Raising A Question of the Privileges of the House

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. The State Department was subpoenaed. The Defense Department was subpoenaed. Not a single document was received.

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not said one single word about Jim Jordan defying a congressional subpoena, but then, again, this debate is not on the level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is a political stunt solely designed to placate and support Donald Trump, their nominee for President. They are making sure that they do everything possible to provide him with fodder for his campaign because there is no basis for any contempt, much less inherent contempt, and it is shameful that you have stood here trying to call upon congressional power and separation of powers when you refuse to do so for any Republican, including your own colleagues who defy subpoenas right, left, and center. Be careful because what goes around comes around.

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

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

When Republicans get subpoenas, they run and hide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not serious.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source