Guy Reschenthaler

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my colleague from Maryland, I will argue this case any day of the week, and I think that, ultimately, this will be resolved by the courts. I have got stacks, like I said, of case law to support my argument. But to call what you just saw absurd, or a waste of time, I don't think the American people think it is absurd to care about the crisis at our southern border; the amount of illegal immigrants coming across the border; the amount of fentanyl that is coming across the border that is literally killing people in the interior. Let's look at some numbers on this. Just last week, the CBP confirmed more than 300,000 illegal immigrants evaded Border Patrol, just in the last 6 months alone. Alarmingly, Border Patrol warned that the Biden border crisis is already worsening in anticipation of the administration's rollback of title 42. You just heard 68 Republicans, plus the Republican leader, request to consider legislation that will provide for stringent enforcement of title 42, which allows illegal immigrants to be quickly expelled from the United States. But clearly, House Democrats aren't concerned about the biggest migration crisis our Nation has ever faced. So let's try this another way. If we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act of 2021. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote for the previous question.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Ben Shapiro says the ``facts don't care about your feelings,'' and they don't. And I will say this: The case law doesn't care about what your political position is. So if you want to talk about more case law, how about Trump v. Thompson, 2022, Justice Kavanaugh ruled: ``A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim.'' I have got more and more case law that I could produce. But let's just go back to the fact that this select committee is a partisan political hit job. If this really had a legitimate legislative function, then let me ask you this: Where are the subpoenas for the former House Sergeant at Arms and the former head of the D.C. National Guard? We haven't seen those subpoenas. What about questions and subpoenas that are designed to elicit information about why this Capitol was left unprepared and how to prevent it from happening again? That would be a legitimate legislative function. What we are seeing is this committee masquerading as if it is some kind of grand jury, which is wholly inappropriate and a violation of the separation of powers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Roy), to talk more about this.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to check if there are any further speakers that my friend from across the aisle has.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I consider the gentleman across the aisle a friend, and it is certainly an honor and a privilege to debate law with him given the fact that he is a renowned constitutional law expert. I mean that sincerely. It is fun being up here with the gentleman. So knowing that he has the last word, I do just have to cite one more case for my good friend. I just keep going back to the Trump v. Thompson where Justice Kavanaugh said that there are only two very narrow exceptions to this privilege. Number one, which can be found in United States v. Nixon, relates to a pending criminal trial. There is no pending criminal trial here. That exception is not applicable. The second narrow exception is one found in Senate Select Committee v. Nixon. In there, it is whether the subpoenaed evidence is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of a committee's function. I am quoting the precedent here. That case law goes on to state that there are clear differences between Congress' legislative tasks and the responsibility of a grand jury. He went on further to describe that Congress frequently legislates on the basis of conflicting information provided in its hearings all the time. So I would submit that that exception does not apply either. Reasonable minds can differ, but I am very confident that the case law here supports the case of Mr. Scavino. With that said, the law notwithstanding, it seems that my friends across the aisle have proven time and time again that they don't care about the separation of powers, they don't care about the protection of our constitutional rights, and they don't even care about the rules of the House. They only do if those items fit a political narrative. It is very clear to me that from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol's treatment of Mr. Scavino and from the resolution before us today that they would prefer to keep up their political theater rather than conduct a legitimate congressional investigation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Salazar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is the bill's author. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell), my good friend.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.