Relating to the Consideration of House Report and An Accompanying Resolution
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of a resolution holding Peter Navarro and Daniel Scavino in contempt of Congress.
From the very beginning, the select committee has been nothing more than a partisan tool used by House Democrats to attack their political opponents. Time and time again, they have run roughshod over our Constitution and they have run roughshod over the very rules of this institution. And to what end? To advance their own political agenda.
We need look no further than the resolution establishing the committee to see their complete disregard for this Chamber. House Resolution 503 states the Speaker shall appoint 13 members, five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with minority leaders. Neither of those ``shall'' clauses have been met.
While this may seem insignificant to my colleagues across the aisle, it is certainly of consequence to the courts. Let's talk about some case law.
Yellin v. United States. There the Court reversed the conviction of contempt of Congress because a congressional committee failed to adhere to its own rules. The Court explained, ``The committee prepared the groundwork for prosecution in Yellin's case meticulously.'' Yet, ``It is not too exacting to require that the committee be equally meticulous in obeying its own rules.'' I suggest to my Democratic colleagues, heed those words.
As a former Navy JAG, I am deeply troubled by the committee's treatment of Mr. Scavino, including clear due process violations. The select committee repeatedly demanded almost immediate responses from Mr. Scavino, while waiting for weeks--weeks--to provide responses to his correspondence.
Further, the select committee has shown complete disregard for Mr. Scavino's legal duty, his legal duty to invoke the executive privilege, which he was instructed to do by President Trump. There is no legal authority that the incumbent President is the final arbiter as to whether executive privilege may be asserted for congressional testimony of close aides to a former President.
The Presidential Records Act applies only to Presidential records within control of the National Archives. That is it. It is a very narrow statute. That act does not control whether testimony can be given.
Let's talk about some more case law. United States v. Nixon. The Supreme Court held in that case, ``Communications between a President and his closest aides are entitled to a presumption of privilege of confidentiality which can be overcome only by a particularized showing of a need in a criminal case.'' I want to emphasize criminal case. This is not a criminal case.
Finally, the select committee initially provided Mr. Scavino with 15 topics which they wanted to discuss. That list later grew to 33. The select committee then went so far as to place the onus on Mr. Scavino, saying that it is his responsibility to ``identify the specific topics outside the scope of his asserted privilege.''
As I am sure my friend across the aisle knows, and any lawyer on the other side of the aisle knows, the burden is not on the subject of the deposition to identify the topics on which they can be questioned. The Supreme Court found--and here is some more case law--in Watkins v. United States, the Supreme Court found in that case, `` . . . a person compelled to testify is entitled to have knowledge of the subject to which the interrogation is deemed pertinent. . . . `'
If the select committee wanted to conduct a legitimate investigation, they would not be rushing to hold Mr. Scavino in contempt after imposing unreasonable and unattainable timelines, ignoring legitimate assertions of a privilege, and then refusing legitimate accommodations.
It is clear the resolution before us today is not about a witness' refusal to testify or refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. This is all about Democrats' need to further their partisan agenda.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My good friend from Maryland was talking about some case law. I will talk case law all day. Here are three real fast:
Quinn v. United States. The Supreme Court said that Congress cannot issue a subpoena for law enforcement purpose.
Watkins v. United States. Congress has no authority to issue a subpoena to compel exposure for the sake of exposure.
McGrain v. Daugherty. Congress may not issue a subpoena in an attempt to try someone before a committee for any crime of wrongdoing.
I have ample case law up here that will show, at the very best, for my friends across the aisle that case law is unsettled, but it is very likely on the side of Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Jackson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. LaTurner) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the Rules Committee ranking member, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a Rules Committee member, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. JACOBS of New York. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Salazar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I request unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.
To my colleague from Maryland, I will argue this case any day of the week, and I think that, ultimately, this will be resolved by the courts. I have got stacks, like I said, of case law to support my argument.
But to call what you just saw absurd, or a waste of time, I don't think the American people think it is absurd to care about the crisis at our southern border; the amount of illegal immigrants coming across the border; the amount of fentanyl that is coming across the border that is literally killing people in the interior.
Let's look at some numbers on this. Just last week, the CBP confirmed more than 300,000 illegal immigrants evaded Border Patrol, just in the last 6 months alone.
Alarmingly, Border Patrol warned that the Biden border crisis is already worsening in anticipation of the administration's rollback of title 42.
You just heard 68 Republicans, plus the Republican leader, request to consider legislation that will provide for stringent enforcement of title 42, which allows illegal immigrants to be quickly expelled from the United States.
But clearly, House Democrats aren't concerned about the biggest migration crisis our Nation has ever faced. So let's try this another way.
If we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act of 2021.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is the bill's author. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell), my good friend.
Ben Shapiro says the ``facts don't care about your feelings,'' and they don't. And I will say this: The case law doesn't care about what your political position is.
So if you want to talk about more case law, how about Trump v. Thompson, 2022, Justice Kavanaugh ruled: ``A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim.''
I have got more and more case law that I could produce. But let's just go back to the fact that this select committee is a partisan political hit job. If this really had a legitimate legislative function, then let me ask you this: Where are the subpoenas for the former House Sergeant at Arms and the former head of the D.C. National Guard? We haven't seen those subpoenas.
What about questions and subpoenas that are designed to elicit information about why this Capitol was left unprepared and how to prevent it from happening again? That would be a legitimate legislative function.
What we are seeing is this committee masquerading as if it is some kind of grand jury, which is wholly inappropriate and a violation of the separation of powers.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, behold the nonpartisan nature of the January 6th Committee. It puzzles me why it would have been so different had the allegedly bipartisan commission been approved.
In fact, in the January 6th Committee's markup on the contempt resolutions, the grand inquisitor said, in opening: ``I can say confidently that the many involved in the run-up to January 6, an oath, a statement of fidelity to our democracy, was nothing more to them than meaningless words. I fear what happens if those people are again given the reins of power.'' This sums up the purpose of the January 6 inquisition in a way that is both cogent and terrifying.
What the January 6th Committee lacks in bona fide legislative purpose, not patina of legislative purpose but bona fide legislative purpose, it makes up for in pure political vendetta. This investigation isn't about truth or democracy; it is a pure political power play.
The immediate target is President Trump, but the ultimate target is those people--namely, the millions of Americans--who voted for President Trump.
Why is there no dissent from this objective on this committee? Well, because the only Members nominally representative of the minority, chosen by the majority Speaker over the objection of the minority, share the political objectives of the grand inquisitor.
Accordingly, Liz Cheney said during the January 6th Committee markup of these contempt resolutions: ``Our committee will continue to litigate to obtain the testimony we need.'' What need? To inform what legislative purpose does the committee need to obtain the RNC's contributor data and information, to discover who opened its emails and clicked through to donation pages?
On the other hand, it could serve her purpose to demonize her political opponents, especially those who donate to President Trump.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is common for the zealot to lose the capacity for irony. Hence, Chairman Thompson says that laws prohibit doing politics on the clock: ``It is important that taxpayer dollars don't support political activity.''
Ms. Cheney waves the Constitution even while she poses as the designee of the minority, imposed on the minority in a historically unprecedented trampling of the institutional norms. This is a kangaroo court, a court of the star chamber.
They continue to trample the concepts and the institutional norms of the Congress, and I am certain that the American people will have an answer for it very soon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to check if there are any further speakers that my friend from across the aisle has.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I consider the gentleman across the aisle a friend, and it is certainly an honor and a privilege to debate law with him given the fact that he is a renowned constitutional law expert. I mean that sincerely. It is fun being up here with the gentleman. So knowing that he has the last word, I do just have to cite one more case for my good friend.
I just keep going back to the Trump v. Thompson where Justice Kavanaugh said that there are only two very narrow exceptions to this privilege. Number one, which can be found in United States v. Nixon, relates to a pending criminal trial. There is no pending criminal trial here. That exception is not applicable.
The second narrow exception is one found in Senate Select Committee v. Nixon. In there, it is whether the subpoenaed evidence is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of a committee's function. I am quoting the precedent here. That case law goes on to state that there are clear differences between Congress' legislative tasks and the responsibility of a grand jury.
He went on further to describe that Congress frequently legislates on the basis of conflicting information provided in its hearings all the time. So I would submit that that exception does not apply either. Reasonable minds can differ, but I am very confident that the case law here supports the case of Mr. Scavino.
With that said, the law notwithstanding, it seems that my friends across the aisle have proven time and time again that they don't care about the separation of powers, they don't care about the protection of our constitutional rights, and they don't even care about the rules of the House. They only do if those items fit a political narrative.
It is very clear to me that from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol's treatment of Mr. Scavino and from the resolution before us today that they would prefer to keep up their political theater rather than conduct a legitimate congressional investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source