Relating to the Consideration of House Report and An Accompanying Resolution
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 727
Resolved, That if House Report 117-152 is called up by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol: (a) all points of order against the report are waived and the report shall be considered as read; and (b)(1) an accompanying resolution offered by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to a point of order; and (2) the previous question shall be considered as ordered on such resolution to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Thompson of Mississippi, Representative Cheney of Wyoming, and an opponent, or their respective designees.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 727. The rule provides for consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-152 under a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.
Mr. Speaker, today, we face a fundamental choice: Whether we are going to get to the truth about the violent January 6 attack, the worst assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic assault on American democracy since the Civil War, or whether we are going to allow lawful subpoenas to be ignored and the investigation being conducted by the select committee to be obstructed to puff up the ego of the former President, who has launched another frivolous lawsuit, this time against the select committee.
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I still remember January 6 like it was yesterday. I was standing right where you are now, Mr. Speaker. Our democracy was in peril; the lives of Members of Congress, our staffs, and all the workers here were endangered. And Capitol Police officers were beaten or worse.
Getting to the truth of what happened or placating the ego of a former President, that shouldn't be a tough call. In any ordinary time, it wouldn't be. This measure would probably have passed on suspension.
Because as a Member of Congress, we have fewer more important and solemn duties than what is at the heart of the measure before us today, and that is protecting our democracy and preventing future attempts to overturn the results of an election.
This is about country, not about party.
Now, many witnesses are already doing their patriotic duty and cooperating voluntarily with the select committee.
In fact, 10 of the 11 witnesses required to produce records to the select committee by the required deadline are engaging with the committee.
Only one person, Mr. Speaker, is refusing. One. Stephen K. Bannon.
Instead of doing the right thing, the legal thing, the patriotic thing, Mr. Bannon is hiding behind the former President's false claims of executive privilege to try to run out the clock on this investigation.
Now, maybe he has something to hide. I don't know. But the law isn't on his side. It is not on Donald Trump's side either.
Executive privilege is not absolute, and President Biden has declined to invoke that privilege.
There is a long history of the White House making accommodations to investigative requests from Congress. That is especially true when the public interest outweighs other interests, as it does here.
But apparently facts and the law don't matter to some. Apparently, Steve Bannon thinks he is above the law. Maybe it is because he was pardoned by the former occupant of the White House.
But ultimately, in the United States of America, no one should be above the law.
That shouldn't be a controversial idea. But we live in an age where apparently some put fidelity to Donald Trump over fidelity to the Constitution. And I find that disgusting.
I get it. The former President is in Mar-a-Lago somewhere seething about our efforts to get to the truth about January 6.
But is he so feared, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues are going to keep denying what happened that day? And keep trying to sweep it under the rug as if it never happened? Oh, it was no big deal.
This is our democracy that we are talking about here. This is about the oath we took and the freedoms we cherish, freedoms that Americans have fought and died for, Mr. Speaker.
And some on the other side, are they really willing to throw away all of that to placate the whims of one man? Really?
This has to stop.
The legal scholar James Landis once said: ``To deny Congress power to acquaint itself with facts is equivalent to requiring it to prescribe remedies in darkness.''
We need to see the facts in the cold light of day and follow them wherever they lead.
That means not only holding those who attack this building itself accountable, as the legal system is currently doing, it also means holding people accountable when they attack what this building stands for: Democracy and rule of law.
We will not tolerate being left in the dark, and certainly not when something so fundamental is at stake.
Now, this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. And just yesterday in the Committee on Rules, we debated the underlying measure at length. And, yes, we heard from the usual Members who rushed to the former President's defense, who deflected and wanted to talk about anything other than the events of January 6. But we also saw something more remarkable.
Chairman Thompson, a Democrat, sat side-by-side with Vice Chair Cheney, a Republican, two people who probably have never voted for the same Presidential candidates in their lives; two people who disagree on virtually every issue. But they agreed on this: On defending the Constitution and rule of law. Let's follow their example.
Mr. Speaker, I sat across the dais from Congresswoman Cheney for years on the Committee on Rules when the Republicans were in charge. We were polar opposites. But yesterday, I couldn't have agreed with her more, not as a Democrat but as an American.
Now I don't give a damn if you are a Democrat or a Republican, and I don't care if you like Donald Trump or not. Matters like this are about something more than petty partisanship.
So I urge my colleagues, let's put our country before our party. Let's put defending our democracy before defending Donald Trump. Let's support this rule and the underlying measure, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as public servants, as Members of Congress dedicated to preserving American democracy and the rule of law. That is what is at stake here and nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Minnesota said we wouldn't be in this position if we had done what the Republicans had asked us to do. We did.
And I include in the Record the letter that the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, sent to Speaker Pelosi requesting a number of items. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 22, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are in agreement that the best path forward for bipartisan legislation is to create an impartial and bipartisan Commission.
In keeping with the suggestions from the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission, the legislation the House puts forward should mirror the precedents that fairly and successfully governed that Commission. Simply put, House Republicans are asking for no more and no less than what Congress came together and agreed upon in the past. Specifically, those precedents include:
An equal 5-5 ratio in appointments by Democrats and Republicans
Co-Equal Subpoena Power for the Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission
No inclusion of findings or other predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself
As the Co-Chairs of the Commission stated, a ``bipartisan independent investigation will earn credibility with the American public.'' I am confident that following their procedures and precedents can do just that, in a way that an overtly partisan commission will not be able to.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing your response. Sincerely, Kevin McCarthy, House Republican Leader.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, those items include: an equal 5:5 ratio on a committee; coequal subpoena power; no inclusion of findings of other predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Homeland Security agreed to every one of them--every single one of them. And what did the Republicans do? They said, Well, we didn't think you would agree to everything, but we still don't want the Commission. So they voted against it. And then they blocked it in the United States Senate.
So don't talk to me about partisanship or bipartisanship when it was very clear early on that my friends on the other side had no intention of wanting to work with us to get to the truth, because they couldn't take yes for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that today, President Trump issued a statement--he had to issue a statement because he can't tweet anymore because of mistruths and embrace of violence. Anyway, he issued a statement today. This is what he said:
The statement says, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was the protest!''
Let me just say that one more time.
Trump said today in a statement, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was a protest!''
And by the way, he didn't mention that it was a violent protest on January 6.
Mr. Speaker, are any of my Republican colleagues, aside from Congresswoman Cheney and Representative Kinzinger, who have shown courage and patriotism, are any of them willing to come to the floor and say unequivocally that the election on November 3 was not an insurrection, as the former President has now said?
It was a free and fair election held by one of the oldest democracies in the world. And that used to mean something to my Republican friends. Please, please. The former occupant of the White House is trying to tear this country apart. And unfortunately, too many on the other side are going along with him. Enough.
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that someone on the other side would respond to former President Trump's statement today, which I find stunning and shocking, but apparently they don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about legislative purpose. When we get to the bill, I will let the committee members respond to that.
I do want to say one thing again; that Speaker Pelosi was committed to a truly bipartisan commission, and we did a bipartisan commission--a truly bipartisan commission. My friends on the other side of the aisle tried to undercut it and get their friends over in the Senate to tank it. That is what happened. They basically destroyed what could have been a bipartisan commission that, quite frankly, was the way we all wanted to go.
But then they said, well, she wouldn't let us put who we wanted on this current commission. Well, the minority leader suggested Mr. Jordan to be the lead Republican, and he very well may be a material witness in this investigation. You would put him on to oversee an investigation of, what, himself and others?
Give me a break. What is going on here? At least be honest enough with the American people to say what is going on here; and that is, you don't want to get to the truth about what happened on January 6. You never did; notwithstanding the violence that occurred right here in this Chamber, in this sacred building.
So, please, let's not get into this, Oh, we wanted to cooperate but somehow you wouldn't let us. We gave you everything you wanted, and you could not take yes for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waste my time debating this information. What my friend is talking about is a false government takeover. What about the people who tried to take over our democracy on January 6? What about what happened here on January 6?
Why is there no interest in getting to the truth? They come with this instead. Again, I am still waiting for somebody to respond to President Trump's statement that insurrection day took place on November 3. Do you really believe that? Is that what we have come to, that my friends on the other side would embrace such a shocking and such an offensive statement?
We had a free and fair election, and this is what the former President--who my friends are all so afraid of--says.
Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind everybody that democracy doesn't defend itself; people have to defend democracy. It would be nice to see a little courage on the other side of the aisle.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, not only will my Republican friends not condemn the President's outrageous and unacceptable and unconscionable statement today, but they won't even talk about what we are here for.
That is what fear looks like, and it is really unbelievably sad.
Dean).
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman updating us on the bills that she has cosponsored and her opinions about the IRS, which have nothing to do with the underlying bill that we are debating here today. But it is stunning to me that neither she nor any of my friends on the other side of the aisle will respond to what the former occupant of the White House said today in a statement, that the insurrection took place on November 3; that our election, our lawful election in one of the oldest democracies in the world, was somehow an insurrection; and that January 6 was merely a protest.
I am stunned by this. I challenge the next speaker, please, can you say that you disassociate yourself with this statement? Can you make it clear to the American people that you want no part of this? I get it. You endorsed this man. He campaigned for you. You are afraid of his base. You are afraid every time he says anything. But the bottom line is, this statement needs to be condemned, and the unwillingness of anybody on the other side to condemn this statement is unconscionable.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Minnesota yielded the gentleman from Illinois an additional minute, I was kind of hopeful that maybe he would be the one to say that he disassociates himself from the statement of Donald Trump today in which he said that the insurrection took place on November 3, election day.
I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to him if he wants to say that this was a statement that is not only unconscionable but that every American should condemn.
Mr. Speaker, oh, my God, can somebody, please--I beg of you on the other side--can somebody, please, disassociate yourself or condemn the statement by the former President who said today that the insurrection took place on November 3?
All my colleagues were elected on November 3 as well. If you believe that election day was an insurrection, then your election results are illegitimate.
Can somebody, please, for the sake of our democracy, say that what was said by the former President is wrong? Please.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this microphone is working, because I am not sure my colleagues can hear me when I have asked them over and over again, can you please disassociate yourself from the former President's statement today? It is important. It is on topic.
By the way, what the gentleman just talked about has nothing to do with what we are talking about today. It is amazing that nobody wants to talk about what is on the floor today.
But my constituents, when they talk to me, you know what they are fearful about? They are fearful about losing our democracy in their lifetime. And the inability or the unwillingness of my friends on the other side to be able to disassociate themselves with a statement by the former President, which today he said the election on November 3 was somehow the insurrection. It is stunning to me. He is tearing this country apart, and the silence and the indifference on the other side is aiding him in his quest to do that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
Mr. Speaker, I can't adequately express the outrage I feel about what happened in this institution on January 6. It was not only an attack on this building; it was an attack on our democracy.
I will tell you, if we don't have our democracy intact, you are not going to fix the supply chain issues or the energy issues or any other issues.
Our democracy is in peril. It was attacked on January 6.
Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the Rules Committee, so I understand what the rules of the House are, so I cannot say what I really feel about what went on in this Chamber today with this debate. I am disgusted, to be quite honest with you.
We are trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, and many on the other side have done everything they could to frustrate that effort. Now, we have somebody who doesn't want to comply with a subpoena, and we are saying we are going to put some force behind that. We need to be able to do our oversight. We need to get to the truth, and my friends are trying to frustrate that.
Then today, former President Trump issues a statement saying insurrection day took place on November 3. That was election day, when we were all elected. That is what he thought? That is what he thinks was an insurrection? And January 6 was just a protest.
We were all here that day. We saw the violence. People lost their lives that day. People were wounded that day. People were traumatized by that day. Again, it was not just an attack on this building and the people who work here; it was an attack on our democracy.
And my friends on the other side of the aisle can't even muster the courage to say that the former President was wrong in his statement. That is what fear looks like. That is what fear of Donald Trump looks like. It is so sad that a once great party has come to this.
I said it earlier. Members come and go. I know people are all worried about the latest polls and where our base is and what political implications will come from this or that. But at the end of the day, you ought to be worried about your legacy, about what your children and grandchildren think.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 727
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 5586) to prohibit the implementation of new requirements to report bank account deposits and withdrawals. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3: Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5586.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source