Protecting Higher Education from Foreign Threats Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, this week House Republicans will pass a resolution condemning the actions of New Mexico Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, a former Member of this body.

Late on a Friday night earlier this month, the Governor took action to suspend open carry and concealed firearms in her State. Yeah, you heard that right. She claimed so-called emergency powers to combat a public health crisis, she said, and on a whim, she attempted to restrict the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding New Mexico resident, the citizens of her State, the citizens of this country.

Her action, of course, was overtly unconstitutional. It is functionally useless, and it will only divide Americans further. Someone with elementary-level knowledge of the Constitution would, of course, know this. Fortunately, New Mexico residents and law enforcement openly defied her order, and it was panned by lawmakers across the country, even some of our Democratic colleagues in this body.

Mr. Speaker, here is the interesting thing I wanted to note today: It is ironic that Attorney General Merrick Garland was here on the Hill and has been in the Judiciary Committee in an oversight hearing for the last several hours. He is America's top law enforcement officer in charge, of course, of our top law enforcement agency, the Department of Justice. One would think that this type of issue, this event in New Mexico, regardless of the politics, that that is something the DOJ might intervene in, but they haven't.

Now, by principle, of course, we are conservatives, and we believe in less Federal Government intervention. The less the Federal Government is involved in State affairs, the better overall. But this is not the case. In this situation, the issue here is the DOJ's selective application of justice and its clear targeting of red States for passing laws that its duly elected Representatives voted for.

Think about these few examples.

In 2021, the DOJ sued the State of Georgia for passing election integrity reform. That suit failed, and Georgia had record voter turnout just a year later.

Months later, the DOJ sued the State of Texas over laws--your State, Mr. Speaker--passed to protect unborn children. The Supreme Court refused to intervene, and statistics show that abortions in Texas have plummeted, thankfully, as a result.

Earlier this year, the DOJ sued the State of Tennessee for a ban on child sex change procedures. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the suit, and now it is State law.

The DOJ, Attorney General Garland in particular, has displayed a penchant for filing public lawsuits against red States for passing conservative policy through their democratically elected legislature. They do so with weak charges, based on unconstitutional arguments on cases they know they cannot win, but that is not the point. They have politicized the DOJ.

Here is the big question. Given those examples and the trend of this Department of Justice, why hasn't Merrick Garland hosted a press conference or announced a Federal lawsuit into the State of New Mexico for arbitrarily suspending the constitutional rights of its citizens?

I will tell you why. It is no secret. It is because New Mexico's action serves the Biden administration's stated political goals.

The DOJ will sue red States for passing conservative policy, while turning a blind eye to Democrat Governors who unilaterally curtail constitutional rights. They will put grandmothers behind bars for protesting abortion but refuse to prosecute violent offenders who actually attack the pro-life pregnancy centers. They will prosecute President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents, but they give President Biden a complete pass for even worse infractions.

When we say the DOJ has been weaponized, this is exactly what we are talking about, and this is what the American people see.

Mr. Speaker, today the House Judiciary Committee, as I mentioned, asked Attorney General Garland about these questions and many more. Right now, 65 percent of the American people have no faith in the Department of Justice. It is because of his leadership. He has eroded the rule of law. He has destroyed public trust in an essential American institution.

I used my time this morning, I was the first questioner on our side in Judiciary, and I asked the Attorney General about the DOJ's Hunter Biden investigation. This is a big question on the minds of my constituents and most of ours around the country.

I asked him plainly:

Have you had personal contact with anyone at FBI

headquarters about the Hunter Biden investigation?''

His answer was, I don't recollect the answer to that

question.

Really?

Okay. Let me get this straight, I told him, the Attorney

General of the United States cannot remember if he discussed

an FBI investigation into the son of the sitting President of

the United States? That is your testimony under oath?

Yes, it is, he said.

It is extraordinary.

Mr. Speaker, frankly, we didn't expect full transparency today from this Attorney General. He and his top DOJ lieutenants have shown us, they have demonstrated over and over that they hold no regard for the rule of law and really are just acting as political hatchet men protecting their boss, President Biden.

The Attorney General was clearly unwilling or unable to provide the essential answers that we needed today. We will continue to press for them. That is our job. That is our constitutional duty on Judiciary to provide oversight over the DOJ.

Mr. Speaker, we have a great lineup of Members here to speak this afternoon on some very important topics to the country.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. He is exactly right. We had no choice but to proceed to the impeachment inquiry phase because that is where the evidence has led us, as you noted. We have a responsibility. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says very clearly that a President shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. We have credible allegations of a number of those infractions. Bribery is one of them. High crimes and misdemeanors are another. We have mounds of evidence now stacking up to support those allegations, so we do not have a choice under the Constitution but to proceed accordingly, and that is what we will do. We will do our constitutional duty.

Mr. Speaker, I yield next to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), my good friend and Super Bowl champion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. That was well said.

If time permitted today, I am sure we would have every Republican in the Conference come to the floor and speak to the same issue because it is so outrageous that we have this trampling upon some of our most fundamental freedoms; the Second Amendment, of course, being among them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman and former mayor from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend; that was well said.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, very well said by the gentleman.

Look, let's hasten to say we take no pleasure in this. There are a lot of big challenges that the country needs to fix. We don't want to spend time and resources investigating the President, impeaching a President.

Next to declaring war, this is the heaviest power that we have in the House of Representatives, but Article I of the Constitution does give us the ``sole power of impeachment'' here.

We have no choice in the matter. Given the evidence, given the allegations, we have to pursue it, and we will. We are often asked: Why is the House majority, why are the House Republicans spending so much time investigating? If we had not done these investigations, we wouldn't have all of this evidence.

Why?

It goes back to the theme of what I was saying earlier: The Department of Justice is simply not doing its job. Under normal circumstances, the DOJ would be investigating all these allegations of corruption but they simply looked the other way.

As I noted earlier, Attorney General Garland, who is just now leaving the Committee on the Judiciary, he has been here all day, has abused the Department to pursue political agendas. He has sued conservative States over their local policies. He has raided the home of President Biden's main political opponent. The Department is obstructing at the same time the Hunter Biden investigation and impeding the House's impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

What are we to do?

I was home on the August district work period. I was doing townhalls in my district in Louisiana, and I will tell you that at every venue, the number one question everybody has is: When will there be accountability?

I mentioned earlier that 65 percent of Americans now have no faith. They

don't trust the Department of Justice. We are losing faith in our institutions because the people do not see accountability. They don't see a fair system of justice. They see a two-tiered system of justice.

It is frightening. You cannot maintain a Constitutional republic if the people do not trust the system of justice. They don't believe it is fair. They don't believe that they are going to get a fair shake, that every American, regardless of who they are, is going to have equal justice under law. That is the threat right now. There is nothing more serious than that.

Mr. Speaker, we will pursue the truth, and we will follow it wherever it leads and try to return that accountability to the people.

Mr. Speaker, I end the Special Order hour here, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), for yielding.

So here we are, after nearly 9 months of investigations into the Biden family's influence-peddling schemes, this body has uncovered mounting credible evidence of corruption, evidence that

has come to light through numerous committee meetings, whistleblower testimony and interviews, document discovery, and rigorous Congressional oversight.

Despite the false claims of leftwing media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC, there is, in fact, evidence of peddling and corruption. Under the IRS whistleblower testimony, two IRS agents testified under oath that Joe Biden was present at at least one meeting with Hunter Biden's foreign clients.

Agent Joseph Zeigler, formerly known as ``Whistleblower X,'' testified that he was handcuffed and hamstrung throughout the IRS's 5- year investigation of Hunter Biden and was ultimately stopped from moving forward in the manner that he believed to be appropriate for the offenses committed.

Over $17 million were sent to Hunter Biden from companies operating in authoritarian, oppressive nations.

The Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers also alleged that the DOJ would not let them pursue Joe Biden or any connections that would lead to him. They allege a campaign of delay, divulge, deny surrounded their requests to pursue leads that led to Joe Biden.

This allegation has been confirmed by a former FBI SSA. The Special Counsel was appointed to obstruct Congressional investigations and inquiries behind the curtain of an ongoing investigation.

The testimony of these IRS whistleblowers have been corroborated by the testimony of the FBI SSA and two additional colleagues that claimed that they were fired from the investigation by order of Attorney Weiss.

Devon Archer's testimony to the Oversight Committee is that Joe Biden is a brand. Archer alleges members of the Biden family used Joe Biden's position as Vice President to sell power and access to interested parties. VP Biden would protect oligarchs from competent legal probes and investigations into foreign countries, such as Ukraine.

Hunter or another family member would be paid money, and then Joe would meet with the interested party in Washington, D.C.

A quick summary: An oligarch pays money to Hunter Biden's company or associate, which then is paid to Hunter, and a portion of that goes to the big guy, his father.

The Shokin investigation: In 2015, Hunter was pressured by Burisma to call D.C. to get help in removing a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin.

Shokin was indeed later fired, and video evidence has surfaced of Joe Biden bragging about getting him fired in order for foreign aid dollars to flow to the Government of Ukraine, right on tape.

Joe Biden's family received $17 million from contacts from foreign nations, according to IRS documents.

What was being done in exchange for this money? The National Archives have confirmed that Joe Biden used pseudonyms when communicating with Hunter and his business associates from official government emails, including the Office of the Vice President.

So you have DOJ misconduct, confirmed by the FBI SSA and leadership, that DOJ--specifically, Merrick Garland--prevented investigators from doing their jobs as best as he could.

The FBI D.C. office tipped off the Secret Service of an interview with Hunter Biden that was being planned. The FBI headquarters also tipped them off of a planned search of Hunter's residence which gave time and forewarning for any incriminating evidence to be removed.

No ordinary American would ever expect to receive such preferential treatment if they were accused of the crimes that Hunter and Joe have been. What they can normally expect is a 4 a.m. knock on the door with a battering ram for even lesser crimes.

Investigators are not allowed to ask about the big guy. The bank records show over 170 Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks on the Biden family financial transactions. This means banks believe that over 170 separate financial transactions in Biden's family bank accounts were linked to bribery, money laundering, or other serious financial crimes.

An FBI informant documented conversations that indicated to them that Joe pressured foreign companies to send millions to the family business. The claims from Democrats and their media allies that the impeachment inquiry was opened without evidence are not only false but also illogical.

Inquiries exist for the purpose of uncovering evidence. An impeachment inquiry is an investigation into whether an impeachable offense has been committed. It is not the whole scope of impeachment. It gives the ability to do further investigation.

Where there is smoke, you will probably find fire.

There is evidence from whistleblowers and former associates that Joe Biden was intimately involved in Hunter's corrupt business dealings.

This is an impeachable offense. The allegations that since this conduct allegedly only happened when Joe was VP and not while President thus means that an impeachment is not possible, that is false.

Impeachable conduct includes high crimes, bribery, or other misdemeanors that occurred while the accused was in a previous Federal office.

Joe Biden has lied about his connection to his son's corrupt business dealings for years.

Now, we are not supposed to take impeachment lightly around here. Indeed, it has been abused the last few years a couple of times, but House Republicans are going to go through a process, due process, and find real evidence.

The conclusion is that despite the disparate claims of the partisan media and their Democrat allies, there is indeed mounting evidence that President Joe Biden was involved in his family's influence-selling scheme and intimately involved in Hunter Biden's corruption.

An impeachment inquiry will help House Republicans get to the bottom of this, and I hope Democrats will be interested as well, and then determine whether or not there is proof of these crimes. If there indeed is, then President Biden has committed impeachable offenses.

Again, impeachment is not to be taken lightly, not to be just thrown around for political purpose but utilized. This impeachment inquiry is a very important ability for Congress to answer the questions that many, many American people are asking about the obvious corruption that is coming forward, thanks to whistleblowers, and others, that are bringing this evidence to the front.

With that, let's proceed, and let's do this properly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Johnson for his leadership. Mr. Johnson is focused. He is an individual who is bringing this whole body forward, and I look forward to working with him continually on these issues.

There is a saying, we all know it, the truth shall set you free. The accusations made against the Bidens more than require an investigation. These accusations have painted a picture of corruption, bribery, and shameful behavior unbecoming of our executive branch.

Let's talk about them a little bit.

Bank records obtained by the Oversight Committee reveal almost $20 million in payments directed to Biden's associates and family.

These aren't Republican talking points. These aren't Jeff Van Drew talking points. This is the reality of what we have already found.

Over 150 transactions involving the Bidens have been flagged as ``suspicious activity.'' That is not only by the banks, but also the Treasury Department.

President Biden himself participated in phone calls with his son, Hunter--it is a fact--effectively acting as the merchandise that was being sold by his son, Hunter, who was the salesman. They closed deals, and we want to know what they are about: calls that led to the funneling of millions of dollars to Hunter and other Biden family members and Hunter's associates.

The list goes on and on and on. I am only touching the surface. This is more than enough to garner the extra powers granted from an impeachment inquiry. Our goal is to get to the truth.

As I said in the beginning of this conversation, the truth shall set you free. If there is nothing for them to worry about, they should welcome an impeachment inquiry. They should welcome producing the records, and they should welcome producing the statements. It is just the truth that we want.

We have a mission, a duty, and a responsibility. Our duty is to restore the American people's faith in our institutions. Our mission is to reaffirm that no one person, no one group is ever above the law in the United States of America.

This inquiry will move forward, with full transparency and steadfast resolve. If there is nothing here to hide, there is nothing here to worry about. If the allegations are confirmed, there will be, and needs to be justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 684, the resolution condemning Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's unconstitutional actions violating New Mexicans' Second Amendment rights.

The Second Amendment is not an optional legal provision that bureaucrats can toss aside at their whim. It is a fundamental principle to ensure that every law-abiding citizen has the God-granted right to protect themselves, their families, their property, and their liberties.

Growing up in the Deep South, I witnessed how Black Codes and Jim Crow laws unjustly restricted minority communities from owning firearms. In the mid-1950s, Martin Luther King, Jr., kept firearms for self-protection, but his application for a concealed weapons permit was denied because of racist gun control laws in his State.

Gun control laws proposed by Democrats and State legislatures, Congress, and the White House aggressively erode our basic constitutional rights. As it was in the civil rights era, the Black community has seen this movie before. As Democrats abridge our rights to self-protection, they legislate away the commonsense tools for Black Americans to protect themselves. As they push ``defund the police'' and ``soft on crime'' policies, it is the urban Black community that suffers. We are now experiencing all-time highs in homicide, robbery, car thefts, physical assaults, and destruction of Black-owned businesses.

House Republicans will never waver in our commitment to defend the rights of all law-abiding citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, or ZIP Code. We will continue to fight to safeguard Americans' inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is an honor to lend my support to this House resolution. I pledge to continue to champion the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. I thank Representative Johnson for bringing us together for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Biden family business of selling out America.

Here is just a sliver of what we know:

The Biden family and associates received nearly $20 million in payments funneled through shell companies. They were paid by Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Lord knows who else.

Joe Biden lied about his family receiving over $1 million in payments from China through an associate.

Hunter put Joe on the phone at least 20 times in business meetings with foreign nationals.

Hunter Biden's business associates visited the White House at least 80 times while Joe Biden was Vice President.

There were more than 150 bank transactions involving the Biden family that U.S. banks flagged as suspicious.

Not only was Joe Biden involved with Hunter's clients and flying Hunter around the world on Air Force Two to generate more business, but it is also apparent that Joe was using his office as Vice President to manipulate U.S. policy. We see that with Ukraine, Burisma, in the firing of the prosecutor.

Unraveling the mountain of Biden's lies, his shell companies, and Joe's actions as Vice President is part of what we will be investigating in these hearings, in the impeachment inquiry.

If you are going to sell out America, this is what it looks like.