are falling behind the rest of the world and, in doing so, failing to promote the general welfare of our citizens.

That is why I am proud to support this rule to pass the INVEST in America Act. This bill will provide over $715 billion over the next 5 years to repair and improve our Nation's infrastructure. It will create good-paying jobs and lay the foundation for robust economic growth in the 21st century.

It will make record investments in roads, transit, and rails, allowing State departments of transportation to address maintenance backlogs and make forward-thinking investments in road safety, climate mitigation and resiliency, and low-income and underserved communities in our cities, suburbs, and rural areas.

It will help build out our Nation's EV infrastructure and help Americans shift to the next generation of clean energy vehicles. It will assist transit agencies in expanding service areas and adopting zero-emission vehicles, and it gives States funding to help prepare for the impacts of climate change and extreme weather.

This package also includes over $160 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Right now in the United States, there are millions of Americans who don't have access to clean drinking water or who aren't connected to a wastewater network. There is no excuse for that. The water provisions include much-needed funding to fully replace lead pipes throughout the country and strengthen water standards so the EPA can better address PFAS contamination.

These issues are vitally important to my district and others in southeastern Pennsylvania and across the country. I commend the Energy and Commerce Committee for crafting this comprehensive water infrastructure package.

Lastly, I want to state my strong support for the Member designated projects included in the INVEST in America Act. I thank Chairman DeFazio for giving my colleagues and I, on both sides of the aisle, the opportunity to secure dedicated funding for important local projects in our districts and for instituting strong safeguards in this funding to prevent fraud and abuse.

The Member designated projects process allowed us to work with our State and local transit agencies and local governments to highlight high-impact transportation projects in need of funding.

I am proud that $20 million for seven great projects in my district have been included in this bill, including redesign of dangerous rail crossings and upgrades to commuter stations, and perhaps most significantly, this bill includes a project I submitted with my Pennsylvania colleague (Mr. Evans), to redesign Cobbs Creek Parkway, one of the most dangerous corridors in our region and the site of hundreds of crashes and multiple fatalities year after year. The redesign will make Cobbs Creek Parkway safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.

Voting against this bill to invest in America is voting against jobs; it is voting against economic growth; it is voting against safety; and it is voting against making sure people have clean drinking water. Now is the time to tackle these issues, and so I urge all my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, also included in this bill is the IG Independence and Empowerment Act, a bill from the House Oversight and Reform Committee to overhaul and reform the legal powers and protections of our inspectors general.

Inspectors general are a vital part of our Federal institutions, ensuring that taxpayers and officials have an independent source of oversight and information to ensure government employees, from the interns to the President, are following the law and properly administering their duties.

For our government to function and be free of waste and corruption, to protect against fraud and impropriety, we need inspectors general who are empowered to act and who are protected from arbitrary, capricious, or personal attacks. But we saw, over the past 4 years, that there were critical flaws in the law that govern our inspector general programs. We saw that it was possible for an administration to undermine the independence of the inspectors general through unprecedented firings and denial of access to information.

A little over a year ago, the former President fired five Cabinet inspectors general over 6 weeks, with the announcements often coming on Friday nights when the Nation's attention was elsewhere.

The inspector general for Health and Human Services was fired for reporting accurately on the Nation's dire shortage of lifesaving PPE during the beginning of the pandemic. The State Department inspector general was fired for investigating then-Secretary Pompeo's use of government staff to run personal errands. And the Department of Transportation inspector general was fired for investigating suspicious grant awards to Kentucky, the State represented by the former Secretary's husband and the then-Senate majority leader. In other words, these inspectors general were fired for doing their jobs.

The IG Independence and Empowerment Act will enact needed reforms to protect IGs from political firings, give them increased powers and resources to investigate waste and corruption, and increase accountability and transparency for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. I strongly support the IG Independence and Empowerment Act and call on my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, the last bill in today's rule is long overdue. The bill would replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber in the Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall and would remove the statues of individuals who voluntarily served in the Confederate States of America from display in the Capitol.

In Philadelphia, we have a street named after Chief Justice Taney and we have a Little League World Series Champion baseball team named after that street.

In 2020, following conversations about race and inclusiveness in America, the Taney Dragons Little League team decided to rename itself the Philadelphia Dragons saying that they cannot ignore the very real feelings that the name ``Taney'' engenders among members of our community, and that the new name will be inclusive, nondivisive, and also speak to our league's geography.

I say we follow the lead of our children on this issue. If they can do it, so can we. As we seek to form that more perfect Union and secure the blessings of liberty for all, we cannot accept the presence in this Capitol Building of Confederate icons, including the bust of the author of the Dred Scott decision or those who fought to protect slavery and wage war against the United States. Symbols of the Confederacy deserve to be in textbooks and museums, not venerated in the Capitol.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the creation of a select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol Building where we stand. I am, and I think most of the public is, disappointed that the Senate failed to join in the establishment of a bipartisan commission to establish once and for all the facts about what happened on that day.

We had a bipartisan bill. Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko of Homeland Security, through good-faith negotiations, were able to craft bipartisan legislation to create a commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection. Our Republican colleagues got everything they wanted in that bill, and yet, their leadership withdrew its support at the last moment and couldn't take yes for an answer.

Since our colleagues refused to approve a bipartisan commission, the House must move ahead with an investigation of the January 6 events and a select committee is our final avenue. We must investigate the causes and events that led to that attack. It is my sincere hope that the committee can dive into the facts and produce a cohesive narrative around January 6 and the events that preceded it and make recommendations that will prevent such horrors from ever being repeated again.

The January 6 attack on our Capitol was a crime, a crime against our government and a crime against the men and women who serve here, whether it was elected officials, congressional staff, or law enforcement. Period. It was an ugly, violent crime and crimes need to be investigated. Thousands participated and over 800 illegally entered the building.

Roughly 500 so far have been criminally charged by law enforcement. Some have pled guilty. But the fact-finding is not yet done. We need to know how organized they were and what their level of coordination was.

Despite the claims of some in this Chamber, we now know that many of these rioters were armed, which means that every single one of us and all of our staffs were in very real danger. Some of the rioters came to abduct the Vice President and the Speaker of the House and put them on trial. Some planned to take this building over and hold it until January 20 in an attempt to stave off President Biden's inauguration. Some just wanted to destroy things, and they did.

That, too, the intention of the rioters, needs to be probed. Some think Donald Trump incited this riot; some think he did not. New and wild claims have surfaced about who instigated the violence. Let's investigate that, too. Let's investigate everything connected to this horrible event honestly, unflinchingly, objectively, and without passion or prejudice, but let us not leave this crime unexamined.

If we are to come together as a Nation to unite behind our shared constitutional values, to ensure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of democracy and liberty, we must do so from a shared understanding of reality.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that every member of this Chamber can find it in themselves to vote for this rule when it is considered on the floor. Our country cannot afford to wait longer on infrastructure. If we continue with business as usual, our infrastructure deficit will continue to grow. Our roads and bridges will continue to deteriorate, and our national economy will be less vibrant and competitive as a result.

We need to pass the INVEST in America Act. Full stop. We also need to pass the IG Independence and Empowerment Act, and we need to remove racist icons from the Capitol. These repairs and reforms cannot wait, and so I hope that Congress can find the political will to expeditiously pass the bills considered under the rule today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really straightforward. It increases money for surface transportation. It focuses on hard infrastructure. We need to fix the basics and then we can improve and expand them. This bill does include money specifically directed to our rural areas, and the crack about urban yuppies is kind of crazy.

We know that in Pennsylvania, which both the gentleman and I represent, we know that we have businesses in western Pennsylvania that are losing money because of the state of our roadways. If you build a turbine in western Pennsylvania, in order to get it to the port in eastern Pennsylvania right now, those companies have to take an 800- mile detour because our roadways cannot support that turbine. So it is impacting their businesses.

It is increasing energy costs. It is wasting time. But these kinds of things affect businesses across our entire Commonwealth and across our entire country. So these are much-needed, overdue by decades, bipartisan neglect. This bill addresses some of those issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I think I have one more speaker.

I am finding the argument a little bit hard to follow for my colleagues across the aisle because, as I understand it, it was a bad thing to shut down businesses in the U.S. to protect people when there was a virus rampant here. But we have to shut down the border because there is a virus rampant here. It is just a little hard to follow the logic sometimes.

If the gentleman is prepared to close, then I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the lively debate today. I understand that there are some who have concerns with the rule and its underlying legislation, but these bills are vitally important to our country, and I am confident they would greatly benefit all of us.

We should be able to support robust infrastructure spending that meets our Nation's current needs. We should all support a vigorous corps of inspectors general who can weed out fraud, waste, and corruption in the Federal Government. We should all support removing symbols of hate from the Capitol. These should be easy bills for us all to get behind.

Lastly, I strongly support the creation of a select committee to investigate the January 6 insurrection and debunk the absurd theories and falsehoods that have infected our collective understanding of that day. While some of our colleagues may continue their denial, those of us in this Chamber who are committed to transparency and accountability and the well-being of the Nation can no longer afford to be held back by the sensitivities of those who put their fealty to the former President over their duty or obligation to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 504

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 9 Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 471) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human

Services from lessening the stringency of, and to prohibit

the Secretary of Homeland Security from ceasing or lessening

implementation of, the COVID-19 border health provisions

through the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 471.

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

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.''