Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of John Anthony DeMarco, a man of uncommon character and strength. John was the father of my legislative assistant, John DeMarco, and his passing is an immense loss, not only to those who loved him, but those who were fortunate enough to know him.

He was a proud cement mason through his working life and a cherished member of his union, where he was known for his expertise, his work ethic, and his unwavering dedication to his trade.

To John, hard work was simply a fact of life, and he embraced it wholeheartedly. He never missed a day on the job, and much of his consistency can be attributed to his refusal to leave a project unfinished. It can also be accredited equally to his deep devotion to his crew.

John was fiercely loyal. He never expected recognition for being a good friend. He simply always showed up when he was needed. In a world where people seek constant acknowledgment and praise, those in John's life could rest assured that he would have their back and never ask for anything in return.

Above all, John was devoted to his family. He was a pillar of strength and an example of a protector that most men can only hope to emulate. There was nothing that John wouldn't do for his wife and children, and his constant presence in their lives reflected that very clearly. Every evening, no matter what time of day it was, John could be found at the dinner table listening intently and sharing his hard- earned wisdom. That kind of unwavering presence is perhaps the greatest gift that a father and a husband can give.

I am privileged to honor the life of John DeMarco. May his example continue to inspire all who carry his memory forward.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise to support this amendment. As you know, I never thought I would have to be debating liability protections for pesticide companies, yet here I am today.

I would like to share some statistics with you. A major study found that pesticide mixtures increased childhood leukemia by 23 percent, brain cancer by 36 percent, and overall childhood cancer by 30 percent.

We find that a majority of Americans, specifically that do rely on SNAP and EBT, are being fed massively processed foods that are increasing their cancer risk, not to mention, as a whole, I think this is something that we should all get behind. We do not want to ever provide or be on the side of cancer-causing anything.

Research shows that maternal exposures to pesticides at home and work are linked to a higher risk of leukemia in children. These chemicals are known to cross the placenta and impact fetal development.

In addition to that, a review of over 174 studies, from 2013 to 2023, found constant and consistent links between pesticide exposures and leukemia, brain cancers, and rare childhood cancers.

Off the record, I had a conversation in the Cloakroom with a young Member of Congress who was just elected in Georgia who said he suffered from thyroid cancer, and he thought it was due to an environmental factor.

The point is that this should not be partisan. It is about the American people and protecting them.

Now, I understand that this place can get pretty heated sometimes, but I was also called a damn liar for defending my position, which is far from the truth. The fact is that I am not getting paid special interest money. I am trying to fight for my district and, I think, for the well-being of a majority of Americans. The fact is that there is far too much special interest money going into policies like these. While people claim that they are not in opposition, if you pull FEC reporting, of which we have screenshots of all of that, it says quite otherwise.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify that section 10205 blocks States and local governments from requiring any warnings beyond what the EPA provides. As far as I am concerned, if someone is trying to give something to my kid that causes cancer, I would hope to heck that Congress would block that.

Mr. Chairman, I will end by saying that I take zero money from pesticide liability and manufacturers, and my colleague takes $124,000 from them. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are spending a lot of time lecturing the American people on how this is going to require them to show their papers. Last time I checked, during COVID they demanded that if you simply wanted to go to a funeral, be with your loved one while they are dying, or get married, then you have to show your papers. In fact, in New York

City, Mr. Speaker, they were literally asking you for your COVID passport.

Yet the SAVE America Act, a commonsense piece of legislation that requires two things, voter ID, plus proof of citizenship, is being labeled by people in the Senate and people in this very Chamber as Jim Crow-era laws.

Let me remind the American people of history. It was the Democratic Party who championed the Jim Crow-era laws. And this is the farthest thing from it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you are doing that, then you are insulting over 70 percent of your voters, Democrats, who believe that voter ID is the best way to secure an election.

Then we have the argument that we have from BlueAnons saying that Trump is trying to steal the election, and orange man bad, and this is somehow going to fix the midterms. However, the fact is that if we are going to play that game, then you would want voter ID and you would want to secure the elections.

So please support this legislation.

I do not believe that Barack Obama in showing his voter ID was engaging in Jim Crow-era law or pushing that type of perspective. And for the same people who are advocating saying that Kristi Noem and ICE will demand your personal information and you will be under surveillance, might I remind them that they actually all authorized the reauthorization of FISA, unreformed, that violated our constitutional rights.

This is pretty simple. If you are not an American, Mr. Speaker, then you do not get to vote in our elections. This not a free-for-all country. A majority of Americans support this. A majority of the world has voter ID in place. It is not racist.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues and the House Administration Committee for doing this. I support all of my colleagues, and I urge them to vote for this piece of legislation.

The National Endowment for Democracy needs to change its name to the National Endowment for Censorship.

I hear if we defund programs in Pakistan, Congo, and the Ukraine, all of which--Pakistan has election fraud, Congo has 40,000 child slaves in cobalt mines, and Ukraine is jailing Christians--then we are simply despots and part of the problem, but I disagree. In fact, we have proof that NED actually was a part of deplatforming President Trump, which I don't think the President would take kindly to Republicans supporting its efforts, not to mention their head makes close to $500,000 a year.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to not vote for this. It is a farce, it is nonsense, and our tax dollars should not be going toward it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Speaker of the House of Representatives can explain why leadership on both sides, both Democrat and Republican, are cutting back-end deals to cover up public corruption in the House of Representatives for both Republican and Democrat Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, but I think the American people know what happened tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone for being here today.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that I am very excited to vote for this bill for a few reasons. Starting in November, I was campaigning with our very popular President, who won not just the national popular vote but also the electoral college and who campaigned on ending taxes on tips, taxes on overtime pay, everything that would help the American people who have felt far too long left by Washington, D.C.

We are finally able to deliver. What are we delivering on? It doesn't just stop there. It is ending taxes on car loan interest, which so many people struggle with. It is going to bring additional tax relief for seniors. It makes sure that we restore border security.

By the way, I remind the American people that it was our colleagues who were responsible for giving many of these program benefits to people who never paid into the program, to people who were here illegally, hurting our very own people.

We talk about defending seniors. We talk about defending the most needy. Yet, these programs were literally at risk of insolvency had we not done this.

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that I am very proudly supporting this bill that also includes an increase in the child tax credit and an increase in individual tax deductions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to join us in this. Please support the very big, beautiful bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, I rise to provide notice of my intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 164.

I did, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. As many of you might know, for over 2 years now I have been championing the cause to allow new female Members of Congress the right to vote. Some of the American people might be surprised that if you are a female Member and you have a child, that you can't vote. This means you can't execute your constitutional authority.

For almost 2 years now in this cause I have met with leadership. I have exhausted all tools in my legislative toolkit to be able to bring this to the floor. As I was met with much opposition, I finally used the last tool that I had at my disposal which was something known as a discharge petition where I collected 218 signatures and expanded the ability to vote while recovering from childbirth not just to mothers but also to young fathers in our governing body.

Now leadership, because of the fact they don't like the fact that I was successful at this, is trying to change the rules, but I want to talk about how fundamentally dangerous this rule change is.

As of right now, they slipped language into this rule, and I will get to what they attached the rule to in a second, that would permanently kill any ability for new Members of Congress to be able to bring this up and allow those Members who just had a child to be able to vote. That is dangerous because of the fact that, A, not only if I argue this from the Republican standpoint that we have a very slim majority, but also to think about the message that that sends, allowing female Members to be able to vote.

In addition to that, I would also like to add that for a while we have had the majority and we have had the ability to bring legislation to the floor on election integrity and also to call out rogue judges, and yet they chose at this point in time to tie this discharge petition killer to this rule that would also permanently paint me and the Members supporting it, and I would like to also share that I am one of the most conservative Members of this body, I would like to hold up my voting record to anyone else as not just being anti-election integrity but also enabling a position that I don't typically agree with.

That in itself, I would say, in this entire process has been the most disappointing especially from among my party. I would also ask my colleagues to remember that up until 1916, female representation was not a common thing in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to give this a fair shot. Vote ``no'' against the rule and allow this to come to the floor so that we can address it for the first time, I would say, in congressional history and do the right thing. If we don't do the right thing now, it will never be done.

Mr. Speaker, I have never actually voted for a CR, but I am here today because I realize that the plan that is on the table currently to keep our government open, but also the promise from the only President in my lifetime who has ever followed through on all of his campaign promises to the American people--excuse me, I am not done talking. Give me the same respect we give you guys.

Mr. Speaker, the only President in my lifetime who has fulfilled all of his campaign promises to the American people has promised to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in reconciliation.

You want to talk about shutting down the government. The deal that was negotiated was largely rejected by the American people. To his credit, Speaker Johnson pulled it from the floor. That is why we are here today.

The deal on the table will keep the government open for the American people. If you guys so choose to shut it down, it will be on you, but not the Republican Party.

We will not be going back to the table. This deal stands as it is. So you can go back home on Christmas and explain to your people why you shut the government down because we won't be doing it.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the former bill had items in it including random pandemic policies, and biocontaminant research that were not in the best interest of the American people, so the deal on the table is as-is. You either vote for it or you vote for the shutdown, but it will be not on the Republican Party. It will be on Democrats as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, today, as we talk about the Seminole, Florida, post office, I would like to take a moment to honor Staff Sergeant Knauss' life and service to our country.

On August 26, 2021, Staff Sergeant Knauss volunteered to serve during the humanitarian evacuation mission in Kabul, Afghanistan, at the Hamid Karzai International Airport Abbey Gate. While performing his duties, a bomb was detonated at the Abbey Gate, killing Staff Sergeant Knauss, 12 other servicemembers, and many civilians.

Staff Sergeant Knauss bravely served our country, earning many awards and decorations, including the Congressional Gold Medal, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart.

Staff Sergeant Knauss has continued to have a lasting impact in communities across the country. In his hometown of Corryton, Tennessee, an annual merit scholarship at a local high school has been established in Staff Sergeant Knauss' name. The merit scholarship helps to support a JROTC candidate showing the same leadership and willingness to enter the military after high school as Staff Sergeant Knauss did. His family plans to duplicate the scholarship in communities across the country.

Specific to Florida, Staff Sergeant Knauss' lasting impact can be seen through community celebrations and honor rides recognizing the military heroes of today, yesterday, and tomorrow. His family also plans to organize an annual Seminole Park Veteran 5K run with a motorcycle and jeep ride through Seminole each Veterans Day. They are also working to raise awareness within the community of how to get involved in sending active military care packages overseas and are seeking to provide services for homeless veterans reluctant to go to VA facilities. They are also looking to partner with local Florida charter boats and captains to provide veterans with an opportunity to fish and build connections with one another to help lower suicide rates in the Tampa Bay area and across the State of Florida.

Renaming the Seminole Post Office after Staff Sergeant Ryan Christian Knauss would serve as a reminder of his life, service, and the impact he continues to have on local students and veterans each day.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge my constituent and Staff Sergeant Ryan Christian Knauss' mother, Paula, who is here with us today. Thank you, Paula, for supporting all of this and for the sacrifice that your family has made.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this renaming bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Lowell `Brent' Sibley of Oneonta, Alabama, and include in the Record his obituary.

Lowell `Brent' Sibley, 70, of Oneonta, Alabama, passed away

on Tuesday, August 6, 2024. He was in the midst of completing

a multi-year project developing a retreat in South Alabama to

accomplish his son, Forrest's, vision for his Air Force

Combat Control brothers. Thanks go out to all ``his guys''

who have stood in as sons and brothers since 2015.

As a proud Son of the South, Brent was born in Baton Rouge,

LA, grew up in Gulf Breeze, FL and made his home in Oneonta,

AL. He graduated from UWF with a BS in Marketing, where

shortly after, he opened his first business with Chick-Fil-A

and made a home for his family. He was an outstanding and

dedicated father and worked tirelessly to ensure he gave his

children a life full of love and life lessons. He has had a

lifelong passion for music and has shared his talent with

friends from Shreveport to Pensacola to Gadsden and beyond.

His accomplished guitar talent reflected his fierce

admiration for the true soul sound of the Blues. An original

``Breezer,'' he leaves behind a legacy of close friendships

and of bandmates including the Skydogs who honor the Allman

Brothers. His annual Jam for Duane brought together

nationwide musical talent and fans for many years. Brent was

an avid hunter and woodsman and loved sharing his plethora of

knowledge with his children and his brothers within the

Special Tactics Community. For those who knew him, Roll Tide.

He was also a long-time official of baseball and basketball

games. He retired from Realty South in Oneonta, AL.

He is preceded in death by his parents, Raiford and Betty

Sibley, and his son, SSgt Forrest Brent Sibley, 21st Special

Tactics Squadron.

Brent leaves to cherish his memory his daughter, Jordan

Sibley; granddaughter, Sophia, of Pensacola; his fiancee,

Mona Maddox; brothers, Bryan Sibley (Sarah) and Dale Sibley;

along with nieces, nephews, cousins and extended family.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, the Army Corps has halted beach renourishment projects in Florida due to their perpetual public access easement policy.

This is now affecting more than nine counties in Florida where the Corps has refused to renourish our beaches without stripping property rights from every homeowner, which is an unattainable requirement.

The Corps has renourished Florida beaches for the past two decades, using temporary construction easements to proceed with beach renourishment. The Corps is now going back to enforcing this new policy, purportedly from 1996 but not enforced for the past two decades.

They refuse to address the threat of shore erosion while we continue to watch our beaches disappear before our eyes. We have endangered species on that beach area, as well.

Numerous members of the Florida delegation have reached out to Assistant Secretary Connor at the Corps to resolve this issue. The unelected bureaucrats at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have a different agenda. They have been stonewalling us every step of the way and have neither followed up nor even gone through proceeding with scheduled beach renourishment projects where we are in dire need due to damages from recent hurricanes.

If the Army Corps does not do this, our beaches will continue to dissipate and our homes will be susceptible to destruction. The truth is that the Army Corps did not acquire perpetual easements before, and they do not need them now. The responsibility for the inevitable degradation of Florida's beaches, marine life, and economy will rest entirely on the Army Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Chair, I had another amendment that I had submitted in regard to this that would have required the Army Corps to provide the Committees on Appropriations in the House and Senate a report on the authorized hurricane and storm damage risk reduction projects impacted by hurricanes and other natural disasters over the last several years. Unfortunately, this was not made in order.

I do not know who the Army Corps is working for, but it is clear that they do not work for the American people. The amendment puts the Army Corps on notice for their shameful neglect of Floridians and forces them to work on restoring our beaches.

Again, we have some of the most endangered sea turtles that are nesting in our area. As a result of this habitat destruction, I am concerned that it is actually going to permanently impact our sea turtle population for the entire world.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to put out there that we have been working on this for a number of years, not to mention my predecessors, both Democratic and Republican, have also attempted to work on this only to really be stonewalled by the Army Corps. To have them not even respond to Members of Congress isn't going to fix the issue any time soon.

Mr. Chair, I point out that while we are legislating here in Washington, people are actually losing their homes. To demand that a property owner give up their own property rights so that the Army Corps can go and restore habitat for endangered species and then point to a policy that they haven't enforced--not to mention when we have asked for actual documentation of internal communications, they sent us redacted information because they didn't want us to know about the internal communications that they were having.

I do think that it is political. I had a bipartisan delegation come up from my home. Mayors and local community leaders met with the Biden White House. They said this needs to be fixed, and we will help you. Do you know what? Nothing happened.

I hope that people consider supporting this. I am also concerned about taxpayer dollars, but I see our taxpayer dollars going to support basket-weaving projects in parts of the world that we don't even have an invested interest in. Frankly, when it comes down to it, I think this is a way better use. Not to mention, we also have a military purpose and focus in the State of Florida, and I think this benefits everyone net positive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor General Daniel R. Hokanson, the 29th Chief of the National Guard Bureau.

General Hokanson was born on June 27th, 1963, in Happy Camp, California, where he graduated from Happy Camp High School and attended the College of the Siskiyous before being accepted to the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York.

General Hokanson graduated from West Point with a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering and was commissioned as an officer in the United States Army on May 28, 1986. Upon his graduation, General Hokanson spent several years in the United States Army where he served as an aviator with the 7th Infantry Division at Fort Ord, California, including a deployment to Panama for Operation Just Cause from 1989 to 1990. In 1990, he attended the Aviation Officer Advanced Course and AH- 64 Combat Aircraft Qualification Course where he became qualified as an Apache pilot. He subsequently served with the 1st Battalion, 229th Aviation Regiment, including command of Company B at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

In 1995, General Hokanson left the United States Army and joined the Oregon Army National Guard where he initially served as the Aide-de- Camp for the Adjutant General, Oregon National Guard. Following this assignment, he served in the Oregon Army National Guard in numerous roles to include Deputy Director of Army Aviation, Commander of the 641st Medical Battalion, and Commander of the 41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team.

General Hokanson decided to leave the great northwest in 2010 and pursue a career at the national level by accepting a promotion to brigadier general and assuming the position of Deputy Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United States Northern Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. In 2012, General Hokanson was given the opportunity to move further east and serve as the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy at the National Guard Bureau in Washington, DC, where he was subsequently promoted to Major General.

After spending a few years away and gaining national-level experience, General Hokanson decided to move back home to Oregon in 2013 when he was selected to serve as the Adjutant General of the Oregon National Guard. Without a doubt, this assignment accelerated his leadership trajectory and set him up for future assignments in the National Guard, including the Deputy Commander of the United States Northern Command, the 11th Vice Chief of the National Guard, the 21st Director of the Army National Guard, and eventually his current position as the 29th Chief of the National Guard, where he has served since August 2020.

As Chief, General Hokanson led the National Guard through the COVID- 19 pandemic, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, multiple major disasters, the overseas deployment of tens of thousands of National Guard Soldiers and Airmen, and the addition of 23 State Partnership Program nations. A tireless advocate for National Guard Soldiers, Airmen, and their families, General Hokanson and ``Team 29'' focused on ensuring the National Guard was fully integrated into the Joint Force. He championed the re-establishment of the Army National Guard's eight divisions and elevation of the Vice Chief of the National Guard to a four-star general. General Hokanson is married to his wife Kelly and all three of their children served in the military, following proudly in the footsteps of their father.

Please join me in appreciation for General Hokanson who has selflessly supported and defended our freedoms both at home and abroad, while ensuring our National Guard Soldiers and Airmen have remained, ``Always Ready, Always There.'' Thank you, General Hokanson. May God Bless you, your family, and the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 1344, finding that Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, is in contempt of the House of Representatives for disobeying a certain subpoena.

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

Whereas, on February 27, 2024, Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, was duly served with a subpoena to produce a narrow and specific set of materials possessed by the Department of Justice and related to Special Counsel Robert K. Hur's investigation of President Joe Biden's ``willful'' mishandling of classified documents to the Committee of the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.;

Whereas, Attorney General Garland has, in disobedience of such subpoena, failed to produce the set of materials; and

Whereas, a set of materials possessed by the Department of Justice is material and necessary in order that the House of Representatives may properly execute the functions imposed on it and may obtain information necessary

as a basis for such legislative and other action as the House of Representatives may deem necessary and proper: Now, therefore be it

Resolved, That-- (1) Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, is found in contempt of the House of Representatives for disobeying the February 27, 2024, subpoena; and

(2) the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall impose a fine, which may not be paid with appropriated funds, on Attorney General Garland of $10,000 per day, until such a time as Attorney General Garland complies with the subpoena of the House of Representatives by turning over the audio tapes.

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, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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.