Establishing a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we will consider the creation of a new subcommittee here in the House that Republicans call the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. I call it the McCarthy committee, and I am not talking about Kevin. I am talking about Joe.

Mr. Speaker, this committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the MAGA extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party and now want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense.

Let's start with the subcommittee's mandate, which is recklessly broad.

Speaker McCarthy is essentially handing Mr. Jordan the power to target anyone and anything he doesn't like, anything and anyone he deems unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical.

Who decides what is unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical? Mr. Jordan does.

Why don't we just be blunt here? Republicans claim to care about law enforcement, but this new committee is about attacking law enforcement. It is about going after people. It is about destroying people's careers and lives. It is about undermining the Department of Justice, defunding the police, and settling scores on behalf of the twice-impeached and disgraced former occupant of the Oval Office.

The MAGA extremist fringe of the Republican Party will use this committee to push QAnon conspiracy theories and lies from Truth Social. They are going to use it to gin up fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. I think we need to just start calling this the tinfoil hat committee.

Speaker McCarthy even changed the language at the last minute to provide unprecedented authority for the subcommittee to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations.

Let me repeat: The Republican Party, the party that claims to care about law and order, has created a committee not just to defund the police based on their wacky conspiracy theories, but to actually try to shut down ongoing investigations, including into domestic terrorists, phony electors, insurrectionists, people who are on trial for sedition because they tried to overthrow the government, and even disgraced former President Donald Trump.

This is outrageous. We are a country of laws, but this committee seeks to undermine the law, undermine the police, and make a complete mockery of the investigative and oversight powers of the House.

As seen on this week's Sunday shows, some sitting Republicans being investigated right now by the FBI and the Department of Justice want to serve on this committee.

I mean, what? I mean, come on. Give me a break. I know my Republican friends have some ethically challenged members who asked for pardons from the former President, but this is beyond the pale. This is unconscionable. This is a conflict of interest.

First, they gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. Now, they give Members of Congress the ability to investigate and to try to shut down criminal investigations that they are subjects in. One set of rules for the American people, another set of rules for Republican Members of Congress. It is incredibly offensive.

On their first real week in the majority, this is what my Republican friends are pushing through? Not a bill to fight inflation. Not a bill to raise wages for people. A bill for Republican Members of Congress to shut down investigations into their own wrongdoings. What is wrong with these people?

On top of all of that, this subcommittee expects to use the power of the subpoena to advance their delusional QAnon conspiracy theories and harass Federal law enforcement agents.

I would say it is almost comical if it wasn't so disturbing that Speaker McCarthy and Mr. Jordan refused to comply with bipartisan subpoenas issued by the January 6th Committee. So I guess for them, it is do as I say, not as I do.

In my mind, it speaks volumes that House Republicans are choosing to prioritize this kind of dangerous partisan garbage instead of actually trying to help everyday Americans.

Whatever happened to Republicans' commitment to America? They promised to tackle inflation, end the opioid crisis, reduce the national debt, and more. None of those issues are addressed in their first 12 bills.

In fact, the very first bill they passed last night doesn't reduce the deficit, it adds $114 billion to the deficit by making it easier for billionaires to cheat on their taxes.

This is where we are week 2 of the 118th Congress, and we are creating a witch-hunt committee where Republicans plan to air their grievances and further incite crazy fringe conspiracy theories from the internet at the taxpayers' expense.

Senator Joseph McCarthy would be very proud of what Republicans are doing today. Putting their own personal power and partisan politics over the needs of the American people. Just like Senator McCarthy looking for imaginary communists, they are going to find QAnon conspiracies everywhere they look because that is what they want to find.

Just like the McCarthy committee, this will become another shameful, disgraceful moment for the Congress of the United States.

This has nothing to do with the rule of law, nothing to do with proper oversight of government. It is simply about revenge. It is about disrupting and destroying rather than collaborating and creating. It is about putting politics over people instead of putting people over politics to build a better future for America.

This subcommittee is an awful idea, and I urge my colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, to vote ``no'' on this monstrosity that will further empower the extremists at the expense of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled: ``January 6 panel names six House GOP lawmakers who asked for pardons.''

[From The Hill, June 23, 2022]

Jan. 6 Panel Names Six House GOP Lawmakers Who Asked for Pardons

(By Mychael Schnell and Emily Brooks)

The Jan. 6 committee investigating the attack on the

Capitol revealed Thursday that at least a half-dozen

Republican lawmakers asked for presidential pardons for their

role in voting to overturn election results in certain states

on Jan. 6, 2021, according to testimony from former Trump

aides.

Testimony from Trump aides named Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) Mo

Brooks (Ala.) Louie Gohmert (Texas), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and

Scott Perry (PA.) as seeking pardons.

An aide also said that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.)

contacted the White House Counsel's office seeking a pardon.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the panel who

played an elevated role in Thursday's proceedings, presented

an email from Brooks, dated Jan. 11, 2021, in which the

congressman asked for presidential pardons for himself,

Gaetz, and lawmakers who objected to the Electoral College

vote for Arizona and Pennsylvania.

``President Trump asked me to send you this letter. This

letter is also pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz,'' the

email reads.

``As such, I recommend that President give general (all

purpose) pardons to the following groups of people:,'' the

email adds. ``Every Congressman and Senator who voted to

reject the electoral vote submission of Arizona and

Pennsylvania.''

A spokesman for Brooks forwarded a full copy of the email,

which included a concern that Democrats would ``abuse

America's judicial system by targeting numerous Republicans

with sham charges.''

``The email request says it all. There was a concern

Democrats would abuse the judicial system by prosecuting and

jailing Republicans who acted pursuant to their

Constitutional or statutory duties under 3 USC 15,'' Brooks

said in a statement. ``Fortunately, with time passage, more

rational forces took over and no one was persecuted for

performing their lawful duties, which means a pardon was

unnecessary after all.''

The panel also showed a video of former special assistant

to the president Cassidy Hutchinson, saying Gaetz and Brooks

``both advocated for there to be a blanket pardon'' for

members of Congress involved with a meeting that took place

on Dec. 21, 2020, presumably the huddle at the White House

that focused on overturning the 2020 presidential election.

She also said Gaetz and Brooks advocated for a blanket

pardon for ``a handful of other members that weren't at the

Dec. 21 meeting.'' Those were meant to be ``preemptive

pardons,'' she noted.

Additionally, Hutchinson said ``Gaetz was personally

pushing for a pardon, and he was doing so since early

December,'' but said she did not know why.

Gaetz reached out to Hutchinson asking for a meeting with

Meadows ``about receiving a presidential pardon,'' according

to her closed-door testimony presented at Thursday's hearing.

Hutchinson said Biggs, Gohmert and Perry also asked for

pardons, but did not reveal more details.

And she said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a fierce defender of

Trump, ``talked about congressional pardons, but he never

asked me for one,'' noting that he was largely inquiring

about whether or not the White House was going to grant the

lawmaker pardons.

Brooks, Biggs, Perry and Jordan were all issued subpoenas

by the select committee in May.

Perry previously denied that he asked for a pardon, and

stood by that in light of new testimony.

``I stand by my statement that I never sought a

Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress.

At no time did I speak with Miss Hutchinson, a White House

scheduler, nor any White House staff about a pardon for

myself or any other Member of Congress--this never

happened,'' Perry said in a statement.

A spokesman for Perry previously denied that he asked for a

pardon, calling it ``laughable, ludicrous, and a thoroughly

soulless lie.''

In a statement Thursday night, Gohmert said he requested

pardons for U.S. service members and military contractors--

not himself.

He called the claim that he requested a pardon for himself

``malicious, despicable and unfit for a U.S. Congressional

hearing.''

``I requested pardons for brave U.S. service members and

military contractors who were railroaded by the justice

system due to superiors playing politics, as well as a

civilian leader who was also wronged by a despicable

injustice,'' Gohmert said. ``These requests were all far

prior to, and completely unrelated to January 6.''

Biggs also objected to the committee's assertion that he

sought a parton, writing in a statement Thursday night that

Hutchinson ``is mistaken.''

He said the testimony of Hutchinson discussing the pardons

was ``deceptively edited to make it appear as if I personally

asked for her a presidential pardon.''

Greene, Hutchinson said, did not contact her directly, but

she said she had heard that Greene contacted the White House

Counsel's office for a pardon.

Greene pushed back on the testimony in a tweet, but did not

directly deny asking for a pardon.

``Saying `I heard' means you don't know,'' Greene said.

``Spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the January 6th

Witch Hunt Committee is all about.''

Eric Herschmann, a former Trump White House attorney, was

also asked by the Jan. 6 committee in a deposition if Gaetz

was seeking a pardon.

``Believe so,'' Herschmann said in a video presented at the

hearing. ``The general tone was, `we may get prosecuted

because we were defensive of, you know, the President's

positions on these things.''

Herschmann said that Gaetz's pardon request was ``for any

and all things,'' and that Gaetz had mentioned former

President Richard Nixon's pardon. Herschmann said that

Nixon's pardon was not that broad.

Trump adviser John McEntee also testified that Gaetz told

him he asked Meadows for a pardon.

A spokesman for Gaetz responded to testimony about the

pardon request by pointing to a tweet from Gaetz calling the

committee a ``political sideshow.''

Mr. Speaker, there were at least six House Members who sought pardons from President Trump following the January 6 insurrection, and many of them would like to be on this committee, we are told.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a CNN article titled: ``There are clear distinctions between Trump and Biden's two cases.''

[From CNN Politics, Jan. 10, 2023]

There Are Clear Distinctions Between Trump and Biden's Two

Cases

(By Stephen Collinson)

Republicans seized on revelations that several classified

documents from Joe Biden's time as vice president were found

in his former private office to create cover for former

President Donald Trump's hoarding of secret records.

The disclosures Monday about the material found last fall

spun up an immediate political storm at a time when Trump is

in increasing legal peril. The new GOP House majority is

meanwhile rushing to undermine investigations against him and

unleashing a wave of counter investigations against the

current president.

But there are clear distinctions between the two cases.

The new controversy so far appears to be on a smaller scale

than the more than 100 classified documents--some bearing the

highest designations of government secrecy--taken from

Trump's resort at Mar-a-Lago after a court-approved search by

FBI agents. And Biden appears to be cooperating with the

National Archives and the Justice Department in a way that

Trump failed to do and unlike the former president he is not

being investigated for possible obstruction of justice.

But Trump, who brands attempts to make him face

accountability for his conduct in office and afterward as

political victimization, sought to capitalize on Biden's

discomfort over the documents in a post on his Truth Social

network.

``When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe

Biden, perhaps even the White House? These documents were

definitely not declassified,'' he wrote.

New House Oversight Chairman James Comer told CNN: ``This

is (a) further concern that there is a two-tiered justice

system.''

New House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also moved quickly to

respond to the discovery of the documents in an office used

by Biden after he left the vice presidency.

``Oh, really? They just now found them after all these

years,'' he told CNN. ``What has he said about the other

president having classified documents?''

Attorney General Merrick Garland has asked the US attorney

in Chicago to review the material, some of which bore the

marking ``sensitive compartmentalized information''--showing

that it came from intelligence sources.

Questions Biden must face

Fairness and respect for the law dictate that Biden should

answer many of the same questions that Trump is facing,

regarding whether he was entitled to the records, why they

were not previously turned over, whether they were securely

stored and how they ended up in his office in the first

place.

Critics will also wonder why Biden didn't immediately

disclose the discovery of less than a dozen documents last

fall to the public, given the huge sensitivity of the Justice

Department probe of Trump on a similar question. And the

president will be sure to face accusations of hypocrisy given

his sharp criticisms that Trump did not take the proper steps

to secure classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Still, even if there are adequate answers to these issues,

any distinctions in the severity of the Biden and Trump

documents will be obliterated in the political torrent that

is already stirring and with conservative media likely to

draw false equivalencies between the two cases.

The report offers an immediate opening for Trump as he

seeks to dodge culpability for his behavior and claims he's a

victim of persecution to thwart his 2024 campaign. The former

president is a master at turning one incident into an entire

campaign narrative--as he did with former Democratic nominee

Hillary Clinton's emails in 2016.

And the report will give the new Republican House majority

fresh material as it unleashes a multi-front investigative

assault against the White House. And while there so far

appear to be clear differences in the magnitude of the cases,

the report--first carried by CBS--about Biden will inevitably

raise political pressure on Special Counsel Jack Smith's

investigation into Trump's retention of classified material.

Smith is also now reaching even deeper into the ex-

president's inner circle by subpoenaing his former lawyer

Rudy Giuliani as part of a federal grand jury probe looking

at Trump's fund raising, among other issues related to the

2020 election.

Garland's dilemma

The Biden document disclosures will also deepen the already

intense political headache facing Garland as he contemplates

an eventual decision on whether to charge Trump, whose status

as an ex-president and an active 2024 candidate carries huge

political implications.

Garland insists that investigations will go where the

evidence and the law demands as he seeks to stress the

independence of the Justice Department--which was perpetually

in question when Trump was president. But now, inevitably and

however the Biden vice presidential documents issue is

resolved, a decision to charge Trump over the classified

documents case but not to take the same action against Biden

would incite political uproar among conservatives who would

be sure to allege double standards.

The former president's legal team issued a temperate

response to the Biden report that sought to broaden openings

that could shield their client. One lawyer said that the

Biden story was ``indicative of a larger problem with trying

to keep track of classified information in the offices of the

President and the VP. There is an over classification

problem, and at the end of an Administration, things get

packed up and moved and it's hard to keep track.''

The lawyer also warned that if Trump were to be charged,

his representatives would demand all communications between

the National Archives and Biden's team on the matter.

The Biden discovery

Biden's attorneys found the documents in a locked closet in

a private office in Washington the future president used as a

visiting professor with the University of Pennsylvania. The

White House Counsel's office notified the National Archives

and officials at the agency took control of the documents the

morning after they were found. Biden wasn't aware the

documents were in the office until his personal lawyers

reported their existence and remains in the dark of the

content of the material, a source familiar with the matter

told CNN. Federal office holders are required by law to

relinquish official documents and classified documents when

their government service ends.

Unlike in Trump's case, Biden doesn't appear to have tried

to assert ownership of the files, to obstruct their handover

or make outlandish claims that he had previously declassified

them based on an undisclosed private thought.

Trump is being investigated by Smith to see whether he

infringed the Espionage Act by keeping classified material

and for the possible obstruction of justice.

Republicans muster for investigative assault on White House

The Biden documents case will intensify the showdown

already emerging between the new Republican House majority

and the White House.

For two years, Trump has been rocked by blow-after-blow

from congressional and criminal probes over his conduct

during and after his presidency that have nudged him ever

closer to accountability.

But help is on the way.

The new Republican majority in the House is ready to

unleash a vast investigative machine apparently designed to

discredit and distract from Trump's alleged transgressions

and to wound Biden's nascent reelection race.

Such an offensive was always coming, given the extent to

which the deeply conservative House GOP remains in thrall to

the

ex-president. But the intensity, scope and financial muscle

of the investigations was bolstered by the concessions

offered by McCarthy as he caved to right-wing hardliners in

order to win his speakership last week. And it represents a

fast-expanding challenge for the White House, which has

already spent months preparing its defense.

A new House rules package passed on Monday for instance

will set up probes into alleged political bias in agencies

like the FBI and the Justice Department and what Republicans

see as political weaponization of such agencies.

The move cements the GOP's sharp turn away from the FBI,

once seen as one of the most conservative agencies in the US

government following Trump's repeated claims he was illegally

targeted by investigations and his failure to enlist the

bureau as a weapon to advance his political grievances.

Rigorous scrutiny and oversight are inevitable and

desirable as part of the constitutional duty of Congress and

responsibility to ensure accountability with taxpayer money.

And in the first two years of the Biden administration, there

are multiple questions that merit further investigation and

over which the public deserves more clarity.

This includes the chaotic management of the withdrawal from

Afghanistan in 2021, the way that Covid-19 mitigation funds

were spent or the administration's unwillingness at least

until recently to consider the rising numbers of migrants

crossing the southern border as a crisis. Proper oversight

can avoid the repeat of errors and inform better policy in

future.

But as always in Congress, there are questions over when

genuine oversight stops and hyper-partisan politically

motivated witch hunts begin, especially in the case of key

Republicans who have a long record of crossing over the line.

Incoming House Judiciary Chairman Rep Jim Jordan, for

instance, was a leading player in a previous investigation by

a GOP House into the death of US ambassador to Libya Chris

Stevens and three other Americans who were killed by Islamic

militants in Benghazi in 2012.

The two-year GOP-run House probe found a perfect storm of

bureaucratic inertia, rapidly worsening security in Libya and

inadequate resources led up to the killings. But Jordan was

not satisfied when the final report did not bear out

conservative attacks on the conduct of Hillary Clinton--who

was Secretary of State at the time of the deaths.

The Ohio lawmaker released his own far more critical

report, along with then Rep. Mike Pompeo, who later became

Secretary of State himself. And at the time, McCarthy boasted

that the investigation harmed Clinton's 2016 presidential

campaign, apparently revealing partisan motivations behind

the probe.

As well as the building storm over classified documents, a

key focus of the new GOP House majority will be to

investigate the House Select Committee in the previous

Democratic-run House that painted a damning picture of

Trump's behavior following the 2020 election and before the

Capitol insurrection.

The fact that many of the current members of the House

voted to deny certification of Biden's election victory based

on lies about electoral fraud Trump was using to try to steal

power underscores why many observers are raising new

questions about the partisan nature of Republican

investigations.

But after the revelations about documents found in Biden's

office, Republicans know a political gift when they see it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the difference is clear. Unlike in Trump's case, Biden doesn't appear to have tried to assert ownership of the files to obstruct their handover or make unhinged claims that he had previously declassified them through his thinking. Trump is being investigated to see whether he infringed the Espionage Act by keeping classified material and for the possible obstruction of justice.

I would just say to my colleague who spoke before, the American people also have expectations of elected officials, such as respecting the Constitution and respecting free and fair elections and not trying to overturn free and fair elections. Unfortunately, a majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle chose to ignore that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Guardian titled: `` `It's going to be dirty': Republicans gear up for attack on Hunter Biden,'' and an article from Politico titled: ``It's not just Hunter Biden: Prepare for a 2023 packed with House GOP investigations.''

[From the Guardian, Jan. 8, 2023]

`It's Going To Be Dirty': Republicans Gear Up for Attack on Hunter

Biden

(By David Smith)

When Borat--alias British actor Sacha Baron Cohen--told

risque jokes about Donald Trump and antisemitism at last

month's Kennedy Center Honors in Washington, Joe Biden was

not the only one laughing in a red velvet-lined balcony.

Sitting behind the US president was Hunter Biden wearing

black tie and broad smile that mirrored those of his father.

The image captured the intimacy between the men but also

the sometimes awkward status of Hunter as both private

citizen and privileged son of a president. It is a dichotomy

likely to come under a harsh public glare this year as

congressional Republicans set about making Hunter a household

name and staple of the news cycle.

``The right wing is licking its chops at the chance to go

after him,'' said Joshua Kendall, author of First Dads:

Parenting and Politics from George Washington to Barack

Obama. ``The level of venom is going to be over the top and

really, really dirty. The Republicans' rhetoric might get so

heated that it detracts from some of the actual behaviour.''

Republicans have been waiting a long time for this moment.

After regaining control of the House of Representatives in

last November's midterm elections, they used their first

press conference to promise to investigate the Biden

administration and, in particular, the president's allegedly

errant son.

Hunter has long faced questions about whether he traded on

his father's political career for profit, including efforts

to strike deals in China and reported references in his

emails to the ``big guy''.

Hunter joined the board of the Ukrainian gas company

Burisma in 2014, around the time that Joe Biden, then vice-

president, was helping conduct Barack Obama's foreign policy

with Ukraine. Hunter earned more than $50,000 a month over a

five-year period.

Senate Republicans claim that his appointment may have

posed a conflict of interest. Last year more than 30 of them

called for a prosecutor to be given special counsel authority

to carry out an investigation into alleged ``tax fraud, money

laundering, and foreign-lobbying violations''. But they have

not produced evidence that it influenced US policy or that

Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing.

House Republicans and their staff have been studying

messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious

laptop that

belonged to Hunter. Having gained the majority, they now have

the power to issue congressional subpoenas to foreign

entities that did business with him.

Richard Painter, who was chief White House ethics lawyer in

the George W Bush administration, believes that Joe Biden

should have recused himself from matters relating to Ukraine.

``The Ukrainian gas company wanted to curry favour with Joe

Biden so they put his son on the board,'' he said.

``It's pretty clear what's going on there but the missing

link the Republicans are looking for--but I don't think

they're going to find--is any kind of a quid pro quo, Joe

Biden for the Ukrainian gas company. Still, it would have

been better if Joe Biden had said: `Look, my son is going to

be on this board, maybe the secretary of state or somebody

else could handle Ukraine,' and he'd step aside.''

Hunter's taxes and foreign business work are already under

federal investigation with a grand jury in Delaware hearing

testimony in recent months. There are no indications that

this involves the president, who insists that he has never

spoken to Hunter about his foreign business arrangements.

Republicans are pulling at another strand. Ethics experts

have accused Hunter of cashing in on his father's name as he

pursues a career as an artist. He is represented by the

Georges Berges Gallery in New York, which reportedly struck

an agreement with the White House to set the prices of the

art and not reveal who bid on or bought it.

Berges said in an lnstagram post in November that

Republicans on the House oversight committee had written to

him with ``certain requests'' and subsequently got into a

Twitter debate with Painter about money and influence in art.

Berges wrote: ``If you're going to scrutinize a profession

then scrutinize all of them and every position that children

of Congress take in DC and elsewhere.''

Painter said in an interview: ``I don't think there's

anything corrupt about the White House or anything corrupt

about President Biden. But keeping the identities of the art

buyers secret was a bad idea. It leads to suspicion that

people are passing money under the table. It's hard to keep

who buys the art secret in the close-knit world of Hunter

Biden's friends or Hunter Biden himself so the secrecy was a

bad idea.''

Fox News and other rightwing media may relish an

opportunity to demonise the president's son ahead of an

election in 2024. But Republicans are in danger of overreach.

Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to examine Hunter's business

dealings led to his first impeachment. His efforts to

weaponise Hunter's troubles in the 2020 presidential election

fizzled.

David Brock, a veteran political operative and president of

Facts First USA, a new group set up to combat the

congressional investigations, said: ``What we're going to see

in the hearings is a recycling and a rehash of old

discredited stories and conspiracy theories. They're doing it

for political reasons. [Congressman] Jim Jordan is on the

record saying that the investigations are all about 2024 and

electing Donald Trump again. That's his own words, not

mine.''

Hunter's 2021 memoir, Beautiful Things, generated sympathy

in some quarters for a man who 50 years ago last month

survived a car crash that killed his mother and sister and

who has been honest about his struggle with alcoholism and

drug abuse. Brock believes that a fresh Republican onslaught

will backfire.

``Going after someone who has an addiction and has had

mental health issues is sadistic politics and I don't think

it will work with the American people,'' he added. ``There

are so many people who have family members who've suffered in

one way or another and will identify with Hunter; they won't

identify with the attackers. The Hunter-hating narrative has

been out there for three years. It hasn't really gained any

traction outside of the far right and I don't think it

will.''

Republicans could also lose credibility by focusing on

Hunter and other retreads of the past instead of advancing a

plan for domestic issues such as inflation, jobs and taxes.

Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist who served as a

senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight

committee from 2009 to 2013, said: ``For all the talk about

Republicans saying they want to return to regular order, they

want to have better stewardship over taxpayer dollars, they

want to act more responsibly with legislative power, well,

OK, but how does investigating Hunter Biden do anything to

help the American people?''

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, Mr. Jordan will use this subcommittee to go after people MAGA extremists see as their opponents. All the MAGA Republicans seem to want to do is create a forum for settling scores and pushing conspiracy theories. They are not interested in governing.

They want to go on FOX. They want to investigate Hunter Biden's laptop. They want to try to steal elections. They want to shut down the government if they don't get their way.

We are at a very dangerous moment in this country, and it is one of the reasons why many of us were so stunned that the new Speaker gave away so much of his authority to a group of extremists in the Republican Conference who have spent their entire careers trying to blow this place up.

The bottom line is this committee is basically an assurance that we are going to see these very partisan, political, MAGA-driven investigations go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Mr. Speaker, here is a curious thing. The legislation that creates this select committee, we were first given this on January 2. Then, it changed on January 6, and we didn't get that until 10 p.m. on January 6, after 13 Speaker votes.

What changed in this legislation--and this is really curious--is they expanded the select committee's authority to investigate ongoing criminal investigations--think about that--in an unprecedented way.

I don't know how many votes that got, but clearly, it was important enough because we went through 13 Speaker votes before we got to this.

The reason why this is included, and I am sad to say this, is because we have Members in this Chamber who themselves may be subjects of investigation. There are ongoing investigations against the former President. So, this was added.

Why was this added? To try to frustrate those investigations.

When we talk about corruption, when we talk about undermining the rule of law, let's understand what just occurred here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to that that there are oversight committees that are equipped and ready to look into all the issues that the gentleman just raised, and into all the conspiracy theories that they want to raise. But they went ahead and created this additional committee, and there is a reason for it.

This new committee they are creating has the authority to basically investigate ongoing criminal investigations. It is unprecedented.

In any event, I would remind the gentleman, you have oversight committees. You are in charge now; you can do whatever you want to do.

But there is a reason for this committee and there is a reason why after 13 roll call votes for Speakership they added an additional line giving this committee the authority to look into ongoing investigations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just got up and made all kinds of assertions that things were just said that weren't said. I don't know what the hell he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I will, again, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against the creation of that committee because this is unprecedented. This is a witch hunt. This is a committee designed basically to protect those who, quite frankly, are under investigation right now.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just make this clear for my colleague. A change was made in this legislation, and it was not just to allow the committee to investigate ongoing criminal investigations which is quite nefarious in and of itself.

Originally it was only supposed to be able to have investigative authority over the Department of Justice, DHS, and the FBI; the CIA and the IRS were added. This was all done after 13 Speaker votes at 10 o'clock at night clearly in an attempt to win more votes.

The people who are asking for these changes are the same people who want to investigate the people who are investigating them.

This is really, really unprecedented. I don't know what the hell is going on here, but this isn't right. This isn't openness, and this isn't transparency.

My friends talk about corruption. This is corruption. This is unacceptable. The American people ought to know it, and reasonable colleagues on the Republican side ought to say no to this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say what the gentleman just said is terrible, but this committee has absolutely nothing to do with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just say in response to the gentleman who said that he hopes that we populate this select committee with serious Democrats that he populate the committee with Republicans who did not ask for a pardon and who did not have their phones seized by the FBI.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled: ``Perry won't agree to stay off new House committee investigating January 6 probes.''

[From The Hill, Jan. 8, 2023]

Perry Won't Agree To Stay Off New House Committee Investigating Jan. 6

Probes

(By Julia Mueller)

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) on Sunday wouldn't pledge to stay

off the possible new House committee that would investigate

probes into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol

despite being a subject of a Department of Justice (DOJ)

inquiry into the matter.

``Why should I be limited--why should anybody be limited--

just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in

America is innocent until proven guilty,'' Perry said on

ABC's ``This Week.''

Host George Stephanopoulos pressed Perry, asking, ``Doesn't

that pose a conflict to you, since you're also part of the

investigation?''

``So, should everybody in Congress that disagrees with

somebody be barred from doing the oversight and investigative

powers that Congress has? That's our charge. And again,

that's appropriate for every single member, regardless of

what accusations are made. I get accused of things every

single day, as does every member that serves in the public

eye,'' Perry countered.

Newly elected Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has

indicated the Republican majority just sworn in plans to

review the work of the House select committee that last year

probed Jan. 6 and look into the federal investigations.

DOJ investigations seized Perry's phone in connection with

the rioting, and obtained email exchanges between Perry and

former Trump attorney John Eastman, among others.

Perry also introduced former President Trump to Jeffrey

Clark, whom Trump considered appointing as attorney general

in order to propagate his claims of election fraud during the

2020 presidential contest.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to roll up our sleeves and get to work. They want us to make progress and deliver results that help them in their day-to-day lives.

They don't need Congress to bend and break to the will of MAGA extremists, and they definitely don't need us to push crazy conspiracy theories and go on witch hunts to settle political scores.

My friends in their rules package gutted the Office of Congressional Ethics, and here they are with this new subcommittee which threatens our safety, our security, and our freedom.

It is an unprecedented attack on our Nation's law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues who spoke before about the intelligence oversight, we have an entire Select Committee on Intelligence that has oversight responsibilities on those matters. I am sorry the gentleman who spoke doesn't have confidence in whom the Republicans are going to propose as chair.

This committee is deranged. It is a bad idea, and it will go down in history as one of the worst committees that a Congress has ever put forward. It will be in the same category as the Joseph McCarthy Committee on Un-American Activities or the Benghazi Committee which now Speaker McCarthy admitted was an attempt to try to take down Secretary Clinton.

But here is the deal, and here is what it is all about: There are six on the other side of the aisle who asked for a pardon from President Trump. They did his dirty work, but Trump left them hanging. He did not give them a pardon. So now they are effectively trying to pardon themselves with the creation of this select committee.

This is unconscionable. It is so blatant. Again, the changes that were made to give them the ability to pardon themselves were done after the 13th Speaker vote in the dead of night to try to win their votes over.

This is not the way this Congress should run. This is not the way Republicans or Democrats, or any majority should behave. People should be ashamed of themselves that this is in the rules package and that this is what my friends are pushing right now.

We are better than this. We should not be going down this road. My friends said that they want to combat inflation and that they want to make the lives of the American people better. Let's focus on those things. Let's focus on areas that actually improve the lives of the American people. This is a colossal waste of time. But even worse, it is to me the epitome of what corruption is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Scalise, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the section-by-section analysis of the resolution.

H. Res. 5

Adopting the Rules for the 118th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Adoption of the Rules of the One Hundred

Seventeenth Congress.

This section provides that the Rules of the 117th Congress

are the Rules of the 118th Congress, except for the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in the resolution.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.

Subsection (a)(l) replaces current ``pay-as-you-go''

requirements with ``cut-as-you-go'' requirements. The

provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint

resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net

effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or

ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current

practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to

a special order of business which directs the Clerk to

engross the measures together after passage for purposes of

compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for

addressing ``emergency'' designations.

Subsection (a)(2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that

provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the

Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,

upon the adoption by the House of a concurrent resolution on

the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in

the House on the public debt limit legislation.

Subsection (a)(3) restores a point of order against net

increase in budget authority for amendments to general

appropriations bills.

Subsection (a)(4) restores a point of order against budget

reconciliation directives that increase net direct spending.

Increased Threshold for Tax Rate Increases. Subsection (b)

restores a requirement for a three-fifths supermajority vote

on tax rate increases.

Two Minute Votes. Subsection (c) provides that the Speaker

can reduce vote times in the House to not less than two

minutes on any question that follows another electronic vote.

The subsection also states that to the maximum extent

practicable, advance notice will be given when reduced voting

times are expected in a voting series.

Modifications to Calendar Wednesday. Subsection (d)

modifies the notice requirement to use Calendar Wednesday to

conform with the 72-hour notice requirement prior to

consideration of legislation.

Committee Authorization and Oversight Plans. Subsection (e)

restores the requirement that each standing committee (except

the Committees on Appropriations, Ethics, and Rules) vote to

adopt an authorization and oversight plan, which must be

submitted to the Committees on Oversight and Accountability

and House Administration no later than March 1 of the first

session of a Congress. The plan must include a list of

unauthorized programs and agencies within the committee's

jurisdiction that have received funding in the prior fiscal

year, or in the case of a permanent authorization, have not

received a comprehensive review by the committee in the prior

three Congresses. The subsection requires committees to

describe each program or agency that is intended to be

authorized in the current Congress or next Congress, and a

description of oversight to support reauthorization in the

current Congress. The subsection also requires the

plan include any recommendations for moving such programs or

agencies from mandatory to discretionary funding. When

developing these plans, committee chairs must coordinate with

other committees of jurisdiction to ensure that programs and

agencies are subject to routine authorization efforts.

The subsection also provides that committee authorization

and oversight plans may make recommendations to consolidate

or terminate duplicative or unnecessary programs and

agencies. Committees may make recommendations for changes to

existing law to address Federal rules, regulations, statutes,

and court decisions related to programs that are inconsistent

with Congress' Article I authorities, as well as provide a

description of other oversight activities that may be

necessary.

The subsection also requires the Committee on Oversight and

Accountability to report to the House no later than April 15

the authorization and oversight plans submitted by committees

together with any recommendations it may make to ensure

effective coordination of the plans.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Include

Macroeconomic Effects. Subsection (f) restores the

requirement that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint

Committee on Taxation, to the extent practicable, incorporate

the macroeconomic effects of major legislation into the

official cost estimates used for enforcing the budget

resolution and other rules of the House. The subsection

requires, to the extent practicable, a qualitative assessment

of the long-term budgetary and macroeconomic effects of major

legislation, which is defined to cover legislation that

causes a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by

the budget resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25

percent of the projected GDP for that year. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in

the case of revenue legislation the House member serving

as the Chair or Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on

Taxation, to designate major legislation for purposes of

this rule.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (g) directs the Committee on

Ethics to adopt rules which provide for a process to receive

complaints directly from the public.

Empaneling Investigative Subcommittee of the Committee on

Ethics. Subsection (h) codifies House Resolution 451, 110th

Congress, directing the Committee on Ethics to empanel an

investigative subcommittee or issue a report within 30 days

of the date a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner

is indicted, or criminal charges are filed.

Treatment of Evidence in Committee and Subcommittee

Investigations. Subsection (i) eliminates a requirement that

the Committee on Ethics adopt a rule allowing the use during

an ethics investigation of evidence presented in a related

criminal case where the respondent was convicted because this

is already contained in the committee rules of the Committee

on Ethics.

Designating Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Subsection (j) redesignates the Committee on Oversight and

Reform as the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Designating Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subsection (k) redesignates the Committee on Education and

Labor as the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Subcommittees of Committee on Agriculture. Subsection (1)

permits the Committee on Agriculture to have six

subcommittees, codifying a separate order in effect since the

114th Congress.

Cybersecurity. Subsection (m) modifies the jurisdiction of

the Committee on Homeland Security to include functions of

the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity.

Committees currently holding jurisdiction over cybersecurity

functions of DHS will retain a shared jurisdictional interest

in such functions.

Scope of Authority to Act in Continuing Litigation Matters.

Subsection (n) eliminates ``including, but not limited to,

the issuance of subpoenas'' in the description of authority

to act as successor-in-interest in continuing litigation

matters, such language being superfluous.

Record Votes on Measures Reported by the Committee on

Rules. Subsection (o) requires reports from the Committee on

Rules to include a depiction of recorded votes.

Access to the Hall of the House. Subsection (p) strikes

language providing Governors of Territories and the Mayor of

the District of Columbia access to the Hall of the House.

Resolution Declaring the Office of Speaker Vacant.

Subsection (q) strikes language from rule IX to allow any

member to offer a privileged resolution declaring the Office

of Speaker vacant.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Holman Rule. Subsection (a) reinstates the ``Holman Rule''

which allows amendments to appropriations legislation that

would reduce the salary of or fire specific federal

employees, or cut a specific program.

Restoring Legislative Branch Accountability. Subsection (b)

states regulations adopted pursuant to House Resolution 1096,

117th Congress will have no force or effect in the 118th

Congress.

Requirement with Respect to Single Subject Bill. Subsection

(c) provides that, effective February 1, 2023, a bill or

joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor

submits a statement setting forth the single subject of the

bill or joint resolution. This statement must be included

with the statement required by clause 7(c) of rule XII

(Constitutional Authority Statements). A statement for any

bill or joint resolution introduced prior to the effective

date shall, to the extent practicable, be submitted by the

sponsor prior to committee or House consideration.

Question of Consideration for Germanenes. Subsection (d)

establishes a question of consideration on a special rule

that waives germaneness for an amendment. The question of

consideration is debatable for 20 minutes and is not subject

to any intervening motion.

Budget Matter. Subsection (e)(l)(A) provides the authority

for the chair of the Committee on the Budget to file

allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary

levels for the purpose of enforcing provisions of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Additionally, this

subsection states that the provisions of S. Con. Res. 14,

117th Congress shall have no force or effect.

Subsection (e)(l)(B) provides adjustment authority to the

chair of the Committee on the Budget for a bill, joint

resolution, amendment thereto, or conference report thereon

if the measure does not increase direct spending over five

or ten years. It additionally provides adjustment

authority to the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

take into account the most recent baseline published by

the Congressional Budget Office.

Subsection (e)(1)(C) allows the Majority Leader or his

designee, should the chair of the Committee on the Budget not

yet be elected, to file statements permitted under

subsections (f)(1)(A) and (f)(1)(B).

Subsection (e)(1)(D) allows the chair of the Committee on

the Budget (or the Majority Leader or his designee, should

the chair not yet be elected) to adjust an estimate under

clause 4 of rule XXIX to exempt the budgetary effects of

measures to protect taxpayers with taxable incomes below

$400,000 from an increase in audits above the most recent tax

year from the Internal Revenue Service.

Subsection (e)(2) establishes a point of order against

consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a

committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an

amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has

the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of

$2,500,000,000 for any of the four consecutive 10 fiscal year

periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10

fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The levels of net

increases in direct spending shall be determined based on

estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the

Budget.

Subsection (e)(3) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation that shows changes in mandatory spending

which cause a gross budgetary effect in any fiscal year

covered by the budget resolution that is equal to or greater

than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP for the current fiscal

year, to the extent practicable, to provide an estimate of

the inflationary impacts of that legislation. This subsection

also allows the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

designate major legislation for purposes of this order.

Subsection (e)(4) requires the Congressional Budget Office

on any legislation impacting either the Medicare Part A trust

fund or OASDI trust fund that causes a gross budgetary effect

in any fiscal year covered by the budget resolution that is

equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of the projected GDP

for the current fiscal year, to the extent practicable, to

display: (1) the impact of legislation on the Medicare Part A

trust fund's unfunded liabilities over a 25-year projection,

solvency projections, and the net present value of those

liabilities; and (2) the impact on the OASDI trust fund's

unfunded liabilities over a 75-year projection, solvency

projections, and the net present value of those liabilities.

This subsection also allows the chair of the Committee on the

Budget to designate major legislation for purposes of this

order.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (f) provides for spending reduction account

transfer amendments and requires a spending reduction account

section to be included in all general appropriations bills.

Scoring Conveyances of Federal Land. Subsection (g)

reinstates the separate order from the 115th Congress

providing that any provision in a bill, joint resolution,

amendment, or conference report requiring or authorizing a

conveyance of federal land to a State, local government, or

tribal entity, shall not be considered as providing new

budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory

spending, or increasing outlays.

Member Day Hearing Requirement. Subsection (h) modifies the

Member Day hearing requirement to only occur at the full

committee level. Each standing committee (other than the

Committee on Ethics) must hold a Member Day Hearing during

the first session of the 118th Congress to receive testimony

from Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner on

proposed legislation within its jurisdiction. The subsection

permits the Committee on Rules to hold its Member Day Hearing

during the second session to receive testimony on proposed

changes to the standing rules for the next Congress.

Information to Committees of Congress on Request.

Subsection (i) requires that the chair of the Committee on

Oversight and Accountability be included as one of the seven

members of the committee making any request of an Executive

agency pursuant to section 2954 of title 5, United States

Code.

Remote Appearance of Witnesses. Subsection (j) provides

limited authorization to a chair

of a committee to allow witnesses to appear remotely at

committee and subcommittee proceedings. This subsection

applies only to witnesses appearing in a non-governmental

capacity and in accordance with regulations issued by the

chair of the Committee on Rules and printed in the

Congressional Record.

Deposition Authority. Subsection (k) provides the Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence and each standing committee

of the 118th Congress (except for the Committee on Rules) the

authority to order the taking of a deposition by a member or

counsel of such committee and limits persons who can attend

depositions to members, committee staff, an official

reporter, the witness, and up to two, personal,

nongovernmental attorneys. Depositions taken under this

authority are subject to regulations issued by the chair of

the Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional

Record.

Broadening Availability and Utility of Legislative

Documents in Machine-Readable Formats. Subsection (l)

instructs the Committee on House Administration, the Clerk,

an other officers and officials to advance

government transparency by continuing efforts to publish

documents of the House in machinereadable formats and

broaden their utility by enabling all House staff to

create comparative prints.

Improving the Committee Electronic Document Repository.

Subsection (m) directs the Clerk, the Committee on House

Administration, and other officers and officials to continue

to improve the existing electronic document repository

operated by the Clerk for use by committees. Such

improvements are intended to increase public availability and

identification of legislative information produced by House

committees, including votes, amendments, and witness

disclosure forms.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (n) carries forward provisions that

clarify the procedures of the House regarding the receipt of

Article V memorials from the States by directing the Clerk to

make each memorial, designated by the chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary, electronically available, organized by

State of origin and year of receipt, and indicate whether the

memorial was designated as an application or rescission.

In carrying out this subsection, it is expected that the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary will be solely

charged with determining whether a memorial purports to be an

application of the legislature of a state calling for a

constitutional convention or rescission of prior

applications. The Clerk's role will be entirely

administrative. The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will only designate memorials from state legislatures (and

not petitions from individuals or other parties), as it is

only state legislatures that are contemplated under Article V

of the Constitution.

In submitting each memorial to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

that indicates it has been designated under this subsection.

The Clerk will make publicly available the memorial and the

transmission letter from the chair. Ancillary documentation

from the state or other parties is not expected to be

publicized.

War Powers Resolution. Subsection (o) continues a separate

order from the 117th Congress expressly providing that any

motion to discharge a measure introduced pursuant to section

6 or section 7 of the War Powers Resolution is not subject to

a motion to table.

Further Expenses for Resolving Contested Elections.

Subsection (p) authorizes such sums as may be necessary for

the Committee on House Administration to resolve contested

elections. Funds shall be available for expenses incurred

between January 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024. Amounts made

available under this subsection shall be expended in

accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on

House Administration.

Ethics Reform. Subsection (q) directs the Speaker to

establish a bipartisan task force to conduct a comprehensive

review of House ethics rules and regulations. The task force

is directed to submit a report to the Speaker, Majority

Leader, Minority Leader, and chair and ranking minority

members of the Committees on Ethics and Rules.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (r)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, Delegates, the

Resident Commissioner, former Members, former Delegates,

former Resident Commissioners, officers, and former officers

of the House and their spouses to any former Member, former

Delegate, former Resident Commissioner, former officer, or

spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying

Disclosure Act of 1995 or any successor statute, or who is an

agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause 5 of rule

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the majority leader.

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

I begin by thanking my good friend from Massachusetts for his leadership of the Rules Committee over the last 4 years. While we certainly haven't always agreed, we have tried to always be agreeable while working with one another. I certainly associate myself with his remarks about the terrific work of the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping us facilitate the operation of the House over that 4-year period. I look forward again to working with my friend in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the rules resolution that will govern the House during the 118th Congress.

Determining the rules we will follow is one of the first and most consequential decisions we must make as a body at the beginning of each Congress. In many ways, the Rules of the House of Representatives serve to demonstrate where our priorities and values lie as an institution.

Make no mistake, the priorities of the new Republican majority are fully on display in this resolution.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action to reopen the people's House and ensure that we, the people's elected servants, are here in Washington, D.C., doing our jobs.

For far too long, the House allowed Members to do their jobs from home without ever setting foot in Washington. What started out as a pandemic accommodation lasted far longer than necessary, but today, even President Biden admits that the pandemic is over.

It is time for the House of Representatives to return to our normal operating procedures, and it is time for the Members of Congress to actually show up to work. Today's rules package eliminates proxy voting and puts an end to remote committee proceedings.

We restore the requirement for committees to establish plans for how they will conduct much-needed oversight. Republicans have robust plans to ensure that we will hold the Biden administration accountable for its actions, but being a counterbalance to the administration will not stop there. With today's rules package, we will also establish a new select subcommittee, modeled on the Church Committee, to investigate the radical left's weaponization of the Federal Government in recent years.

We will also modify the jurisdiction of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to ensure we investigate the origins of the virus and finally look into the financial and societal impacts of shutdowns.

We will establish a Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party to respond to threats posed by the CCP, ensure economic competitiveness for America, and protect human rights.

Other important changes in this resolution are those that are designed to address our out-of-control spending problem, which the former majority made vastly worse last Congress. In fact, when Democrats were in control of this Chamber, they spent so much money through partisan bills that they managed to drive this country into an inflationary crisis. Those aren't my words; those are the words of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

The American people elected Republicans to get our fiscal house in order, and get our fiscal house in order we will. That starts with making key changes to House rules to ensure we will instill some fiscal sanity in Congress. These changes reflect a return to budgetary rules that were in place for over a decade before Democrats removed them.

We will restore the CutGo rule, which requires us to offset any increase in mandatory spending with a corresponding cut in mandatory spending. No more will the House be able to use budget gimmicks and tricks to pretend increases in mandatory spending are paid for when they actually are not.

We will restore a requirement for a three-fifths majority to approve any tax rate increase. If this rule had been in place, the House would not have passed the massive tax increases the Democrats included in last year's reconciliation bill.

We will eliminate the so-called Gephardt rule, which allows the House to automatically suspend the debt ceiling upon passage of a budget resolution. Just as the American people have to live within their means, so, too, should the Federal Government.

Automatically suspending the debt limit may be the easy and expedient way, but on a matter as important as the national debt limit, what is easy and expedient is hardly appropriate. The American people expect us to make a decision on the national debt limit only after full and fair consideration and debate in the House. That starts with ensuring it will receive a separate, standalone vote on the floor.

Finally, we will remove the rule that allowed Democrats to simply ignore budget estimates for bills dealing with the COVID pandemic or climate change. Although it may sound controversial to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Republicans cannot and will not thrust our heads in the sand and ignore the effects of out-of-control Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but on the whole, I am very proud of today's rule package. It reflects Republican priorities and the priorities of the voters who elected us. It reopens this institution and ensures that all Members will be in Washington to do their work, as our constituents expect. It ensures that we will hold the Biden administration and the Chinese Communist Party accountable. It ensures that we will get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the rules package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my very good friend who had so much to do with some of the extraordinary changes in this rules package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to postpone the vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 5 to a designated time later today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question relating to House Resolution 5 that follows a 15-minute vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution establishing the rules of the 118th Congress. The changes we are proposing today will ensure that the institution is set on a path of success for the new Congress.

They will ensure that Members return to Washington and do their work here.

They will set up an institution to hold the Biden administration accountable.

They will put in place budgetary rules designed to prevent the kind of reckless spending spree Democrats recently engaged in.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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 on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

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

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

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember after 9/11 when we all worked together to ensure the protection of the American people through the Patriot Act and dealing with the FISA courts, we worked together because truth is important.

I just want to simply be on the floor today to speak about truth. I work with school boards across my district. I know that there is not one school board that does not welcome a parent to hear their voices because obviously they are partners in the education of our precious children.

In September 2021, the National School Board Association sent Mr. Biden a letter pointing to a trend of violence and threats against school officials. It included a brief reference to Mr. Smith's arrest incident and a long list of examples with a footnote to a news account that mentioned the arrest in passing but without details, like his daughter's assault.

The point is that this came about because there were threats against school board members.

So can we have truth here?

That is what I rise to bring to the attention of this body as relates to this committee and this select committee.

Is there going to be truth finding? Is this going to be a committee that is going to collect information or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States and give the most right-wing Members who may have an ax to grind the ability to participate or is it going to be fair?

Is it going to be a gross misuse of power with dangerous implications, unintended consequences, and potentially

expose general operations of our national security infrastructure, which will put American lives at risk?

Let me be very clear. Russia is one of our most dangerous adversaries. We are in the middle of a national quagmire, and to undermine that through investigations of the FBI and Central Intelligence is going to be extremely dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations, including those investigating that day that some declared was just a bunch of tourists on January 6, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I have worked with Mr. Roy.

But is this a question of truth?

That is the issue that we stand here discussing today.

In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some people should be because they don't agree with the force of law being applied to their activities is contrary to the very fabric of fairness, justice, and equality that America was founded on.

Let me, as an aside, indicate that we know what has been in the headlines--10 documents found in a locked closet that Mr. Biden may have had. Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker, the process of the law is proceeding. The call was made. The documents were surrendered, if you will. The process goes forward under the laws of this land. No one denied it. No one rejected it. No one did not in any way come to say anything other than: Follow the law. On the other hand, in Mar-a-Lago no law was found.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider the truth and vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 12, a dangerous resolution whose passage would Establish a Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government or, more accurately, a subcommittee that would threaten our nations safety, security, and freedom.

MAGA Republicans love to hide behind the idea that they are pushing an agenda that would help the American people, but let's see this for what it truly is, a blatant assault on our democracy, our law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community, and an attempt to shield the twice-impeached former president from ongoing investigations being conducted by the Department of Justice.

The establishment of this subcommittee would give Republicans the ability to investigate any agency that ``can collect information or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States'' and gives the most right-wing members of the Republican party access to confidential documents solely intended for the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

This gross misuse of power will have dangerous implications and unintended consequences and could potentially expose general operations of our national security infrastructure which will put American lives at risk.

The passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations including those investigating the extremist insurrectionists who lead the brutal attack on this institution two years ago.

In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some people should be, because they don't agree with the force of the law being applied to their activities, is contrary to the very fabric of fairness, justice and equality that America was founded on.

This is a blatant attempt by House GOP members to stifle the federal government's investigatory powers, claiming that conservatives are being prosecuted and silenced.

The new Select Subcommittee comes as federal agencies such as the Department of Justice are investigating the GOP and its allies in multiple criminal investigations.

Members of the Republican party have been on press tours announcing this new subcommittee and have laid out their agenda, but how would this subcommittee help the American people in any way?

For a party that claims to be pro-law enforcement, the Republican party is now getting ready to undermine the hard work of our law enforcement and surveillance agencies.

Mr. Speaker what really is the intent here? I can tell you what I think it is. It is a back door effort to handcuff the current administration in their normal and usual course of operations?

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and a completely irresponsible Resolution that will put the lives of Americans at risk and is a political stunt to further advance their dangerous conspiracy theories.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times titled: ``Republicans Preparing Broad Inquiry Into F.B.I. and Security Agencies.''

[From the New York Times, Jan. 8, 2023]

House Republicans Preparing Broad Inquiry Into F.B.I. and Security

Agencies

(By Charlie Savage and Luke Broadwater)

Newly empowered House Republicans are preparing a wide-

ranging investigation into law enforcement and national

security agencies, raising the prospect of politically

charged fights with the Eiden administration over access to

sensitive information like highly classified intelligence and

the details of continuing criminal inquiries by the Justice

Department.

The House plans to vote this week on a resolution to create

a special Judiciary subcommittee on what it calls the

``weaponization of the federal government,'' a topic that

Republicans have signaled could include reviewing

investigations into former President Donald J. Trump.

The panel would be overseen by Representative Jim Jordan,

Republican of Ohio, who is also poised to become the

Judiciary Committee's chairman. It remains to be seen who

else Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who made numerous concessions to

a far-right faction of his party to win the speakership, will

put on it.

In a Fox News interview on Friday evening, Representative

Chip Roy of Texas, a lead negotiator for hard-right lawmakers

who pushed Mr. McCarthy's team for concessions, portrayed the

panel as part of the agreement they struck for their support.

He said Mr. McCarthy had committed to giving the subcommittee

at least as much funding and staffing as the House special

committee in the last Congress that investigated the Jan. 6,

2021, attack on the Capitol.

``So we got more resources, more specificity, more power to

go after this recalcitrant Eiden administration,'' Mr. Roy

said. ``That's really important.''

A spokesman for Mr. Jordan did not reply to a request for

comment, but both he and Mr. McCarthy have spoken for months

about their desire for such an investigation and pledged to

voters during the 2022 campaign to carry one out.

``We will hold the swamp accountable, from the withdrawal

of Afghanistan, to the origins of Covid and to the

weaponization of the F.B.I.,'' Mr. McCarthy said in his first

remarks as speaker early Saturday. ``Let me be very clear: We

will use the power of the purse and the power of the subpoena

to get the job done.''

The text of the resolution establishing the subcommittee

would give the panel essentially open-ended jurisdiction to

scrutinize any issue related to civil liberties or to examine

how any agency of the federal government has collected,

analyzed and used information about Americans including

``ongoing criminal investigations.''

The Justice Department has traditionally resisted making

information about open criminal investigations available to

Congress, suggesting that legal and political fights over

subpoenas and executive privilege are most likely looming.

Republicans are promoting Mr. Jordan's panel as a new

``Church Committee,'' referring to a 1970s investigation by

Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, that uncovered

decades of intelligence and civil liberties abuses by

presidents of both parties.

But in an environment in which Mr. Trump has been the

subject of multiple criminal investigations for years--

including continuing inquiries into his attempts to overturn

the 2020 election results and his hoarding of sensitive

documents--Democrats predicted the new investigative

subcommittee was likely to adopt a more partisan edge.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat

on the Judiciary Committee, said the Church Committee had

been ``a serious and bipartisan attempt to reform the conduct

of the intelligence community, based on hard and verifiable

evidence.'' By contrast, he said that ``this new thing,

fueled by conspiracy theories and slated to be run by the

most extreme members of the MAGA caucus,'' was likely to be

more similar to the notorious House Un-American Activities

Committee of the mid-20th century.

Mr. Jordan is a staunch ally of Mr. Trump. Late last year,

as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee when his

party was still in the minority, he oversaw a 1,000-page

staff report that claimed that the F.B.I. had ``spied on

President Trump's campaign and ridiculed conservative

Americans'' and that the ``rot within the F.B.I. festers in

and proceeds from Washington.''

The resolution appears to give him authority to subpoena

the Justice Department for information about the special

counsel inquiry into Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn the

2020 election and his handling of classified documents, along

with other politically charged matters like an open tax

investigation into President Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

The text of the resolution would also grant Mr. Jordan's

panel the power to receive the same highly classified

information that intelligence agencies make available to

their

oversight committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence.

Intelligence Committee members have access to some of the

most sensitive secrets in the government, including

information about covert actions, which are not shared with

other lawmakers. Traditionally, House leaders tend to place

on the intelligence panel members of their party they think

are especially trustworthy not to disclose classified

information.

While Mr. Jordan's investigative unit will be housed within

the Judiciary Committee, its 13 members--eight of whom would

be Republicans--will not be limited to lawmakers on that

panel.

It is not clear, for example, whether Republican leaders

would select hard-right members, such as Representative

Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who was

stripped of her committee assignments in 2021 for making a

series of violent and conspiratorial social media posts

before she was elected. Mr. McCarthy has already promised her

a spot on the House Oversight Committee, and she broke with

other far-right members to support his speakership bid from

the first ballot, as did Mr. Jordan.

Such a situation could result in lawmakers trying to

scrutinize a Justice Department investigation as that inquiry

potentially examines some of those same lawmakers' conduct

concerning the events of Jan. 6.

In an interview on ABC's ``This Week'' on Sunday,

Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania,

rejected a suggestion that he should pledge not to serve on

Mr. Jordan's subcommittee because it may scrutinize the Jan.

6 investigation and as a witness in that inquiry, he had a

conflict of interest. Mr. Perry, who played an important role

in Mr. Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020

election, had his cellphone seized by the F.B.I.

``Why should I be limited--why should anybody be limited

just because someone has made an accusation?'' Mr. Perry

said, adding: ``I get accused of all kinds of things every

single day, as does every member that serves in the public

eye. But that doesn't stop you from doing your job. It is our

duty and it is my duty.''

Some Republicans also seem to see the panel as an

opportunity to raise culture-war issues and promote

conspiracy theories. In his interview with Fox, Mr. Roy

described the subcommittee's mission as going ``after the

weaponization of the government, the F.B.I., the intel

agencies, D.H.S., all of them that have been, you know,

labeling Scott Smith a domestic terrorist.''

In fact, no agency labeled Mr. Smith a domestic terrorist.

Mr. Smith, whose daughter was sexually assaulted in a high

school bathroom in Virginia, was arrested after he lunged at

someone at a school board meeting during a tense and chaotic

debate over bathroom policy for transgender students. He was

convicted of disorderly conduct.

In September 2021, the National School Boards Association

sent Mr. Biden a letter pointing to a trend of violence and

threats against school officials. It included a brief

reference to Mr. Smith's arrest incident amid a long list of

examples, with a footnote to a news account of the meeting

that mentioned the arrest in passing but without details like

his daughter's assault. The letter also said acts of violence

and threats against school officials could be classified as

``equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate

crimes,'' and asked for federal help.

A few days later, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland

issued a memorandum directing U.S. attorneys and the F.B.I.

to convene meetings across the country with local officials

to discuss ``strategies for addressing threats'' against

school officials and teachers. His memo did not call anyone a

domestic terrorist, and it specifically distinguished

spirited debate, which it stressed was constitutionally

protected, from acts of violence and threats.

But voices on the right have made Mr. Smith a cause

celebre, falsely telling their viewers and readers that the

Biden-era Justice Department and the F.B.I. consider parents

who disagree with liberal school board policies to be

domestic terrorists.

The subcommittee investigation proposed by Mr. Jordan is

just one of a number of inquiries House Republicans plan to

approve this week.

Included in a separate rules package scheduled to come up

for a vote on Monday is a wide-ranging inquiry into the

coronavirus pandemic, including the origins of the virus, so-

called gain-of-function research, the production of vaccines

and the conduct of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Mr. Biden's former

chief medical adviser, whom Republicans have pledged to haul

before them for questioning.

Republicans are also planning to form a special committee

to investigate the Chinese government's ``economic,

technological and security progress, and its competition with

the United States.''

Both the China investigation and the investigation into law

enforcement are scheduled for a vote on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 12, a dangerous resolution whose passage would Establish a Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government or, more accurately, a subcommittee that would threaten our nations safety, security, and freedom.

MAGA Republicans love to hide behind the idea that they are pushing an agenda that would help the American people, but let's see this for what it truly is, a blatant assault on our democracy, our law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community, and an attempt to shield the twice-impeached former president from ongoing investigations being conducted by the Department of Justice.

The establishment of this subcommittee would give Republicans the ability to investigate any agency that ``can collect information or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States'' and gives the most right-wing members of the Republican party access to confidential documents solely intended for the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

This gross misuse of power will have dangerous implications and unintended consequences and could potentially expose general operations of our national security infrastructure which will put American lives at risk.

The passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations including those investigating the extremist insurrectionists who lead the brutal attack on this institution two years ago.

In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some people should be, because they don't agree with the force of the law being applied to their activities, is contrary to the very fabric of fairness, justice and equality that America was founded on.

This is a blatant attempt by House GOP members to stifle the federal government's investigatory powers, claiming that conservatives are being prosecuted and silenced.

The new Select Subcommittee comes as federal agencies such as the Department of Justice are investigating the GOP and its allies in multiple criminal investigations.

Members of the Republican party have been on press tours announcing this new subcommittee and have laid out their agenda, but how would this subcommittee help the American people in anyway?

For a party that claims to be pro-law enforcement, the Republican party is now getting ready to undermine the hard work of our law enforcement and surveillance agencies.

Mr. Speaker what really is the intent here? I can tell you what I think it is. It is a back door effort to handcuff the current administration in their normal and usual course of operations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and a completely irresponsible Resolution that will put the lives of Americans at risk and is a political stunt to further advance their dangerous conspiracy theories.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate our incredible new House Democratic leadership team: Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark, and Pete Aguilar. It is a dawn of a new day here in Congress, as a new generation takes on the solemn responsibility of leadership.

Leader Jeffries has been tireless in his work to put people over politics. His steady leadership as chair of our Democratic Caucus, uniting our Members, harnessing their talent and diversity, and fighting tirelessly to make life better for American people is a source of inspiration for me and so many others.

It is also a privilege to be here with my good friend Tom Cole, someone who I respect greatly and who I know greatly respects this institution. We sit on opposite ends of the dais, but I admire Mr. Cole's leadership and the example he sets. Even when we don't see eye to eye, I am proud of our work to build an atmosphere of respectful dialogue on the Rules Committee.

We have done so not just among our Members but among our hardworking staff, and I thank our minority and majority staff, led by Don Sisson and Kelly Dixon, for all of their hard work.

I look forward to working with Mr. Cole and his team this Congress to continue our collaboration on issues of shared concern.

Mr. Speaker, as Leader Jeffries put it so succinctly this weekend, our Republican friends campaigned on the claim that they would fight against inflation and fight for the American people. Instead, all they have done is come to Washington and fight with each other.

In fact, what has become crystal clear over the past few days is the extent to which the Republican Party has been hijacked by an extremist MAGA faction, a faction not interested in governing but in their own egos, a faction not interested in compromise but in their own power, a faction not interested in putting people over politics but instead interested in putting their own political ambition over the people we serve.

Now here we are, nearly a week later, considering their deeply flawed rules package, the first legislation on the floor by this new majority, and they are using it to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics, attack women's access to abortion, make it easier for big oil companies to pollute, and interfere in ongoing criminal investigations into President Trump.

They are making it easier for billionaires and big corporations to avoid paying their taxes. Is that part of their contract with America? Is that their big plan to help everyday people? Because most people who read this package would think it must be a joke.

What I am concerned about is not just what is written down here. I am concerned by the backroom deals that Speaker McCarthy made with the Freedom Caucus in exchange for their votes. Like Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace said just this weekend: ``We don't have any idea what promises were made.''

This is unconscionable. We are only 1 week into this, and this is how they are running this place.

There is a report out by Punchbowl News, and let me read it. It said: ``There is also a secret 3-page addendum that McCarthy and his allies hashed out during several days of grueling negotiations with the House Freedom Caucus. This pact includes the most controversial concessions McCarthy made in order to become Speaker--three seats on the Rules Committee for conservatives, freezing spending at FY 2022 levels, a debt ceiling strategy, coveted committee assignments, and more.'' Is that what the Majority Leader meant when he talked about a new day and transparency?

These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They are essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right. The same Members of Congress who held this body hostage last week are the ones who ran interference for the January 6 insurrectionists, who tried to overturn a free and fair election.

Even the new Speaker of the House voted to overturn the 2020 elections. We couldn't even get a public acknowledgment from him on the 2-year anniversary of that horrific day, not even a tweet.

It is clear that Republicans welcomed the election deniers into their ranks with open arms, and now they are reaping what they have sown. The insurrectionists are in charge.

I am reminded of the words of President Kennedy: ``In the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.''

The American people get it. They rejected extremism in the last two elections. That is why they picked Joe Biden, and that is why the red wave turned into a pink splash.

My Republican friends still aren't listening, and in fact, they are still empowering the extremists. Don't take my word for it. Let's go through their rules package.

They are giving a single Member the ability to remove the Speaker at any time, letting a small, far-right faction hold their leadership hostage.

They are trying to shut down criminal investigations into the former President's wrongdoing.

They are making it easier to slash taxes on billionaire corporations while dismantling the social safety net.

They are giving committee chairs unbalanced discretion over which witnesses can testify; rejecting pandemic safety procedures like remote voting; trying to force an end to congressional staff unionization; and the icing on the cake, a new subcommittee to push QAnon conspiracies and launch fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. What is next, a rule requiring we all wear tinfoil hats?

This package is disrespectful, not just to this institution, but to the people who sent us here to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Congressional Budget Office report from today titled: ``Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act.'' This nonpartisan report says that the GOP's IRS funding bill will add $114 billion to the national debt, so when people talk about taking steps to reduce the national debt, I am not sure what they are talking about.

[From the Congressional Budget Office, January 9, 2023]

Estimated Budgetary Effects of H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business

Taxpayer Protection Act

Summary: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for

legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those

procedures are shown above.

The Congressional Budget Office adheres to laws and

Congressional rules concerning the federal budget and to a

set of principles (called the Scorekeeping Guidelines)

created by the Congress. Those principles guide how the House

and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget

Office, and the Office of Management and Budget attribute

budgetary effects to legislation, with the goal of promoting

consistent treatment of estimated effects among those

agencies. (For more information on those guidelines, see

Congressional Budget Office, CBO Explains Budgetary

Scorekeeping Guidelines, January 2021, www.cbo.gov/ publication/56507.)

When a provision in an authorization bill provides funding

for administrative or program management activities, such as

when the IRS receives additional funding for administrative

activities, spending of those amounts can result in increases

in receipts. Guideline 14, however, directs scorekeepers to

exclude those increases when estimating the budgetary effects

of proposals that would provide additional mandatory funding

for such activities.

Guideline 14 was adopted in part to avert cases in which

possible, but uncertain, receipts were used to offset near-

term increases in spending resulting from the same bill. That

guideline is asymmetrical, however. That is, even though

increased receipts cannot be credited to a bill that would

increase administrative funding, estimated receipt losses

that might result from a decrease in such funding are

included in the estimated budgetary effects.

H.R. 23 would rescind unobligated funds provided by

paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4),

and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117-169. CBO estimates

that the bill would decrease outlays by $71 billion and

decrease receipts by $186 billion over the 2023-2032 period.

Both of those effects are included in accordance with

Guideline 14.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Women's Health Protection Act.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) to discuss our proposal.

We heard a lot about inflation, but none of the first 12 bills that my Republican friends are bringing up have anything to do with inflation or mention inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my friends that over a million Americans died of COVID, including a Member-elect who was supposed to be sworn in in the last Congress. These remote procedures undoubtedly saved lives of Members and staff here in this Chamber. So, please, let's not diminish what the point of all that was about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is taking credit for the 72- hour rule, which we created in our rules package, but thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democrat whip.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that the first bill they are doing is going to add $114 billion to the deficit. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman mentioned the 72-hour rule. Once again, I will say: You are welcome. Then she talked about this being the most open and transparent rule ever. Maybe the gentlewoman can share with us the secret 3-page addendum that we are reading about, because none of us have seen it. So much for transparency. I guess she is not going to share that with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for mentioning the 72-hour rule which has been mentioned many times. But I wrote it, and I thank the gentleman for keeping it.

But when I hear people talking about balanced budgets, give me a break. The first bill that my friends are bringing to the floor, according to CBO, adds $114 billion to the debt. We don't need any lectures from anybody on that side about balancing the budget. Give me a break.

Maybe the gentleman can, again, share with us the secret addendum that apparently was negotiated behind closed doors, so we actually know what agreements were made.

Four days and 15 votes, and there is only one change in the rules package going from five to be able to vacate the Chair to one. Well, there is a lot more to it. We all know that, but that is a big secret. So much for transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that in the vast majority of cases we did comply with the 72-hour rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, following the vote on the previous question, Representative DeLauro will offer a motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, again, let me just ask, will anybody on the other side share with us the secret 3-page addendum that Speaker McCarthy negotiated with the Freedom Caucus so we can know what else was decided on, given away? I guess not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my friend, but really? I mean, come on.

What were the last 4 days about? I mean, again, days and days, and 15 roll call votes, and reporting by multiple sources tell us that there is this signed agreement with the House Freedom Caucus that deals with some of the most controversial concessions.

So, you know, I know it exists. It will come out sooner or later. Everybody is talking about transparency and openness. It would be nice if there was a little bit more transparency and openness from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, let me continue what I was beginning in the last exchange.

At least one GOP office apparently has the much-fabled 3-page House rules addendum. ``We are taking a look at it . . . we're just going through it,'' Rep. Ken Calvert, a Steering Committee member, tells Axios. Asked if Members have received a copy: ``I don't know if everybody has.''

Again, don't come to the floor and talk about transparency and openness and a new day. This is backroom politics. That is what this is about, secret deals that no one is going to know anything about until it is too late.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Oklahoma how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, as well, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the last time House Republicans were in charge, they ended their time in power with a government shutdown. They controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they shut the government down and walked away.

Upon taking power once again, they began with a legislative shutdown, a shutdown where a far-right fringe held the incoming Republican leadership hostage and got them to give away everything, including their own dignity.

What is clear from all of this is that the Republican Party no longer cares about governing. This rules package is exhibit number one.

The American people sent us here because they want us to put people over politics. Sadly, this rules package puts politics first, empowering the extremists who are only interested in their own power.

As I have said again and again, if this new majority wants to work together in good faith, my door is open. If this is their plan, they have clearly chosen to become a party that embraces election deniers and extremists, and Democrats will not go along to get along.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had some harsh words for this rules package. Call it ``tough love.'' I care very deeply about this institution, about the work we do here, and the awesome responsibility of the decisions we make. I am glad that my friends kept the McGovern rule on the 72-hour and the McGovern rule that committees have to do hearings and markups before they come to the Rules Committee.

We weren't perfect, but overwhelmingly we kept our word.

This legislation does a great disservice to the people we represent, and it does not live up to the high standards that we should have for this institution. I believe that calling this House to a higher standard is the right thing to do.

But let me be clear that my criticism is reserved for the resolution we are considering and not for the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), whom I respect and admire as a person even when we strongly disagree, as we do today.

These rules are a giveaway to the far right, but this Congress need not be. If my Republican colleagues want to get anything done, it is clear that they are going to have to work together with Democrats to get things done.

Let's end the extremism and put people over politics to get stuff done.

People do not want government shutdowns.

People do not want to see us default on our financial obligations.

People want us to get stuff done and to keep the lights on.

The last two elections were a rejection of extremism. My friends predicted an overwhelmingly Republican majority in the last election, and instead, they got a pink splash because the American people, Democrats, Independents, and a lot of Republicans said: You are too extreme.

So put the extremism behind you. I urge the Speaker to work with Democrats and not just work with the small fringe group in the Republican Conference, but to work in a way to move the people's agenda forward.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, a ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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