tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 14, 2021 4:00pm-8:01pm EST
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: as the member designated by mr. hanna, i inform the house that mr. hanna will vote yes on h. res. 849. as the member designated by mr. welch, i inform the house that mr. welch will vote yes on h. res. 849. >> as the member designated by ms. jayapal, i inform the house that ms. jayapal will vote yes. as the member designated by mrs.
fletcher of texas, i inform the house that mrs. fletcher will vote yes on h. res. 849. as the member designated by mr. doggett, i inform the house that mr. doggett will vote yes on h. res. 849. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire seek recognition? >> as the member designated by by the following listed members, i inform the house that the following listed members will vote yes on h. res. 849. representative been mitchy, katherine clark, lowe is clark, joyce meng, shelly pen agree and grace meng. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. thompson: by direction of the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol, i call up house report 117-216. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany resolution recommending that the house of representatives find mark meadows in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by
the select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on the united states capitol. the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to house resolution 848, the report is considered as read. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. thompson: by direction of the select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the united states capitol, i call up house resolution 851 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 851, resolution recommending that the house of representatives find mark randall meadows in contempt of congress to refuse to reply to the subpoena. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution is considered as read and equally divided among and controlled by the gentlemanfrom
mississippi, mr. thompson, and the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. cheney and opponent or respective designee. the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson and the gentleman from wyoming, ms. cheney and yasm mr. banks. mr. thompson: i ask that unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.the gentleman from mi. mr. thompson: madam speaker, it is regrettable that we're back to the floor considering another criminal contempt referral. but our former colleague, mr. meadows, has left us no choice. the select committee is investigating an attack on our
democracy and it's essential that witnesses cooperate with our investigation to get answers. the law requires them to do so. and when a witness defies the law, that amounts to more than obstruction of investigation. the an attack on the rule of law -- it's an attack on the rule of law. in september the select committee subpoenaed mr. meadows for records and testimony because we believed he had information relevant to our investigation. for weeks we went back and forth with mr. meadows, to his lawyer, to try to get cooperation. we extended his initial deposition date to november 12, when the date came he hasn't produced any document, he didn't show up. throughout this time mr. meadows and his representatives made a lot of noise about executive privilege and so-called absolute immunity. the idea that people who serve
or served in certain senior roles are completely exempt from testifying before congress. now, let's be clear. courts have rejected absolute immunity at every opportunity and the justice department has never authored an opinion that would support that sort of claim mr. meadows had made about his unofficial conduct. and we have lots of questions for mr. meadows about his unofficial conduct. as for executive privilege, president biden has chosen not to invoke it as far as mr. meadows is concerned. so, mr. meadows was obligated to comply with our subpoena and appear at a deposition. when he didn't, we were prepared that the point to move ahead with contempt proceedings. but at the same time, madam speaker, out of an abundance of
fairness, we gave mr. meadows a chance to cooperate. when he faced the possibility of contempt a few weeks ago, he finally decided, in part, to do the right thing and start providing information. he turned over roughly 9,000 pages of records that he himself said couldn't be covered by any claim of privilege. he also said he would appear at a deposition with the select committee which we scheduled for december 8. this is key in an investigation like ours, when you produce records you are expected to come in and answer questions about those records. and because not even mr. meadows was asserting any privileged claims over these records, there's no possible justification for wholesale refusing to answer questions about them. but that's not what he did. he told us the day before his
deposition, the same day his book was published, that he would no longer cooperate with our investigation. and that he wasn't coming in to be interviewed. put all the other arguments aside, this isn't about any sort of privilege or immunity. this is about mr. meadows refusing to comply with the subpoena to discuss the records he himself turned over. now he's hiding behind excuses. and at the end of the day, it's a simple proposition. if you're making excuses to avoid cooperating with our investigation, you're making excuses to hide the truth from the american people about what happened on january 6. you're making excuses as part of a cover-up. and if you base your arguments on these excuses, if you adopt
these excuses as your own to explain why you won't take action, then you're a part of that cover-up too. i want my colleagues to think lock and hard about that -- long and hard about that. because as the select committee has made clear in the last days and will continue to make clear, there was a steady stream of communication between certain members of congress and mr. meadows about matters central to our investigation. we have questions about those communications. we will pursue those questions and we won't let the facts be buried by a cover-up. thank you, madam speaker. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, as chairman thompson noted, we are here with great sadness, we are here
recognizing and understanding the serious nature of the 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 has improperly a-- he is improperly asserting executive and other privileges. but the vote on contempt today relates presentably 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 talk 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, in 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 one year ago, it was evident to all, not only to those of us in the chamber at that time. it was covered in realtime 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 a 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 under way 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. codus has to come out firmly and tell the protesters 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 actions 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, quote, find 11, 780 votes to change the results of the presidential election in georgia. that's the president of the united states telling a state official to, quote, 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
privileged 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. clarke could alter the department of justice's conclusions regarding the election. mr. clarke has now informed this committee that he anticipates potential criminal prosecution related to these matters and therefore intends in upcoming testimony to invoke his 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. clarke. mr. meadows has no basis to refuse to testify regarding those communications. he is in contempt. january 6 was without precedence. 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're entitled to ask mr. meadows about the nonprivileged materials he has produced to us. madam speaker, i'm sure you'll 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. whether he question mr. meadows about emails and texts he gave us without any privilege claim.
mr. meadows' role in the rapness berger call cannot be privileged. nor can his dealings with a member of this body regarding jeff clarke. this committee must get to the objective truth and ensure that january 6 never happens again. mr. meadows is in contempt, he must testify and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. here we go again. for the first time in history, democrats have complete control over a select committee. i hope the american people are paying close attention. i hope they see what happens when democrats get total power. they abuse it. they intimidate. they threaten. and they harass. and they try to put their political opponents in jail.
in a matter of weeks the committee has passed three criminal contempt citations. mr. banks: today we vote on holding mark meadows in contempt of congress. on september 23, 2021, the select committee served former congressman meadows a subpoena for a sweeping set of documents at a deposition. in president trump strughted mark meadows to maintain his executive privilege. and meadows said he would give them any information that was president protected by executive privilege. mr. meadows gave the select committee over 6,000 pages of information and 1100 documents and text messages. mr. meadows agreed to sit for a deposition if it was limited to
areas not protected by areas of executive privilege. he tried to cooperate. mr. meadows sought an independent ruling on the issue of the executive privilege but the select committee sought to hold him in contempt just like mr. clark pending the supreme court's decision in trump versus thompson. the rules go like this. ignore the former president. immediately do everything we say without observation or we will refer you for criminal prosecution. they don't care about fairness or due process. the point isn't cooperation or fact finding. they care about punishment. the point is prosecution. and of course, the point is the headline they are going for. former chief of staff found in contempt of congress.
but that ignores the partisan truth about the select committee. according to the committee's charter, h. res. 503, the speaker shall appoint 13 members to the select committee, five of whom shall be appointed in consultation with the minority leader, but the committee has zero members appointed in consultation with lieder mccarthy. according to the committee's charter, if mr. meadows came in for a deposition, the minority must have been allowed to question mr. meadows for the same amount of time. except no members of the committee were named by the minority. the supreme court has found that a select committee must follow its own rules to act with legal force. so we have the select committee as it exists legally and on
paper. and then we have something completely different. i don't know what to call it, but it doesn't resemble the select committee. it is nine members picked by speaker pelosi. the group is tram bling on the constitutional rights and the rights of the house and the rights of congress like mr. meadows and current members of congress. they even include americans whose sole offense was planning a legal, permitted and first amendment protected political rally. thanks to media reports. democrats have call and text records, geo location data. we know of hundreds of instances and it could be more. all we know for sure about this partisan investigation is that it's massive and happening without accountability and
happening in secrete. the select committee should serve as a warning to all americans this is what you get when democrats have the free rein. contempt for the rules of congress, criminalization of dissent and all ends with their opponents in jail. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: i yield one minute to the majority leader, mr. hoyer, for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the speaker. every member of thehouse ought to vote for this resolution.
every one of you. i see, madam speaker, one shaking their head vigorously no. for those of us who have been here for some time, we have seen extraordinary energy exercised by the other side of the aisle, madam speaker, in conducting oversight. mr. burton from indiana, summoned tens more and ten thereafter, on and on and on. to hold accountable an administration with whom he did not agree and who he thought
wasn't doing the right thing and issued subpoena after subpoena after subpoena. the reason i say every one of is ought to vote for this is because this institution needs this power. this institution is charged under the constitution with protecting the welfare of the american people and expanding the opportunities of our people. to do so, as the gentlelady from wyoming has observed, we need to garner information, gather information. and in the conduct of gathering that information, it must be our
ability to compel people to testify. to come before the congress of the united states and tell us facts that we need. now my republican friends, when they were in charge, thought there was a some type of wrongdoing, which resulted in the loss of four lives tragically in benghazi. and they had significant separate hearings on that issue, eight separate hearings. the last of which which was the select committee led by representative gowdy. every one of those committees reached the same conclusion.
and perhaps some of my republican trends will recall that hillary clinton, the secretary of state during that time appeared for 11 hours before one of these committees, the select committee. i have a speech here that deals with what the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, has done. i have chosen not to give this speech, because the issue, in my view is not what meadows has done, but clearly in contempt, as the gentlelady from wyoming pointed out so factually. but it is about this institution. about whether or not a president
or anybody else can simply say, i will not testify. and then take months and months and months. now the gentleman who just spoke, the gentlemanfrom indiana, will lament to the fact that we have this committee, but the gentleman from indiana voted against forming an equally-numbered committee to be set up to ajudge this issue. he voted against this as his republican colleagues. and now he comes and says, my goodness, this is not what i wanted, but like so many of his colleagues he voted against what he says he wanted.
the gentlemanfrom indiana who just spoke, voted against holding in contempt steve bannon not because of executive privilege, he was a private citizen, not a member of the president's cabinet. and the gentleman from indiana voted against having him honor a subpoena of the congress of the united states. and it ought to be noted that at the time of the snarks, we had e to confirm what court after court after court, he voted against certifying the president of the united states. i'm not surprised that the gentlemanfrom indiana does not want to see this subpoena honored, because i believe he
fears the information that will be brought forward. fearing the truth is not an excuse for not honoring a subpoena of this congress. so again, it is not simply the actions of mr. meadows that are at issue here. what is at issue here is what power does the congress have to get the information it needs. in this case the most important information it needs to achieve one of its most important objectives, which the gentlelady from wyoming has not only talked about, but has shown extraordinary courage in standing up to her party. she is, after all, the former
chair of the republican conference. the daughter of a vice president of the united states and former secretary of defense and former minority whip of this house. who has shown extraordinary courage in the face of almost united opposition on her side of the aisle leading to her removal from the position she held. would all of us all the time have the courage of our conviction that the gentlelady from wyoming has shown. so i say to my colleagues, all 434 or 433 of us here -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- does the gentlemanfrom maryland yield?
mr. hoyer: no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> it seems to me my friend, the gentleman from maryland disparaged the gentlemanfrom maryland here and should have his words taken down. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman making a demand that words be taken down snr. mr. banks: yes, i am.
the clerk: the gentleman from indiana does not want to see the subpoena honored. because, madam speaker, he fears, i believe, he fears the information that would be brought forward, fearing the truth is not an excuse for not honoring a subpoena of this congress. the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to rule. the words of the gentleman from maryland contain an allegation the gentleman from indiana fears the truth. comparing the remarks to the
president's memorialized, chapter 29, sections 63 as well as section 370, of the rule of the house and the manual. the chair finds that the words are not accompanied by an allegation of personal mendacity and therefore are not unparlimentarian. the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. >> accusing a decorated naval officer of the united states military is never in good form and should be out of order in this chamber. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. the gentleman from maryland is recognized for his one minute. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, first, let me say that i respect the gentleman's service in the united states navy, as i respect all our men and women in the armed forces of the united states. let me end as i began.
all of us ought to vote for this motion to hold somebody in contempt who refuses to come forth. who is clearly and obviously in contempt of the congress of the united states. and i urge every member on behalf of this institution, not on behalf of any political party, but on behalf of our democracy, not on behalf of democrats, on behalf of the constitution of the united states to vote yea on this resolution. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speakern: the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s.j.res. 33, the joint
resolution to increase the debt limit on which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: madam speaker, i will yield three minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. ms. cheney: i will yield -- madam speaker --
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, mark meadows, a former colleague for many of us, left congress in 2020 to serve as chief of staff to then-president donald trump. sadly and shockingly, mr. meadows has admitted he played both an official and unofficial role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. he's also admitted that he has responded to nonprivilege documentations and communications related to january 6. in fact, he already sent some of those materials to our select committee charged with preventing a future attack on our capitol. now the select committee needs to speak with him about the full plot leading up to january 6. for example, it's been reported that the white house was directing the department of justice to investigate
outrageous and really crazy conspiracy theories to benefit mr. trump politically as well as to orchestrate the dissemination of election digs information. we need -- disinformation. we need to talk to mr. meadows about this. we learned that he made a surprise visit to a state-run visit to an election office in georgia in which president trump talked to the secretary of state in which to finds votes. we need to talk to mr. meadows about that. we need to ask him about text messages which he provided to our committee which showed an official in georgia texting mr. meadows during the trump call saying they, quote, need to end this call, unquote, and emphasizing, quote, i don't think this will be a productive -- will be productive much longer, end quote. we need to talk to mr. meadows about that. we also know that during the same week -- that same week in
early january, mr. meadows was in direct contact with campaign staff and organizers of the rally at the ellipse where his boss, the president, urged supporters to fight. we need to talk to mr. meadows about that. while domestic terrorists invaded the halls where he used to work, mr. meadows interacted with many people, including some of our colleagues, who are here in this chamber. we've learned many of those interactions took place on his personal device. we need to talk to mr. meadows about that. clearly, mr. meadows has important information about events that culminated in the violent attack on the capitol and on our democracy. he must follow the law. he must cooperate with the select committee's lawful request. no one is above the law. he must be held accountable for
his violation of the law. i thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that these three articles be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> first, misleading witnesses about president witnesses by molly hemingway published. and they want to subpoena g.o.p. fund records by "the wall street journal" editorial page. third, civil liberties are being trampled by exploiting insurrection fears congress '1/6 committee may be the worst. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. banks: madam speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. jordan: thank you, madam
speaker. democrats prevent republicans from serve really on the select committee. democrats kick republicans off standing committees. democrats try to make d.c. a state. democrats try to end the filibuster, they try to pack the court, they do secret impeachment hearings in the bunker, in the basement of the capitol. they just said a naval veteran is afraid of the truth. and now today -- now today they're destroying executive privilege. the united states supreme court said those must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions. and to do so in a way that many would be unwilling to do except privately. the court further stated, presidential administrations of both parties have asserted that president's close advisors are an extension of the president. who are these close advisors? who are these individuals who are an extension of the president of the united states? well, there's actually a bunch. but certainly the three most important are the national
security advisor, the white house counsel, and the chief of staff to the president. and i would argue the chief of staff is the closest of the close. he's the one who spends more time with the commander in chief than anyone else. now, why do we have this privilege? why do we have it? why is the decision-making process between the president and his closest advisor a private matter? why is that? well, guess what, the supreme court told us the answer to that one, too. quote, executive privilege serves the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even harsh opinions in presidential decision-making. let me just say that again. executive privilege serves the public interest. it's for us. it's for we, the people. it's not for president trump. it's not for mark meadows. it's not for any president. it's not for any chief of staff. it's for the country. but the democrats, and they're
not going to worry about that. they think this is good politics. think -- they used to care about executive privilege. when republicans wanted information during the fast and furious scandal, president obama asserted executive privilege for bureaucrats at a.t.f. and d.o.j. think about it. a bureaucrat in a federal agency gets executive privilege but not to the chief of staff for the president because mark meadows worked for president trump and democrats have been out to get president trump before he ever took office, when they first tried to spy on him -- actually, did spy on him in 2016. they're going to destroy this precedent even though, even though this very question is in front of the courts as we speak. they're going to destroy this precedent that's been around since 1794 when our first president first asserted it. and for what?
what did mark meadows do? he gave the committee thousands of emails. he gave the committee thousands of text messages. and he agreed to come in front of the committee and answer any question as long as it didn't violate executive privilege. the privilege that's not his to waive. it belongs to the president. the privilege that the court said is critical to executive decision-making. the privilege that exists for the benefit of we, the people, and the privilege that's been around since george washington asserted it. but democrats say, no, not good enough, mr. meadows. you have to come in and answer any and every question we ask you, or we'll try to put you in prison. it's disgusting. it is so disgusting. think about it. we weren't allowed to know who the anonymous, so-called anonymous whistleblower was when they did try to impeach donald trump, did impeach donald trump, but -- the country wasn't allow to know what took place in the bunker, in the basement of the
capitol during impeachment but they get to know anything and everything they want with conversations between the president and his top advisor. this is so wrong. democrats on the select committee, they also can make up their minds. with steve bannon they said, you have to appear in person to assert any privilege. and because he didn't come they held him in contempt. with jeff clark they said, come in person. assert privilege. which he did. and they said, nope, that's not good enough. they held him in contempt. and now with mark meadows, he gave them thousands of documents and agreed to come and they still said, not good enough. not good enough. what a -- what a charade. make no mistake, make no mistake, when democrats vote in favor of this resolution, it is a vote to put a good man in prison. that is what the -- don't pretend to argue either. don't even attempt the argument. no, no, no.
this is just the house acting. the justice department will make a decision whether to prosecute or not. come on. is there anyone who believes that? it took the attorney general all of five days to treat parents as terrorists. all of five days. if the left-wing political group can write the white house asking the department of justice to use the patriot act against moms and dads and five days later the attorney general of the united states does just that, then what do you think he's going to do when 225 democrats in the house of representatives ask him to put president trump's chief of staff in prison? this is -- i've been in congress a while, 15 years. i've seen democrats weaponize the government to attack their political opponents. 10 years ago they used the i.r.s. to target good people around this country, good, conservative country. five years ago they used the f.b.i. to spy on abuse of fisa
process, used the f.b.i. to spy on president trump's campaign. two months ago -- two months ago, the department of justice using the counterterrorism division at the f.b.i. to put a threat tag, a label, a designation on parents who had the gall to speak up at a school board meeting, speak up against some crazy curriculum. and now, now they're destroying executive privilege. now they're attacking that. this might be the worst. destroying a precedent that has been around since george washington and treating mark meadows as a criminal. mark meadows is our former colleague. he is a good man. and he's my friend. and this is -- this is as wrong as it gets. i think deep down, everyone knows it. i think they know it as well. they know this is wrong. we've all served with this guy. he's done more work with democrats than probably any
republican. we all know what a good man he is. and this is as wrong as it gets. you all know it. but your lust for power, your lust to get your opponents is so intent, you don't care. i hope you reconsider. i hope we don't take this action. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you very much, madam speaker. just for the record, the gentleman from ohio is aware of congressional oversight prerogatives. when mr. meadows was a member and later chairman of the house oversight committee, he himself demanded testimony from senior executive branch officials and chided those who failed to cooperate with congressional oversight. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from
california, mr. schiff, the distinguished chairman of the house intelligence committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. schiff: madam speaker, mark meadows was served with a subpoena for testimony and documents three months ago. since that time, he's done tv interviews, published a book, produced over 9,000 documents about january 6, which he concedes are not covered by any form of privilege. these documents include chilling text messages from the president's son, don jr., urging meadows to get his father to do something to stop the violence. from members of congress urging that the vice president simply ignore electoral votes. he personally deems unconstitutional. and even after the violence of january 6, bemoaning the fact the effort to overturn the counting of the electors was a failure. one of the text to meadows on january 3 came from an unknown caller and referred to efforts to replace the leadership at the
department of justice and said the following -- i heard jeff clark is getting put in on monday. that's amazing. it will make a lot of patriots happy. and i'm personally so proud that you are at the tip of the spear. and i could call you a friend. but notwithstanding his text, his emails, his interviews and his book, mr. meadows refused to appear for his deposition, claiming to discuss the same issues, documents and book, is somehow privileged. the inconsinsens -- con -- the inconsistens -- it is a pral participant and witness of january 6, at the tip of the spear. if he can get away of ignoring the law, if witnesses summoned before congress can pick and choose whether they comply, our power of oversight will be gone
and along with it our cherished system of checks and balances. take away congress' power to compel evidence and you take away congress' power to protect the public from a dangerous and malign executive. people died on january 6. a congress that cannot enforce its subpoenas in such an investigation is no more effective than a court in a homicide case which cannot compel witnesses to appear. we would cease to be a congress and become a mere play thing in the hands of a des pit. mark meadows has demonstrated contempt for congress and for the public. now he must be held in contempt. he should be prosecuted like anyone else who ignores the law. because no one is above the law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, let me just make
sure people understand some facts in light of some of the charges that my colleague from ohio just made which are flat false. number one, mr. meadows refused to show up for his deposition. the committee scheduled the deposition after extensive coordination with mr. meadows at a day he shows that he selected and then -- chose that he selected and then he refused to show up. he refused to show up to testify about nonprivileged questions. so my colleague from ohio can talk as much as he likes about executive privilege and about george washington and about which is crucial to 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. and now, madam speaker, i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. aguilar: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the vice chair yielding. last tuesday, december 7, the select committee received a letter from mr. meadows' lawyer, telling us that his clients' appearance for a deposition had become, and i quote, untenable. something else happened last tuesday. mr. meadows' book, the chief's chief, hit book stores. this is a witness who is refusing to comply with the law and answer our questions in part because the former president has instructed him to do so. he says. he says that as chief of staff he couldn't possibly disclose the conversations with the former president. but look at his book and you get more information about his confidential conversations with the former president than our committee did. this is from a section dealing with january 6 rally at the
ellipse. when he got offstage, president trump let me know that he had been speaking met forricly about the walk to the capitol. he nuaz well as anyone that we couldn't organize a trip like that on such short notice, end quote. that part is interesting because the select committee has a lot of questions about what the president said and did on january 6. we have a lot of questions about how protests that day escalated into a riot. and mark meadows says he can't discuss these details with us but apparently he can put them in his book. we've also learned from those very documents mr. meadows turned over that he was willing to discuss what the president was thinking with members of congress. on january 3, mr. meadows was exchanging text messages with a lawmaker about the pressure campaign to get state legislatures to overturn the results of the election. in one text message to a lawmaker, mr. meadows wrote he,
he presumably being president trump, quote, he thinks the legislators have the power, but the v.p. has power too, end quote. the power to do what? we could guess the power to overturn the election results. the power to reject the will of the voters. and days later, a violent mob tried to get vice president pence to do just that. we'd like to ask mr. meadows about that. about what the president, former president, thought. days before the violent attack, mr. meadows was willing to share what he, president trump, thinks, but he won't tell us. that's why mr. meadows' testimony is so important. that's why his privilege claims are so outrageous and that's why we need to adopt this resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves the time. excuse me.
that was the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. banks: madam speaker, let's be very, very clear. the democrats aren't interested in finding out how a disorganized hoard of rioters managed to break into the capitol. they don't want to learn about the security breakdown that occurred that day and they don't care about protecting the capitol from future attacks. they've proven it to us. none of the 51 subpoenas that the committee has publicly touted had anything to do with capitol security. as they've proven yet again today over and over again, they only care about attacking their political enemies. with that, madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois,. mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to my friend from indiana. here we are again considering another politically motivated contempt resolution. this time the contempt resolution for someone who actually provided this select
committee with nearly 7,000 pages of nonprivileged emails and other documents in response to a subpoena. more than 1, 100 documents and 2, 300 text messages were also provided. that doesn't seem to be enough for this select committee. that it really has turned out to be nothing more than a partisan committee just to investigate the former president. subpoenas are not open-ended. they're required to narrowly be tailed. unfortunately this committee doesn't seem to care about the rules. i also have some serious concerns with the way i wouldses and -- whistleblowers and other witnesses are being treated by this select committee. i asked this question the last time we were here voting on a politically motivated contempt resolution and it stint hasn't been answered by the majority so i'll ask it again. why was the capitol so unprotected on january 6? there are serious security vulnerabilities that have not been addressed and won't be addressed nearly a year after january 6. there's been little real action
taken in response to the senate report on january 6, the honorary task force findings and the capitol police inspector general has released seven reports and 103 findings. yet the majority has failed to ensure these findings are implemented in a meaningful way. we know massive changes to intel, perimeter protection, training, leadership structure, decision making processes and many, many more are needed. but neither this select committee nor the committee on house administration seem at all interested in ensuring that these changes are made. additionally, a number of questions, madam speaker, from that day still remain unanswered. i'm still waiting on the speaker of the house to answer a letter i sent her back in february that asks why the national guard request by then-police chief steven sudd were denied. why the speaker was involved in eventually approving the request. and why the house sergeant at arms has refused to comply with
preservation and production requests from my office, the rank -- i'm the ranking member of the oversight committee for the sergeant at arms. they will not comply with the preservation request from the committee of jurisdiction. we have many other unanswered questions too, madam speaker. with these questions still unanswered and another purely political contempt resolution on the floor today, it makes you ask yourself, what is the majority hiding? and why are there priorities, not the men and women serving in the capitol police and making this capitol more secure for everyone? we need these reforms. they should have been done months ago. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves his time. the gentleman from mississippi is now recognized. mr. thompson: thank you very much. madam speaker, i yield -- reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: madam speaker, i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. raskin: i thank the gentlelady. madam speaker, like 300 other witnesses called to meet with the january 6 committee, and our staff, mark meadows was indeed cooperating with our committee and voluntarily released thousands of pages of admittedly unprivileged documents. and then something changed. his book came out. and apparently it embarrassed donald trump and after ex-president trump explode and called the book fake news, meadows performed a u-turn and refused to appear at the december 8 deposition that he had previously agreed to. he called his own book fake news. which is a pretty devastating review to render on your own book. and he brought a lawsuit against the committee, alleging, check
this out, that we have no legislative purpose. meadows' sudden vanishing act cannot vaporize the article 1 legislative power of our committee to investigate the massive assault on american democracy that took place on january 6. if the january 6 committee has no legislative purpose, then none of our committees do. for the first rule of democratic government is self-preservation. article 1, section 8, clause 15 gives us the power to suppress insurrections and repel invasions against the union. and this we will do by investigating and reporting on the most dangerous political violence ever unleashed against the capitol by a domestic enemy. we have hundreds of questions, yes, we do. the fact that donald trump, who gave mr. meadows a positive pose
blush for his book, changed his mind about the book, doesn't mean mr. meadows can violate a congressional subpoena. something meadows previously insisted upon himself as a leading member of the house oversight committee and he knows it and we have pages and pages of his insisting upon the essential importance of honoring the subpoenas of congress. we have hundreds of questions for mr. meadows about information he's already admitted is not privileged in any way at all. by the executive privilege, the fifth amendment or anything else. here's one of them. how did the following texts from a house lawmaker influence trump's plans to overthrow joe biden's electoral college majority of 306 to 232 after joe biden beat donald trump? here's what that lawmaker wrote him. on november 4, a member of this body wrote to meadows, here's an aggressive strategy. one day after the election, why
can't the states of georgia, north carolina, pennsylvania and other republican-controlled state houses declare this is b.s.? where conflicts in election and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the scotus, the supreme court of the united states. how did this text influence the planning of mark meadows and donald trump to try to destroy the lawful electoral college majority that had been established by the people of the united states and the states for joe biden? those are the kinds of questions that we have a right to ask mark meadows. he does not have any special privilege above any other citizen to get out of his civic responsibility to participate. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. banks: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves.
the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you very much. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from virginia, mrs. luria, a distinguished member of the select committee, as well as the committee on armed services, homeland security and veterans affairs. veterans' affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. mrs. luria: madam speaker, this is not a vote that i ever thought i'd be asked to take. the idea that this body would find a former chief of staff to the president of the united states, a former member of congress in contempt was unthinkable prior to today. we must approve this resolution, madam speaker, because of one simple fact. 187 minutes. for 187 minutes mark meadows was besieged by cries for help, from
citizens from members of the press, from members of the president's own family, and from our colleagues in this chamber pleading for mr. meadows to intervene and stop the attack. the american people need to understands exactly what happened during that 187 minutes. mr. meadows knows, which is why he must come forward. it's increasingly clear that for 187 minutes the commander in chief was derelict of his duty. we know this because mr. meadows provided the evidence to the committee without anies aertations of privilege. and while the records he handed over are helpful, there are many questions that we need to ask him. mr. meadows received a text, one of several, from one lawmaker in the days leading up to the attack saying, check your signal. the signal messages are encrypted. only mr. meadows can tell us
what they said. so we'd like to ask him about that. in the course of our investigation we've heard from individuals involved in planning the rallies that immediately preceded the violent atackle on the cap -- attack on the capitol. those people talked with we hear white house staffers who reported to meadows. and heard from justice department officials and mr. meadows knew about. and we heard from state first about the pressure campaign and the attacks on democracy in arizona, michigan and georgia. mr. meadows actually went to georgia in connection with the recount effort. the american people must hear about that. as one rioter put it, to
overthrow the government. our republic, our republic, which i served in uniform for 20 years has never faced a threat as what we faced today. think back to the day of the violent attack. if you believe that mark meadows could have helped stopped that attack, you must vote yes today. if for 187 minutes, the president needed to call off the rioters, you must vote yes today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves. the gentlelady from wyoming is reserved -- recognized. >> my republican colleagues vr condemned all political violence but the chair of the house
judiciary committee secured a presidential pardon for susan rosen berg a domestic terrorist who set off a bomb in 1983. merrick garland helped the obama administration to dismiss an indictment a fugitive who was arrested for setting off a bomb inside the united states capitol. i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. roy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. roy: i spoke on this floor in defense of the rule of law and it was incumbent to doing so i reminded the chamber tay we are deeply divided and we are divided further and a divided nation must return to first principles and include separation of powers and the
judicious use of the subpoenaing power. and that power is not per the court. it is not for the court to the court a power to punish to be indefensible. the january 6 committee was borne in politics. and the 500 americans who have been jailed and arrested and the conspiracies. no, the select committee moves the goal post and one targets to claim privilege to claim that privilege and did so and was told sorry thrks isn't sufficient. we have the targeting of our friend mark meadows. and the question of privilege continues to be litigated. the gentlelady from wyoming
outlines. the text messages were turned over by mr. meadows and produced 1100 documents. mr. meadows offered to appear before the committee to -- 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 10 seconds. mr. roy: we are facing a vote to hold mr. meed offs in contempt. and this is to exercise unlimited power while moving the goal posts. this is an assault on our republic. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: i reserve and am prepared to close after the gentlelady from indiana -- the gentlelady from wyoming and the
gentleman from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. cheney: i reserve. banks banks i yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs. mr. biggs: in spite of the protesttations from the that the bogus committee and said it was self-preservation, but every democrat has stood today is meant to attack one person and that is donald trump. i'm reminded of the case dha gave us the -- all these cases that deal with subpoenas, the kill born case. the congressional case because its real purpose was not to deal
with reforms but possible crimes. a power reserved to the judicial branches. this committee is illegitimate and violated its own rules of creation and says they want to find out the massive truth of what happened on january 6 and can't have a committee to find out. you can't do that. and that is what you are doing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. banks: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. he. ms. cheney: i reserve. >> i'm prepared to close.
again, what you have heard today proves the fact that what we have said all along, this select committee is not at all interested in doing anything to prevent something like january 6 from ever happening again. it is all about burying their political opponents. they are holding mr. meadows in contempt and it's an absolute shame and shouldn't allow it to happen and i urge my colleagues to vote against this. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the -- the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: 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 and knew it at the
time and now they are defending the indefensible. whether we get to the truth and defend ourselves of it ever happening again. how we address january 6 is the moral test of our generation. very said to see how my colleagues are addressing this and mr. meadows is refusing and he is in contempt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. let me thank my colleague from wyoming, for supporting this effort of the committee. she has been a wonderful member of the committee and i look forward to continuing the relationship. and i want to thank my colleagues who presented on the majority side today, who made a clear case of why mr. meadows'
defiance is unacceptable. i take no joy to make this refeferl. mr. meadows served with us here for seven years but doesn't excuse his conduct. if anything, he should know better and he put himself in this category and small category of witnesses who are drawing out a lot of attention hiding behind every privilege you can think of trying to slow down and slow walk this process. we want to hear from them all. we have heard from more than 300 witnesses. three significant individuals have come in and spoken with us on the record. as you have heard last night and today, we made significant findings. this investigation is moving ahead swiftly. but even with all that
cooperation, we need to send a clear message that this sort of defiance of the rule of law cannot stand. we need to hear from mr. meadows and his refusal to appear is plain and simple contempt. i ask all members to support this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time all the time for debate has expired and and the question on adoption of the resolution. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. the gentleman from indiana has asked for a recorded vote. pursuant to section 3-s of resolution 8, yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings are postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, seek recognition? mr. meeks: pursuant to house resolution 49, i call up h.r. 5665 and ask for immediate consideration in the house. the clerk: union calendar number 156 h.r. 5665, a bill to accomplish an office to combat
islamaphobia and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: in lieu of the amendments recommended by the committee of foreign affairs the amendment consisting of 117-123 printed in produce hotter is adopted and the bill is considered read. it shall be debatable for one hour of the committee on foreign affairs or their respective designees, the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks and the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, each will control mr. meeks. mr. meeks: i ask ask that members may control. i yield myself such time as i
may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. meeks: i rise in strong support of h.r. 5665, the combatting international islamaphobia act. before i continue, let me submit for the record, a statement of administration policy which begins by stating, quote, the administration supports passage of h.r. 5665, the combatting international islamaphobia act and our country's act goes back centuries and the administration strongly believes that people of all faiths and backgrounds should be treated with dignity and respect around the world. i could not agree more. the world has even the
anti-islamaphobia violence and here in the united states of america. in recent years, anti-muslim bigotry has been on the rise with muslims beaten and attacked and receiving death threats due to their muslim faith. . the great reverend doctor martin lutherking jr. said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. not only must we address bigotry in the united states but we are also obligated to confront to bigotry wherever and whenever we see it happening around the world. in 2019, new zealand witnessed
the worst terrorist attack in that nation's history when a white supremacist gunman killed 51 muslim worshipers and injured 40 other at two mosques. and just last week, here on the house floor, we discussed the horrific atrocities being committed against uighur muslims in china and the rohingya muslims in burma. we did it in a bipartisan way, with my good friend and colleague, mr. mccaul. that's who we should be. that's what we should represent. because freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and no one -- no one should be the target of discrimination because of their faith. prior to considering h.r. 5665, the house foreign affairs committee held numerous hearings including with u.s. secretary of
state anthony blinken, the u.n. ambassador, and leading academics across the country that discussed and better informed our understanding of anti-muslim bigotry and islam phoneia. with the passage of h.r. 5665, the establishment of an office at the state department to help combat the scourge of islamaphobia, we take an important step toward addressing this problem. that is why i am proud to support the combating international islamaphobia act. this important legislation would do three but very, very important simple things. first it would establish an office to monitor and combat islamaphobia at the state department. second, it would provide the authority to the executive branch to appoint a special envoy for monitoring and
combating islamaphobia. and third, it will help to improve state department reporting of threats to muslims around the world. now, several of my colleagues on the other side have stated they oppose this bill. that the bill does not define islamaphobia. but i believe, and i think they seem to have an awareness, as we all do, for islamaphobia. when they criticized the bill for not doing enough to address islamaphobia against the uighur population in china. madam speaker, discrimination and bigotry are jab hornet and combating -- are abhorrent and combating them is something we should all be able to do
together. that's why i'm heartened to see this piece of legislation being led by a muslim member of congress and a jewish member of congress. and i wish i could say, by a democratic member of congress and a republican member of congress. that would be the right message to send to the world. discrimination and bigotry bring out the worst in humanity and i know that my friend and colleague feels the same way. i know he does. i know many of my colleagues on the other side. but we've got to stand up and say it here on the floor so the world knows what we stand for. if left unchecked, they can lead to terrible atroughs phis, to -- atrocities, to crimes against humanity and even to genocide. so this legislation will help shine a light on this problem
and help address the global rise of islamaphobia at a time in which islamaphobia remains rampant and i strongly encourage all members of this house to support this very timely and important bill and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. mccaul: let me say to my good friend, chairman meeks, we all deplore anti-muslim persecution. no one should be attacked or denied their human rights or dignity because of their faith. so we actually agree on the intent and spirit behind this. but i do have some concerns with the wording in many parts of this legislation. the united states government is rightly committed to opposing these monstrous acts of violence we have seen directed at muslims
around the world. this includes the horrific mosque shootings in switzerland, question beck and christchurch. our commitment must also apply to anti-muslim persecution by foreign regimes, especially when it amounts to genocide. i'm proud, mr. chairman, of our bipartisan work to condemn and punish the burmese military's genocide against rohingya muslims that began in 2016. we are also working in a bipartisan fashion to oppose the chinese communist party's ongoing genocide against uighur muslims, we passed together in a boish manner on this floor the other day. today, more than one million muslims and other elt nick and religious minorities are held in camps and exploited as slave labor. muslim children are ripped from their mother's arms to be raised by the communist party. and muslim women are suffering systematic sexual violence, forced sterilization and forced aabortion.
members on our side are fully committed to combating these anti-muslim atrocities and i'm proud of the work, again that chairman meeks and i were able to do together to hold the chinese communist party accountable for their genocide. i want to thank you for your efforts. in addition i'm pleased that right after this bill, chairman mcgovern who has worked so hard with this committee, and senator marco rubio in the senate, will finally be able to send to the president's desk a bipartisan, bicamera rah -- bicameral bill to combat the uighur genocide. unfortunately in this bill, the rushed, partisan bill before us today, does not live up to these two serious bipartisan efforts. committee democrats made no effort to work toward a bipartisan agreement before the markup and the bill has no republican co-sponsors. this legislation is dangerously vague and unnecessarily duplicative. it doesn't frame things in terms
of anti-muslim persecution. nor does it use the typical statutory language like, quote, gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. instead, it uses the undefined, nonlegal term of islamaphobia. this word appears no where in the federal statutes. it is so vague and subjective that it could be used against legitimate speech for partisan purposes. even the term phobia con tates irrational fear, not discrimination. the bill also completely ignores the state department's extensive efforts already under way to protect the rights of muslims. regular monitoring and reporting are already carried out by human rights officers at our embassies worldwide as well as the bureau of democracy, human rights and labor, the office of international religious freedom and international commission on religious freedom of the annual
country reports on human rights contains detailed, country-specific narratives of human rights violations targeting muslims and the annual report on international religious freedom details anti-muslim abuses and u.s. government policy to address such challenges. in addition, the current nominee to serve as special envoy for international religious freedom, rashad hussein is a prominent muslim american. madam speaker, the lack of a special envoy is not a sign of bigotry. in fact there's no special envoy for the hundreds of millions of christians who face dangerous persecution today. also there's no special envoy for the hindus or buddhists or whys or -- or bahais or yazidis and others who face persecution. we have heard a lot about the office of special envoy of anti-semitism. i imagine we'll continue to hear
about this during this debate. while the worlding of today's bill is modeled after the two prior anti-semitism bills, the process has been completely different and inadequate. both bills in 2004 and 2020 came after dedicated hearings showing the need for specialized legislation. the second bill was based on 16 years experience before a senate-confirmed special envoy was added. in stark contrast, today's bill is a result of a hurried partisan push over the last six days. this legislation was introduced less than two months ago. we have not held any hearings focused on whether the new state department bureaucracy is needed or use to feel counter anti-muslim hate. finally, today we received an odd statement of administration policy that i can never recall basically saying while the administration supports passage of the bill, it would like for this bill to be rewritten.
this state department would like for this bill to be rewritten. why aren't we consulting with the state department to get this bill right before we throw it on the house floor and pass it with such haste? in it, the administration also says it wants to include language, to, quote, ensure that the secretary of state has the necessary flexibility and permissive authority to dezing nate such an office and special envoy. in other words, the administration doesn't want to be required to create this office and position as this bill mandates. combating religious persecution against all people of faith including muslims is a serious issue. it deserves the kind of serious attention that draws bipartisan support. i also believe that a definition for clarity as to what islamaphobia is and how it would apply should be done through the legislative intent of the
congress and that left -- not left up to the bureaucracy in the state department. unfortunately, the text has been rushed to the floor, it's vague, redundant as i've said and for that reason, i do oppose it and i'm going to get later into some definitions of islamaphobia from various scholars and articles that bring out how vague this term is. we're not saying, you know, we're protecting against persecution of muslims or international human rights for muslims. it's islamaphobia. that i think draws the most scrutiny to this bill. and with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. meeks: i now proudly yield five minutes to the sponsor of this most timely bill, representative from the great state of minnesota, ms. omar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.
ms. omar: thank you, chairman. madam speaker, today i rise because we are in the midst of a staggering rise of anti-muslim violence and discrimination around the world. at its worst it's uighurs in concentration camps in china and genocide against the rohingya in burma. but those atrocities are part of a deeper fabric of violence against muslims and impunity for violence against muslims at a global level. in india, prime minister moe die's government -- modi's government has moved to strip citizenship from millions of muslims. in sri lanka, anti-muslim laws and violence have imposed terror on the community. in hungary, in belarus, and poland, politicians have stoked fear of muslim migrants and refugees. in new zealand and canada, white
supremacists viebles has targeted muslims including at their places of worship and of course we in the united states are not immune to this hatred. it is no secret that the previous president of the united states explicitly vowed and i quote, a complete and total shutdown of muslims entering the united states. but trump was simply taking advantage of a deeper culture of islamaphobia that has existed for the past two decades. from the patriot act, the c.v.e. program, to abu ghraib. none of these things are happening in isolation. we must understand that these problems are interlinked. in fact, earlier this year, the united nations commissioned a report and concluded that
islamaphobia has reached, i quote, epidemic proportion. and urged nations around the world to take all necessary measures to combat it. as a country that was founded on religious liberty, our leadership on international religious freedom depends on recognizing that islamaphobia is global in scope and we must lead the global effort to address it. that's why we have interviewed this bill, to createal special envoy for combatting islamaphobia at the state department. this bill adds violence to muslims to the state department annual human rights report. there are people who want to see us divided on ethnic, gender and
religious lines because it suits their political agenda. i believe as americans which should stand united against all forms of bigotry. in fact this legislation is to combat anti-semitism and i was proud to co-sponsor and vote last congress on legislation to elevate that envoy to a cabinet-level position. because it is important that we live in a world where everyone is free of persecution based on their religious backgrounds and beliefs. and until everyone is free to practice their religion, no one is. i want to thank the koa leader on this bill, representative jan shah cows sky and chairman meeks
and speaker pelosi to their commitment on this legislation and i thank the counsel on islamic and all the groups of cross-section of civil rights and safe coalition who fight for religious rights for everyone around the world. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot. mr. chabot: i rise in opposition to h.r. 5665. all americans can agree that persecution against any person or any group is wrong. religious tolerance is a fundamental value upon which this nation was founded, which is why the free exercise of
religion is protected in the first amendment of our constitution and that same fundamental principle is why i supported the muslims who suffered genocide at the hands of the burmese military and the ambassador-at-large and two other human rights at the state department are doing the work called for in this legislation. however, the reasons to oppose this bill go beyond mere redundancy and democrats have refused to include a deficient figs of islamaphobia, the very subject matter that the bill purports to address. democrats voted down an amendment to exclude legitimate criticism of what counts as
islam -- islam fa phobia. or calling out the persecution of christians. is it islam phobic to oppose laws or criticize those who call for the destruction of israel? what about taliban's repression of women or those who deny the holocaust. while clearly none of these criticism should be considered islam phobic, this bill's supporters have refused to protect free speech. this legislation could label any criticism. and almost as if this goal is to shut down all debate and protect islam.
thus we get to the core problem of this bill and treats the persecution of muslims as uniquely unacceptable. every religion faces persecution as anyone who has studied history. christians faced it. behind u.s., and many others have expressed it. and they face it in china and burma, they face genocide at the hands of the islamic state not long ago. this legislation ill-advise he hadlier persecutes muslims similar to the legislation. but unlike alleged islamaphobia,
this is a unique problem. the world realized how per gnashous anti-semitism was. putting islamaphobia in the same category dramatically understates the historic and pervasive nature tay makes anti-semitism such a difficult problem to overcome. such a false equivalent might be used by exeement. the speaker pro tempore: to further activity. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. mr. meeks: the anti-semitism legislation was interviewed on january 3 of 2019, passed the house on january 11 of 2019 and no hearings that were held that
led congress before we passed the vote and no markup at all. i now am proud to yield two minutes to the co-sponsor of this legislation, representative jan schakowsky of illinois. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise as air proud co--lead of combatting international islamaphobia act. in the united states alone, nearly 70% of american muslims have reported personally experienced anti-muslim hate, bigotry and even violence. and this anti--muslim hate isn't just confined to certain communities and areas of this
country. it has reached out in ugly ways, including in my own community, in my own district, to a member of my staff and her family. my colleagues and friends and congress know that congresswoman i will han ohma, the chief chair of this sponsor of this legislation knows about this and far too personal away. she has been subjected to relentless attacks and horrifying attacks not just from her fellow americans but even within the halls of congress and enough is enough. this should not be a controversial bill. we have had a special envoy to monitor and combat anti-semitism
for years and i proudly support that and as a jo myself, i see the parallels quite directly between anti-semitism and islamaphobia, and we need to be combatting both. as a nation that prides itself on defending human rights, creating a special envoy to monitor and combat islamaphobia makes perfect sense and i urge my colleagues to do what is right, which is to vote yes on the combatting international islamaphobia act. and i yield back. mr. mccaul: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. mr. perry: i thank the ranking
member for the time. i'm proud to represent south central pennsylvania where there is a large population of the most persecuted in the muslim faiths and nothing in this bill to safeguard them. many of my colleagues will speak about the lack of definition, it's going to be made up based on your political pro cliffities. and let's face it, aside from the attempts to blake ate an anti-semitic member, house democrats are did he flicting from the real issue from the house of representatives and the maker of this bill has no business of sitting on house committees or house chamber making those comments.
we are not going to deal with that. let's not forget the moment, the author of that levered to the murder of 3,000 americans. during last week's markup, i was assailed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and told me i was nasty, mean and rude, why? because i offered amendments that would have prevented american taxpayer dollars going to money to ties to trim. we all agree that nobody should be persecuted on their faith. but they shouldn't be forced to pay terrorist organizations,
organizations that the maker of this bill was affiliated with like the unindicted co-con spirit tire. and by intentionally leaving the definition blank, the gentlelady and my friends on the other side of the aisle are creating an office in the state department that will spew hatred and attack western ideas throughout the world under the far as of protecting islam. as you can see by this debate. this is to silence critique and to sealens it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentlewoman from michigan.
happening here is house democrats are deflecting from the real issues confronting the house of representatives and that is that the maker of this bill has no business sitting on house committees, has no business in this chamber, a myriad of anti-semitic comments and those of support of violence and terrorism against the united states are totally unacceptable but we're not going to deal with that because we're going to deal with this. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will further report the words. the clerk: but american taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay terrorist organizations, organizations that the maker of this bill is affiliated with, like the one that is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror finance case in the united states of america's history, not because i say so, because the judge says so. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk -- the chair is prepared to rule the words from the
gentleman from pennsylvania contained an allegation that the maker of the bill is affiliated with a terrorist organization. this remark impugns the patriotism or loyalty of a member of the house which is not in order as stated in section 370 of the house rules manual. the gentleman from pennsylvania also alleges that the maker of the bill is anti-semitic. this remark constitutes an allegation of discrimination which is not in order as stated in section 370 of the house rules and manual. the gentlewoman from minnesota is the sponsor of this measure, h.r. 5665, as reflected in the official records of the house. therefore the chair finds that the remarks constitute personalities directed toward an identifiable manner. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
>> parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> i have several inquiries. i'm not trying to press, i'm trying to understand. the first one is, did the speaker and parliamentarian distinguish or identify between the bill author of the bill, maker of the bill, or sponsor of the bill when making its ruling in this case? the speaker pro tempore: the chair has addressed that in the ruling. does the gentleman want to request an additional inquiry? >> yes, i do, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: state your inquiry. >> my question is, regarding the determination that these words were not parliamentary, what's the extent of protection of the debate and speech clause vis-a-vis for instance when we've had a resolution to strip a member of committee, another resolution to strip a different member of committee this year and during the debate of that we had all kinds of aspersions and
comments and if these allegations which were put forward by the gentleman from pennsylvania were accurate and can be defended, was that taken into account both in the context and his terms, taken into account when you made the determination that his speech was not parliamentary? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is not going to provide an advisory opinion. on a prior proceeding. >> i'm not asking for an adrisery reason i'm asking what you took into account with the parliamentarian to determine that his words were nonparliamentary. that's what i'm asking. i'm giving you context. and relationship of previous actions and i've asked for specifically how you limited the speech and debate clause here and whether the fact that he has documentation to prove his assertions or not, whether
they're relevant. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reride on section 370 of the house rules and manual as stated in the ruling. >> thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i'm proud to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois on the ways and means committee, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong support of passage of 5665, commend the sponsor, representative omar and my colleague from illinois, representative schakowsky, for its introduction. you know, i was taught early in life to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and don'ts me around with mr. in between. this resolution reaffirms many of the principles and practices
we have been taught and learned that religion is sack are cant, that religion is sacred, and every person deserves to have their religious thoughts, ideas, and ideologies protected. i urge support and passage of this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, a member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. burchett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burchett: thank you, leader mccaul, i oppose this bill, madam speaker, because it's redundant and will grow a state department bureaucracy that's already overgrown. this is the same state department that has two bureaus tasked with this issue. i wish someone would tell me what exactly is it these bureaucrats are doing since they now need a third department to help them do their job. these are the same state
department bureaucrats who spent four years undermining the foreign policy of a republican president from deep within the government. now they're getting a pass from the biden administration to be soft on china, soft on russia and soft on iran. the democrats in the house want us to spend even more taxpayer money on this already-bloated bureaucracy, madam speaker. for my friends across the aisle, the solution always seems to be throwing more money at a problem. after three years in the house, aisle beginning to realize for democrats in congress our tax dollars are nothing more than political duct tape. the problem with duct tape is it doesn't actually fix anything, contrary to what some people believe. like growing money and spending more, duct tape is not a solution. i wish my friends across the aisle president biden would consider, let's cut the state department's budget until the bureaucrats within decide to get back to work for the american people. secretary of state blinken needs
to call his workers back to the office rather than letting them continue to stay home while passports and visa applications go unprosycessed for american citizens and visitors. let's not waste our constituent's hard-earned tax dollars pay paising -- playing politics. we can do without another dadgum bureaucracy at the state department. thank you, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pa dam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed, with amendment, h.r. 5746, an act to amend title 51, united states code, to extend the authority of the national aeronautics and space administration to enter into leases of nonaccess property of the administration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. meeks: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to representative from michigan, a member of the house foreigns affairs committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one
minute. mr. levin: madam speaker, islamaphobia is a problem across the world. including in my own district. where one of the many mosques that i represent was vandalized last year. it's a problem in this body, where only four muslims have ever served. and where the most visible among them, congresswoman omar, has been the subject of horrible anti-muslim attacks. and it's obviously a problem abroad. even rising to the level of genocide in burma and china. i'm a jewish member of congress who considers fighting all forms of oppression and all instances of religious discrimination core to my faith. mr. speaker, let's all come together and reaffirm that cardinal american value, freedom of religion. let's pass this law as a step toward protecting the rights of the world's 1. # million muslims.
and an integral part of our work to win free dom and security for all people everywhere. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. mccaul: i'm pleased to yield six minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, a member of the foreign affairs committee, mr. barr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for six minutes. mr. barr: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee. i rise in opposition to this legislation. mr. speaker, islamaphobia is wrong. just as anti-semitism, anti-christian hatred and all forms of discrimination based on race or religion are wrong. but this bill, despite whatever the author and defenders of this legislation claim, as its purpose or their intent, is not targeted to counter actual islamaphobia. in fact, this bill is so poorly
drafted any objective analysis of it raises serious concerns about what the true intentions of the bill are because it specifically does not define islamaphobia. this lack of definition not only risks confusing u.s. foreign policy, but it also would compromise u.s. counterterrorism efforts and undermine our national security. what we need, mr. speaker, and what this bill fails to provide, is moral clarity. we don't need nuance or political correctness. or silencing debate. or censorship. on the issue of radical islamic terrorism. what we need is intellectual and moral clarity. before 9/11, radical islamic terrorists were at war with the united states.
that was before 9/11. and since then, radical islamic terrorists have been at war with the united states. you may wish that wasn't the case. but it is and historical fact. if you cannot even acknowledge who the enemy is or what we are at war with them, then how can you expect to defeat that enemy. we must face the truth. the truth that there is a very real struggle within the islamic world between religious tolerance, the purported goal of this bill, and an evil, toxic, intolerance. the potential byproduct of this bill, that says that if you are a christian or if you are a jew or if you are a moderate muslim, then you must be destroyed. and this bill gives voice to this toxic religious intolerance