Recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

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

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

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the dishonesty that we have just heard is illustrated by what Mr. Jordan just said, his selective quote from Mr. Hur's report. He said: ``Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice- presidency when he was a private citizen.''

The report does say that, but he neglects a sentence a paragraph later: ``However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'' That is deceptive.

Secondly, as the majority well knows, the President asserted executive privilege in this matter. Maybe that was proper, maybe not, but the way to contest executive privilege is not by a contempt resolution. It is by going to court and letting the court decide whether the exercise of executive privilege is warranted or not. For that reason also, this resolution fails.

Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee, under Republican control, has spent the last 18 months and 20 million taxpayer dollars in a desperate search to find something, anything, that they can use to damage President Biden and to protect Donald Trump.

Other committees have gotten into the act as well, spending untold taxpayer money not to benefit the American people, not to feed hungry children, not to address our housing crisis, and not to improve our healthcare system, but on a single-minded quest to follow every rightwing conspiracy theory in the vain hope that it might lead to some evidence of wrongdoing.

What exactly have they delivered to the American people on their investment? Nothing. No evidence that the conspiracies are true, no indictments, no impeachment, no wins of any significance. The Republican leadership knows that if they don't come up with something to show for the millions of dollars they have spent, the MAGA political base may stay home next November.

They are scrambling in a desperate attempt to look like they have accomplished something. They were fervently hoping that Special Counsel Hur would indict President Biden for mishandling classified documents so that they could attack President Biden and misdirect the American people away from Donald Trump's treacherous handling of classified information.

However, the special counsel cleared Mr. Biden of wrongdoing for reasons that have nothing to do with Mr. Hur's gratuitous and widely contradicted comments about the President's memory.

What do our Republican friends do when an investigation turns up short? Simply put, they engage in fantasy. That is what they are doing here today. Unable to come up with any wrongdoing by the President, they have now trained their sights on the Attorney General. They accuse him of withholding key evidence, but the Attorney General has substantially complied with their every request. Sometimes he has been too responsive, in my opinion, given the obvious bad faith of the MAGA majority.

The DOJ has produced 92,000 pages of documents since Republicans took control of the House last year and has made dozens of witnesses available for interviews, hearings, and briefings. That is more pages of documents and more witnesses than the Trump Justice Department produced to Congress in 4 years. Just last week, the Attorney General himself spent more than 5 hours testifying before the Judiciary Committee.

With respect to the subpoena at issue in this contempt resolution, the Department turned over all the information Republicans asked for. There has been no obstruction, only cooperation. In reality, the Attorney General and DOJ have been fully responsive to Congress in every way that might be material to their long-dead impeachment inquiry.

All that remains are audio files for which the President has asserted executive privilege. In a letter to Chairmen Jordan and Comer, the Department of Justice noted that producing the audio recordings would ``raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department's ability to conduct . . . high-profile criminal investigations; in particular, investigations where the voluntary cooperation of the White House officials is exceedingly important.''

The chairmen claim that they need those records to understand the pauses,

pace, and tone of the conversation. This is absurd and clearly pretextual. In any event, it does not outweigh the extensive concerns expressed by the President and the Department.

Moreover, with respect to the recording at issue in this report, a complete certified transcript has already been provided to both committees, and no credible allegation has been made that these transcripts have been altered in any material way. The only thing that has not been introduced is the recording itself, something that in the wrong hands can be easily manipulated.

That is not an idle concern. Deepfakes and misleadingly edited videos and recordings have proliferated in recent years. Last year, a witness testifying in a closed-door deposition told us that she was the victim of a manipulated video made by a third party but shared widely by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who refused to take down the video even after it was abundantly clear that it was manipulated. That video contributed to a flood of death threats against the witness.

This isn't really about a policy disagreement with the DOJ. This is about feeding the MAGA base after 18 months of investigations that have produced failure after failure.

Like most of the bills House Republicans have pushed on purely partisan lines, this contempt resolution will do very little other than smear the reputation of Merrick Garland, who will remain a good and decent public servant no matter what Republicans say about him today.

This resolution may boost Donald Trump's spirits before his sentencing, but it will almost certainly not convince the Department of Justice to produce the one remaining file in question. Like the broader impeachment effort before it, this contempt resolution will have been a partisan stunt, destined to fail from the very start. As I said before, if they were really interested in getting this recording, they would contest the assertion of executive privilege in court, not bring a contempt resolution against the Attorney General.

The American people actually need us to do important work. I am tired of these games, and so are the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just attacked Special Counsel Smith. This dangerous attempt to demonize anybody who would hold Donald Trump accountable for his actions is despicable and it is a full-out assault on the basic tenets of our democracy.

I want to remind my colleagues that these types of actions have consequences. They affect the lives of many men and women who have dedicated themselves to public service and upholding the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a June 11, 2024, article from The Washington Post by the Honorable Merrick Garland titled: ``Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end.''

[June 11, 2024]

Unfounded Attacks on the Justice Department Must End

(By Merrick Garland)

Merrick Garland is attorney general of the United States.

Last week, a California man was convicted of threatening to

bomb an FBI field office where hundreds of agents and other

employees work. In one of his threats to the FBI, the man

wrote: ``I can go on a mass murder spree. In fact, it would

be very explainable by your actions.''

These heinous threats of violence have become routine in an

environment in which the Justice Department is under attack

like never before.

In recent weeks, we have seen an escalation of attacks that

go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and

necessary oversight of our work. They are baseless, personal

and dangerous.

These attacks come in the form of threats to defund

particular department investigations, most recently the

special counsel's prosecution of the former president.

They come in the form of conspiracy theories crafted and

spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the

judicial process itself. Those include false claims that a

case brought by a local district attorney and resolved by a

jury verdict in a state trial was somehow controlled by the

Justice Department.

They come in the form of dangerous falsehoods about the

FBI's law enforcement operations that increase the risks

faced by our agents.

They come in the form of efforts to bully and intimidate

our career public servants by repeatedly and publicly

singling them out.

They come in the form of false claims that the department

is politicizing its work to somehow influence the outcome of

an election. Such claims are often made by those who are

themselves attempting to politicize the department's work to

influence the outcome of an election.

And media reports indicate there is an ongoing effort to

ramp up these attacks against the Justice Department, its

work and its employees.

We will not be intimidated by these attacks. But it is

absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of whom risk

their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing

their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long

guided the Justice Department's work.

In my first job at the Justice Department some 45 years

ago, I worked on what would become the department's first

edition of the Principles of Federal Prosecution. That set of

rules for prosecutors enshrined what every department

employee lives by every single day: an unwavering commitment

to the fair and impartial application of our laws. That

commitment has been sustained by dedicated career

professionals who serve across administrations of both

political parties.

The Justice Department makes decisions about criminal

investigations based only on the facts and the law. We do not

investigate people because of their last name, their

political affiliation, the size of their bank account, where

they come from or what they look like. We investigate and

prosecute violations of federal law--nothing more, nothing

less.

We do this not only because of the principles that have

long guided our work, but also because we know that our

democracy cannot survive without a justice system that

ensures the equal protection of law for all its citizens.

The Justice Department will continue to uphold its

obligation under the Constitution to fiercely defend the

right of all Americans to peacefully express opinions,

beliefs and ideas. Disagreements about politics are good for

our democracy. They are normal.

But using conspiracy theories, falsehoods, violence and

threats of violence to affect political outcomes is not

normal. The short-term political benefits of those tactics

will never make up for the long-term cost to our country.

Continued unfounded attacks against the Justice

Department's employees are dangerous for people's safety.

They are dangerous for our democracy. This must stop.

It is absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of whom risk their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long guided the Justice Department's work. I would also remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the conviction of Mr. Trump was in a State court in New York having nothing to do with the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have spent the last 18 months in a futile effort to dig up dirt on President Biden, which has culminated in their epic failure of an impeachment inquiry. This resolution is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face with the MAGA- sphere.

They seek to hold the Attorney General in contempt even though he has already turned over all the underlying information they requested in their subpoena. This resolution will not change that fact, but facts have never been the animating force behind their investigations.

It is a show, and apparently, the show must go on even though the script hasn't turned out the way they wanted. Nevertheless, the reviews are in, and it is a flop, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution and to put an end to this farce.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

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

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

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

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I call up the report (H. Rept. 118-527) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1292) recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on page 1 of his report, Special Counsel Hur said: ``President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen.''

Joe Biden not only kept information he wasn't allowed to keep, he shared it with people who weren't allowed to get it.

On page 231, the special counsel told us why President Biden did this. He said: ``Mr. Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks. He had decided months before leaving office to write a book,'' a book for which he got paid $8 million.

So we have motive, an $8 million motive, and we have the elements of the crime, knowingly keeping classified information, knowingly disclosing classified information.

Despite all this, Special Counsel Hur declined to recommend prosecution for President Biden because Joe Biden is ``a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.''

On page 207 of his report, Special Counsel Hur said: ``Mr. Biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations, both at the time he spoke to [the ghostwriter], Mr. Zwonitzer in 2017, as evidenced by their recorded conversations, and today, as evidenced by his recorded interview with our office.''

The committees need the audio recordings to determine whether the Justice Department appropriately carried out justice by not prosecuting the President.

Remember what they told us. The Justice Department said we are going to operate independent of the White House. They said we will be impartial, independent arbiters of the facts.

Maybe so, but what we do know is this: One former President is being charged; Joe Biden is not being charged. We think we are entitled-- actually we know we are entitled to all the evidence and the best evidence. The transcripts alone are not sufficient evidence of the state of the President's memory, especially since the executive branch has a history of changing transcripts.

We saw this in late April. The transcript the White House put out didn't match the video and audio recording of President Biden's speech, and only after the White House was caught did they change the transcript.

In that case and in this case, the audio recording is the best evidence of the words that President Biden actually spoke.

Following the release of Special Counsel Hur's report, both the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas requiring Attorney General Garland to turn over the transcripts of the audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interviews with President Biden and his ghostwriter.

To date, the Attorney General has failed to produce those recordings. In fact, he told us last week he wasn't going to do it, and that is why we are here. Despite the committee's best efforts, the Department has continued to withhold the audio recordings of those interviews without providing any constitutional or legal basis to do so.

Just hours before the committee was set to meet and consider the contempt resolution, the Department notified the committee that President Biden had asserted, at the Attorney General's urging, executive privilege over the audio recordings.

It is simple. Attorney General Garland holds information vital to the committee's legislative oversight and the House impeachment's inquiry. Remember, this body voted December 13 of last year to enter that phase of our oversight duty and impeachment inquiry. The Department has a legal obligation to turn over the requested material. Attorney General Garland's willful refusal constitutes contempt of Congress.

This resolution upholds the institutional power of the House by recommending that the House find Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the committee's subpoena. Our oversight and impeachment responsibilities are too important to allow the Attorney General to willfully disregard this.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a good friend.

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

First of all, I never said I wouldn't testify in front of the January 6th Committee. I just wanted to know what the parameters of that testimony were going to be. I never did say ``no'' to that.

Second, the speaker before just said we don't know what we are looking for. We are looking for equal treatment under the law. Special Counsel Hur found that Joe Biden knowingly kept classified information and that Joe Biden knowingly disclosed classified information. He told us that on the very first page of his report, and then he told us later why he did so. He said he had strong motivation for ignoring classified procedures because he was writing a book for which he got paid $8 million.

Again, we have motive, and we have him knowingly disclosing classified information. He doesn't get charged, yet President Trump does. President Trump gets charged by Jack Smith, the guy who had to file with the court a notice saying that he actually altered the order of the documents he seized in the raid of the President's home. He had to tell the court that. The physical documents don't match up with the scanned documents.

You are not allowed to change the sequence of the documents you seize, but Jack Smith did. Jack Smith mishandled the documents he is accusing President Trump of mishandling. You can't make this stuff up.

That is what we are focused on. By the way, we are in the midst of an impeachment inquiry. We are entitled to the best evidence. That is why we want the audiotape.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues invite us today to become the first Congress in the history of the United States to hold someone in contempt for complying with our demands, and their target is the Attorney General of the United States.

Attorney General Garland gave us the special counsel's report on President Biden in full. He made the special counsel available to us in committee for hours of testimony, where he answered all our questions, and he provided the full transcript of the President's voluntary 5-hour interview with the special counsel, all 250 pages of it.

The whole world can read President Biden's interview and his answers unedited, but that is apparently not enough. Now they want to hold the Attorney General in contempt for not turning over the audiotape of the interview that we have the verbatim transcript of.

Why is that important? Well, in case America has lost the thread of this madcap wild goose chase, remember, this is an impeachment investigation. Do they think that the Holy Grail of the 118th Congress evidence of a Presidential high crime and misdemeanor is lurking in the pauses or the background throat clearings and sneezes on the audiotape? Well, of course not.

They know there is no high crime or misdemeanor to be found because they have spent the last 17 months and millions of our taxpayer dollars looking for it, and it simply does not exist. They literally don't even know what they are looking for anymore.

Why do they want it? Well, they are hoping that in the 5 hours of President Biden's testimony, they can find a mispronounced word or phrase or a brief stammer which they can then turn into an embarrassing political TV attack ad.

Get it, America? That is what this is all about. Holding the Attorney General of the United States in contempt is one more useful distraction from the complete and devastating implosion of the Biden impeachment probe which, of course, was the number one priority of these talented leaders.

Remember, they promised to reveal the greatest Presidential high crime and misdemeanor in American history, an act of treachery and deceit that dwarfs even the incitement of a violent mob insurrection and an attempted political coup that took place right here against our Constitution, our Congress, and our Vice President in this Chamber.

However, after their truly prodigious investigation, punctuated admittedly by some unfortunate mishaps like Chinese spies, fake evidence, pornographic displays in committee, and their own witnesses testifying that there were no grounds for Presidential impeachment,

they have nothing to show for their arduous work other than one more debunked Russian disinformation operation and one more indicted GOP informant and star witness.

Rather than admit defeat in this bumbling operation and look for some other way to actually aid the public good, they have decided to flail about in mock outrage against a series of phantom tyrants in the hopes of distracting everyone from this epic flop.

Their first distraction was to impeach Secretary Ale Mayorkas as a paltry consolation prize, but that pathetic decoy action blew up in their hands. Then, the plan was to skip the mundane work of casting votes and actually doing committee business to travel on a collective spiritual pilgrimage on Amtrak to New York City to attend the criminal trial of an unmentionable American felon, 1 of 19 million in the country.

That strange journey to mecca also blew up in their faces when this mystery political false prophet was convicted unanimously by a jury of his peers on dozens of felony criminal counts in a fair American trial.

They tried to salvage the credibility of this bizarre expedition by blaming the American justice system for being weaponized against Republicans, but this political extremism quickly melted away when the son of President Biden, the original target of their wrath, was also prosecuted and convicted, like another disarmed felon whose name may now not be spoken on the floor, apparently, by a unanimous jury of his peers on all counts against him.

That trial, unlike the trial whose very existence must be sent down the Orwellian memory hole to save someone's hurt feelings, was actually tried in the Federal system.

What is left to do now? Well, let's hold the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, in contempt, of course. This will be sure to placate an unrepentant and anonymous convicted felon from New York and distract everybody else for a day or two.

I confess it is a bit rich, Mr. Speaker, to be asked to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of Congress for overwhelmingly complying with the committee's demands by Members who voted against contempt citations for Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, two persons subpoenaed by the January 6th Select Committee who never spent a single minute with the January 6th Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bannon and Navarro never spent a minute with the January 6th Committee and never turned over a single document to our committee. These people had zero percent compliance with Congress. They demonstrated true contempt, which is why they have been sentenced to jail.

Chairman Comer, in his wisdom, would hold the Attorney General of the United States of America in contempt for what I think is 100 percent compliance, but in any event, it is something like 98 or 99 percent compliance.

If you think a Federal official has not rendered proper compliance, you take them to court. You don't hold them in contempt. It is rich beyond measure, like billionaire rich, to be asked to hold the Attorney General in contempt by people who themselves received subpoenas to testify before the January 6th Committee who never rendered a single document nor a single minute of testimony to the January 6th Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to reject this absurd motion.