Finding that Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, is in contempt of the House of Representatives for disobeying a certain subpoena.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentlewoman have any further speakers?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a stupid resolution. Republican leadership knows this is a stupid resolution. Their own Members know this is a stupid resolution, but they are beholden to the craziest MAGA members in their Conference.

So, this is what we get: stupid resolutions on the floor because they are too chicken to stand up to the extremism in their own party.

The Attorney General turned over the exact transcripts of the interviews that Republicans demanded, but that wasn't good enough because this isn't about a dispute over a recording. Let's be real. Republicans want to get these recordings because they think the RNC can use them in attack ads.

This is Republicans weaponizing the government to go after their political opponents, and it is sick.

The hypocrisy on the other side is stunning. It takes my breath away, Mr. Speaker. Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, Scott Perry all ignored congressional subpoenas. I can go right down the list: former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, former Attorney General William Barr, former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino all were ordered to testify, and what did they do? They ran and hid, following the lead, by the way, of their corrupter in chief, Donald Trump, who ignored his own congressional subpoena. It is like a national pastime for Republicans--golf, fishing, and ignoring subpoenas.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and lecture anyone about the rule of law. Get lost. Get lost. Get out of here with this nonsense.

Contrast what Republicans did with what Attorney General Garland is doing. Not only is he taking the subpoena seriously, he is doing his best to comply. He has legitimate concerns about releasing the tape after the transcript has already been made public. He is not ignoring it like they do on their side.

In fact, he made the entire underlying report public. He made the transcript public. He allowed the special counsel to testify in public for hours to explain his investigation. He sent a detailed letter, supported by the facts, the law, and the precedent, detailing why he would not release the audio recording because our side respects the rule of law while the other side uses it as a phony talking point.

By the way, not only is this resolution a BS political stunt, it is not even a good BS political stunt. This is a bad resolution that could do massive damage to this institution's standing. If they go down this road, Mr. Speaker, if this half-baked idea actually passes, this House will almost certainly lose, doing irreparable damage to our own constitutional authority.

So, I guess, you can pat yourselves on the back. Well done. Not only have you cooked up * * * a plan that will undermine any future legitimate attempts to use all our tools if it comes to a contempt proceeding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the offending words.

Mr. Speaker, I say for the Record that this is the second time there has been an attempt to silence me by the freedom- loving Republican Conference. So much for the First Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I get it. They are desperate to distract from their failures. Their own Members are saying that they have done nothing, and clearly they have deserted the American people in deference to Trump. I get it. They want to distract from Project 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to think of what I can say. I get it. They want to distract from Project 2025, distract from their own nationwide abortion bans, distract from their giveaways to big donors of special interests, and what do we get? We get unserious stuff like this on the floor.

I say to the American people: You might not agree with Democrats on everything. You might not think we are perfect, but we are focused on our job. We are focused on fighting inflation, focused on getting prices down, focused on bringing jobs back from overseas, on standing up for democracy, and on protecting the freedom of our constituents.

Contrast that with what Republicans are focused on: wasting more time on political stunts instead of working with us to get things done. It is as simple and as sad as that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid to say anything now. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will note for the record that the gentlewoman from Florida can say whatever she wants about President Biden and the DOJ, but I can't say what I think about this resolution. Maybe that is the way it works in the Kremlin, but we are in the United States Congress, and we are supposed to be able to say what we believe and be able to express ourselves freely. That is the First Amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of things that I have heard on the floor today that I find offensive, but I am not a snowflake, and I am not going to try to silence anybody.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle have not said one single word about Jim Jordan defying a congressional subpoena, but then, again, this debate is not on the level.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to formally ask that her words be taken down, but the hypocrisy here is astounding. I get silenced for characterizing a bill in a negative way, and they continue to insult the President of the United States and his family and everybody else.

This is outrageous. It has to stop. This is the House of Representatives. This is not some rightwing radio talk show. This is where we are supposed to have serious debate. This is just wrong.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, the Attorney General is not ignoring anything, like they do on their side. In fact, he made the entire underlying report public. He has released the entire transcript. He has done everything that was expected of him.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I need to point this out for the record: My Republican colleagues don't care when Republicans ignore subpoenas. That is okay, but they have a different standard for Democrats. Just like in debate, Republicans can say whatever they want: personal attacks against the President, personal attacks against the Attorney General, you know, awful things. That is fine. That is okay. They can say whatever they want. I characterize a bill in a way that they don't like, and they threaten to silence me, to take my words down.

This is not the Kremlin, my friends. This is the United States House of Representatives, and we still live in a democracy where people can express themselves. That has not changed, at least not yet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

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

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

In closing, I feel very sad for our country based on what is happening right now on the House floor. I don't believe this is a serious effort. I believe it is very political, quite frankly.

What this really is about is Republicans are upset that they can't get their hands on an audio recording so they can use it in an RNC attack ad. That is really what this is all about.

When Republicans get subpoenas, they run and hide.

The Attorney General, in my view, and I think in the view of most people, has complied, has done what he is supposed to do, what he is expected to do.

We are faced with so many challenges in this country. I mentioned in my opening statement that we need to focus in on how do we help the American people, how do we continue to move in the direction of lowering inflation, creating more jobs, creating more opportunities for young people, helping our veterans, and protecting our environment. All of those things are incredibly important, and this is what we are doing. This is what we are doing here today. It is really sad.

Quite frankly, it is chilling and it is scary when you think about what could happen if they get more power. Just read Project 2025. It tells you all you need to know about what the plan is.

I have got to say again, Mr. Speaker, and then I will close, that I am astounded at the latitude that has been afforded the Republicans during this debate to say whatever the hell they want to say, to disparage the President in any way they want.

When I disparaged their resolution, they threatened to take my words down and have me silenced if I didn't withdraw those words. I can't believe it. I have never seen anything quite like this happen.

The freedom-loving Republicans, the way they respond in debate is to try to silence comments by people that they disagree with. This is chilling. This is not what this institution is about. This is not what this country is about.

I would urge the Speaker to take note of this. We have to find a way forward here where it is not so one-sided, where they can say whatever they want to say, but I can't say anything, basically. I have to watch every single word I say on this floor. This is unprecedented.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, they have a set of rules for themselves, and they have a set of rules for us, people they disagree with. If this is the coming attractions, God help our country. We need to do better.

Again, I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this. I would like to be able to characterize it, but I am afraid my colleague will take offense and want to take my words down again.

This is not serious. This is beneath this institution, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

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

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

Today, Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8772, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2025.

Before I discuss the bill, Mr. Chair, let me start by taking a moment to thank our colleague, Jennifer Wexton, who represents Virginia's 10th District, for her unwavering dedication and service in this Congress. I am in awe of her courage and wish her and her family all the best. We will miss Ms. Wexton all over Congress here. She has been an exemplary Member of this House, and we trust that her legacy will be forever cemented in this House. We thank Ms. Wexton for all that she does, her courage, her resilience, her honesty, and her commitment to the American people.

I thank also my colleague, Chairman Valadao, and the subcommittee staff who work daily to ensure the legislative branch has the resources that it needs to support America and its people. Really, this work is so important to our Nation.

As the chairman indicated, the bill before us today includes $5.5 billion in

discretionary appropriations to fund the offices of the House of Representatives and joint legislative branch items. This is an increase of 3.5 percent from fiscal year 2024 enacted levels.

I agree with the chairman when he says this bill provides the resources for Congress to serve their constituents and conduct our oversight responsibilities.

The funding in this bill is reasonable and continues the operations for legislative branch agencies.

However, Mr. Chairman, the legislative branch bill should never be a place for divisive politics. The legislative branch bill should be used to ensure Congress has the tools, the necessary tools, it needs to legislate and support the constituents we serve in a fair, transparent, and equitable manner.

Instead, and unfortunately, this bill contains some very concerning messaging provisions that have absolutely no place within the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.

This bill contains provisions that eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and allows for discrimination towards the LGBTQI+ community.

The majority seems obsessed with cutting Federal funding and eliminating programs that help fight climate change and those that help grow and diversify our country.

For example, this bill removes a provision to eliminate or reduce plastic waste right here in this legislative branch of government. We should start by leading with our own example. To save the planet, we should start right here in our House. In addition, it eliminates a requirement for Members to lease low-emissions vehicles.

As we face a tremendous heat wave, I challenge anybody to walk back to Longworth or Rayburn three or four times today to see how much of a challenge it will be. Yet, we don't want to accept the provisions that were enacted before to have climate change impact provisions in the bill.

Plus, this bill does not include longstanding legislation allowing the legislative branch agencies to employ individuals with an employment authorization document under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, DACA.

This House and the many agencies that make up the entire legislative branch of government should make every effort to reflect and consider all the people in this great Nation we serve and the many districts our Members represent.

Mr. Chair, the legislative branch bill should represent a collaboration between our two parties. We come to this campus to work together. That is what the American people expect and deserve. Our place of business is to be a role model for a more equitable, inclusive, and positive working environment.

Instead, this bill includes hurtful and offensive provisions to many Americans, including our very own staff supporting this great institution and those we work alongside daily.

I don't agree with these divisive ideas, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, for that reason alone, I cannot support this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise again to oppose this bill. This bill contains many, many poison pills and partisan riders that are unnecessary--really unnecessary--and aim to do more harm than good.

In addition, I am disappointed the bill, as currently written, does not include bipartisan language that has been supported by both sides of the House for years to allow the legislative branch agencies to employ individuals under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program known as DACA. An overwhelming majority of Americans support the DACA program.

Let me remind you, Mr. Chair, that 75 percent of Americans favor permanent legal status to noncitizens who came to the United States as children. Moreover, 85 percent of DACA recipients already participate in the labor force. It is unconscionable that we will not allow them to work in the legislative branch.

Let me remind you that during the pandemic, more than 200,000 Dreamers stepped up to the front line and served as essentials workers to provide fellow Americans with important goods and services, including medical care, educational instruction, food, and more.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to the committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment would include language permitting the funds in the act to be used to employ individuals with employment authorization documents under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program known as DACA.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.

Mr. Espaillat moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8772 to the

Committee on Appropriations with the following amendment:

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the

following:

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

Mr. Chair, in closing, let me repeat: The legislative branch bill should not be the place for divisive politics. It should be used solely to ensure Congress has the tools that it needs to legislate and support the constituents we all serve. It should be used to ensure we have a successful democracy through effective and responsible governance.

The majority, again, is obsessed with cutting Federal funds and eliminating vital programs that help to grow and diversify our country.

Passing these partisan bills is a complete waste of time. I don't agree with these divisive ideas and partisan tactics. I believe we can do and should really do much better. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, this is the way government should work. I agree with the chairman, and I join the chair and rise in opposition to this amendment.

At a time when international conflicts are on the rise, it is vital for America to lead and spread democracy. In fact, for 25 years, the Congressional Office for International Leadership has sponsored political and civic leaders of participating countries to exchange democratic best practices and encourage mutual understanding.

In 2023, COIL brought 532 rising leaders from 24 countries to these United States, facilitated meetings with more than 100 congressional offices, and showcased 62 American communities in 37 States, Mr. Chairman.

Eliminating this program is another attempt to divide us further and prevent our country from doing what it does best, leading by example.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Isolation is not a political tool that should

be exploited at this time when we face international conflicts, and they are on the rise. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we are both on the same side on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. These policies should be debated in a different context on a different bill. However, I will debate this since the Congressman is addressing the issue.

Wearing a mask can help lower the risk of virus transmission and can save lives.

Here we go again. Since 2021, according to the CDC, we have lost over 1.2 million lives in these United States due to COVID-19. According to the World Health Organization, we lost over 7 million people across the globe. People are still contracting the disease. As of this past April, there were 22 million active cases.

Vaccines and masks are for the safety of self and others. COVID-19 and other viral illnesses significantly impact and strain our hospital and healthcare workers.

We have come a long way in protecting ourselves against COVID. We have more tools now to combat the deadly disease. However, creating a law that would limit our use of health mandates is shortsighted. Congress' health mandates are guided by the recommendations of our very own Attending Physician who coordinates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Under this amendment, agencies would be limited in which tools they could use to ensure the health of Members, staff, and visitors, our own constituents who come to the campus in the face of a pandemic.

This amendment undermines public health and our ability to ensure the safety of our Capitol complex for all of us.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people have a deep distrust in our ability to govern effectively. The executive branch's blatant disregard for Congress as an institution, shown most recently by the Department of Justice's failure to prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland, undermines the effectiveness of this body. It also begs the question: What is Attorney General Garland hiding?

On February 27, 2024, the Oversight and Judiciary Committees issued subpoenas to Attorney General Garland to provide a narrow and specific set of materials related to Special Counsel Robert Hur's investigation into President Joe Biden's willful mishandling of classified documents.

Instead of complying with the lawfully issued congressional subpoenas, Attorney General Garland refused to hand over unredacted audio recordings and materials.

This is why House Republicans voted to hold Garland in criminal contempt of Congress. However, on June 14, 2024, the Department of Justice informed us that they would not uphold the law and prosecute the Attorney General for contempt of Congress. While we all expected DOJ's response, the dangerous precedent it set cannot be overstated.

In order for the House of Representatives to do its job, we must have access to the information that will allow us to make informed decisions on behalf of our constituents.

With Attorney General Garland and the Department of Justice refusing to follow the law, we have been left with no choice but to rely on inherent contempt, our constitutional authority to hold an individual accountable for refusing to comply with congressional demands.

Inherent contempt is within our Article I authority. It was first used in 1795 and was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1821 in Anderson v. Dunn. Since then, it has been reaffirmed many times by the Court.

If we fail to hold Garland accountable, we will signal to whoever controls the White House that it is impervious to congressional oversight and that the constitutionally recognized power of the House of Representatives is merely a suggestion and not to be taken seriously.

If an American is presented with a lawful subpoena, he or she is expected

that they comply or face the consequences of their defiance. Why should the Attorney General of the United States be held to a different standard? No one is above the law.

We have reached a turning point where the urgency of this situation cannot be overlooked.

I want to remind my colleagues that House Republicans have already agreed that Merrick Garland must be held accountable for defying two lawfully issued subpoenas. Today's vote will hold Attorney General Garland in inherent contempt of Congress and fine him $10,000 per day until he complies with our subpoenas by turning over the audiotapes.

Over the past couple of days, I have heard false statements being made about this resolution, one of which was a claim that this violated the bill of attainder. This is simply untrue. In fact, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that inherent contempt is a bill of attainder in the 1927 case of McGrain v. Daugherty. This means that it is a constitutional right within our authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Another false statement is that the fine can be paid with appropriated money. However, this resolution clearly states that it is personal funds that will be used.

I would like to remind my colleagues that this Congress is not subordinate to the executive branch. It never has been, and it never will be. This resolution will protect the integrity and independence of the legislative branch.

To each one of my colleagues, your constituents and this institution are relying on you to be on the right side of law and order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, we have lots of speakers.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that audio recordings were used against both Trump and Nixon during impeachments. Also, I believe the precedent has already been set as there are Republicans in jail for ignoring subpoenas, and the Attorney General is not above the law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

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

This is not a decision that we have reached lightly, but the actions of the Attorney General cannot be ignored. No one is above the law, yet the Attorney General has sought to put himself above the law, and the DOJ failed to do their job, which is why we are using inherent contempt.

Despite what my colleagues may think, this is not a stupid idea but actually our constitutional duty and is well within the scope of our legislative authority to assert the House's power in this manner.

The arguments against the House standing up for itself are a last- ditch effort made by people who are intent on covering up for President Biden and Attorney General Garland.

The issue at hand is the enforcement of a congressional subpoena, a fundamental tool of oversight that is being undermined.

If this body is to continue, we cannot sit by any longer. The House of Representatives must not be ignored, and the time for action is now.

This resolution is more than Merrick Garland. It is about whether or not the House of Representatives will be able to function properly. As the court said in Anderson v. Dunn, without the power of inherent contempt, the House would be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.

We cannot allow this to happen, Mr. Speaker. If we do not assert our authority, we risk setting a dangerous precedent where the House's power is eroded and our ability to fulfill our congressional duties is compromised. The consequences of inaction are grave.

In conclusion, we must remain vigilant and assert our authority to ensure the balance of power in our Republic.

I urge all of you to support this resolution and defend the integrity of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to cover here from my friends on the other side of the aisle.

First, I address something that my colleague from Wisconsin said when he said that the Constitution lays out very clearly in Article I the powers of Congress. I would ask him or any of my colleagues on the other side if you could point me to where in the Constitution it confers subpoena power on Congress. You won't be able to because it is something established by the Supreme Court that is derivative from Congress' power to legislate.

The Supreme Court has set forth exactly what a congressional subpoena is authorized to do. In a recent case, which you may remember, the Trump v. Mazars case, Donald Trump sued his accountant to prevent them from providing documents to Congress pursuant to a subpoena. Congressional authority, that is what we are worried about here.

Well, the Supreme Court reiterated that there must be a legitimate legislative purpose in order for a congressional subpoena to be valid.

Mr. Speaker, I asked in our Oversight Committee when we debated this: What is the legitimate legislative purpose that any one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can identify to justify a contempt finding here where they have the substantive information of the recording included in the transcript and everything else requested in that subpoena was provided to them? Nonetheless, they are insisting on getting the audio of that transcript that they have.

Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly, in the Oversight Committee, which has no jurisdiction over this anyway, they offered nothing. I did hear in the Judiciary Committee my friend from North Carolina, who is here, refer in a subsequent hearing to demeanor evidence as a legitimate purpose for this subpoena.

Mr. Speaker, demeanor evidence sounds like sophisticated legal speak that is very esoteric and only for trial lawyers, but really it is completely irrelevant to Congress' legislative role because we don't try cases. There is no trial here. There is no demeanor evidence. As much as you may want to prosecute Joe Biden, there is no congressional prosecution of Joe Biden, and his demeanor evidence is no legitimate basis for this subpoena.

Mr. Speaker, you of course know, and I don't even think you would argue, that there is a legitimate legislative purpose to use the audio recordings in a political ad to support your dear leader, Mr. Trump, so that clearly falls outside of the range.

Of course, my friends on the other side of the aisle should refocus from demeanor evidence to basic concepts, like due process or executive privilege, because the President of the United States asserted executive privilege over this audiotape. You may not like it. You may not agree with it, but you have no authority to determine that that is not a correct assertion of the executive privilege.

Do you know who else doesn't have authority to determine that? The Attorney General, who you are trying to hold in contempt. Due process.

You are going to fine someone $10,000 without notice or an opportunity to be heard? You are going to say: We are going to fine you, and you have no opportunity to make a defense, and there is no neutral adjudicator?

You can go to court all you want, and that is where you went, and that is where you belong. That is why this resolution is so bogus. I have a warning for you, my friends: You will reap what you sow.

In June of 2019, then-President Donald Trump said he would defy all congressional subpoenas. That is exactly what he did. During the first impeachment investigation, every single executive branch agency defied a lawful subpoena from Congress.

The State Department was subpoenaed. The Defense Department was subpoenaed. Not a single document was received.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to whoever one day is the Republican Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense to be held in inherent contempt and fined $10,000.

There were more than a dozen witnesses who refused to comply with the subpoena, and I am not even talking about the five House Republicans who defied subpoenas in the last Congress that were determined by a court to be lawful and who would also be subject to inherent contempt because, of course, if this case where the audiotape is not provided, then blowing off a subpoena is definitely contempt.

You ought to be careful about the precedent you are setting because it is going to hurt you and your dear leader far more than us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I am sorry for this body that you have had to endure such hypocritical conduct in silencing you. Luckily, I am not silenced, and I am happy to respond to some of the bogus and egregious allegations from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

First, my friend from Georgia expounded upon the weaponization of the Department of Justice by President Biden. It was interesting to me that she mentioned that the Department of Justice is apparently, under Joe Biden's direction, persecuting Catholics. Joe Biden is Catholic, so that is an interesting weaponization of the Department of Justice.

You would think that if someone were going to weaponize the Department of Justice for political purposes that he would intervene or interfere in a prosecution of his own son, but, no, he didn't do that. In fact, the only people who intervened and interfered in that investigation were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who inappropriately and improperly intervened in an ongoing Federal criminal case by urging a judge to reject the plea agreement in the Hunter Biden case.

Now, they say we are here because congressional power must be protected. Apparently, congressional power is meaningless if it is used against their buddies, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, who completely blew off a congressional subpoena and had no basis, no rationale, no defense for not showing up. They are in jail not because of inherent contempt. They are in jail because they were convicted of a crime, because they blew it off.

Now, you can say what you want about the January 6th Committee. You can say it was unlawful. Federal judges determined it to be lawful.

If your excuse as to why you did not comply is that you did not receive service of the subpoena, it is laughable.

Finally, I would like just to point out that the basis they have mentioned about why they need this recording, one of my colleagues said, was to determine whether President Biden was able to answer questions before him and why the special counsel did not pursue charges. It is not a legitimate legislative purpose for Congress to second-guess Federal prosecutorial discretion. You may want it, but you have no legitimate reason for it.

If your argument is that executive privilege is waived, maybe it is, but you don't get to decide that. A court decides it.

Mr. Speaker, this is a political stunt solely designed to placate and support Donald Trump, their nominee for President. They are making sure that they do everything possible to provide him with fodder for his campaign because there is no basis for any contempt, much less inherent contempt, and it is shameful that you have stood here trying to call

upon congressional power and separation of powers when you refuse to do so for any Republican, including your own colleagues who defy subpoenas right, left, and center. Be careful because what goes around comes around.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 8772, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer H.R. 8772. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 2025.

The recommendation for the fiscal year 2025 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act provides $5.546 billion, excluding Senate items, which are traditionally left to the Senate to determine. The bill supports the legislative branch as an essential branch of government and ensures the House is open to and works for the American people.

Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, we can agree that our greatest duty is to our constituents and that this bill funds our ability to advocate on their behalf. It invests in the resources necessary to provide robust oversight of the executive branch. It also includes modest increases to ensure the safety of the Capitol complex and the work of the Capitol Police as well as the institutions that support our work such as the Library of Congress and the Government Accountability Office.

I believe the bill balances the legislative branch's capacity to effectively serve the American people in a fiscally responsible manner.

I thank Chairman Cole for his leadership and guidance throughout this process, and I also thank Ranking Member Espaillat for his cooperation and support throughout the formation of the bill. Finally, I thank the legislative branch staff for their hard work in getting the bill to this point.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

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

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, I and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I oppose my friend's amendment because I do not believe all the good the Congressional Office for International Leadership has done for Congress over the last 25 years should be negated by one embassy programming selection.

The Congressional Office for International Leadership links Members of Congress to leaders in Eurasia and Asia and is an instrument for Americans engaged in citizen diplomacy.

COIL's place as the only regularized international exchange program in the legislative branch provides opportunities for Members of Congress and their constituents to engage with their peers from countries of strategic importance to the United States.

COIL convenes congressional leadership and its constituents to provide foreign visitors with a multilevel State, Federal, and local introduction to American democratic governing systems and accountable governance.

This is the next generation of government and civic leaders where they begin, in the Halls of the most powerful legislative body in the world, the United States Congress.

The exchange establishes a personal and profound connection between leaders from around the world, providing unique and meaningful insights and experiences while fostering a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.

Thousands of Americans across the country benefit from hosting COIL participants in their homes and communities. The agency provides an important service for a very modest amount of money.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment as written.

The amendment would prohibit the use of all Architect of the Capitol electric vehicles and equipment, which are used for facility and ground maintenance activities.

For example, the Capitol Visitor Center's electric shuttles provide transportation to those needing mobility assistance while they are visiting the Capitol. Over the past year, Visitor Services provided over 33,000 shuttle rides for the elderly and disabled constituents and visitors to the campus.

These electric vehicles, currently in good working condition, would need to be replaced which would require a significant initial outlay of funds and would cause exposure to engine exhaust and noise for the equipment that would then have to be used indoor and in the buildings that we work in.

In addition to AOC operations, this would also adversely affect Members and House staff who pay to use the power from receptacles in the House garages.

Due to these adverse impacts, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I think it is important to remind folks at home watching that these are all-electric vehicles in the building. So for the 33,000 people who required shuttle assistance to get around the Capitol, elderly and disabled people who needed assistance to visit their building that their tax dollars are paying for, there are a lot of services.

As the amendment is written currently, I have to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. Many of my colleagues are highly frustrated by the way the attending physician managed the COVID pandemic here in Washington. I am one of them.

I understand, but I do not agree that decreasing the funds of the Office of the Attending Physician will reduce the actual attending physician's salary.

To do that, how the United States Navy pay structure works needs to be changed. We are paying a nonnegotiable reimbursement to the Navy, and that is the way this process works. This will not affect the attending physician's salary.

I make clear that what this amendment will do is dramatically reduce the medical services provided to the people who work, visit, and protect this campus. For this reason, I cannot support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, in the event that this amendment was to pass, emergency services that run throughout the Capitol complex would continue, as would the security initiatives. Members would not see a change in their service, as Members are the first priority of the Office of the Attending Physician.

However, the Office of the Attending Physician would decrease services to staff, security forces, and visitors to the campus. Medicines and immunizations for official travel would be limited only to Members. The staff required to travel on official business would have to find other means of preparation on their own time and with personal funds.

The same would be true for seasonal influenza shots. It would be limited to Members and not to staff or security forces. In addition, over-the-counter medications and lower-cost durable medical equipment for health units would not be replaced.

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