the speaker pro tempore: gentlem an is recognized. mr. thompson: i want to talk a little bit about what the american people ought to expect of their leaders, those who hold positions of public trust, the responsibilities that come with it. i have been thinking about these responsibilities for more than 50 years and all the time i have been fortunate enough to hold a position of public trust. it doesn't matter if you are an alderman, mayor, president of the united states or staff member working as a civil servant. when you work for the public, when the people taxes pay your salary, these jobs come with serious rules and serious

obligations. dan scavino and peter navarro both held positions of public drug. dan scavino was each drew salaries to the tune of over $180,000 per year. they both were to abide by certain rules and rocketses. and both swore ocean of allegiance to the constitution. the select committee wants to talk to them more than white house jobs. we want to talk about their roles of trying to overturn the 2020 election. we subpoenaed them for their records and testimony. they told us to buzz off. not a single record, no-shows for their depositions. their excuse was, as former

white house employees, the information we wanted, again, information about overturning an election was shielded by executive privilege, a protection for the president to make sure sensitive official conversations stayed private. in other words, they are arguing that their roles in trying to overturn an election had to stay secret because they had official roles as advisers to the ex-president. if they want to make those claims, ridiculous as they sound, here is what the law sounds, they need to show up and make those claims on the record under oath. they refused to do that, that alone means they are in contempt of congress. but i want to dig deeper into the argument these men are making. as i mentioned before, these are rules and obligations public

servants. you can't do government work on taxpayer's dime. you can do on your own time, but not when you are on the clock, that's the law. if you heard of the hatch act, it's probably when a cabinet secretary or white house official that crossed the line from their official duties into political matters. in fact, in 2020, mr. navarro was deemed by a government watchdog by violating the hatch act by using his official role to attack president joe biden and that prohibits to interfere with or affecting the results of an election. sound familiar? and in the case of mr. navarro

and mr. scavino trying to effect the results of an election wasn't knocking on doors or putting signs in peoples' front yards but trying to help a defeated president stay in power. it's not conceivable that their involvement and efforts could have overlapped with their official duties. but beyond that, it was a betrayal of the oath these men took. it was a betrayal of the public trust. even if you do it on your own time, trying to overturn an election is still trying to overturn an election. and when we know that people who stormed this building on january 6, had the same goal, trying to overturn an election, that's what the select committee is investigating. that's why we need to hear from mr. scavino and mr. navarro. as the select committee tries to

provide answers to the american people, these two are saying i worked at the white house when this took place. even if i was plotting to overturn the government, i was collecting a government salary at that time so i don't have time to talk about it. can you imagine? i served my community and country most of my life. like my colleagues, i labored to uphold my oath for the people i serve. i know my constituents expect that of me. to run into this behavior as we investigate a violent snarks -- insurrection, it can't stand. dan scavino and peter navarro must be held for the abuse of the public trust and defiance of the law. they are in contempt of

congress, which is a crime. and i call on my colleagues to do their duty to defend this institution and the rule of law and to votey on this -- vote yes on this resolution. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the select committee has conducted 800 interviews and depositions of witnesses who have knowledge of the events of january 6. this includes more than a dozen former trump white house staff members. so mr. speaker, when you hear my colleagues make political attacks on the select committee, i hope all of us can remember some basic facts. through these interviews, we have learned that president trump and his team were warned in advance and repeatedly that the efforts they undertook to

overturn the 2020 election would violate the law and our constitution. they were warned that january 6 could and likely would turn violent. and they were told repeatedly by our state and federal courts, our justice department and by agencies of our intelligence community that the allegations of widespread fraud sufficient to overturn an election were false and were unsupported by the evidence. and despite all of these specific warnings, president trump and his team moved willfully through multiple means to attempt to halt the peaceful transfer of power. to halt the constitutional process of counting votes and to shatter the constitutional bedrock of our great nation. as a federal judge recently concluded, the illegality of president trump's plan for january 6 was, quote, obvious.

we are here to address two specific witnesses who have refused to appear for testimony. the committee has many questions for mr. scavino about his social media work for president trump and the donald . win and queu anone. mr. scavino worked directly with president trump to spread president trump's false message that the election was stolen and to recruit americans to come to washington on january 6 to, quote, take back their country. this effort to deceive was widely effective and widely destructive and donald trump's stolen election campaign succeeded in provoking the violence on january 6. on this point, there is no doubt the committee has videos,

interviews and sworn statements from violent rioters demonstrating these facts. mr. navarro will also be a key witness, he has written a book bel coordinating and planning the activities of january 6. we have many questions including about his communications with roger stone and steve bannon regarding the planning for january 6. and as judge carter recently concluded quote, base dollars on the evidence the court finds it more likely than not that president trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the joint session of congress on january 6, 2021. in the case of both of these witnesses, mr. speaker, the committee would rather have their testimony than have to move this contempt citation. when you hear my colleagues attack the select committee, mre

chosen not to appear. in america, no one is above the law. neither mr. trump nor mr. scavino nor mr. navarro is some form of royalty. there is no such thing in america of the privileges of the crown. every citizen has a duty to comply with a subpoena. when you hear my colleagues challenge the committee's legislative purpose, remember, the d.c. circuit and the supreme court of the united states have afffirmed our legislative purpose. too many republicans are once again ignoring the rulings of the court, as many of them did in the run-up to january 6. mr. speaker, the tale of what happened following the 2020 election resulting in the violence of january 6 is a tale

of stunning deceit. it is a tale of lies about our election and contempt for the rulings of our courts. the election claims made by donald trump were so frivolous and so unfounded that the president's lead lawyer did not just lose these cases, he lost his license to practice law. the new york supreme court found, quote, there is uncontraverted evidence that mrg statements to courts, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former president trump and the trump campaign in connection with trump's re-election in 2020. mr. speaker, those in this chamber who continue to embrace the former president and his

dangerous and destructive lies, ought to take a good hard look at themselves. at a moment of real danger to our republic, when the need for fidelity to our constitution is paramount, they have abandoned their ocean in order to perform for donald thrum. that will be their legacy. mr. navarro and mr. scavino have chosen not to comply with a congressional subpoena and they are in contempt. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i hope this is the last time we do this. just last week we watched members of the january 6 committee criticize the d.o.j. for not jailing their political opponents fast enough. now the committee is trying to

refer two more of president trump's advisors to the d.o.j. for criminal prosecution. mr. banks: the same d.o.j. by the way that slandered concerned parents as domestic terrorists. a d.o.j. overseen by a president who said president trump should be prosecuted. so let's be clear. we aren't voting today to rename a post office. so please, let's be-of the with ourselves -- be-you have the with -- be honest with ourselves. a vote to hold navarro and scavino in contempt of congress is to put them in jail for a year. neither of these men deserve this. the party line isn't a good enough execution today. disliking their politics isn't an excuse. you know, mr. scavino has two boys. he's a good dad. he doesn't deserve this. his boys definitely don't deserve this. so before we vote today i've got

to ask, could anyone here explain to those boys why their dad deserves to be behind bars for a year? mr. scavino grew up in a working class family in new york city. he's a form caddie who worked his way up to the white house through hard work and determination. mr. scavino lived the american dream. now thanks to the select committee he's living an authoritarian nightmare. the select committee will say that it's mr. scavino's fault for refusing to cooperate, they say. that is simply not true. mr. scavino asked time and again for the committee to follow the rule of law and provide him with a narrow and specific legislative purpose for the information that they were seeking. he asked, how is what you want from me pertinent to your investigation? and they refused to explain. but remember what they said last

week. the january 6 committee must enforce its subpoenas. but contempt is not enforcement. it is punishment. contempt won't get the committee any information. only the court can do that. but they don't want to go to the judiciary. they don't want neutral arbitration. they want political punishment. the select committee has never been interested in fact finding. in fact, jim jordan and i were both blocked from sitting on the committee because we promised to fully investigate the security failure at the capitol. the democrat leaders don't want that. they claim they blocked us for being too partisan. meanwhile, the committee's lead staffer signed his name to a false letter calling the hunter besider -- biden laptop disinformation. apparently lying to undermine

democracy is a key qualification for employment of this committee. if the january 6 committee gets its way, congress will have referred four former trump officials for prosecution in under six months. another record for the 117th congress. the select committee aims to do two things. silence legitimate questions about the breakdown of security at capitol. and punish their political opponents. it's that simple. dan scavino is accused of listening to his boss, the former commander in chief, who told him to, quote, invoke all applicable privileges and immunities. today's vote is not about wrongdoing. and it isn't about anybody's character. no matter what they say. today's vote is about the character of this house. it's about abusing the seat of our democracy to attack american democracy. the question is, do we live in a country where you can go to jail for working for the wrong

politician? would you want to live in that country? the question is, will you help create that country? because i think we've had a pretty good thing going for the last 240 years. and that's exactly why i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on this resolution today. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you very much. just for the record, madam speaker, let me say that we are here for this contempt process today. but the president's own daughter complied with the wishes of the committee. and i would think that if his daughter complied with the wishes of the committee, everyone else should. even the people who work for him. madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished majority leader of the house. mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from mississippi for yielding. i thank the gentlelady from wyoming for her courage in standing for the truth. i disagree with many things that the previous speaker said. i disagree with his premises and with his conclusion in many respects. but i do agree with him on one thing. this vote is about the character of the house. i agree with him on that. which is why 435 of us ought to vote for this resolution. so that the house can do its duty. mr. speaker, once again we are forced to take this step, asking

the justice department to charge individuals with criminal contempt for refusing to answer subpoenas as issued by the committee investigating the attack on our capitol and our democracy on january 6, 2021. the two gentlemen of which the previous speaker spoke, i don't know, i have no war he will with them individual -- war he will with -- quarrel with them individually. but we are a nation of laws, not of men. and if we are to be a nation of laws, then we need to respond to legal process. and if we think it's askertations -- the assertions are wrong, we need to make our case. on the merits of this resolution there should be no doubt and it is about the character of this

house. the courage of this house to seek honesty, to seek truth. the individuals in question had intimate knowledge of the former president's actions and decisions on that day. no matter who their children are, no matter what their life has been, they have knowledge that is important for the american people to have through their representatives in congress. americans must have a full accounting of what transpired on january 6 and in the weeks leading up to it and perhaps subsequent. that is what the bipartisan select committee has been tasked with undertaking. by a vote of this house. sadly i expect maybe most of my

colleagues across the aisle will vote against this resolution. it is about the character of this house. perhaps they agree with the republican national committee which has said that the violent trump-led insurrection at the u.s. capitol, the deaths and injury of u.s. capitol police officers and an effort to prevent the certification of an election was, and i quote, the republican national committee, legitimate political discourse. how can anybody make that assertion? how can anybody in the republican national committee vote for it? why doesn't everybody on the republican party side of the aisle say that is not what we

believe? silence prevails. there is no doubt that the insurrection on january 6 itself was a danger to our democracy. but i agree with "the washington post" columnist and former white house speech writer for republican president george w. bush. michael, who wrote on december 16, and i quote, it is republican tolerance for the intolerable that threatens american democracy. very frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle ought to be celebrating those in their ranks who have the courage to stand up for the truth. i've told liz cheney, if john kennedy were writing his book in profiles and courage today, i would urge him to include her and adam kinsinger in that boom

-- kinzinger in that boom. january 6 was a peril, a day of peril for america. but the greater crisis is when one of our two main political parties has become so hijacked by extremism and so enthralled to a dangerous demagogue that it condones, even celebrates, insurrection and violence. mr. speaker, how can the same party that claims it honors law enforcement simultaneously declare that violence -- violent attacks against police officers are legitimate? how can one of our two political parties be so craven for short-term partisan gain that it is willing to encourage and condone insurrection? how kits members use their sacred votes in the hour the

people's house in an effort to impede the investigation of this dark and dangerous day in the history of our democracy? because that's what this vote is about. not only the character of this house, but the character of this country. the character of the people who demand, hopefully, truth. because that is what will set us all free. because that's what this vote is about. whether you believe that the violent attack on january 6, one in which a mob threatened the life of the republican vice president, legitimate, political discourse? and threatened the life of the speaker of this house. the speaker of all the house.

in an attempt to overthrow our democracy. does that constitute legitimate political discourse? mr. speaker, i can't believe americans believe that. and we must reject that theory that the violence that we saw on january 6, the hate that we saw on january 6, is somehow legitimate political discourse. because if people believe that then our democracy is in grave danger. this vote is about whether you believe a certain individual can be held above the law in our country. it's about whether you believe the american people deserve to know all the facts about january 6 and whether those responsible for the attack ought to be held responsible. and most fundamentally, mr. speaker, it is about whether the

congress can fulfill its constitutional responsibility and ability to determine the truth. madam speaker, mr. speaker, this vote will reveal to us who was willing to show tolerance for the intolerable. it will reveal to us who is willing to stand up and defend our democracy and the rule of law, irrespective of party, irrespective of personality. that is a call to patriotism, to love of country, and to love of constitution. my fellow colleagues, let us do our duty to the constitution, to the declaration, to our democracy and to the people we

represent. vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, i think it's very important as our colleagues consider their vote on this resolution to keep in mind the facts. number one, number one, neither mr. scavino nor mr. navarro has appeared in front of this committee. we interviewed 800 witnesses. most have cooperated fully and answered fully. some witnesses have taken the fifth. some witnesses have answered some questions and asserted privilege on others. somehow the former president can instruct someone not to appear, that is not sustainable and not found anywhere in the law. if mr. scavino or mr. navarro

wants to assert some kind of a privilege -- and, again, our questions have to do with political activities that are not covered by executive privilege but if they wish to assert that privilege they can appear and do so. madam speaker, in trump v. thompson, the d.c. circuit held and we were upheld in the supreme court, held that the committee's need for this information outweighs the former president's right to any kind of confidentiality. i think it's important for those facts to be clear and to be on the record 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 now recognized. >> madam speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. gaetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. gaetz: gas prices are rising, the border has become a turnstile, inflation is crushing our fellow americans, and here we are back on the floor of the house reliving january 6. some of the members of the january 6 committee come from

the swamps of washington, d.c. i come from the swamps of florida, and i know alligator tears when i see them. and yet, we are lectured about performing for the former president. the reason scavino and navarro should not be held in contempt is because the january 6 committee is illegitimate, unconstitutional, kicking off the republicans that leader mccarthy sent to serve on the committee. you know, the -- we were accused by the majority leader of having our party hijacked. our party has ascended and time is on our side because when we take the majority back, this nonsense will come to an end. it's baffling to me that democrats are so eager to conduct oversight over the last administration that's out of power but it's hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil when it comes to the biden administration. they're worried about trump's trade advisor than joe biden's son. and they're more worried about dep advertising the right folks

to serve our border. the january 6 committee is a sham. no president would ever have privilege that would extend beyond the life of that presidency. and so no president would have the ability to have candid conversations with staff and advisors that might not immediately come back to bite them the moment they left the oval office. the american people see this for the partisan exercise that it is. probably some folks at the justice department even see it's a partisan exercise because not all of these contempt citations are well received at the justice department right now and this contempt referral should similarly be ignored and rejected and certainly is a stain on this house. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, a distinguished

veteran of the air force and member of the select committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. kinzinger: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, for all practical purposes, dan scavino's career is donald trump. scavino was 16 when they met and he is till this day a trump stalwart. he was part of the social media program. he was two years deputy chief of staff for communications. using social media to monitor trend was scavino's core business. he did that for trump during the 2016 campaign and he kept doing it through the stop the steal and the fraudulent challenge to the 2020 election. he also monitored extremist social media sites for the president. dan scavino was with the president on january 5 and 6. he spoke with trump by phone several times on january 6 and was with the president as many urged him to help stop the violence at the capitol. so dan scavino could shed light

on what then-president trump thought would happen on january 6, especially the potential for violence. did the president know the rally could turn violent? that his rhetoric on the ellipse could send an angry mob to storm the capitol? that what on the evening of january 5, president trump called a fired up crowd might take it literally when the next morning he told them to fight hard, that he was pouring fuel on the flames? dan scavino was there. so if he were willing to do his duty as a citizen, he could tell us a lot about that, but instead, he's chosen to stiff arm the american people. trump acknowledged scavino sometimes helped shape his tweets. trump retweeted a video that urged viewers to, quote, fight for trump. the january 6 attack was then just 2 1/2 weeks away. why did donald trump retweet that particular message? dan scavino could give us the

inside scoop. while trump and the stop the steal gag was trying to steal the election for themselves, president trump retweeted after queue none already had a video on how to steal an election. what would dan scavino say about why trump repeated a qanon blessed video on how to steal an election? he won't risk telling us. what did president trump's extremists on the donald and other hard right sites urging him to join a wild protest on january 6? posts show some took it as marching orders, in fact. dan scavino knew they would. he knew very well what his boss wanted. he knew sites like the donald attracted extremists. scavino said that a user on that site understood as literal marching orders or literal war drums. president trump and dan scavino had been in the white house for four years by then. they knew the january 6 crowd could turn violent. they knew exactly what they were doing.

we are here today because dan scavino, a key witness, is unwilling to speak with us. he failed to produce a single document in response to the subpoena. and he's clearly demonstrated his complete and utter contempt for congress. dan scavino's blatant disregard for our subpoena is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kinzinger: i yield back. thank you. mr. thompson: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. kinzinger: dan scavino's blatant disregard for our subpoena is to ensure that the american people never get the firsthand story he has to tell. none of us should find it acceptable. it's contempt for the law and contempt for congress. i ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i'd like to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. aguilar: i thank the vice

chair for yielding. thank you, madam speaker. we've been entrusted by the american people to investigate the attempt to overturn a free and fair election. that attempt to subvert the will of the american people resulted in a deadly attack on the people in this building. but it was bigger than just one day of violence and destruction that resulted in the deaths of the u.s. capitol police officers. for weeks, various schemes were hatched by individuals ranging from state legislators to the former president's senior aides to members of congress with a singular objective, keep donald trump in office. these are the facts, madam speaker. facts that were backed up last week by a federal luj judge, who after -- federal judge, who after reviewing some of the evidence the committee has in their possession said in part the illegality of the plan was obvious. we're here today to hold two

individuals involved, peter navarro, and dan scavino, in contempt of congress. peter navarro has failed to comply with our investigation in any way, despite the fact that he's given multiple tv interviews. in fact, mr. navarro appeared on television in support of the fo former president's failed re-election efforts. so much so that he was found to have repeatedly violated the hatch act, but his political work did not stop when the election was over. we know mr. navarro led a call with state legislators about the efforts to convince vice president pence to delay election certification for 10 years. -- 10 days. and we know he spoke to steve bannon both during and after the attack on the u.s. capitol. mr. navarro has publicly stated he's protected by executive privilege but he's never sought counsel, as others had, and he's not sought relief to comply with our lawful subpoena. this is a textbook case for contempt, madam speaker, and

while i'm not surprised by some of my colleagues who refuse to pull their heads out of the sand and face the facts of what really happened and continues to happen, i remain deeply concerned about what this country looks like if the perpetrators aren't held accountable. i urge my colleagues to support house resolution 1037, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from north dakota, mr. armstrong. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for three minutes. mr. armstrong: thank you, madam speaker. the fact is president trump has exerted executive privilege and mr. scavino has raised the issue of executive privilege at president trump's request. no matter how much my colleagues on the other side want to say differently, it is a legitimate assertion considering the d.c. circuit held that executive privilege can be raised by a former president. a determination recently reinforced by justice kavanaugh

in trump v. thompson stating the right of a former president to exert executive privilege exists even if the sitting president does not support that privilege. concluding otherwise would in fact actually eviscerate the privilege in total. and keep in mind that the ruling on executive privilege in trump v. thompson deals with a narrow set of documents from the national archives. it has no bearing on whether mr. scavino testifies. and the ruling does not apply to documents at issue in this case nor testified to the testimony sought by the committee or whether the committee has a legitimate purpose for conversations between president trump and his aide. the select committee has refused to acknowledge president trump -- mr. trump -- mm mr. trump's assertion of privilege. and we take a look at what trump v. thompson actually says and fails to even acknowledge the supreme court that nixon v. the

united states exists. it's not a settled question and it's not clear cut as some would have you believe. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from indiana reserves his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you very much. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from florida -- california -- same neck of the woods -- for three minutes, the gentlewoman of the house administration committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. lofgren: thank you. no one is above the law. you know, we've all heard that phrase. it's bedrock principle. and we know it's what distinguishes democracies like ours from autocracies such as russia. sadly, a few of the former president's closest aides and allies seem to think they're special, that they're above the law, including senior

communication official daniel scavino jr. now, who is he? according to many reports, mr. scavino worked with the former president to use social media to spread lies regarding nonexistent election fraud and to recruit a violent, angry mob to d.c. mr. scavino also followed violent extremist social media on behalf of mr. trump. we have reason to believe that doing so provided mr. scavino with explicit advanced warnings of the violence that was to occur on january 6. he may have shared these warnings of violence with mr. trump before the 6th and we need to ask him about that. he reportedly attended several meetings with mr. trump and others regarding reversing the legitimate victory of president trump. he was also with the former president during the capitol attack when mr. trump failed to immediately try to stop it

despite urgent bipartisan calls for him to do so. you know, a federal court recently concluded that mr. trump likely committed a federal felony and that he and his allies, quote, launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election that, quote, spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers and deepened public distrust in our political process. the court said that his effort was, quote, a coup in search of a legal theory. the court found that, quote, if president trump's plan had worked, it would have permanently ended the peaceful transfer of power, undermining american democracy and the constitution. democrats and republicans have agreed that the very foundation of our constitutional republic was threatened. we must prevent that from ever happening again. senate majority leader mitch

mcconnell rightly explained that the public needs to know about everything what caused and occurred on january 6 to inform the american people and legislative reform proposals. the select committee needs to speak with mr. scavino. he has to fulfill his legal and moral obligation to provide testimony and documents. otherwise, he should face consequences. we must vote yes on this resolution to find him in contempt of congress. in the united states of america, no one, including mr. scavino, is above the law. i yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from mississippi reserves his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. . ms. cheney: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i know my colleague and friend, mr. armstrong, knows very well that, first of all, the executive privilege is a qualified privilege. secondly, former president trump has not exerted executive

privilege. third, i have tremendous respect obviously for justice cavanaugh, but my colleagues continue to quote justice kavanaugh without noting that the opinion in the d.c. circuit, which was upheld by the supreme court, in that opinion the judge found a number of things, including, quote, to allow the privilege of a no locker sitting -- longer sitting president to prevail over congress' need to investigate a violent attack on its home and its constitutional operations would gravely impair the basic function of the leggure. the court also held under any of the texts advocated for former president trump, the profound interests in disclosure advanced by president biden and the january 6 committee far exceed his generalized concerns for executive branch confidentiality. and i would just repeat again, madam speaker, that mr. scavino and mr. navarro both have chosen not to appear in front of the committee to answer questions that are clearly outside of any

potential claim of privilege they may have. and even if they believe there's a claim of privilege, they're obligated to appear and make that assertion. they cannot simply refuse to respond to the committee's subpoena. and i would now like to yield to my colleague from florida, the gentlewoman from, mrs. murphy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's yielding how much time? the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mrs. murphy: thank you, madam vice chair f, for yielding. i support this resolution to refer peter navarro and daniel scavino to the department of justice for contempt of congress. i'll focus my remarks on mr. navarro. there's clear evidence that mr. navarro was involved in efforts to keep president trump in power after he lost the election. we subpoenaed mr. navarro, seeking testimony and documents regarding the actions he took to discredit the election and

prevent the results from being certified. mr. navarro made a blanket claim of executive privilege. this claim lax merit as a matter of law and common sense no president, either sitting or former, has claimed privilege regarding mr. navarro's testimony or documents. and mr. navarro has no authority to assert privilege himself. beyond that fundamental flaw, since the election mr. navarro has written and spoken widely about the subjects that are the focus of our subpoena. he's eager to tell his story, if he can do so on his terms, in a way that serves his interests. he published a book where he details the actions he took to change the outcome of the election. he writes that he worked with steve bannon on a scheme called the green bay sweep. its purpose was to encourage vice president pence to delay certification of the votes and send the election back to state legislatures. mr. navarro writes that he called attorney general barr, urging the department of justice

to support president trump's efforts to challenge the election in court, which barr declined to do. mr. navarro notes that he kept a journal detailing this episode and over action -- episode and other actions he took. while he was refusing to comply with our subpoena, mr. navarro made numerous media appearances, discussing his roles in the events culminating on january 6. mr. navarro has significant relevant knowledge. he's happy to share it on television and in podcasts, but he won't provide this information in response to a lawful subpoena. mr. navarro is in contempt of congress and should be referred for prosecution. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. banks: madam speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. davis: madam speaker, 15 months have passed since january 6 of 2021. yet i've seen little evidence over that time to indicate the

necessary progress has been made to ensure the capitol complex is more secure. and i've seen no evidence of the politicized select committee is serious about identifying or addressing the issues that led to our capitol being so unprepared on that day, which should be its top priority. on february 17 of this year, the g.a.o. released a report detailing the lack of security preparedness by capitol police leadership and the capitol police board on and in the lead-up to january 6. the rank and file men and women who serve congress as members of the capitol police but the their lives on the line every day -- put their lives on the line every day yet the capitol police board failed them. they deserve better. instead of working to ensure our capitol police officers have the tools and the training they need to prevent another event like january 6, or taking long overdue steps to reform the capitol police board, the house has once again -- is once again voting on a contempt resolution because two individuals are not complying with another sham

subpoena issued by house democrats. i have a news flash for members of the select committee. you do not have limitless power. you cannot demand testimony, documents or even view the information of your political opponents without their consent or without the law on your side. you have neither. specifically mr. scavino and mro testify on specific topics that are related to their work in the white house, nor can they testify on communications between president trump and the president's closest advisors, as those communications are protected under president trump's claim of executive privilege. as a reminder, the american taxpayer is spending millions of dollars on this select committee. according to "the washington post," the select committee's on pace to spend $9.3 million by the end of december. to put that into perspective, that amount exceeds the current budgets for the committee on judiciary, agriculture, budget,

ethics, the committee on house administration, rules, science, small business, natural resources, homeland security, veterans' affairs and intelligence. that's right. this select committee is using more taxpayer resources on their partisan investigation than democrats have devoted to serving veterans, addressing rising prices in inflation, or helping our farmers during a massive supply chain crisis. this is nothing more than a sham investigation full of misuses of congressional authority, including speaker pelosi violating 230 years of precedent by refusing to allow the minority party to select its own committee members. failing to investigate pursuant to a valid legislative purpose, altering evidence to fit a certain narrative, lying to witnesses, falsely accusing witnesses, violating opponents' right to challenge subpoenas, and perhaps above all, refusing

to investigate why speaker pelosi and the capitol police board left the capitol so unprotected that day. i urge my colleagues to oppose and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from virginia, a veteran of the united states navy, mrs. luria. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mrs. luria: thank you, madam speaker. i've come to the floor many times over the last three years and discussed the oath of office. the oath to protect and defend our constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. every member of this body's for that oath and it's the same oath that our president and military officers, including those like mr. banks, swear in service to our nation. that's service when an american enlists or commissions in the armed forces when someone takes elected

office and senior positions in the executive branch, they do so to serve the american people. mr. scavino and mr. navarro had the duty to serve the american people. unfortunately they instead chose to serve the interests of one man who sought to advance his own agenda at the peril of american democracy. they now have the duty to respond to the subpoenas of this committee. but they have apparently decided that they're above the law. the american people deserve the truth about the attack that attempted to prevent the peaceful transition of power and the committee is united in our duty to investigate. this committee's conducted over 800 voluntary depositions and interviews with more schedules, including witnesses who worked in the previous administration and even close family members of the former president. the committee's received over 90,000 documents pertaining to january 6 and we followed up over 435 tips received through the committee's tip line.

hundreds of witnesses have voluntarily come forward and cooperated with our investigation. but mr. scavino and mr. navarro have refused to do their part. they've been given every opportunity to come forward, yet they've attempted to obstruct the pursuit of justice and to stonewall the committee's work and conceal the truth. despite both publicly acknowledging their roles and promoting election fraud conspiracies and counseling the former president on changing the outcome of the election. mr. meadows and today mr. scavino and mr. navarro, my question remains, what are you covering up and who are you covering for? their failure to answer that question about january 6 is disregarding in the law and they should be held accountable. that is why i will vote and i will urge my colleagues to vote, to hold mr. navarro and mr. scavino in contempt of congress. and 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, i think it's, again, very important as our colleagues are contempt play the -- contemplating their vote on this resolution that they keep in mind the facts and we're hearing a number of things that are not consistent with the facts. first of all, with respect to the establishment of the committee. mr. davis knows, my colleagues know that we initially attempted to have a bipartisan commission, which in fact leader mccarthy instructed mr. katko to negotiate with chairman thompson, mr. katko did that. secured everything the republicans asked for. at which point mr. mccarthy walked away from the bipartisan commission. and then went over to the senate side and lobbied against the establishment of a bipartisan commission. the establishment in the select committee, again, is not what we would have hoped. we all distribute 35 republicans who voted for the bipartisan commission wanted a bipartisan outside commission. but we cannot let this attack go

uninvestigated. mr. davis also knows that with respect to the membership of the committee, speaker pelosi said that she would not name two members who had been identified by mr. mccarthy, that is completely consistent with the resolution. and mr. mccarthy then himself withdrew the other three and determined that he would not participate. finally, madam speaker, i continue to hear this allegation that the committee's not investigating what happened at the capitol, not investigating what happened with respect to the capitol police. not investigating what happened with respect to security that day. that's just not true. the committee has an entire team that is very focused on investigating what happened with respect to security at the capitol. it is the case, though, madam speaker, we must all remember that the former president provoked a violent assault on this body and the extent to which there were security lapses, the extent to which people did not anticipate that there would be a violent assault on the capitol provoked by the

former president is not the fault of the capitol police. that is the responsibility of the former president. and i would also note, madam speaker, that mr. davis voted yes on the bipartisan commission when it came up. i would now, madam speaker, like to yield three minutes to my good friend and colleague from maryland, mr. raskin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. raskin: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, madam vice chair. i want to underscore first the point that was just made by ms. cheney. the distinguished ranking member of the house administration committee was appointed to this committee or the appointment was accepted by speaker pelosi. but it was withdrawn by the minority leader. it was not rejected by the majority. it was rejected by the minority. madam speaker, you know, we're here in the broader sense to defend american democratic institutions and the rule of law. and our colleagues said before

that if this investigation were valid, then we would be talking to officials from the sergeant at arms' office and the national guard. i've got good news for my friends. first, every court that has looked at their claim that this is an invalid investigation, either because of its compsition or because it was intrinsically flawed in its pursuit of the facts about january 6, has rejected those arguments. every court. rejected the precise arguments our colleagues are floating on the floor today. but i'll go even further than that. we have in fact interviewed precisely the people that they set up as a test for the validity of our investigation. from the sergeant at arms and national guard. and as patriotic public officials living out their oaths of office and not bowing down to the humiliating consult of donald trump, they didn't need a subpoena from this committee. they came voluntarily. they not only understood their

legal duty to testify, a duty our colleagues, like my friend, the gentleman from ohio, clearly understand when they wield the gavel, but they also -- they also have come forward and said that it's a patriotic honor for them. it's not just a legal duty. it's a patriotic honor for them to render truthful testimony on this horrific attack against america, which interrupted the counting of electoral college votes for the first time in american history. this is mandated in the 12th amendment to the constitution, which says that the house and the senate must meet in joint session in order to count electoral college votes the first week of january. on the wednesday following a presidential election. what's remarkable to me is that what's remarkable to me is the caucus that's now drenched in

the trump-putin propaganda is not only denouncing democrats for searching for the truth, today, they've began the utterly cannibalistic process of cast gaiting republicans just because they disagree with the orthodoxy, the dogma handed down by donald trump. ms. cheney is the former chair of the house republican conference, and it's left to democrats to defend her against the victimification and the c -- victimification -- vilification and the castigation -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. raskin: you have to defend with mr. kinzinger and ms. cheney. if you don't act like a robot or member of a religious cult, they will attack you, they will vilify you, they will denounce

you. these people, mr. kinzinger, ms. cheney are constitutional heroes and they don't deserve your contempt, the insurrectionists and the lawmakers deserve your contempt because they're acting in contempt of the rule of law and the constitution of the united states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming reserves her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. banks: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, dr. jackson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. jackson: thank you to my colleague from indiana for the time. madam speaker, i rise today to speak about two great patriots who i'm proud to call my friends, dan scavino and peter navarro. these two men have served our country honorably. sadly, they are now targets of the political witch-hunt simply because they served our country and they are loyal to our great former president donald j. trump. the illegitimate january 6 crew aid against trump and his close allies is yet another smear on

this great unbody. it will go down in history by a failed attempt by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring down good people simply because they disagree with their political beliefs. someone that was attacked by the left, i know how damaging this can be. the american people are tired of this partisan january 6 circus. it's time to stop this nonsense now. i urge my colleagues to stand up against this charade and oppose this baseless resolution. with that i yield back. thank you. 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, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: i reserve, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. banks: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. jordan montgomery thank you, madam speaker. -- mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. thank you for yielding.

one term, danger to our democracy. danger to our democracy. think about this. democrats have closed the capitol, allowed proxy voting, kicked republicans off committee, won't let republicans serve on this select committee. first time in the history of the congress the minority leader was not allowed to put on his select committee the individuals he or she selected. first time in the history of our nation. democrats are trying to end the electoral college, trying to end the filibuster, trying to pack the court. this committee, the january 6 committee, altered evidence and presented it to americans as it were true and they accuse us of being a danger to our democracy. mr. gaetz was right. we have a border that is complete chaos. we have $6 gas in california. $4 gas everywhere in the country. we have crime at record levels in every major urban area in this nation, and we have an inflation problem that's at a 40-year high. and this committee has more contempt resolutions for a

purely political reason. i think the whole committee is purely political. designed to do one thing, keep president trump off the ballot in 2024. the gentlelady from wyoming in her opening comments used the term false message. big lie. i guess it's now false message. i started jotting things down. think of the false messages we got from them in the last few years. they told us the protest in the summer of 2020 were peaceful. got a billion dollars worth of damage around our cities that says it wasn't. they told us the dossier was real. they told us it was republicans, republicans that wanted to defund the police. it is laughable if it weren't so serious for the law enforcement. and those where mayors and security councils did defund the f.b.i., they said -- police, they said the f.b.i. didn't spy on the trump campaign. that's not true. we have a inspector general --

19 lawyers, 40 f.b.i. agents, 30 million hard earned american tax dollars that said that false message was false. they said covid didn't start in the lab. sure looks like it did. they told us the lab wasn't doing gain of function research. sure looks likes it was. they said the vaccinated couldn't get it. we know that's wrong. every day there is a new announcement a member of congress is getting it. fully vaccinated, boosted. they said they can't transmit. you tell us the biggest false message, the biggest false message that's been confirmed in the last week how false it was, the hunter biden laptop was russian disinformation. the hunter biden laptop was russian disinformation. two weeks before the election, candidate biden in a debate is asked about his son's business dealings with foreign companies he says, quote, nothing is unethical. my son has not made money with

business interests -- with companies with an interest in china. we all know there are 4.8 million reasons why that statement was not accurate. how do we know? "washington post" told us. not me. not president trump. not republicans. "the washington post" told us last week two stories last week, a week ago today. one at 11:00 a.m. two eight-page articles four minutes apart confirming what we knew but what big media, big tech, democrats colluded to keep from the american people just days before -- just days before the most important election we have the presidential election, who's going to be our next commander in chief, the laptop was real. the eyewitness was real. the emails were real. the only thing fake was that collusion from those individuals, those entities to keep important information from we, the people, in the run-up to the most important election we have. and oh, by the way, they were joined by 51 former intel

officials joined in the collusion. you know what's also interesting? it's funny how that story has changed. 18 months ago it started off, wasn't his laptop. quickly switched to, well, it was his laptop but it was russian disinformation. and now it is, well, it wasn't russian disinformation but joe biden had nothing to do with it. now it was, well, joe knew what was going on but he wasn't really involved in anything -- in anything wrong. are on told us -- ron told us that, chief of staff told us that sunday. we need to be focus on the issues the american people want us to focus on. if you want to talk about danger to our democracy and the biggest false message, i would say, what happened -- one of the biggest dangers to our democracy and one of the biggest false messages is what happened 18 months ago where that story was kept from the american people. we could dig into that, find out went on there, why that happened. and we could also focus on the record crime, record inflation, record price of gas, and the

chaos on our southern border that's about to get worse, about to get worse as the democrats -- as the democrats look to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 more seconds. mr. jordan: title 42. i urge a no vote and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. thompson: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wyoming. ms. cheney: i have no further speakers. i am prepared to close. mr. banks: mr. speaker, i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. banks: mr. speaker, it might feel really good today for my opponents on the other side of the aisle. it might feel really good in the vindictive sort of way to vote to put their political opponents behind bars. that might feel really good for my opponents across the aisle, but i guarantee you the history will not look back kindly on

those actions in the years to come. i guarantee it. it couldn't be any more un-american what they want to do today to vote to put two men behind bars purely because they disagree with their politics and the man they worked for. i can't think of a bigger reason for my opponents to vote no on such a -- un-american resolution. i urge all of my colleagues to vote no and do the same. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from wyoming is recognized. ms. cheney: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it does not feel really good today. it feels -- it feels sad. and it feels tragic that so many in my own party are refusing to address the constitutional crisis and the challenge that we face. the ranking member of the judiciary committee went to law school. i'm not sure if he passed the

bar. but he knows that we all have an obligation to abide by the rulings of the courts. so yes, it was a false story. yes, it was a big lie. in fact, former vice president pence has said that what president trump wanted him to do was, quote, un-american. it was also unconstitutional and it was illegal. mr. speaker, what gives me tremendous hope, though, is although so many in my party in this body have put loyalty to donald trump ahead of their oath to the constitution, the committee has interviewed scores of republicans from around the country who in fact have shown the kind of tremendous bravery and dedication to public service that every american can be proud of. republicans who were appointed by president trump to pose in the department of justice, republicans who stood firm, republicans who threatened to resign and refused to participate in president trump's efforts to corrupt the

department of justice with the stolen election lies, yes, lies, that led to january 6. we've heard from republicans serving in state legislatures and state and local governments who also stood firm. mr. speaker, it is crucially important that these body hold these justice gentlemen in contempt. it's crucially important that they have to abide by their subpoena. i urge a yes vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let me say for the record, if there's any member on the other side who feels the strength to come and testify before our committee, i invite them right now to let us know and we will gladly entertain whatever information they have as to what happened on january 6. some of them ran out of this building fearing for their life. so there's no question that

something happened. and house resolution 503 says, absolutely, we have to find the facts and circumstances as to what happened and why. and make recommendations. and that's what we have to do. we have the constitutional power to issue subpoenas. if people do not follow subpoenas, we have the right to bring them before this body and recommend contempt citations. and that's what we are doing today. so it doesn't matter that if they were a father, a mother, osister, or a brother, had children, if they break the law, they break the law. no one's above the law. and that's what the point we're trying to make. we asked the individuals, suspend them to come before the -- subpoenaed them to come before the committee and they chose not to come and, therefore, they broke the law and that's why we're here today. so mr. speaker, as i mentioned

when i testified before the rules committee, it's absurd there should be any disagreement on -- at all about why we're here for this contempt resolution. if you listened to the arguments from some of my friends on the other side, they have very little to say of substance of this matter. we hear excuses. we hear attacks about process. we hear scare mongering about the select committee. let me remind my colleagues, we've conducted over 830 interviews and depositions and, again, i invite any of them to come talk to us if they want to. now, if for some reason they're reluctant or afraid, then i feel sorry for them. our constitutional democracy was challenged on january 6. we have to fix this. over 200 years we've operated in complete freedom, and all of a

sudden, this institution was attacked. and we have to fix that. we are the number one democracy in the world, but we lead by example. democrats are leading by example. the select committee is leading by example by bringing these two gentlemen who broke the law, who decided that it's better to deal with the law of donald trump rather than a constitution of the united states of america. and with that, mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleague, especially my friend from wyoming, ms. cheney. i urge every member to support adoption of this

the two have claimed executive privilege as the reason for refusing to cooperate. representatives liz cheney and can sing or were the only republicans to vote in favor of the contempt resolution, which passed 220-203. it is now being referred to the justice department for possible prosecution. ♪

>> we ask the question "how does the federal government impact your life?" all month, we're featuring the winning entries. our winners are 10th graders from new jersey, or c-span is available through ultima.