Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 727. The rule provides for consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-152 under a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.

Mr. Speaker, today, we face a fundamental choice: Whether we are going to get to the truth about the violent January 6 attack, the worst assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic assault on American democracy since the Civil War, or whether we are going to allow lawful subpoenas to be ignored and the investigation being conducted by the select committee to be obstructed to puff up the ego of the former President, who has launched another frivolous lawsuit, this time against the select committee.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I still remember January 6 like it was yesterday. I was standing right where you are now, Mr. Speaker. Our democracy was in peril; the lives of Members of Congress, our staffs, and all the workers here were endangered. And Capitol Police officers were beaten or worse.

Getting to the truth of what happened or placating the ego of a former President, that shouldn't be a tough call. In any ordinary time, it wouldn't be. This measure would probably have passed on suspension.

Because as a Member of Congress, we have fewer more important and solemn duties than what is at the heart of the measure before us today, and that is protecting our democracy and preventing future attempts to overturn the results of an election.

This is about country, not about party.

Now, many witnesses are already doing their patriotic duty and cooperating voluntarily with the select committee.

In fact, 10 of the 11 witnesses required to produce records to the select committee by the required deadline are engaging with the committee.

Only one person, Mr. Speaker, is refusing. One. Stephen K. Bannon.

Instead of doing the right thing, the legal thing, the patriotic thing, Mr. Bannon is hiding behind the former President's false claims of executive privilege to try to run out the clock on this investigation.

Now, maybe he has something to hide. I don't know. But the law isn't on his side. It is not on Donald Trump's side either.

Executive privilege is not absolute, and President Biden has declined to invoke that privilege.

There is a long history of the White House making accommodations to investigative requests from Congress. That is especially true when the public interest outweighs other interests, as it does here.

But apparently facts and the law don't matter to some. Apparently, Steve Bannon thinks he is above the law. Maybe it is because he was pardoned by the former occupant of the White House.

But ultimately, in the United States of America, no one should be above the law.

That shouldn't be a controversial idea. But we live in an age where apparently some put fidelity to Donald Trump over fidelity to the Constitution. And I find that disgusting.

I get it. The former President is in Mar-a-Lago somewhere seething about our efforts to get to the truth about January 6.

But is he so feared, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues are going to keep denying what happened that day? And keep trying to sweep it under the rug as if it never happened? Oh, it was no big deal.

This is our democracy that we are talking about here. This is about the oath we took and the freedoms we cherish, freedoms that Americans have fought and died for, Mr. Speaker.

And some on the other side, are they really willing to throw away all of that to placate the whims of one man? Really?

This has to stop.

The legal scholar James Landis once said: ``To deny Congress power to acquaint itself with facts is equivalent to requiring it to prescribe remedies in darkness.''

We need to see the facts in the cold light of day and follow them wherever they lead.

That means not only holding those who attack this building itself accountable, as the legal system is currently doing, it also means holding people accountable when they attack what this building stands for: Democracy and rule of law.

We will not tolerate being left in the dark, and certainly not when something so fundamental is at stake.

Now, this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. And just yesterday in the Committee on Rules, we debated the underlying measure at length. And, yes, we heard from the usual Members who rushed to the former President's defense, who deflected and wanted to talk about anything other than the events of January 6. But we also saw something more remarkable.

Chairman Thompson, a Democrat, sat side-by-side with Vice Chair Cheney, a Republican, two people who probably have never voted for the same Presidential candidates in their lives; two people who disagree on virtually every issue. But they agreed on this: On defending the Constitution and rule of law. Let's follow their example.

Mr. Speaker, I sat across the dais from Congresswoman Cheney for years on the Committee on Rules when the Republicans were in charge. We were polar opposites. But yesterday, I couldn't have agreed with her more, not as a Democrat but as an American.

Now I don't give a damn if you are a Democrat or a Republican, and I don't care if you like Donald Trump or not. Matters like this are about something more than petty partisanship.

So I urge my colleagues, let's put our country before our party. Let's put defending our democracy before defending Donald Trump. Let's support this rule and the underlying measure, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as public servants, as Members of Congress dedicated to preserving American democracy and the rule of law. That is what is at stake here and nothing less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Minnesota said we wouldn't be in this position if we had done what the Republicans had asked us to do. We did.

And I include in the Record the letter that the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, sent to Speaker Pelosi requesting a number of items.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 22, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are in agreement that the best path

forward for bipartisan legislation is to create an impartial

and bipartisan Commission.

In keeping with the suggestions from the Co-Chairs of the

9/11 Commission, the legislation the House puts forward

should mirror the precedents that fairly and successfully

governed that Commission. Simply put, House Republicans are

asking for no more and no less than what Congress came

together and agreed upon in the past. Specifically, those

precedents include:

An equal 5-5 ratio in appointments by Democrats and

Republicans

Co-Equal Subpoena Power for the Chair and Vice Chair of the

Commission

No inclusion of findings or other predetermined conclusions

which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself

As the Co-Chairs of the Commission stated, a ``bipartisan

independent investigation will earn credibility with the

American public.'' I am confident that following their

procedures and precedents can do just that, in a way that an

overtly partisan commission will not be able to.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely,

Kevin McCarthy,

House Republican Leader.

Mr. Speaker, those items include: an equal 5:5 ratio on a committee; coequal subpoena power; no inclusion of findings of other predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Homeland Security agreed to every one of them--every single one of them. And what did the Republicans do? They said, Well, we didn't think you would agree to everything, but we still don't want the Commission. So they voted

against it. And then they blocked it in the United States Senate.

So don't talk to me about partisanship or bipartisanship when it was very clear early on that my friends on the other side had no intention of wanting to work with us to get to the truth, because they couldn't take yes for an answer.

Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that today, President Trump issued a statement--he had to issue a statement because he can't tweet anymore because of mistruths and embrace of violence. Anyway, he issued a statement today. This is what he said:

The statement says, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was the protest!''

Let me just say that one more time.

Trump said today in a statement, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was a protest!''

And by the way, he didn't mention that it was a violent protest on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, are any of my Republican colleagues, aside from Congresswoman Cheney and Representative Kinzinger, who have shown courage and patriotism, are any of them willing to come to the floor and say unequivocally that the election on November 3 was not an insurrection, as the former President has now said?

It was a free and fair election held by one of the oldest democracies in the world. And that used to mean something to my Republican friends. Please, please. The former occupant of the White House is trying to tear this country apart. And unfortunately, too many on the other side are going along with him. Enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that someone on the other side would respond to former President Trump's statement today, which I find stunning and shocking, but apparently they don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about legislative purpose. When we get to the bill, I will let the committee members respond to that.

I do want to say one thing again; that Speaker Pelosi was committed to a truly bipartisan commission, and we did a bipartisan commission--a truly bipartisan commission. My friends on the other side of the aisle tried to undercut it and get their friends over in the Senate to tank it. That is what happened. They basically destroyed what could have been a bipartisan commission that, quite frankly, was the way we all wanted to go.

But then they said, well, she wouldn't let us put who we wanted on this current commission. Well, the minority leader suggested Mr. Jordan to be the lead Republican, and he very well may be a material witness in this investigation. You would put him on to oversee an investigation of, what, himself and others?

Give me a break. What is going on here? At least be honest enough with the American people to say what is going on here; and that is, you don't want to get to the truth about what happened on January 6. You never did; notwithstanding the violence that occurred right here in this Chamber, in this sacred building.

So, please, let's not get into this, Oh, we wanted to cooperate but somehow you wouldn't let us. We gave you everything you wanted, and you could not take yes for an answer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waste my time debating this information. What my friend is talking about is a false government takeover. What about the people who tried to take over our democracy on January 6? What about what happened here on January 6?

Why is there no interest in getting to the truth? They come with this instead. Again, I am still waiting for somebody to respond to President Trump's statement that insurrection day took place on November 3. Do you really believe that? Is that what we have come to, that my friends on the other side would embrace such a shocking and such an offensive statement?

We had a free and fair election, and this is what the former President--who my friends are all so afraid of--says.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind everybody that democracy doesn't defend itself; people have to defend democracy. It would be nice to see a little courage on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, not only will my Republican friends not condemn the President's outrageous and unacceptable and unconscionable statement today, but they won't even talk about what we are here for.

That is what fear looks like, and it is really unbelievably sad.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman updating us on the bills that she has cosponsored and her opinions about the IRS, which have nothing to do with the underlying bill that we are debating here today. But it is stunning to me that neither she nor any of my friends on the other side of the aisle will respond to what the former occupant of the White House said today in a statement, that the insurrection took place on November 3; that our election, our lawful election in one of the oldest democracies in the world, was somehow an insurrection; and that January 6 was merely a protest.

I am stunned by this. I challenge the next speaker, please, can you say that you disassociate yourself with this statement? Can you make it clear to the American people that you want no part of this? I get it. You endorsed this man. He campaigned for you. You are afraid of his base. You are afraid every time he says anything. But the bottom line is, this statement needs to be condemned, and the unwillingness of anybody on the other side to condemn this statement is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Minnesota yielded the gentleman from Illinois an additional minute, I was kind of hopeful that maybe he would be the one to say that he disassociates himself from the statement of Donald Trump today in which he said that the insurrection took place on November 3, election day.

I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to him if he wants to say that this was a statement that is not only unconscionable but that every American should condemn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, oh, my God, can somebody, please--I beg of you on the other side--can somebody, please, disassociate yourself or condemn the statement by the former President who said today that the insurrection took place on November 3?

All my colleagues were elected on November 3 as well. If you believe that election day was an insurrection, then your election results are illegitimate.

Can somebody, please, for the sake of our democracy, say that what was said by the former President is wrong? Please.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this microphone is working, because I am not sure my colleagues can hear me when I have asked them over and over again, can you please disassociate yourself from the former President's statement today? It is important. It is on topic.

By the way, what the gentleman just talked about has nothing to do with what we are talking about today. It is amazing that nobody wants to talk about what is on the floor today.

But my constituents, when they talk to me, you know what they are fearful about? They are fearful about losing our democracy in their lifetime. And the inability or the unwillingness of my friends on the other side to be able to disassociate themselves with a statement by the former President, which today he said the election on November 3 was somehow the insurrection. It is stunning to me. He is tearing this country apart, and the silence and the indifference on the other side is aiding him in his quest to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I can't adequately express the outrage I feel about what happened in this institution on January 6. It was not only an attack on this building; it was an attack on our democracy.

I will tell you, if we don't have our democracy intact, you are not going to fix the supply chain issues or the energy issues or any other issues.

Our democracy is in peril. It was attacked on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the Rules Committee, so I understand what the rules of the House are, so I cannot say what I really feel about what went on in this Chamber today with this debate. I am disgusted, to be quite honest with you.

We are trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, and many on the other side have done everything they could to frustrate that effort. Now, we have somebody who doesn't want to comply with a subpoena, and we are saying we are going to put some force behind that. We need to be able to do our oversight. We need to get to the truth, and my friends are trying to frustrate that.

Then today, former President Trump issues a statement saying insurrection day took place on November 3. That was election day, when we were all elected. That is what he thought? That is what he thinks was an insurrection? And January 6 was just a protest.

We were all here that day. We saw the violence. People lost their lives that day. People were wounded that day. People were traumatized by that day. Again, it was not just an attack on this building and the people who work here; it was an attack on our democracy.

And my friends on the other side of the aisle can't even muster the courage to say that the former President was wrong in his statement. That is what fear looks like. That is what fear of Donald Trump looks like. It is so sad that a once great party has come to this.

I said it earlier. Members come and go. I know people are all worried about the latest polls and where our base is and what political implications will come from this or that. But at the end of the day, you ought to be worried about your legacy, about what your children and grandchildren think.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to ignore the feeling that this is one more example of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to distract from the real issues that concern Americans. We have an administration that can't stop the flood of illegal immigrants at our southern border, can't unlock the supply bottlenecks at our ports.

What are the Democrats doing about inflation?

What are the Democrats doing about the border issues?

What are the Democrats doing about supply chain issues?

And what are the Democrats doing about the worker shortage?

And I could go on. Instead, we are here going back and forth arguing if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation of questionable motives and purpose. No wonder the public thinks we can't do our job.

That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved before we can continue with this vote. The Supreme Court has found that the power rests with Congress for subpoenas if they serve a legitimate legislative purpose, and be ``related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.''

A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the leaders of the D.C. National Guard and Sergeant at Arms so that we can find out what gaps in communications and authorities that need to be filled and find solutions to ensure that this doesn't happen again. But have those been issued? No.

Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into President Trump and their political opponents that voted against the certification of the election in some States, something that they, themselves, did just 4 years ago.

What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for a legitimate legislative purpose? Much of the discussion in the Rules Committee centered around criminal action, not around legislation. These concerns would have been raised by Republicans if Speaker Pelosi had not rejected the minority leader's nominees. But instead, she hand- picked Members that would fit her and the Democrats' narrative.

It seems the story line has already been decided. We need to ensure that it is, as stated, intended to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to January 6. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this committee and its investigation outcome was predetermined when it tilted representation in favor of Democrats and, again, rejected the two Republican Members selected to serve on the Commission by the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set here today as the majority, yet again, embarks on another investigation in search of a crime.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, the fact still remains that when the minority leader did try to participate in this Commission, the Speaker rejected the two nominees that the minority leader had offered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional consideration of H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act, authored by Representative Ferguson.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, requiring banks and Federal credit unions to disclose personal details about their customers' accounts is an extreme invasion of privacy, and it would have terrible implications for community banks and credit unions in my district and across the country.

I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised about this egregious attempt on behalf of the Democrats. They clearly want as much government involvement as possible in every possible part of American citizens' lives. I may not be surprised anymore, but I continue to be disappointed that they refuse to listen to the American citizens who time and time again say they want Big Government out of their lives and their wallets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen to turn the committee into a vehicle to push their own narrative, and it is clearly more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize January 6 rather than conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into the security failures leading up to that day.

As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, where is the legitimate legislative purpose? The Members across the aisle have yet to address what kind of legitimate legislative purposes could, might, or even possibly come out of the commission investigation.

A lawful subpoena, according to the Supreme Court, needs to serve a legitimate legislative purpose. The majority leader used words like ``oversight,'' ``the American people need to understand,'' and ``hold perpetrators accountable.'' These statements do not qualify as a legitimate legislative purpose.

This is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to distract from the very real issues facing Americans every day. I look forward to getting back to the real work of solving the supply chain issues, reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to live their lives without government interference or surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution ought to be supported, and the underlying action that the rule provides for ought to be supported by every Member of this House who believes that this House has a constitutional responsibility of oversight, of protecting the Constitution and the democracy in which we all are privileged to live, and the integrity of this House.

Oversight is not possible for this House if, in fact, it cannot request and, indeed, demand the testimony of those who have information which this House, the people's House and the protector of our democracy and our Constitution, needs to protect our democracy. This rule and the underlying action for which it provides is essential.

Mr. Speaker, if I were trying a case, I would offer as Exhibit A a statement by the man who would be dictator, Donald Trump, who absurdly and, of course, incorrectly says the insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was the protest.

My view is that man, Donald J. Trump, protests too much, because I believe that he recruited, incited, and deployed an insurrectionist mob to threaten this institution, its Members, its constitutional responsibility in the electoral process of the Presidency of the United States, and democracy itself.

Mr. Speaker, the events of January 6 exposed threats to our democracy that must be fully understood and addressed. It is a weighty responsibility that falls to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, a bipartisan committee.

I want to thank Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and all of those serving on this committee for their commitment to seeking the truth, defending our democracy, and to giving sufficient information to our public and our constituents, our people, that they know this to be a stark and dangerous lie.

The committee is doing a diligent job at finding the truth. This task should not have fallen to the members of a select committee, this subpoena for contempt. We should have been able to come together, Democrats and Republicans, to create a bipartisan commission in the style of the 9/11 Commission, recognizing that such consequential and transformative attacks require us to come together as one nation indivisible to seek answers and identify solutions to make our country safer.

Sadly, however, we have come to a place where one party is so focused on defending the indefensible that this institution cannot act as Americans but, rather, are relegated to acting simply as partisans.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am heartened to see Democrats and some courageous Republicans working together to uncover the truth of what happened that day. These Republican Members are exhibiting what President Kennedy would call profiles in courage.

In order for this committee to perform its work in full--indeed any committee of the Congress to perform its work in full--ultimately it has to be able to get the information that it needs from those who know the information it needs. It must hear testimony from all those who may have information regarding the events of January 6 in this particular case. That is why we provided the committee with subpoena authority.

Steve Bannon's refusal to appear, even when subpoenaed is, A, a demonstration of his contempt, not only for Congress but his contempt of the Constitution and his contempt for the law. It is unacceptable and obstructive to this process of uncovering the full story of that day's attack on the Capitol. He must be found in contempt, not as a Democrat and not as a Republican, but on behalf of this institution and the people whom we represent.

Withholding information on the events of that day from the committee is no less than an act of betrayal of the American people and of our constitutional democracy.

The American people need to understand what led to the violent insurrection that sought to overturn our election and led to the deaths of multiple police officers and others; although, as I said, Exhibit A, the former President's comments, should be the proof in and of itself the American people need to understand what led to the deaths of those police officers and the placing at risk the democratic process of electing a President of the United States.

We need to understand, Mr. Speaker, how this could have happened, why it happened, and what ought to be done to hold the perpetrators accountable and prevent the events of the day from being repeated.

That appears to be the fear on the floor of this House today: accountability, responsibility, and consequences.

In refusing to appear before the commission, Mr. Bannon has made it clear where his loyalties lie. He has chosen Trump first and America last, not America first. Trump first, America last. Trump first, our Constitution last. Trump first, our democracy last. Trump first, the House of the people, this House of Representatives last. And he will have to answer for that to us.

This is a moment of reckoning for our country, reckoning with hard truths and painful memories, a reckoning that, above all, requires truth and understanding.

Can't we, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way summon the courage to look the truth in the eye and vote the truth?

We cannot allow anyone to shirk their responsibility to share that truth and help the American people understand.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on this resolution and to vote ``yes'' on the citation for contempt so that Chairman Thompson, Vice Chairwoman Cheney, and the members of the select committee can make it clear to Mr. Bannon and to all others summoned to testify they will seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as they determine what we must do to protect our beloved country, our beloved Constitution, and our beloved democracy.

Mr. Speaker, as explained prior, if we defeat the previous question, we will immediately move to bring up H.R. 5586. This bill prohibits the expansion of the Internal Revenue Service's requirements for financial institutions to report bank account transactions.

The Biden administration is searching for ways to pay for their partisan $5.5 trillion social policy bill, and one of the Democrats' proposed solutions is to spy on taxpayers' bank accounts.

Their proposal would require financial institutions and service providers to report data on accounts that deposit or withdraw more than $600 or maybe $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service to help ensure that Americans are paying their fair share in taxes.

Democrats claim that this regulatory expansion would only impact wealthy Americans and businesses. But in reality, it targets virtually all working-class people in our Nation.

This government overreach would be an enormous violation of privacy, jeopardize the financial security of all Americans, and impose significant compliance costs on financial institutions.

Through this proposal, the Democrats are looking to weaponize the IRS by creating a new surveillance program, which would allow them to monitor every single bank account without permission or limit. In order to conduct this surveillance on Americans, the provision includes $80 billion to double the number of IRS agents, which would be six times the size of the IRS' annual budget.

This plan was initially included in the massive budget reconciliation bill and has now since been removed after pushback from financial institutions and customers. But it is still being considered for passage.

Regardless, my House Republican colleagues and I are doing what we can to protect the financial security and privacy of the American people.

I have recently written a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Neal, Secretary Yellen, and Commissioner Rettig to express my concerns of overburdening the data collection system, exposing millions of Americans to potential cyberattacks, and how distrust in banks negatively impacts our economy.

Additionally, I signed on to a letter and cosponsored two bills that directly address this pressing issue. The letter to Secretary Yellen expressed the concern of more Americans unbanking due to privacy concerns and distrust in banks and how applying extra reporting requirements for financial institutions would be incredibly burdensome.

The U.S. Government should not have the authority to spy on bank accounts of American taxpayers. The Biden administration's proposal would significantly impact the working class, invade privacy, pose financial security threats for Americans and businesses, and further burden institutions. House Republicans are working tirelessly to put a stop to this government overreach and protect the American people's security, privacy, and trust in this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding to me today.

Mr. Speaker, President Biden and Speaker Pelosi are moving full steam ahead with their Big Government, big spending vision for this country. One of the most egregious proposals in their multitrillion-dollar reconciliation package would give the IRS access to nearly every single American's bank account by requiring financial institutions, like your local bank or your credit union, to report every account with more than $10,000 of transactions annually to the IRS.

This proposal would give the IRS unprecedented access to sensitive personal information and unprecedented power to target working families across Iowa and across America. This government snooping is a complete invasion of privacy and a massive overreach into our lives and our livelihoods.

This spying scheme is a lose, lose, lose. It will increase the existing backlog at the IRS exponentially. It will jeopardize the privacy of millions of Americans. It will destroy our community financial institutions. And it will hurt rural communities and working families hardest of all.

Democrats claim this is about tax evasion. Everyone should pay the taxes

that they owe. That is not the argument here. But this misguided proposal isn't about tracking down missing revenue; it is about expanded government control, plain and simple.

This proposal, by design, will hit normal working families' bank accounts. A total of $10,000 in transactions in a year, that is a year's rent or a series of farm equipment bills, for example. The IRS should be focused on being more efficient at its current job, not emboldened and certainly not unleashed on hardworking Americans.

We do not need to be throwing more money at the IRS to put Americans' daily transactions under a microscope. Iowans have been very clear with me. They do not want the IRS snooping around in their bank accounts at that granular level.

I have also heard very serious concerns from our community financial institutions. These are the folks that are helping our farmers, our families, and our small businesses access credit. They told me this proposal could force them to shut down for good, leaving Iowans without access to credit and capital that they need to help keep our rural economy going to fuel and feed the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put a stop to this madness and stand up for our constituents by voting ``no'' on the previous question, keeping the government out of Americans' bank accounts.