The following is from House Oversight Republicans.

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) delivered remarks at a markup to consider two reports recommending that the U.S. House of Representatives find former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with duly issued bipartisan subpoenas.

Chairman Comer emphasized that the Committee does not take this action lightly but must hold the Clintons accountable for refusing to comply with the subpoenas. He noted that the Clintons’ testimony remains critical to understanding Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking network, the ways Epstein sought to curry favor and influence to evade scrutiny, and how Congress can strengthen laws to better combat human trafficking. Chairman Comer concluded that Congress must do what is necessary to uphold its investigative authority and demonstrate to the American people that justice is applied equally—regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige.

Below are Chairman Comer’s remarks as prepared for delivery.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform met to advance two resolutions recommending that the House of Representatives find former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with duly issued subpoenas.

The Committee does not take this action lightly. But subpoenas are not mere suggestions; they carry the force of law and require compliance.

Former President Clinton and Secretary Clinton were legally required to appear for depositions before this Committee.

They refused.

As Democrat Ranking Member Garcia has stated, “Defying a congressional subpoena is highly illegal.”

He has also stated, “No one is above the law.”

Actions have consequences.

Six months ago, Republicans and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee’s Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee unanimously approved deposition subpoenas for the Clintons by voice vote as part of the investigation into the federal government’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases.

More than five months ago, I issued those bipartisan subpoenas.

The Clintons’ testimony is critical to understanding Epstein’s sex trafficking network and the ways he sought to curry favor and influence to shield himself from scrutiny. Their testimony may also inform how Congress can strengthen laws to better combat human trafficking.

Since issuing the subpoenas, this Committee has acted in good faith. We’ve offered flexibility on scheduling.

The response we received was not cooperation, but defiance, marked by repeated delays, excuses, and obstruction.

The Clintons claim they have been treated unfairly because this Committee accepted written statements, under penalty of perjury, from former U.S. Attorneys General Holder, Lynch, Sessions, and Garland, as well as former FBI Director Comey.

Those written statements were accepted because none of those officials recalled information relevant to the Epstein investigation, nor did they have personal relationships with Epstein.

By contrast, the Committee required in-person testimony from former U.S. Attorney General Barr and former U.S. Secretary of Labor and U.S. Attorney Acosta—both Republicans—because they possessed information directly relevant to the investigation.

The Clintons are in a fundamentally different category.

They had documented relationships with Epstein and Maxwell, evidenced by numerous photographs, flight-log records, wedding invitations, and other materials.

We repeatedly informed the Clintons’ attorney that written statements would not be accepted. The subpoenas required depositions.

Federal courts have consistently held that witnesses may not “impose their own conditions upon the manner of congressional inquiry.”

Yet the Clintons attempted to do exactly that—submitting brief, bulleted written statements that are neither comprehensive nor responsive to the Committee’s many unanswered questions.

No witness—not a former President or a private citizen—may willfully defy a duly issued congressional subpoena without consequence.

But that is what the Clintons did, and that is why the Committee proceeded.

I would expect bipartisan support for enforcing those subpoenas by voting in favor of these resolutions.

Unfortunately, it appears that Ranking Member Garcia has chosen to follow marching orders designed to distract from the issue at hand. I hope I’m wrong about this.

Over the weekend, Ranking Member Garcia made clear that Democrats intend to divert attention from the Clintons by instead calling for Attorney General Bondi to be held in contempt.

The difference is clear: Attorney General Bondi and the Department of Justice are producing documents. While the pace is slower than any of us would prefer and must speed up, much of the delay involves the DOJ taking care to redact victims’ personal information.

By contrast, the Clintons have flatly refused to appear at all, despite repeated warnings that the Committee would move forward with contempt proceedings.

The Clintons must be held accountable for their actions.

The Committee must do what is necessary to uphold Congress’s investigative authority and demonstrate to the American people that justice is applied equally—regardless of position, pedigree, or prestige.

Read the full press release here.