“I want the House to hold Michael Joseph in contempt of Congress. He repeatedly ignored our subpoenas to share documents and testify for an ethics investigation. People cannot just choose to ignore congressional subpoenas.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution holding Michael Joseph in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on Ethics. At a time when public confidence in Congress is at historic lows and the House’s ability to self-police Member conduct is under intense scrutiny, enforcing lawful congressional process is vital to delivering swift transparency and accountability for any misconduct. A witness who refuses to cooperate with the Ethics Committee hinders the thoroughness and swiftness of an investigation. If the committee must authorize and issue a subpoena for that witness, more delays result. If after those additional steps the witness decides to flout the subpoena, the committee is ultimately deprived of key evidence needed to resolve the allegations. A subpoena from the House Ethics Committee is not a suggestion. It is a lawful demand for information needed by the House to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to enforce the official code of conduct, adjudicate violations, and to impose appropriate discipline. The investigative subcommittee in the matter of Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick repeatedly sought documents and testimony from Mr. Joseph, yet he failed to comply with voluntary requests for information and multiple subpoenas in the 118th and 119th Congresses. While other witnesses did not fully cooperate with the committee’s investigation, Mr. Joseph’s conduct went further. Twice he failed to appear for subpoenaed testimony in the current Congress, and he was made aware numerous times that his failure to comply with the subpoenas could result in contempt proceedings. He had notice of and was properly served all the subpoenas by the investigatory subcommittee, and he never asserted any valid privilege or basis for noncompliance. The bipartisan investigative subcommittee unanimously found, and the full committee agreed, that his conduct was contemptuous. His noncompliance also unnecessarily and significantly delayed the committee’s investigation. Contempt referrals like these are a rare step because almost all subpoenaed witnesses cooperate with the committee before contempt proceedings need to be initiated. But the rareness of this step should not obscure its importance. The effectiveness of the committee’s oversight hinges on the expectation that subpoenas cannot and will not be ignored. This contempt resolution is not intended to be a punitive measure. It is a deterrent to future noncompliance and obstructive conduct by witnesses in future investigations. With this resolution, we can establish a clear and necessary boundary for future witnesses. If you are subpoenaed by the committee, you cannot simply decide that compliance is optional. By demonstrating that noncompliance has consequences, this resolution will empower the Ethics Committee in its continued efforts to uphold civic confidence and the integrity of this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to hold this witness in contempt of Congress. For more than two years, he has refused our orders to appear before the Ethics Committee. If we do not enforce our subpoenas, people will keep ignoring our investigations.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this to the floor today. Whenever I tell people I am on the Ethics Committee in Congress, people tend to ask me the same questions: Why doesn’t the Ethics Committee move faster? What is taking so long? Why are these investigations taking so long? Justice delayed is justice denied. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons is because a lot of times witnesses and people with information string our committee along. Even their lawyers tell them to ignore our subpoenas, ignore our inquiries, or delay us as much as possible. This subpoena, in particular, was issued September of last year, and that was after a very long process of trying to get this witness in, going back to before I was even in Congress. That was more than 2 years ago. There have been multiple requests, multiple failures to appear. If we don’t enforce these subpoenas, then everyone will ignore our investigations. They will string us along, and they will draw out these investigations for months or sometimes years, like in this case, and the American people will lose faith in this body’s ability to investigate our own. The Ethics Committee will never be as fast as the news cycle, and we will afford everyone due process. Today’s vote is a message that we, as a committee, do intend to move swiftly in these investigations. It is a message that Congress does intend to hold people accountable if they don’t comply with our subpoenas, whether it is Members or people with information. I thank the chair and ranking member for their leadership on this, and I ask the body to support this motion.”