Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from California, Chairwoman Lofgren, for her work on this bill. The chairwoman and I certainly have our disagreements on issues, but there is no one I respect more in this body for their diligence, for their commitment, for their expertise, for their commitment to our Constitution, to her constituents, and to this country. It has been a real pleasure working with her, as well as the staff of the House Administration Committee. I particularly thank my counsel on the January 6th Select Committee, Joe Maher, for his tremendous work on this bill.

This bill has benefited from a wide range of input from constitutional experts, including many conservative constitutional experts, jurists, and scholars who worked with us on this bill. Their input has been invaluable.

I also want to praise those in the Senate who have been working hard on their version of Electoral Count Act reform. Our bill builds on what they have already put forth.

Commentary from conservatives on our bill has been exceptionally positive. Here are a few examples.

Judge Luttig, a widely respected conservative legal expert, wrote that our bill was ``masterfully drafted'' to ensure we never have another day anything like January 6 and to avert other future efforts to overturn our Nation's democratic elections.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board offered a range of positive comments, including explaining that the House bill would make it harder for ``partisans in Congress who want to get C-Span-famous to lodge phony electoral college objections'' or for them to raise objections on the House floor because ``somebody had a funny feeling about the vote totals in west southeastern Pennsylvania.''

The conservative Cato Institute said this: ``In some respects,'' this bill is ``more conservative and originalist'' than the existing Senate bill.

Conservative commentator Quin Hillyer said in the Washington Examiner that the House bill adds to the work already done by the Senate and ``fills in almost all gaps with admirable and sensible specificity.''

There are many other examples from conservative commentators, as well. Madam Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to read those articles and editorials in full.

If your aim is to prevent future efforts to steal elections, I would respectfully suggest that conservatives should support this bill. If instead your aim is to leave open the door for elections to be stolen in the future, you might decide not to support this or any other bill to address the Electoral Count Act.

January 6, contrary to what my colleague from Illinois just said, was not ``democracy in action.'' Our oath of office is to support and defend the Constitution, which provides the method by which we elect our President. Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump's refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was.

In our system of government, elections in the States determine who is the President. Our bill does not change that. This bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the President itself.

As we detailed in our January 6 hearings, a Federal judge has reviewed evidence submitted by the January 6th Select Committee and concluded that former President Trump likely violated two criminal statutes when he pressured Vice President Pence to reject legitimate State electoral votes in our joint session. That is what Vice President Pence called ``un-American.''

In our hearings, we have demonstrated that President Trump knew specifically that what he was doing was illegal, but he did it anyway. President Trump's conduct was illegal under the existing Electoral Count Act, and it would be illegal under this new bill, as well.

Our bill reaffirms what the Constitution and existing law make plain: The

Vice President has no authority or discretion to reject official State electoral slates. It also makes clear that if Members of Congress have any right to object to electoral slates, those grounds are limited to the explicit constitutional requirements for candidate and elector eligibility and the 12th Amendment's explicit requirements for elector balloting.

Under our system of elections, Governors must transmit lawful election results to Congress. If they fail to fulfill that duty, our bill provides that candidates for the Presidency should be able to sue in Federal court to ensure that Congress receives a State's lawful certification.

Finally, our bill makes clear that the rules governing an election cannot be changed retroactively. The Constitution assigns an important duty to State legislatures to determine the manner in which the States appoint their electors. This must not be read to allow State legislators to change the rules retroactively to alter the outcome.

Madam Speaker, this bill will preserve the rule of law for all future Presidential elections by ensuring that self-interested politicians cannot steal from the people the guarantee that our government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I am struck listening to my colleagues today on both sides of the aisle. The concept that I think we have to make sure we never lose sight of is that some things have to matter, and we, as individuals, determine whether or not our institutions survive.

We have heard consistently since January 6--actually, in the weeks just after January 6, we were in agreement. But shortly after that, we began to

hear excuses about what had happened. We began to hear people defending the indefensible.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize that when you defend the indefensible, slowly but surely, you chip away at the great foundations of this Republic. You chip away at those very things that we are sworn to protect.

This bill is an excellent bill. This bill is a bill that will help to protect the rule of law. This bill is a bill that will help to ensure that future elections cannot be stolen. This bill will ensure that, in the future, the United States Congress is very clear that we have a very limited number of objections that can be made, if any can be made at all, and those are strictly limited to those outlined in the Constitution.

This bill is a very important and crucial bill to ensure that what happened on January 6 never happens again.

It saddens me, Madam Speaker, that my colleagues on this side of the aisle continue to play politics. I can tell you that is not what we are doing on the January 6th Committee. My colleagues ought to watch the hearings on the January 6th Committee. We have been very clear in terms of putting forward what happened and in terms of putting forth former- President Trump's responsibility and role in every aspect of the attack that happened that day.

Contrary, again, to the assertions my friend and colleague from Illinois made previously, what happened on January 6 was not the normal functioning of our democracy. President Trump had every right to bring those cases in court, but he did not have the right, and it was a fundamental violation of his oath of office, to refuse to abide by the rulings of the court.

Madam Speaker, we are a Nation of laws, not of men. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. It is a very good bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Cameron (Cam) Sholly and his staff for the outstanding leadership they demonstrated in the face of a crisis situation, and to recognize their tireless efforts to address the needs of Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding communities after the devastating flooding that took place there on June 13, 2022.

Cam and his staff went above and beyond in service to the communities surrounding the park, even those not directly affected by the flooding. During the weeks following the flood, they held public virtual meetings with community stakeholders, oftentimes daily, to ensure the health, safety, and requirements of the people and businesses were being met. These meetings served as an opportunity to collaborate on effective ways to reopen and provide admittance to the park. Cam and his team also worked closely with the Wyoming Congressional Delegation and with state officials to ensure transparency throughout the cleanup and reopening processes. They all continue to check in with businesses and chambers of commerce in the communities several times a week to ensure that any outstanding issues are being addressed.

Cam is a third-generation park service manager and began his National Park Service Career in 1990. He assumed duties as the Superintendent of Yellowstone National Park in October of 2018. Yellowstone is one of the largest national park operations in the world spanning 2.2 million acres and receiving over 4 million visits each year. The park has a team of over 1,000 employees and volunteers. Cam was awarded the Superintendent of the Year Award for the Southeast Region in 2011 and the Department of Interior's Meritorious Achievement Award in 2015 for his wide-ranging executive leadership actions. Cam is also a veteran of the U.S. Army and deployed to Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

I express my most sincere thanks and admiration to Cam and his staff for their responsiveness and dedication to Wyoming and the communities surrounding Yellowstone National Park. Their exemplary service should serve as the gold standard for all governmental agencies.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I appreciate it.

I am very pleased, Madam Speaker, that today the House will have the opportunity to vote on this important bipartisan legislation. It is an unusual circumstance to have a bill that has such broad bipartisan support.

I know many of my colleagues have worked on many different aspects of the bill that we are going to consider and vote on today. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this bill, along with my good friend from Michigan, Congresswoman Dingell, who spoke earlier.

All of us, I think, around the country, especially in rural America, saw the impact of COVID on the ability of our constituents to get the treatment that they need. We first began working on legislation to expand telehealth capabilities more than 2 years ago, following the onset of the pandemic.

In Wyoming, we have long known how important it is for citizens to be able to take advantage of the technology that exists today, how crucial telehealth services are in allowing all of our citizens to interact with their doctors and their other healthcare providers, and we saw this, in particular, during the pandemic.

We know it is vital that Medicare adapt to the ever-changing innovation in medical technology that allows telehealth services, and this legislation really will expand freedom for patients by giving them more flexibility and more capability to use telehealth services.

Specifically, the legislation removes geographic requirements, and it expands originating sites so that Medicare beneficiaries can receive care at any site. It can expand the practitioners who are able to furnish telehealth services, and it also provides for audio-only telehealth.

I am very pleased that this extension through 2024 was fully paid for using the Medicare Improvement Fund, and the CBO has shown that it will not increase direct spending.

Madam Speaker, in Wyoming, especially, we know how important this is, how important telehealth access is. Many of our citizens live hours away, hundreds of miles away, from their closest medical provider. I am very proud that this bill has the support of the Wyoming Hospital Association, in addition to the American Medical Association and a number of other crucial groups whose mission is to serve patients and provide quality care.

While I know we in this body will continue to have legitimate and important ongoing policy debates about

healthcare, there is, as I said, broad bipartisan agreement for expanding access so that all of our citizens can receive high-quality care. That needs to continue to be a top priority. This bill does just that by allowing more Americans to utilize telehealth services.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for joining me in advancing our bill to this point, and I urge all Members to vote in favor of this legislation so more citizens can connect and receive care from the medical professionals of their choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, the select committee has now conducted over 800 interviews and depositions of witnesses who have knowledge of the events of January 6. This includes more than a dozen former Trump White House staff members.

Mr. Speaker, when you hear my colleagues make political, partisan attacks on the select committee, I hope that all of us can remember some basic facts: Through these interviews, we have learned that President Trump and his team were warned in advance, and repeatedly, that the efforts they undertook to overturn the 2020 election

would violate the law and our Constitution; they were warned that January 6 could, and likely would, turn violent; and they were told repeatedly by our State and Federal courts, by our Justice Department, and by agencies of our intelligence community, that the allegations of widespread fraud, sufficient to overturn an election, were false and were unsupported by the evidence.

Yet, despite all of these specific warnings, President Trump and his team moved willfully through multiple means to attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power, to halt the constitutional process for counting votes, and to shatter the constitutional bedrock of our great Nation.

As a Federal judge has recently concluded, the illegality of President Trump's plan for January 6 was ``obvious.''

We are here today to address two specific witnesses who have refused to appear for testimony before the committee.

The committee has many questions for Mr. Scavino about his political social media work for President Trump, including his interactions with an online forum called ``theDonald.win'' and with QAnon, a bizarre and dangerous cult.

Mr. Scavino worked directly with President Trump to spread President Trump's false message that the election was stolen and to recruit Americans to come to Washington on January 6 to ``take back their country.'' This effort to deceive was widely effective and widely destructive, and Donald Trump's stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking the violence on January 6.

On this point, there is no doubt. The committee has videos, interviews, and sworn statements from violent rioters demonstrating these facts.

Mr. Navarro will also be a key witness. He has written a book boasting about his role in planning and coordinating the activity of January 6. We have many questions for Mr. Navarro, including about his communications with Roger Stone and Steve Bannon regarding the planning for January 6.

As Judge Carter recently concluded: ``Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.''

In the case of both of these witnesses, Mr. Speaker, the committee would rather have their testimony than have to move this contempt citation. When you hear my colleagues attack the select committee, remember Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro have chosen not to appear. They did not have to make this choice, but they did.

In America, no one is above the law. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro is some form of royalty. There is no such thing in America as the privileges of the crown. Every citizen has a duty to comply with a subpoena.

Mr. Speaker, when you hear my colleagues challenge the committee's legislative purpose, remember the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States have affirmed our legislative purpose. Too many Republicans are, once again, ignoring the rulings of the courts, as many of them did in the run-up to January 6.

Mr. Speaker, the tale of what happened following the 2020 election, resulting in the violence of January 6, is a tale of stunning deceit. It is a tale of lies about our election and contempt for the rulings of our courts.

The election claims made by Donald Trump were so frivolous and so unfounded that the President's lead lawyer did not just lose these cases; he lost his license to practice law. The New York Supreme Court found: ``There is uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Giuliani communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020.''

Mr. Speaker, those in this Chamber who continue to embrace the former President and his dangerous and destructive lies ought to take a good, hard look at themselves. At a moment of real danger to our Republic, when the need for fidelity to our Constitution is paramount, they have abandoned their oaths in order to perform for Donald Trump. That will be their legacy.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a close call. Mr. Navarro and Mr. Scavino have chosen not to comply with a congressional subpoena. They are in contempt. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important, as our colleagues consider their vote on this resolution, to keep in mind the facts.

Number one, neither Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro has appeared in front of this committee. As I mentioned earlier, we have interviewed over 800 witnesses. The vast majority of them have cooperated fully and answered our questions. Some of the witnesses have taken the Fifth. Some of the witnesses have answered some questions and asserted a privilege on other questions.

But the notion that somehow the former President can instruct someone not to appear, that is not sustainable, that is not found anywhere in the law. If Mr. Scavino or Mr. Navarro wants to assert some kind of a privilege--and again, our questions for them have to do with their activities that are political activities that are not covered by executive privilege, but if they wish to assert that privilege, they can appear and do so.

Madam Speaker, I would also note that in Trump v. Thompson, the D.C. Circuit held, and then we were upheld in the Supreme Court, that the committee's need for this information outweighs the former President's rights to any kind of confidentiality.

I think it is important for those facts to be clear and to be on the Record.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I know my colleague and friend, Mr. Armstrong, knows very well that, first of all, executive privilege is a qualified privilege.

Secondly, former President Trump has not asserted executive privilege.

Third, I have tremendous respect, obviously, for Justice Kavanaugh, but my colleagues continue to quote Justice Kavanaugh without noting that the opinion in the D.C. circuit, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, in that opinion the judge found a number of things, including ``to allow the privilege of a no-longer sitting President to prevail over Congress' need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its constitutional operations would gravely impair the basic function of the legislature.''

The Court also held that under any of the tests advocated by former President Trump, the profound interests in disclosure advanced by President Biden and the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol far exceed his generalized concerns for executive branch confidentiality.

And I would just repeat again, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro both have chosen not to appear in front of the committee to answer questions that are clearly outside of any potential claim of privilege they may have, and even if they believe there is a claim of privilege, they are obligated to appear and make that assertion. They cannot simply refuse to respond to the committee's subpoena.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).

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

I think it is again very important as our colleagues are contemplating their vote on this resolution that they keep in mind the facts. And we are hearing a number of things that are not consistent with the facts.

First of all, with respect to the establishment of the committee, Mr. Davis knows, and my colleagues know that we initially attempted to have a bipartisan commission, which, in fact, Leader McCarthy instructed Mr. Katko to negotiate with Chairman Thompson. Mr. Katko did that, secured everything the Republicans asked for, at which point, Mr. McCarthy walked away from the bipartisan commission, and then went over to the Senate side and lobbied against the establishment of a bipartisan commission.

The establishment of the select committee, again, is not what we would have hoped. The 35 Republicans who voted for the bipartisan commission wanted a bipartisan outside commission, but we cannot let this attack go uninvestigated.

Mr. Davis also knows that with respect to the membership of the committee, Speaker Pelosi said that she would not name two Members who had been identified by Mr. McCarthy; that is completely consistent with the resolution. And Mr. McCarthy then himself withdrew the other three and determined that he would not participate.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I continue to hear this allegation that the committee is not investigating what happened at the Capitol, not investigating what happened with respect to the Capitol Police, not investigating what happened with respect to security that day. That is just not true. The committee has an entire team that is very focused on and investigating what happened with respect to security at the Capitol.

And it is also the case, though, Madam Speaker, we must all remember that the former President provoked a violent assault on this body, and the extent to which there were security lapses, the extent to which people did not anticipate that there would be a violent assault on the Capitol, provoked by the former President, is not the fault of the Capitol Police. That is the responsibility of the former President.

And I would also note, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Davis voted ``yes'' on the bipartisan commission when it came up.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my good friend and colleague.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it does not feel really good today. It feels sad, and it feels tragic that so many in my own party are refusing to address the constitutional crisis and the challenge that we face.

The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee went to law school. I am not sure if he passed the bar. But he knows that we all have an obligation to abide by the rulings of the courts.

So, yes, it was a false story. Yes, it was a big lie. In fact, former Vice President Pence has said that what President Trump wanted him to do was ``un-American.'' It was also unconstitutional, and it was illegal.

Mr. Speaker, what gives me tremendous hope though is although so many in my party in this body have put loyalty to Donald Trump ahead of their oath to the Constitution, the committee has interviewed scores of Republicans from around the country who, in fact, have shown the kind of tremendous bravery and dedication to public service that every American can be proud of: Republicans who were appointed by President Trump to posts in the Department of Justice; Republicans who stood firm; Republicans who threatened to resign and who refused to participate in President Trump's efforts to corrupt the Department of Justice with the stolen election lies--yes, lies--that led to January 6.

We have heard from Republicans serving in State legislatures, in State and local governments who also stood firm.

Mr. Speaker, it is crucially important that this body hold these gentlemen in contempt. It is crucially important that they have to abide by their subpoena.

I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 121, I intended to vote ``yea.''

personal explanation

Madam Speaker, I missed all votes on 4/1 due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 103, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 104, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 105, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 106, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 107.

personal explanation

Madam Speaker, I missed all votes on 3/31 due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 98, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 99, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 100, ``yea'' on rollcall no. 101, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 102.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Baird (Walorski)

Bilirakis (Fleischmann)

Bowman (Meng)

Brooks (Green (TN))

Cawthorn (Nehls)

Comer (Fleischmann)

Crist (Wasserman Schultz)

Cuellar (Pappas)

Curtis (Stewart)

DeGette (Blunt Rochester)

Espaillat (Correa)

Harder (CA) (Gomez)

Jayapal (Gomez)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Joyce (OH) (Garbarino)

Kahele (Takano)

Kind (Beyer)

Kinzinger (Meijer)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Krishnamoorthi (Beyer)

LaMalfa (Palazzo)

Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)

Mace (Rice (SC))

Manning (Beyer)

McClain (Fitzgerald)

Mrvan (Takano)

Newman (Beyer)

Owens (Stewart)

Roybal-Allard (Wasserman Schultz)

Salazar (Gimenez)

Sanchez (Gomez)

Scott, David (Jeffries)

Sessions (Babin)

Sires (Pallone)

Speier (Scanlon)

Steel (Obernolte)

Strickland (Takano)

Suozzi (Beyer)

Taylor (Carter (TX))

Thompson (MS) (Evans)

Trone (Beyer)

Waltz (Mast)

Wilson (FL) (Jeffries)

Wilson (SC) (Rice (SC))

Yarmuth (Beyer)

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2126 which will rename our federal building in Cheyenne, Wyoming, to honor one of our state's most distinguished heroines: Louisa Swain.

On September 6, 1870, Louisa Swain became the first woman to cast a ballot in a general election in the United States. She cast her historic vote just a few blocks from the federal building that will now bear her name. Louisa's action that day represented the very best of what Wyoming represents: independence, leadership, grit, integrity, and equality.

In 1869, Wyoming became the first place in America where women had the right to vote. Our state constitution included suffrage for women. When we applied for statehood in 1890, Congress responded that we would not be admitted to the union so long as we provided women with the right to vote. In response, Wyoming's state legislators said, ``If we can't come in with our women, we aren't coming in.''

Wyoming became a state in 1890, the first state in the union where women could vote.

The track record of female leaders in Wyoming is long and extensive. It runs through who we are as a state, whether that's Esther Hobart Morris service as the first female justice of the peace in Sweetwater County in 1870, Susan Johnson serving as a postmaster in Cheyenne in 1880, Mary Bellamy being elected to the Wyoming House of Representatives in 1911, or my own grandmother, Edna Vincent, who was the first female Deputy Sheriff in Natrona County.

It's appropriate that we acknowledge Wyoming's historic leadership when it comes to advancing rights and opportunities for women. Renaming our Cheyenne federal building after Louisa Swain will serve as an important reminder and honor for all the trailblazing women who have come before us, and will put Wyoming's proud history and heritage on display as an example for the entire Nation.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 86.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my Amendment No. 45 that would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from altering the designation of uranium as a critical mineral until completing a report assessing the effects of a loss of domestic uranium production. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce, is to conduct the assessment of the national security impact of removing uranium from the list and submit a follow-up report. The U.S. Geological Survey, which updates the critical minerals list every three years, published its revised methodology in May noting that ``Fuel minerals, including uranium, were explicitly excluded from consideration in this analysis.'' Removing uranium from this list, as the Biden Administration is proposing, is another effort to cave to the whims of environmental groups. The impact of this is not exclusive to national security. Domestic uranium production has almost completely idled and foreign state-owned entities have increasingly become the source of uranium for our reactors. Keeping it as a resource on the list will go a long way to restoring and securing American uranium production.

As we produce less energy at home, our national security enterprise is forced into further reliance on our adversaries for critical resources, emboldening them and weakening our global standing as they attempt to undermine our interests. The United States requires U.S.- origin uranium and nuclear technologies for use in the production of uranium-based products for U.S. defense systems, critical to national defense for the purpose of nuclear weapons and the naval fleet, providing propulsion for 11 aircraft carriers and 70 submarines. The Chinese are buying up mining operations across the globe. Removing uranium from the critical minerals list would be a dangerous and misguided decision as it is a vital component to both our national security and energy security. As China and Russia utilize their state- owned enterprises for energy dominance, we must endeavor to leverage our own resources for geopolitical security. This bill is fundamentally flawed and will not be more competitive or secure. However, the inclusion of this amendment would mark a sincere step in addressing diverse challenges to our national security. I urge adoption of my amendment and the Republican amendments en bloc.

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

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

We don't take this step lightly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, a year ago today, the election was still a couple of weeks off. We knew it would be a tight race. Most of us did not anticipate that President Trump, or any President, frankly, would ever simply reject the outcome of the vote.

President Trump had the right to challenge the outcome in our State and Federal courts, which have an appropriate and constitutional role in resolving election claims. But what he did thereafter has no precedent in our history. He rejected the courts' rulings in dozens of cases, including the rulings of judges President Trump himself appointed.

He rejected what his own Department of Justice officials told him over and over again, that they found no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to overcome the election. He rejected the conclusions of both the Department of Justice and the intelligence community that the Dominion Voting machines had not secretly changed the election outcome.

President Trump had no factual or constitutional basis for his claims. And the lawyers he found who would carry his false claims forward have paid the consequences. Rudy Giuliani's license to practice law has been suspended, and Sidney Powell has been sanctioned by a Federal judge.

But Donald Trump persisted, attempting through every manner he could imagine to try to overturn the outcome of the election. We all saw what happened. The people who attacked this building have told us on video, on social media, and now before the Federal courts exactly what motivated them. They believed what Donald Trump told them, that the election was stolen and that they needed to take action.

Today, Madam Speaker, we are here to address one witness, Mr. Steve Bannon. I urge all Americans to watch what Mr. Bannon said on his podcast on January 5 and 6. It is shocking and indefensible. He said, ``All hell is going to break loose.'' He said, ``We are coming in right over the target. This is the point of attack we have always wanted.''

Madam Speaker, there are people in this Chamber right now who were evacuated with me and with the rest of us on that day during that attack; people who now seem to have forgotten the danger of the moment, the assault on the Constitution, the assault on our Congress; people who you will hear argue that there is simply no legislative purpose for this committee, for this investigation, or for this subpoena.

In fact, there is no doubt that Mr. Bannon knows far more than what he said on the video. There is no doubt that all hell did break loose. Just ask the scores of brave police officers who were injured that day protecting all of us. The American people deserve to hear his testimony.

Let me give you just four examples of the legislative purpose of this investigation.

First, the plot we are investigating, involving Mr. Eastman, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Bannon, President Trump, and many others, their plot attempted to halt or delay our count of electoral votes and reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. The 1887 Electoral Count Act is directly at issue, and our investigation will lead to recommendations to amend or reform that act.

Second, while the attack was underway, President Trump knew it was happening; indeed, he may have been watching it all unfold on television, and yet he took no immediate action to stop it. This appears to be a supreme dereliction of duty by President Trump, and we are evaluating whether our criminal laws should be enhanced to supply additional and more severe consequences for this type of behavior.

Third, we know from our investigation to date that President Trump was pressuring the Department of Justice in late December 2020 to support his false claims that the election was stolen. Several brave and honorable Trump appointees at the department flatly refused to go along with this fraud and threatened to resign. We are evaluating what, if any, additional laws may be required to prevent a future President from succeeding in such an effort.

Fourth, we know that President Trump made efforts to persuade State election officials to ``find votes'' to change the election outcome in his favor. We are evaluating whether the criminal laws of the United States should be enhanced to make the penalty for this type of behavior even more severe, and, if so, in what manner.

Mr. Bannon's own public statements made clear he knew what was going to happen before it did, and thus he must have been aware of and may well have been involved in the planning of everything that played out on that day.

The American people deserve to know what he knew and what he did.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to correct the Record. The gentleman from Indiana asserted that the FBI has found there was no coordination. That is just simply not true.

The gentleman also said that he is not on the committee. He noted that the Speaker had determined that he wouldn't be on the committee.

Madam Speaker, I have a number of letters the gentleman from Indiana has been sending to Federal agencies, and I include in the Record one dated September 16, 2021, for example, signing his name as the ranking member of the committee he has just informed the House he is not on and that, in fact, he is not on.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2021.

Hon. Deb Haaland,

Secretary, Department of the Interior,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Haaland: You are receiving this letter

because the House of Representatives Select Committee to

Investigate the events of January 6th may have sent you a

request for information. The House Republican Leader Kevin

McCarthy appointed me to serve as the Ranking Member of the

Select Committee. Yet, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to

allow me to fulfill my duties as Ranking Member.

Pursuant to the rules of the House of Representatives, the

minority party in Congress retains rights to the same

information that is provided to the majority party. For those

reasons, I ask that you provide me any information that is

submitted to the Select Committee. Additionally, please

include me on any update or briefing that you provide. If you

have questions, please do not hesitate to contact my staff.

Sincerely,

Jim Banks,

Ranking Member.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, just outside this Chamber, over the north door in Statuary Hall, which was the old House Chamber, stands a statue of Clio, the muse of history. She is one of the oldest works of art in our Capitol. She stands in a winged chariot, the chariot of time, and she takes notes in her book, reminding all of us that our words and our actions will be judged by history. History will particularly judge those of us in positions of public trust for what we are doing today.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Madam Speaker, we all recognized how profoundly wrong January 6 was. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who just suggested that we were here because we opposed President Trump's policies, seems to have forgotten that actually on January 6 he, himself, said, ``What happened today is wrong and is not what America is about.''

The next day Mr. Jordan said, ``What happened Wednesday is a tragedy. Everyone knows that. It is as wrong as wrong can be.''

And today, Madam Speaker, the former President suggested that the violence was justified.

My colleagues in the Republican Party, the Republican Members of this body, have to understand, have to recognize, that there is a moment when politics must stop if we want to defend and protect our institutions.

A violent assault on the Capitol to stop the constitutional process of counting electoral votes is that moment. They all knew that on that day.

In fact, the minority leader himself stood in this Chamber and said, ``The President bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.''

Mr. McCarthy was right then. The President bears responsibility.

We need to know what happened. This body must have the ability to understand what caused the attack, to understand who was responsible, and to take legislative action to ensure that it never happens again.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion for contempt for Mr. Steve Bannon. I urge them to do so because it is right; it is morally right; it is constitutionally right; and it is all of our duty.

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

Madam Speaker, on Friday, September 24, 2021, I was attending a funeral in Wyoming and was absent for votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: yea on rollcall No. 294 and nay on rollcall No. 295.

Personal Explanation

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendments included in En Bloc No. 1. My first amendment, No. 100, would require DoD to develop more distributed military and Intelligence Community satellite architectures through a limitation of funds until Secretary of Defense certifies that the Secretary of Air Force is carrying out the program and the appropriate report on implementation is provided. His amendment was part of a China Task Force recommendation from last year that was dropped from the FY21 NDAA, despite its inclusion in the report. Section 1607 of the FY2020 NDAA mandated that the Secretary establish a program to prototype an M-code based, multi-global navigation satellite system receiver that is capable of receiving covered signals with the intent to increase the resilience and capability of military position and navigation equipment. This program would as a result deter the liklihood of attack on the worldwide Global Positioning System by reducing the benefits of such an attack. In last year's annual report to congress, the ``Military and Security Developments involving the People's Republic of China'' highlighted PRC military strategists increasing development of capabilities that utilize space-based systems and to deny use of space-based systems to adversaries as central to modern warfare. The report further cites China's strengthening of its military space capabilities despite its public stance against the militarization of space. This program is critical to countering the CCP's intent to reduce U.S. competitive technological advantage in space. Just this spring, the DNI's annual Threat Assessment highlighted the PRC's advancing interests in advancements in the space domain, detailing China's intent to continue to develop craft to intercept, capture, or destroy US satellites. Additionally, this past summer Director of Intelligence for Indo- Pacific Command, Rear Adm. Studeman repeated similar concerns: ``From dazzling to jamming, to kinetic kill-from-the-ground, from space--all that, they're on the march. They take a look at our space capability and want to equal and exceed those and be able to dominate to guarantee themselves the maneuvering they need to be able to secure their objectives if they're in a fight.'' It is critical that as we further develop space-capabilities we

do so by prioritizing resilience in these systems as our adversaries continue to develop technology to not just rival, but dominate our efforts in the space domain.

My second amendment included in this En Bloc, No. 101, would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from altering the designation of uranium as a critical mineral until a report assessing the effects of the loss of domestic uranium production. The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce, are to conduct the assessment of the national security impact of removing uranium from the list and submit a follow-up report. The U.S. Geological Survey, which updates the critical minerals list every three years, published its revised methodology published in May noting that ``Fuel minerals, including uranium, were explicitly excluded from consideration in this analysis.'' Removing uranium from this list, as the Biden Administration is proposing, is another effort to cave to the whims of environmental groups. The impact of this is not exclusive to national security. Domestic uranium production has almost completely idled and the source of uranium for our reactors has increasingly become foreign state-owned entities. Keeping it as a resource on the list will go a long way to restoring and securing American uranium production.

Producing less energy at home means that we are forced to rely on our adversaries for these critical resources, emboldening them and weakening our global standing as they attempt to undermine our interests. U.S.-origin uranium is critical to national defense for the purpose of nuclear weapons and the naval fleet, providing propulsion for 11 aircraft carriers and 70 submarines. Many international nuclear cooperation agreements to which the United States is a party, restrict the use of nuclear material imported under those agreements to peaceful uses. The United States requires U.S.-origin uranium and nuclear technologies for use in the production of uranium-based products for U.S. defense systems, with no foreign obligations that restrict the uses of such nuclear material. At this time, there is only one functional enrichment facility in the United States despite employing three major defense systems that require highly-enriched uranium. Removing uranium from the critical minerals list would be a dangerous and misguided decision as it is a vital component to both our national security and energy security. We cannot continue to rely on unfriendly nations that leverage energy dominance for geopolitical influence. These amendments are important additions to the National Defense Authorization Act and highlight the diverse challenges to our national security. I am encouraged by their inclusion into En Bloc No. 1 and urge adoption into the final bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 38, offered by my colleague Rep. Garamendi. The sponsors of this amendment would have you believe that this amendment is an attempt to save money and that life extending the Minuteman III ICBM is a cost saver. This is simply untrue. The House Armed Services Committee has heard witness after witness testify that any Minuteman Ill life extension will cost billions more than GBSD. We've heard from Admiral Richard of STRATCOM, General Hyten, and General Milley that the current ICBM can no longer be credibly or affordably sustained--and even if it could, it would not meet deterrence requirements of the future. According to Secretary Austin, even if the Minuteman III could be life extended, which is increasingly difficult as antiquated parts fall out of production, such an effort would be at least $38 billion more expensive than GBSD. For the MM III to be usefully life extended, the United States would need to replace a number of major missile components--which, even if accomplished at cost and on time, would still fall short of the Department of Defense's requirements--including accommodating modern safety and security features and defeating the emerging anti-missile technologies of our adversaries. GBSD will incorporate low risk, technically mature components; feature a modular architecture that can incorporate emerging technology to adapt to rapidly evolving threat environments; and will be easier to maintain than the MM III--all of which will save on costs and provide great value as GBSD operates well into the 2070s. Finally, the GBSD program will not only replace the MM III missile, but also modernize the launch facilities, improve command and control, and increase safety and security. While our adversaries are modernizing

their deterrents at breakneck speed, the proposed amendment would keep America in the past. I will oppose the Garamendi amendment.

Madame Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and sacrifice of Marine Lance Corporal Rylee McCollum.

Rylee was a beloved son, brother, friend, husband, and soon-to-be father who made the ultimate sacrifice protecting our freedoms and defending our interests while serving in Afghanistan.

His family remembers him as someone who was wholly intolerant of injustice and stood up for those who could not stand up for themselves. He was a deeply patriotic young man who had a passion for learning. Specifically, he was interested in the ceremonies that encompassed our Nation's most sacred traditions. As his father remarked ``He's the most patriotic kid you could find, loved America, loved the military. Tough as nails with a heart of gold.''

His willingness to put himself in harm's way to keep our country safe and preserve our freedom represents a level of selflessness and heroism that embodies the best of America.

Rylee was a native of Bondurant, Wyoming, and demonstrated an interest in joining the Armed Services from an early age. He attended Jackson Hole High School, where he became a decorated wrestler, and later went on to graduate from Summit Innovations School in Jackson in 2019. It was no surprise to his friends and family when right after graduation, on his 18th birthday, he followed through on his determination to serve this Nation at the highest level by enlisting in the U.S. Marines.

Rylee McCollum died a hero, and his bravery will never be forgotten. I want to thank him for his service to our country and express the deepest condolences of the entire Congress to his family and loved ones.