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.

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

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

general leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

``They have breached the Capitol.''

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

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

``We are all helpless.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

``We are all helpless.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is what we are doing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are some of those texts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, here we go again. For the first time in history, Democrats have complete control over a select committee. I hope the American people are paying close attention. I hope they see what happens when Democrats get total power. They abuse it. They intimidate, they threaten, and they harass. And they try to put their political opponents in jail.

In a matter of weeks, the committee has passed three criminal contempt citations. Today, we vote on holding Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress.

On September 23, 2021, the select committee served former Congressman Meadows a subpoena for a sweeping set of documents and a deposition. In October, President Trump instructed Mr. Meadows to maintain his executive privilege in any response to that subpoena. Mr. Meadows then told the select committee that he would give them any information they requested that wasn't protected by executive privilege.

Mr. Meadows gave the select committee over 6,800 pages of information, including 1,100 documents and 2,300 text messages. Mr. Meadows agreed to sit for a deposition if it was limited to areas not protected by executive privilege. He tried to cooperate, but the select committee didn't care.

Mr. Meadows even sought an independent ruling on the question of executive privilege, but the select committee voted to hold him in contempt anyway, just like they did with Mr. Clark, who offered to participate pending the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Thompson.

Apparently, the select committee's rules go like this: Ignore the former President and don't wait for legal rulings. Immediately do everything that we say without objection, or we will refer you for criminal prosecution.

They don't care about fairness or due process. The point isn't cooperation or factfinding. They care about punishment. The point is prosecution. And, of course, the point is the headline that they are going for: Former Trump Chief of Staff found in contempt of Congress. But that headline omits the ugly and partisan truth about the select committee.

According to the committee's charter, H. Res. 503: ``The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the select committee, five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.'' But the committee has zero members appointed in consultation with Leader McCarthy. And it doesn't have 13 members; it has 9.

According to the committee's charter, if Mr. Meadows had come in for a deposition, the minority must have been allowed to question Mr. Meadows for the same length of time as the majority, except no members of the committee were named by the minority.

This isn't nitpicking. The Supreme Court has found that a select committee must follow its own rules to act with legal force.

So we have the select committee as it exists legally and on paper, and then we have something completely different. I don't know what to call it, but it doesn't resemble the select committee that Democrats voted to pass

on the House floor. It is just nine members picked by Speaker Pelosi.

The group is trampling on Americans' constitutional rights and the rights of Congress, like Mr. Meadows, and current Members of Congress. They even include Americans whose sole offense, according to Chairman Thompson, was planning a legal, permitted, and First Amendment- protected political rally.

Thanks to media reports, we know that Democrats have seized their enemies' call and text records, geolocation data, and personal contacts. We know of hundreds of instances. It could be more.

All we know for sure about this partisan investigation is that it is massive. It is happening without accountability, and it is happening in secret.

The select committee should serve as a warning to all Americans. This is what you get when Democrats get free rein: secret snooping, harassment, contempt for the rules of Congress, criminalization of dissent, and it all ends with their opponents in jail.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three articles.

First: ``J6 Committee Misleading Witnesses About Republican Staff Presence,'' by Mollie Hemingway, that was published in The Federalist.

Second: ``The Democratic Norm Breakers: The January 6 committee wants to subpoena GOP phone records,'' by The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Third: ``Civil Liberties Are Being Trampled by Exploiting `Insurrection' Fears. Congress's 1/6 Committee May Be the Worst Abuse Yet: The Unconstitutionality of the 1/6 Committee,'' by Glenn Greenwald, published by Substack.

[From the Federalist, Nov. 10, 2021]

J6 Committee Misleading Witnesses About Republican Staff Presence

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney ran to CNN a few weeks ago to

accuse conservative stalwart Rep. Jim Banks of falsely

presenting himself as the Jan. 6 commission's ranking member.

Banks is, in fact, congressional Republicans' choice to be

their top investigator on the committee, but he has been

prevented from fulfilling his duties by Speaker of the House

Nancy Pelosi.

However, it's Cheney who appears to be misrepresenting

herself as the ranking member--that is, the top Republican--

on the committee.

January 6 Select Committee staff have been falsely telling

witnesses that Republican staff will be present for

interviews, according to multiple eyewitness sources and

documents. In fact, not a single Republican-appointed member

of Congress nor a single staff member representing the

Republican conference is part of the controversial committee.

Witnesses are being told that John Wood, a longtime friend

and ally of the Cheney family, will represent Republicans

when witnesses testify. But neither Cheney nor her friend is

representing the Republican conference. In fact, Cheney was

appointed to the committee in early July by Pelosi herself.

``John Wood works for the Democrat Party, just like Liz

Cheney, who was appointed by Pelosi and is not the Ranking

Member of the Select Committee. She is misleading witnesses,

before they testify under penalty of law, about the motives

and the position of the person questioning them,'' said

Banks, who has continued leading Republicans' investigation

of the federal government's handling of the Jan. 6 riot at

the Capitol. Cheney's work with CNN was designed to prevent

him from being able to gain answers to the questions the

select committee was ostensibly set up to answer.

Cheney was given six days to explain whether she considers

herself just the Democrat-appointed vice-chair of the

committee or also the Republican ranking member, as is being

represented to key witnesses. She has not responded to

multiple requests for comment.

The misrepresentation to witnesses is key because the

absence of any ranking member--meaning, in this case, any

Republican-appointed member--or minority party staff means

the committee appears to be failing to adhere to ironclad

rules for its work.

Pelosi ``blew up'' the Jan. 6 committee when she took what

she herself admitted was the ``unprecedented'' step of

refusing to seat multiple Republican-appointed members,

including the highly respected Navy officer and Indiana

Republican Banks, who was to be the committee's ranking

member. She also banned Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who

currently serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary

Committee.

Pelosi chose two of her key Republican allies and anti-

Trump obsessives to fill two of her slots for the committee.

As such, they do not represent the Republican conference,

which opposed their selection, but the Democrat conference,

which supported their selection.

Cheney was promoted to vice-chair in September in thanks

for her stalwart work on Pelosi's behalf. Cheney, who has

been censured by Wyoming Republicans for working against

Republican voters and their interests, and who lost her

position as House Conference chair for hijacking multiple

briefings for Republican policy initiatives to talk about her

personal vendetta against Trump, is facing precipitously low

poll numbers and a challenge from popular Republican Harriet

Hageman.

Cheney was joined by lame-duck Adam Kinzinger of Illinois,

who recently announced his retirement rather than facing

certain defeat from Illinois constituents who don't share his

anti-Trump obsession. Kinzinger was appointed by Pelosi in

late July to make the committee appear more bipartisan after

she'd vetoed Banks and Jordan. Cheney, her selection for

vice-chair, was brought in for the sole purpose of helping

Democrats with their tribunal.

The resolution establishing the committee, purportedly to

investigate the federal government's role in detecting,

preventing, preparing for, and responding to the Jan. 6 riot,

says depositions taken by the select committee must follow

House rules.

Those rules clearly state, ``Consultation with the ranking

minority member shall include three days' notice before any

deposition.'' Also, ``A deposition shall be conducted by any

member or committee counsel designated by the chair or

ranking minority member of the Committee that noticed the

deposition. When depositions are conducted by committee

counsel, there shall be no more than two committee counsel

permitted to question a witness per round. One of the

committee counsel shall be designated by the chair and the

other by the ranking minority member per round.''

Additionally, the rules say, ``Deposition questions shall

be propounded in rounds. The length of each round shall not

exceed 60 minutes per side and shall provide equal time to

the majority and the minority. In each round, the member(s)

or committee counsel designated by the chair shall ask

questions first, and the member(s) or committee counsel

designated by the ranking minority member shall ask questions

second.''

The point of these rules is to structure depositions so the

minority and the majority counsel have the same opportunity

to question witnesses and gather information for their

separate reports. That's why they rotate and why they're

allotted equal time. Having questions alternate from one

hostile lawyer to another hostile lawyer who is working with

the first makes a mockery of the provisions. It also means

that the hostile lawyers can coordinate and cherry-pick which

information to leak or publish, and which to conceal from the

public because it contradicts their preferred narrative.

The rules do not envision the circumstances that accompany

Pelosi's uni-party select committee. The House Rules ``become

nonsensical in a situation like this,'' said one

congressional aide, adding, ``This isn't just a partisan

investigation--it's a coverup.''

For the select committee to be in accordance with the rules

regarding consultation for depositions, Cheney must be

considered simultaneously the ranking member for the minority

party while also being the vice-chair for the majority party.

Hill lawyers say Pelosi's handling of the committee casts

doubt on its adherence to

the rules. Because she vetoed the ranking member from the

committee, it has no ranking member. But the committee rules

require consultation with the ranking member before taking

certain basic actions, such as taking depositions, including

those pursuant to subpoenas.

``So how can you consult with the ranking member when you

don't have one?'' asked one Hill attorney.

The multiple sources consulted for this article include a

document which confirmed January 6 Committee staff

represented to a witness that Wood would be the Republican

counsel during their interview.

``If this was a real investigation, that'd land you in jail

for prosecutorial misconduct,'' Banks said of the false

representation. ``Fortunately for Liz, this is a sham

investigation,'' he added.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

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

Madam Speaker, let's be very, very clear. The Democrats aren't interested in finding out how a disorganized horde of rioters managed to break into the United States Capitol on January 6. They don't want to learn more about

the security breakdown that occurred that day, and they don't care about protecting the Capitol from future attacks. They have proven it to us.

None of the 51 subpoenas that the committee has publicly touted have anything to do with Capitol security. As they have proven yet again today, over and over again, they only care about attacking their political enemies.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

My Republican colleagues and I have repeatedly condemned political violence in all of its forms, including the violence on January 6.

But the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who was elected by Democrats to oversee Federal law enforcement, secured a Presidential pardon for Susan Rosenberg, a domestic terrorist who set off a bomb in the Senate Cloakroom in 1983. That is a fact.

Merrick Garland, appointed by Democrats to head the Justice Department, helped the Obama administration to dismiss an indictment against Elizabeth Ann Duke, a fugitive who was also arrested for setting off a bomb inside the United States Capitol.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

Again, what you have heard today proves what we have said all along. This select committee is not at all interested in doing anything to prevent something like January 6 from ever happening again. It is all about burying their political opponents. That is what they are about to do today by holding Mr. Meadows in contempt. It is what they have already done two times before. It is an absolute shame. We shouldn't allow it to happen.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this resolution today.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, as Chairman Thompson noted, we are here with great sadness. We are here recognizing and understanding the serious nature of this situation. And, Madam Speaker, we wish we had another alternative. We wish that we did not have to meet today to urge our colleagues to vote criminal contempt for one of our former colleagues and the former chief of staff to President Trump.

We don't take this step lightly.

As my colleagues have noted, and will no doubt say again today, for weeks the committee has worked with Mr. Meadows, with his counsel to reach an agreement on cooperation, to reach an agreement and accommodation.

Now, the reality, Madam Speaker, is the accommodations process is a process that takes place between the legislative branch and the executive branch. Mr. Meadows is a member of neither, and yet, the committee has taken the extra step of working to try to make sure that we do everything we can to secure Mr. Meadows' testimony.

He is improperly asserting executive and other privileges, but the vote on contempt today relates principally to his refusal to testify about messages and other communications that he admits are not privileged. He has not claimed, and he does not have, privilege to refuse entirely to testify regarding these topics.

There are just three examples I will give you this afternoon of issues which we need to speak to Mr. Meadows about and on which his testimony is required, indeed compelled by our subpoena.

First, is President Trump's failure to stop the violence when this Chamber, and indeed, the entire Capitol building was attacked and invaded. The mob that attacked this Chamber was summoned to Washington by President Trump. And as many of those involved have admitted on videotape and social

media and in Federal District Court, they were provoked to violence by President Trump's false claims that the election was stolen.

As the violence unfolded that afternoon, nearly 1 year ago, it was evident to all, not only to those of us who were in the Chamber at that time. It was covered in real time by almost every news channel. But for 187 minutes, President Trump refused to act. Let's let that sink in, Madam Speaker. He refused to act. When action by our President was required, it was essential, and it was compelled by his oath to our Constitution.

Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages which he has produced without any privilege claim imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific action we all know his duty required. Indeed, some of those text messages, Madam Speaker, came from Members in the Chamber right now, Members who understood that a violent assault was underway at the Capitol, Members who pleaded with the chief of staff to get the President to take action. Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials and Members of Congress urged that the President take immediate action.

I read a number of these last night at our hearing. I won't read them all today, but I will read a few of them. ``Mark,'' one Member said: ``he needs to stop this. Now.'' In all caps: ``TELL THEM TO GO HOME.'' ``POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protestors to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed.''

Indeed, a number of members of the press, a number of Members of this body, a member of the President's own family, all urged the President to take action because they understood that the President of the United States had a responsibility to call off the mob.

Hours passed despite this without any action by the President. All of these texts are nonprivileged. They are texts that Mr. Meadows has turned over. And they are evidence of President Trump's supreme dereliction of duty for 187 minutes. And Mr. Meadows' testimony will bear on another fundamental question before this committee, and that is whether Donald J. Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly sought to obstruct or impede Congress' official proceeding to count electoral votes.

This committee is entitled to Mr. Meadows' testimony, and it will inform our legislative judgments. But Mr. Meadows has refused to give any testimony at all, even regarding nonprivileged topics. He is in contempt of Congress.

Second, Mr. Meadows has knowledge regarding President Trump's efforts to persuade State officials to alter official election results.

In Georgia, for instance, Mr. Meadows participated in a phone call between President Trump and the Georgia secretary of state. Mr. Meadows was actually on the phone when President Trump asked the secretary of state to ``find 11,780 votes'' to change the results of the Presidential election in Georgia. That is the President of the United States telling a State official to ``find 11,780 votes.''

While this was happening, Mr. Meadows appears to have been texting with another participant on this call. Mr. Meadows has no conceivable privilege basis to refuse to testify on this topic. He is in contempt of Congress.

Third, in the weeks before January 6, President Trump's appointees at the Justice Department informed him repeatedly that the President's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence and that the election was not, in fact, stolen.

President Trump intended to appoint Jeffrey Clark as attorney general in part so that Mr. Clark could alter the Department of Justice's conclusions regarding the election. Mr. Clark has now informed this committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters and, therefore, intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

As Mr. Meadows' nonprivileged texts reveal, Mr. Meadows communicated multiple times with another Member of this body who was working with Mr. Clark. Mr. Meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. He is in contempt.

January 6 was without precedent. There has been no stronger case in our Nation's history for a congressional investigation into the actions of a former President. This body must investigate the facts in detail, and we are entitled to ask Mr. Meadows about the nonprivileged materials he has produced to us.

Madam Speaker, I am sure you will hear my colleagues this afternoon say that there are privilege issues here that must be resolved before we can move forward. Any argument that the courts need to resolve privilege issues first is a pretext. We will question Mr. Meadows about emails and texts he gave us without any privilege claim.

Mr. Meadows' role in the Raffensperger call cannot be privileged, nor can his dealings with a Member of this body regarding Jeff Clark. This committee must get to the objective truth and ensure that January 6 never happens again.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Meadows is in contempt. He must testify. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Madam Speaker, let me just make sure people understand some facts in light of some of the charges that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) just made, which are flat false.

Number one, Mr. Meadows refused to show up for his deposition. The committee scheduled a deposition after extensive coordination with Mr. Meadows on a day that he chose, that he selected, and then he refused to show up.

He refused to show up to testify about nonprivileged questions. My colleague from Ohio can talk as much as he would like about executive privilege and about George Washington and about the extent to which it is crucial for the survival of the Republic, with which I agree, but we are talking here about testimony about nonprivileged materials.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, I would say that we all on this side of the aisle used to be in agreement about what had happened on January 6. There was a brief period of time, days perhaps, when we were in agreement.

Standing--perhaps at this microphone--the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, said this on January 13: ``The President bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump. . . .''

Unfortunately, Mr. McCarthy's position changed on this issue. Mr. McCarthy then worked against, voted against the resolution that would have created a bipartisan commission to investigate these matters, and he withdrew his nominees to this committee. Let me say that again. He withdrew his nominees to this committee.

This committee is engaged in critical investigative and legislative activity for which there is no greater purpose in terms of Congress' responsibility, no matter what my colleague on the other side may claim in terms of Mr. Meadows.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

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

Madam Speaker, President Trump is hiding behind executive privilege. All of my colleagues, all of them knew that what happened on January 6 was an assault on our Constitution. They knew it at the time, yet now they are defending the indefensible.

Whether we tell the truth, get to the truth and defend ourselves against it ever happening again is the moral test of our time. How we address January 6 is the moral test of our generation.

It is very sad to see how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are addressing this issue. Mr. Meadows

has refused to testify about nonprivileged material. He is in contempt.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, I call up the report (H. Rept. 117-216) and accompanying resolution 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.

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. 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, 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, it is regrettable that we are back on the floor considering another criminal contempt referral, but our former colleague, Mr. Meadows, has left us no choice.

The select committee is investigating an attack on our democracy, and it is essential that witnesses cooperate with our investigation to get answers. The law requires them to do so. And when a witness defies the law, that amounts to more than obstructing our investigation, it is an attack on the rule of law.

In September, the select committee subpoenaed Mr. Meadows for records and testimony because we believed he had information relevant to our investigation.

For weeks, we went back and forth with Mr. Meadows, through his lawyer, to try to get cooperation. We extended his initial deposition date to November 12. When the date came, he hadn't produced any documents, and he didn't show up. Throughout this time, Mr. Meadows and his representatives made a lot of noise about executive privilege and so-called absolute immunity; the idea that people who serve or served in certain senior roles are completely exempt from testifying before Congress.

Now, let's be clear. Courts have rejected absolute immunity at every opportunity, and the Justice Department has never authored an opinion that would support the sort of claim Mr. Meadows had made about his unofficial conduct. And we have lots of questions for Mr. Meadows about the unofficial conduct. And as for executive privilege, President Biden has chosen not to invoke it as far as Mr. Meadows is concerned.

So Mr. Meadows was obligated to comply with our subpoena and appear at a deposition. When he didn't, we were prepared at that point to move ahead with contempt proceedings. But at the same time, Madam Speaker, out of an abundance of fairness, we gave Mr. Meadows a final chance to cooperate.

When he faced the possibility of contempt a few weeks ago, he finally decided, in part, to do the right thing and start providing information. He turned over roughly 9,000 pages of records that he himself said couldn't be covered by any claim of privilege. He also said he would appear at a deposition with the select committee, which we scheduled for December 8.

This is key. In an investigation like ours, when you produce records, you are expected to come in and answer questions about those records. And because not even Mr. Meadows was asserting any privilege claim over these records, there is no possible justification for wholesale refusing to answer questions about them.

But that is what he did. He told us the day before his deposition-- the same day his book was published--that he would no longer cooperate with our investigation, and that he wasn't coming in to be interviewed.

Put all the other arguments aside. This isn't about any sort of privilege or immunity. This is about Mr. Meadows refusing to comply with a subpoena to discuss the records he himself turned over. Now he is hiding behind excuses.

And at the end of the day, it is a simple proposition: If you are making excuses to avoid cooperating with our investigations, you are making excuses to hide the truth from the American people about what happened on January 6. You are making excuses as part of a coverup. And if you echo these excuses, if you base your arguments on these excuses, if you adopt these excuses as your own to explain why you will not take action, then you are part of that coverup, too.

I want my colleagues to think long and hard about that; because as the select committee has made clear in the last day and will continue to make clear, there was a steady stream of communication between certain Members of Congress and Mr. Meadows about matters central to our investigation.

We have questions about those communications. We will pursue those questions. And we won't let the facts be buried by a coverup.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, just for the record, the gentleman from Ohio is aware of congressional oversight prerogatives. When Mr. Meadows was a member and later chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, he himself demanded testimony from senior executive branch officials and chided those who failed to cooperate with congressional oversight.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Luria), a distinguished member of the select committee, as well as the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans' Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close after the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank my colleague from Wyoming for supporting this effort of the committee. She has been a wonderful member of the committee, and I look forward to continuing the relationship.

I thank my colleagues who presented on the majority side today who made a clear case of why Mr. Meadows' defiance is unacceptable.

I take no joy in having to ask this House to make this referral. Mr. Meadows served here with us for 7 years, but that doesn't excuse his conduct. If anything, he should know better.

It is disappointing that he put himself in this category with a small handful of uncooperative witnesses who are drawing out a lot of attention hiding behind every privilege you can think of trying to slow down and slow-walk this process. We want to hear from them all.

But we have heard from more than 300 witnesses. Just this week, three significant individuals have already come in and spoken with us on the record. As you have heard, last night and today, we have made some significant findings. This investigation is moving ahead swiftly, but even with all that cooperation, we need to send a clear message that this sort of defiance of the rule of law cannot stand.

We need to hear from Mr. Meadows, and his refusal to appear is plain and simple contempt.

I ask all Members to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.