Authorizing the enforcement of subpoenas issued by the Chairs of the Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, or the Judiciary as part of the inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Joseph Biden, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here for one reason and one reason alone: Donald Trump demanded that Republicans impeach, so they are going to impeach.

These Republicans don't work for you, the American people. They work for Donald Trump. He says, ``Jump.'' They respond, ``How high?''

This whole thing is an extreme political stunt. It has no credibility, no legitimacy, and no integrity. It is a sideshow and a distraction from the fact that Republicans have done nothing.

They have the wrong priorities. The American people think they are failing miserably, and Republicans need a diversion. So they are weaponizing and abusing impeachment--one of the most somber and serious things that Congress can do--to attack President Joe Biden.

I get it. They are upset Donald Trump lost. Some of them still don't believe he lost. Many of them are upset that his violent insurrection did not succeed on January 6, and today they want to finish the job. This is a continuation of their crusade to overturn the election.

They have spent a year dredging up every conspiracy you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, against Joe Biden, and still their own investigation, their own Members, their own witnesses, and their own internal documents all say that President Joe Biden is a man of integrity who follows the law. Every single one of their crazy claims has been exhaustively debunked, and, yet, here we are.

The only thing they have uncovered is that Joe Biden is a good dad and that he loves his family. His son Hunter lost his mom and sister in a terrible car accident and lost his brother to cancer. He experienced a lot of traumas, and, sadly, he got caught up with drugs. Republicans are weaponizing this addiction and using it to attack President Biden, a man of decency and integrity.

Frankly, it is one of, if not the most, despicable thing I have seen in my whole career here in Congress.

Republicans talk about an open and transparent process. Give me a break.

Yesterday, Rules Committee Republicans blocked Democrats from adding the words ``open and transparent'' to this resolution. They voted against requiring a single open hearing. They didn't even put our amendment in the official committee report. I have never seen anything like that. They are so afraid of openness and transparency that they are literally trying to hide our amendments from the public record.

They don't want an open and transparent process. They are allergic to transparency. They want no transparency, so they can go on FOX News, distort the facts, and keep this whole ridiculous charade going. Their whole investigation is built on lies. It is an extreme political stunt designed to distract from how incompetent Republicans are and how obsessed they are with Donald Trump, a twice impeached ex-President who has been indicted more times than he has been elected. How pathetic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would need a map to get out of the rabbit hole Mr. Comer just took us down.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, if you want to know what an impeachable offense looks like, here it is: When that man, the wannabe dictator, told that angry, violent mob to attack this Capitol Building where we all are right now to overturn a free and fair election. That is what a smoking gun looks like.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), who is the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I need to get a decoder ring.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I remind the gentlewoman that Hunter Biden was here today. He wants to testify in public, but Republicans said no because they want to do it behind closed doors so they can go on FOX News and cherry-pick facts and figures and distort the truth.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans aren't interested in transparency in this investigation, and apparently the Rules Committee isn't either. In our markup yesterday, Democrats offered nine amendments. They were all voted down by Republicans, but in the official Rules Committee report, contrary to years of committee practice and tradition, the majority left out descriptions of those amendments.

Instead of reading, for example, that Republicans defeated an amendment to add ``open and transparent'' to investigative proceedings, members of the public will only see that Republicans voted down ``amendment No. 4.''

Instead of defeating an amendment requiring committees to hold an open hearing as part of the investigation, the Record will show that the majority simply voted down ``amendment No. 5.''

Republicans are literally hiding Democratic amendments about transparency. You cannot make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker, and this is especially shocking to me because it is so out of line with the way this committee has run historically under this chairman. I am deeply disappointed, and I hope that this isn't an indication of how the majority intends to operate in the future.

Further, to make sure that these amendments show up somewhere in this historical Record, I am going to put the summaries in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the summaries of our nine amendments, which Republicans intentionally left out of the Rules Committee report.

Democratic Amendments to H. Res. 918

1. Offered by Rep. McGovern--adds a preamble describing

President Joe Biden's career of honorable public service and

former President Trump's multiple impeachments and 91 pending

felony charges.

2. Offered by Rep. Leger Fernandez--Adds a preamble stating

that the months-long Republican-led investigation into

President Joe Biden has yielded no evidence of wrongdoing by

the President.

3. Offered by Rep. Scanlon--Adds a preamble describing the

tens of thousands of pages of records provided by the

Administration and dozens of hours of testimony heard as part

of the investigation.

4. Offered by Rep. Neguse--Adds ``Open and Transparent'' to

investigative proceedings by the committees on Oversight and

Accountability, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary.

5. Offered by Rep. Leger Fernandez--Requires the committees

on Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, and the

Judiciary to each hold at least one open hearing as part of

the investigation.

6. Offered by Rep. Scanlon--Provides that a chair or

ranking member cannot issue a subpoena in furtherance of the

impeachment inquiry if they did not comply with a House,

committee, or select committee subpoena.

7. Offered by Rep. McGovern--Strikes the provision deeming

H. Res. 917 as adopted.

8. Offered by Rep. McGovern--Amends H. Res. 917 to exclude

access to grand jury material related to a pending criminal

prosecution, a prosecution arising from the January 6 attack

on the Capitol, or a case in which former President Trump is

a defendant.

9. Offered by Rep. Neguse--Adds a preamble stating that by

December 11 in the first session of the 117th and 116th

Congresses, 71 and 78 bills had been enacted, respectively,

versus 22 in the 118th Congress; and stating that the House

spent 26 days electing two Speakers in 2023.

Mr. Speaker, Members should be advised that Joe Biden, not Hunter Biden, is President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Time magazine titled, `` `Absolutely Shocking': Impeachment Experts Say Biden Inquiry May Be Weakest in U.S. History.''

[From TIME, Sept. 12, 2023]

`Absolutely Shocking': Impeachment Experts Say Biden Inquiry May Be

Weakest in U.S. History

(By Mini Racker)

Speaker Kevin McCarthy took the rare step on Tuesday of

announcing the launch of an impeachment inquiry into

President Joe Biden over his son Hunter's foreign business

dealings.

The House has voted to impeach just three Presidents:

Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, who was

impeached twice. But even the launch of an impeachment

inquiry against a President has only happened a handful of

times. Two impeachment experts tell TIME that there is less

evidence implicating Biden of wrongdoing than in any of those

previous inquiries.

``This is very disturbing for people who study past

impeachments, because impeachment is really a very extreme

measure,'' says constitutional scholar Philip Bobbitt, a

professor at Columbia Law School and expert on the history of

impeachment who co-authored an updated edition of Charles

Black's classic legal text, Impeachment: A Handbook, in 2018.

``I honestly don't know that there is any evidence tying the

president to corrupt activities when he was vice president or

now.''

Frank Bowman, professor emeritus at the University of

Missouri school of law and author of the book High Crimes and

Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump,

said that McCarthy's decision did not appear to be based on

the evidence House Republicans have gathered thus far.

``Biden's Republican pursuers have got exactly zero, zip,

bupkis, on any matter that might be impeachable,'' says

Bowman.

The Constitution gives Congress the right to impeach and

remove from office a president, vice president, or federal

civil officer for committing ``treason, bribery, or other

high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Historically, before the

House votes on impeachment itself--the misconduct charge

brought by a legislative body--it has usually launched an

impeachment inquiry, a formal mechanism that moves the

process along. However, an inquiry is not a legal requirement

for impeaching a president, and the rules around what

constitutes one are poorly defined.

According to Bowman, setting aside whether the five

previous presidents who faced impeachment proceedings ought

to have been impeached and convicted, there was at least some

evidence indicating that they committed misconduct. The

impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon, who

resigned before the House could formally impeach him, was

preceded by a special prosecutor investigation examining his

ties to the Watergate burglary, as well as a Senate Special

Committee inquiry into the break-in that stretched more than

a year and reporting by journalists suggesting that

responsibility for the incident and attempts to cover it up

stretched into the administration. Two decades later, nearly

a month before the House launched an impeachment inquiry into

President Bill Clinton, independent counsel Ken Starr

released a report outlining 11 possible grounds for

impeachment, including lying under oath and obstructing

justice.

``In every single case, there was very significant evidence

of presidential wrongdoing before the formal inquiry was

begun,'' Bowman says, ``The House, and House leadership, took

the responsibility of formally opening such an inquiry

extremely seriously. Nancy Pelosi, in the first impeachment,

resisted calls for impeachment of Trump for two years.''

McCarthy's inquiry, Bowman suggests, lacks that discipline.

``What they're doing here is absolutely shocking,'' says

Bowman, who added that House Republicans ``have no interest

at all in preserving the basic integrity of the process, or

indeed their own power as legislators in legitimate

opposition and tension with the executive branch.''

House Republicans have spent all year investigating Hunter

Biden in hopes of proving that Joe Biden profited off his

son's business dealings, particularly while Joe Biden was

Vice President. There has been no conclusive evidence

indicating Joe Biden did anything wrong.

McCarthy previously indicated that the full House would

hold a vote to open an impeachment inquiry into Biden. Such a

vote would need the support of nearly every Republican in the

narrowly-divided chamber. But nearly 20 House Republicans

have expressed resistance to voting for it, and a full House

vote could open them up to political liability.

The Speaker's decision to open the inquiry without a vote

has precedent; Pelosi did the same thing ahead of Trump's

first impeachment, holding a full House vote to formally

endorse the inquiry only weeks later. Trump's second

impeachment, following the January 6, 2021, attack on the

Capitol, was not preceded by any inquiry at all. Congress has

also voted to impeach federal judges without first opening

inquiries.

Back in 2019, when Democrats controlled the House, McCarthy

and his Republican allies slammed them for opening an

impeachment inquiry against Trump without a vote, suggesting

that doing so made the process illegitimate.

``The fact that, for a period of time between September 24

and October 31 of that year, the impeachment inquiry for

Trump was going on without a full House vote, became an

excuse for Republicans, first in the House, and then in the

Senate, to vote against impeachment for Mr. Trump,'' Bowman

says.

There are no clear standards for launching an impeachment

inquiry, nor are there specific signifiers differentiating it

from other kinds of investigations. Ultimately, the decision

to initiate one is usually left up to House leadership.

``To the extent they have a plausible end game here, other

than just to keep this in the news and to dirty up Biden

broadly speaking, presumably it will be to issue subpoenas

that that are sufficiently intrusive, either to Biden's

personal life or administration workings, that Biden will

resist, and then to try to impeach him for obstruction of

Congress,'' says Bowman.

There's some historical precedent for that theory; the

third article of impeachment ultimately issued against Nixon

centered on his refusal to comply with congressional

subpoenas brought as part of the impeachment inquiry into

him. Plus, McCarthy previously suggested that boosting

Congress' ability to subpoena Biden's financial documents was

a key motivation for the inquiry.

Both Bowman and Bobbitt suggested the current inquiry could

weaken the federal system of checks and balances by devaluing

the very concept of impeachment.

``This is supposed to be the most extreme sanction in

American politics, and if you reach for it every time you

think it'll help you in the polls, I fear it will become

degraded,'' Bobbitt says. ``It just becomes one more very

divisive, poisonous event in a Congress that is already

deeply divided and alienated.''

Mr. Speaker, This article quotes Philip Bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at Columbia Law saying impeachment ``is supposed to be the most extreme sanction in American politics, and if you reach for it every time you think it will help you in the polls, I fear it will become degraded.''

Mr. Speaker, everything the gentleman just said has been debunked, and it is just nuts.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman what is a mockery: This is a mockery. We hear the same tired, old conspiracy theories being recycled over and over again that have all been debunked.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman) to further debunk them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. A pattern is developing. If you will notice, my Republican friends never talk about Joe Biden. It is all Hunter Biden. They seem to be obsessed with him. I don't know. They need to get some help.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Robert Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.

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 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Oklahoma have any other speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are saying the quiet part out loud.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Rolling Stone article from today titled: ``GOP Rep. Explains Impeachment Push: `Donald J. Trump 2024, Baby!'''

[From RollingStone, Dec. 13, 2023]

GOP Rep. Explains Impeachment Push: `Donald J. Trump 2024, Baby!'

(By Nikki McCann Ramirez)

House Republicans will vote Wednesday on whether to

formalize their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

The party has struggled to gin up a legitimate rationale for

moving forward with the inquiry, which has yet to produce any

credible evidence of wrongdoing, but one Republican is saying

the quiet part out loud.

When Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) was asked Tuesday on Capitol

Hill what he's hoping to gain from an impeachment inquiry,

Nehls responded: ``All I can say is: Donald J. Trump 2024,

baby!''

Video of the encounter was obtained exclusively by Rolling

Stone. When reached for additional comment on Wednesday,

Nehls said in a statement to Rolling Stone that Republicans

``will follow the rule of law and go where the facts lead

us.''

Nehls is one of Trump's most ardent supporters in Congress,

and even floated the former president as a potential House

Speaker after Republicans booted Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

from the role in October. His comments are essentially an

admission of what has long been obvious to many, which is

that the GOP's fraught effort to dig up dirt on President

Biden and his family is nothing more than a ham-fisted

political stunt meant to hurt the president's reelection

chances and place Trump back in the White House.

Republicans for months have been trotting out flimsy bits

of evidence they say point to Biden's corruption. They've

produced nothing substantial, however, nor have they been

able to articulate exactly which high crimes and misdemeanors

the president may have committed. Hunter Biden, the

president's son whom Republicans believe worked with his

father on illegal financial dealings, bashed the

investigations while defying a GOP subpoena for closed-door

testimony on Wednesday.

``I'm here today to make sure the House committee's

illegitimate investigations of my family do not proceed on

distortions, manipulated evidence, and lies,'' he told

reporters outside the Capitol. ``For six years MAGA

Republicans including members of the House committees who are

in a closed-door session right now, have imputed my

character, invaded my privacy, attacked my wife, my children,

my family, and my friends. They've ridiculed my struggle with

addiction, they've belittled my recovery, and they have tried

to dehumanize me, all to embarrass and damage my father.''

Meanwhile, Trump is embroiled in a sea of criminal and

civil legal trouble. Cases in Washington, D.C., and Georgia

relate directly to his effort to undermine the results of the

2020 election and his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the

Capitol. He's also been indicted in New York over a hush-

money scandal ahead of the 2016 election, and by the Justice

Department in Florida over his handling of classified

material after leaving the White House. A civil trial in New

York, where Trump has already been found liable for using

fraudulent financial statements for his business, is expected

to wrap up this week.

Trump is also the clear frontrunner for the Republican 2024

nomination, and a showdown with Biden in the general election

now seems inevitable. Republicans have tied themselves to

Trump's erratic trajectory, and an impeachment inquiry in an

election year is just the kind of circus they need to compete

with the vortex of trials, depositions, and court appearances

swirling around their all-but-official nominee.

The circus will continue with the vote on Wednesday to

formalize their impeachment inquiry, the push to hold Hunter

Biden in contempt of Congress over his defiance of their

subpoena, and a new round of Fox News appearances to try to

legitimize the party's never-ending fishing expedition.

Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-La.) won't be going

on one of the network's most popular anytime soon. He said on

Tuesday that he's boycotting Fox & Friends because one of its

hosts keeps asking him questions he can't answer about what

actual evidence the GOP has on Biden.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also avoided giving

specifics in an op-ed announcing the vote to formalize the

inquiry on Tuesday, writing--sincerely, absurdly--that

``impeachment is among the most solemn constitutional

authorities the U.S. Congress holds, particularly when it

comes to a president.''

If that's the public line Johnson wants House Republicans

to use, he'd better get them some additional media training.

At the very least, he should make sure they don't offer up

the real reason for the inquiry as easily as Nehls did on

Tuesday.

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

Mr. Speaker, this inquiry has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It is about the Republican Party and how radicalized and extreme they have become. They are allergic to truth and transparency.

Republicans say this is not about a preordained outcome. It is. They are going to try to impeach President Biden despite the fact that there is no evidence against him at all.

Trump sent a violent MAGA mob here to the Capitol to reverse the election results and certify that he won, even though he lost.

What they couldn't do on January 6 they want to do with this extreme political stunt. They have contempt for our democracy. They want to finish the job.

Republicans say this is all about process, about how the House will proceed. It is not. The truth is this process has already proceeded for 10 months. They have been investigating all year, obtaining tens of thousands of documents and hours and hours of witness testimony. All of it says there is no wrongdoing by President Biden.

Republicans say the White House is stonewalling their inquiry. Again, that is not true. The White House has provided over 35,000 pages of financial records, dozens of hours of testimony and interviews. Hunter Biden is here to testify today, and Republicans won't let him because they want to do it in secret so they can cherry-pick and distort his testimony.

This whole inquiry has nothing to do with the integrity of President Biden and everything to do with the lack of integrity in the Republican Party.

No amount of evidence could convince Republicans that Joe Biden did nothing wrong because they aren't looking for the truth. They are looking for revenge.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say directly to the American people, that the Republican Party works for Donald Trump; not for you, for Trump.

That is why they are pursuing this extreme political stunt. That is why they are doing everything in secret. They want to hide the truth from you because they know their whole impeachment inquiry is a sham, and it will evaporate into thin air when people realize what a pathetic joke it is.

This shameful process has no credibility. It has no legitimacy and no integrity.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the dishonesty that we have just heard is illustrated by what Mr. Jordan just said, his selective quote from Mr. Hur's report. He said: ``Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice- presidency when he was a private citizen.''

The report does say that, but he neglects a sentence a paragraph later: ``However, for the reasons summarized below, we conclude that the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'' That is deceptive.

Secondly, as the majority well knows, the President asserted executive privilege in this matter. Maybe that was proper, maybe not, but the way to contest executive privilege is not by a contempt resolution. It is by going to court and letting the court decide whether the exercise of executive privilege is warranted or not. For that reason also, this resolution fails.

Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee, under Republican control, has spent the last 18 months and 20 million taxpayer dollars in a desperate search to find something, anything, that they can use to damage President Biden and to protect Donald Trump.

Other committees have gotten into the act as well, spending untold taxpayer money not to benefit the American people, not to feed hungry children, not to address our housing crisis, and not to improve our healthcare system, but on a single-minded quest to follow every rightwing conspiracy theory in the vain hope that it might lead to some evidence of wrongdoing.

What exactly have they delivered to the American people on their investment? Nothing. No evidence that the conspiracies are true, no indictments, no impeachment, no wins of any significance. The Republican leadership knows that if they don't come up with something to show for the millions of dollars they have spent, the MAGA political base may stay home next November.

They are scrambling in a desperate attempt to look like they have accomplished something. They were fervently hoping that Special Counsel Hur would indict President Biden for mishandling classified documents so that they could attack President Biden and misdirect the American people away from Donald Trump's treacherous handling of classified information.

However, the special counsel cleared Mr. Biden of wrongdoing for reasons that have nothing to do with Mr. Hur's gratuitous and widely contradicted comments about the President's memory.

What do our Republican friends do when an investigation turns up short? Simply put, they engage in fantasy. That is what they are doing here today. Unable to come up with any wrongdoing by the President, they have now trained their sights on the Attorney General. They accuse him of withholding key evidence, but the Attorney General has substantially complied with their every request. Sometimes he has been too responsive, in my opinion, given the obvious bad faith of the MAGA majority.

The DOJ has produced 92,000 pages of documents since Republicans took control of the House last year and has made dozens of witnesses available for interviews, hearings, and briefings. That is more pages of documents and more witnesses than the Trump Justice Department produced to Congress in 4 years. Just last week, the Attorney General himself spent more than 5 hours testifying before the Judiciary Committee.

With respect to the subpoena at issue in this contempt resolution, the Department turned over all the information Republicans asked for. There has been no obstruction, only cooperation. In reality, the Attorney General and DOJ have been fully responsive to Congress in every way that might be material to their long-dead impeachment inquiry.

All that remains are audio files for which the President has asserted executive privilege. In a letter to Chairmen Jordan and Comer, the Department of Justice noted that producing the audio recordings would ``raise an unacceptable risk of undermining the Department's ability to conduct . . . high-profile criminal investigations; in particular, investigations where the voluntary cooperation of the White House officials is exceedingly important.''

The chairmen claim that they need those records to understand the pauses,

pace, and tone of the conversation. This is absurd and clearly pretextual. In any event, it does not outweigh the extensive concerns expressed by the President and the Department.

Moreover, with respect to the recording at issue in this report, a complete certified transcript has already been provided to both committees, and no credible allegation has been made that these transcripts have been altered in any material way. The only thing that has not been introduced is the recording itself, something that in the wrong hands can be easily manipulated.

That is not an idle concern. Deepfakes and misleadingly edited videos and recordings have proliferated in recent years. Last year, a witness testifying in a closed-door deposition told us that she was the victim of a manipulated video made by a third party but shared widely by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who refused to take down the video even after it was abundantly clear that it was manipulated. That video contributed to a flood of death threats against the witness.

This isn't really about a policy disagreement with the DOJ. This is about feeding the MAGA base after 18 months of investigations that have produced failure after failure.

Like most of the bills House Republicans have pushed on purely partisan lines, this contempt resolution will do very little other than smear the reputation of Merrick Garland, who will remain a good and decent public servant no matter what Republicans say about him today.

This resolution may boost Donald Trump's spirits before his sentencing, but it will almost certainly not convince the Department of Justice to produce the one remaining file in question. Like the broader impeachment effort before it, this contempt resolution will have been a partisan stunt, destined to fail from the very start. As I said before, if they were really interested in getting this recording, they would contest the assertion of executive privilege in court, not bring a contempt resolution against the Attorney General.

The American people actually need us to do important work. I am tired of these games, and so are the American people. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just attacked Special Counsel Smith. This dangerous attempt to demonize anybody who would hold Donald Trump accountable for his actions is despicable and it is a full-out assault on the basic tenets of our democracy.

I want to remind my colleagues that these types of actions have consequences. They affect the lives of many men and women who have dedicated themselves to public service and upholding the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a June 11, 2024, article from The Washington Post by the Honorable Merrick Garland titled: ``Unfounded attacks on the Justice Department must end.''

[June 11, 2024]

Unfounded Attacks on the Justice Department Must End

(By Merrick Garland)

Merrick Garland is attorney general of the United States.

Last week, a California man was convicted of threatening to

bomb an FBI field office where hundreds of agents and other

employees work. In one of his threats to the FBI, the man

wrote: ``I can go on a mass murder spree. In fact, it would

be very explainable by your actions.''

These heinous threats of violence have become routine in an

environment in which the Justice Department is under attack

like never before.

In recent weeks, we have seen an escalation of attacks that

go far beyond public scrutiny, criticism, and legitimate and

necessary oversight of our work. They are baseless, personal

and dangerous.

These attacks come in the form of threats to defund

particular department investigations, most recently the

special counsel's prosecution of the former president.

They come in the form of conspiracy theories crafted and

spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the

judicial process itself. Those include false claims that a

case brought by a local district attorney and resolved by a

jury verdict in a state trial was somehow controlled by the

Justice Department.

They come in the form of dangerous falsehoods about the

FBI's law enforcement operations that increase the risks

faced by our agents.

They come in the form of efforts to bully and intimidate

our career public servants by repeatedly and publicly

singling them out.

They come in the form of false claims that the department

is politicizing its work to somehow influence the outcome of

an election. Such claims are often made by those who are

themselves attempting to politicize the department's work to

influence the outcome of an election.

And media reports indicate there is an ongoing effort to

ramp up these attacks against the Justice Department, its

work and its employees.

We will not be intimidated by these attacks. But it is

absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of whom risk

their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing

their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long

guided the Justice Department's work.

In my first job at the Justice Department some 45 years

ago, I worked on what would become the department's first

edition of the Principles of Federal Prosecution. That set of

rules for prosecutors enshrined what every department

employee lives by every single day: an unwavering commitment

to the fair and impartial application of our laws. That

commitment has been sustained by dedicated career

professionals who serve across administrations of both

political parties.

The Justice Department makes decisions about criminal

investigations based only on the facts and the law. We do not

investigate people because of their last name, their

political affiliation, the size of their bank account, where

they come from or what they look like. We investigate and

prosecute violations of federal law--nothing more, nothing

less.

We do this not only because of the principles that have

long guided our work, but also because we know that our

democracy cannot survive without a justice system that

ensures the equal protection of law for all its citizens.

The Justice Department will continue to uphold its

obligation under the Constitution to fiercely defend the

right of all Americans to peacefully express opinions,

beliefs and ideas. Disagreements about politics are good for

our democracy. They are normal.

But using conspiracy theories, falsehoods, violence and

threats of violence to affect political outcomes is not

normal. The short-term political benefits of those tactics

will never make up for the long-term cost to our country.

Continued unfounded attacks against the Justice

Department's employees are dangerous for people's safety.

They are dangerous for our democracy. This must stop.

It is absurd and dangerous that public servants, many of whom risk their lives every day, are being threatened for simply doing their jobs and adhering to the principles that have long guided the Justice Department's work. I would also remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the conviction of Mr. Trump was in a State court in New York having nothing to do with the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Vermont.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have spent the last 18 months in a futile effort to dig up dirt on President Biden, which has culminated in their epic failure of an impeachment inquiry. This resolution is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face with the MAGA- sphere.

They seek to hold the Attorney General in contempt even though he has already turned over all the underlying information they requested in their subpoena. This resolution will not change that fact, but facts have never been the animating force behind their investigations.

It is a show, and apparently, the show must go on even though the script hasn't turned out the way they wanted. Nevertheless, the reviews are in, and it is a flop, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution and to put an end to this farce.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up H. Res. 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 918.

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for myself, for the institution, and most of all for the American people. My duty today is one I do not relish. I am sure that every other Member of this institution feels the same way.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported out a measure under our original jurisdiction. H. Res. 918 formalizes an inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach the President of the United States.

Three months ago, at the direction of then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, three committees--those of Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary--began this impeachment inquiry.

Over the succeeding months, the committees have done their work and have done it well. The inquiry is now at an inflection point. The three committees are nearing the end of their investigations. The White House has chosen this moment to stonewall and resist the legitimate investigative powers of the House.

Mr. Speaker, while I do not believe the House must hold a vote on the floor to initiate an impeachment inquiry, doing so may be said to be best practice.

We are taking up today's resolution that will formalize the impeachment inquiry that has already begun. This will ensure not only that the inquiry has the full authority of the House but also that the House can enforce its subpoenas and ensure that the Biden administration can no longer refuse to cooperate with the investigation.

I will briefly describe the procedures for this inquiry. The resolution tasks three committees--Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary--with continuing their current inquiries. It establishes procedures for conducting hearings and calling and questioning witnesses. It grants the minority equal time to question witnesses and the right to request their own witnesses.

At the conclusion of their proceedings, it provides for the Committees on Oversight and Accountability and Ways and Means to transmit their findings and supporting documents to the Committee on the Judiciary, which is the committee that traditionally considers impeachment matters. It gives the President the right to participate in the proceedings before the Committee on the Judiciary.

Finally, the resolution authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to transmit to the House resolutions, Articles of Impeachment, or other recommendations.

The procedures we are adopting today closely parallel those the Democrats created in 2019. In fact, H. Res.

660 from the 116th Congress was our guide. After all, those procedures are now a precedent of the House.

Mr. Speaker, impeachment, especially impeachment of a President, is a starkly serious matter. It is something that no Member of the House should want to do. The House has rights and obligations under the Constitution. We are charged with providing the oversight of the executive branch, and we are the sole institution in the country granted the awesome power of impeachment. It is a power that must be used selectively and wisely, and only after full deliberation.

With today's resolution, we are ensuring that the House will be able to complete its inquiry. We will secure the evidence we need and uncover the facts we need to make that full and fair determination.

Only at the end of the road can we make a decision on how to proceed. I take no joy in today's resolution, but I know the House will do its duty. We owe our committees, the institution, and the Constitution no less.

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

Mr. Speaker, yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), who is the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin), my very good friend and distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just for the Record, all these amendments are on the website of the Rules Committee. It is not like they are mysteriously hidden someplace. They are in plain view on the website of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), my good friend and also a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend and distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and distinguished Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Timmons), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), my very good friend.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my very good friend and the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close, and I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today, heard a lot about Donald Trump. We have had ad infinitum insults to the majority. We have had pejorative language. We have had pounding on the table.

Why? Simply because we want to empower three committees in Congress to do what the White House asked us to do; that is, to have a formal vote on the floor before they fully cooperate. That is all we are doing.

If my friends are so confident--again, as one of my colleagues mentioned from the Rules Committee--what are you worried about? It is an investigation. It is open.

We hardly talked about what the resolution is about, which is how we are going to proceed.

How are we going to proceed? Almost exactly as my friends proceeded in 2019. Their playbook, their play, their approach. There is nothing unfair that we are asking to be done.

Since September, the House has been engaged in an impeachment inquiry, examining whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to exercise its constitutional power to impeach the President of the United States.

Today's resolution simply formalizes that inquiry and grants the House full authority to enforce its subpoenas--subpoenas that have been denied as recently as today.

My friends have some pretty experienced lawyers on their side. Most of them will tell you it is better to have a deposition before you have a hearing, let alone a trial.

All we are trying to do is get the needed people who have been blocked or refused to cooperate to come in and testify under oath before Congress.

The resolution follows closely, again, as I said, the procedures established in 2019. It empowers the three committees to continue their existing inquiries. At the end of the inquiry, it provides for the Committee on the Judiciary, the traditional impeachment committee, to report to the House resolutions, Articles of Impeachment, or other recommendations.

It is deeply unfortunate that we are here, Mr. Speaker, but today's resolution will ensure that the House can fulfill its obligations under the Constitution. So it is with respect for the Constitution, for this institution, and for this great Nation that we proceed. That is all we are trying to do today. We had very little discussion of that, but we ought to entertain that.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everybody of a few facts.

We have millions of dollars from foreign entities that have flowed towards shell companies that we didn't even know existed until the investigations uncovered them. We have whistleblowers, public servants of long standing that have come in and told us their efforts to investigate either Hunter Biden or the wider schemes that have been obstructed.

We have lots of things to be concerned about. Our committees need to be empowered with the tools that are required to pursue the truth and then come back and tell us what they found and have a recommendation as to how we should proceed. That is all today is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to yet another shameful effort to erode the founding principles of our democracy.

This resolution is a pitiful attempt to continue the politicization of our government's ability to function once those who are duly elected to serve seek to govern.

Impeachment is not a punishment, sought to be inflicted when one branch of government merely disagrees with or dislikes what a coordinate branch has done.

It is a serious remedy designed to prevent abuses of power and is designed to ensure that ours remains a government of, by, and for the people.

This is about the duty of the President of the United States--you do not impeach people because you disagree with their approach to their service to the country or to the provisions on their policy. We do not impeach people on that basis.

No, this resolution does not provide any meaningful or sincere effort to protect the American people.

Rather, this resolution sets forth nothing more than a partisan fishing expedition and should be rebuked as such.

Impeachment is serious, yet here we are engaged in a baseless political stunt to impeach our current President.

The U.S. Constitution governs the order of our nation, and it dictates the work of the Congress.

Article I details the powers of the House and the exercising of these powers as they relate to the coordinate, coequal branches of government, codified in Articles II and Articles III: three equal branches of government coexisting and cohesively working to provide oversight to the respective actions of the Congress, the Executive and Judiciary.

Specifically, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 indicates that the ``House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.'' Article II states that the ``The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Article II also requires that the ``President take care that the laws are faithfully executed.''

That language is stark and clear--and throughout our history it has been used in varying periods where the assessment was that the law has been breached.

Sometimes Congresses are concerned that the weight and view of the American people should be considered. Sometimes they are moved by the urgency of the matter.

This has worked, with challenges of course, since 1789, yet the outright abuse of our constitution to use impeachment as a political tool is an abomination of our congressional duties.

As constitutional scholars have long laid out the historical guardrails and mandates upon which must heed, I would like to point to a few salient remarks from the September 28, 2023, Committee on Oversight and Accountability hearing entitled ``The Basis for the Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph R. Biden'' as reminders for us all here today.

In the testimony of Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he highlighted the clear warning from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, and what he foresaw in the dangers of trivializing impeachment through petty partisanship.

As quoted in Alexander Hamilton, No. 65, the Federalist Papers (1961), he states that impeachment may ``agitate the passions of the whole community , and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the relative strength of the parties, than by the demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''

As Professor Gerhardt noted, ``in other words, an impeachment proceeding, including the initiation of an impeachment inquiry, must rise above petty partisanship in order to ensure its legitimacy.

And as aptly stated in the testimony of Johnathon Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University School of Law, in highlighting the carefully crafted powers vested in the House of Representatives pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5. is that:

``The Framers debated and crafted this standard and process to avoid an `anything goes' mentality. That was the reason our Framers opposed the `maladministration' standards as too malleable and indeterminate. While we continue to have passionate and good-faith debates over the meaning of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard, it is not intended to give the House carte blanche for any impulsive impeachment theory.''

Nearly fifty years ago, my predecessor Barbara Jordan of Texas's 18th Congressional District, declared, in the first presidential impeachment inquiry in more than a century, that:

``My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.'' She noted ``those are impeachable `who behave amiss or betray their public trust'' (quoting from the North Carolina ratification convention).

In this vein, we should not be here today in efforts to betray and diminish our Constitution and rule of law.

The unsubstantiated accusations, that the President of the United States has abused his powers and that his conduct is in dereliction of his duties as President, flatly outrageous.

When the Framers of our Constitution designed our government, they bifurcated power between the federal and state governments, and divided among the branches.

They vested in Congress the capacity to make the laws, and in the Executive the power to faithfully execute those laws.

Because the House enjoyed a natural superiority, as most representative of the passions of the populace, the Framers vested in the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and made the Senate the judges.

Yet, entirely unlike the incredulous and now confirmed illegality of President Trump's behavior while in office, President Biden has certainly not earned the same stain of impeachment from the House of Representatives and his conduct absolutely does not merit conviction and removal from office by the Senate.

When the Founders inserted the Impeachment Clause in Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, they did so to preserve our democracy, protect the American people, and to prevent the abuses and excesses of the Chief Executive.

The Constitution has served our nation well for over two hundred years.

Yes, in order to keep faith with the Framers and with our future, we must preserve, protect and defend that Constitution and all its provisions.

This impeachment resolution, however, is not one that is within the national interest but a disgrace to our government and its entrusted duties.

My Republican colleagues are sadly focused on the wrong priorities.

The American people want us to focus on helping their families, not attacking the President and his family.

This so-called ``impeachment inquiry'' is just an extreme political stunt.

President Biden is a good and honorable man who has spent his life serving the American people.

Extreme House Republicans are pushing these lies to try to smear him for political purposes.

They have been investigating President Biden all year--obtaining tens of thousands of pages of documents and dozens of hours of witness testimony--but have found no evidence of wrongdoing by the President.

In fact, over and over again, Republicans' own witnesses and documents have embarrassed them by debunking their ridiculous allegations.

They now want to waste time on the House floor voting on this extreme stunt, instead of focusing on advancing important priorities like Ukraine aid or doing their job to avoid a government shutdown in a few weeks.

No vote will make this baseless fishing expedition legitimate.

They have proven all year just how illegitimate this impeachment stunt is.

All a vote would do is put every Republican who supports it on record pushing an extreme agenda.

This is not what Congress should be focused on.

Democrats and President Biden will stay focused on putting people over politics.

As such, I ask my colleagues to vote no on this shameful resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I call up the report (H. Rept. 118-527) and accompanying resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1292) recommending that the House of Representatives find United States Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on page 1 of his report, Special Counsel Hur said: ``President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen.''

Joe Biden not only kept information he wasn't allowed to keep, he shared it with people who weren't allowed to get it.

On page 231, the special counsel told us why President Biden did this. He said: ``Mr. Biden had strong motivations to ignore the proper procedures for safeguarding the classified information in his notebooks. He had decided months before leaving office to write a book,'' a book for which he got paid $8 million.

So we have motive, an $8 million motive, and we have the elements of the crime, knowingly keeping classified information, knowingly disclosing classified information.

Despite all this, Special Counsel Hur declined to recommend prosecution for President Biden because Joe Biden is ``a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.''

On page 207 of his report, Special Counsel Hur said: ``Mr. Biden's memory also appeared to have significant limitations, both at the time he spoke to [the ghostwriter], Mr. Zwonitzer in 2017, as evidenced by their recorded conversations, and today, as evidenced by his recorded interview with our office.''

The committees need the audio recordings to determine whether the Justice Department appropriately carried out justice by not prosecuting the President.

Remember what they told us. The Justice Department said we are going to operate independent of the White House. They said we will be impartial, independent arbiters of the facts.

Maybe so, but what we do know is this: One former President is being charged; Joe Biden is not being charged. We think we are entitled-- actually we know we are entitled to all the evidence and the best evidence. The transcripts alone are not sufficient evidence of the state of the President's memory, especially since the executive branch has a history of changing transcripts.

We saw this in late April. The transcript the White House put out didn't match the video and audio recording of President Biden's speech, and only after the White House was caught did they change the transcript.

In that case and in this case, the audio recording is the best evidence of the words that President Biden actually spoke.

Following the release of Special Counsel Hur's report, both the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight Committee issued subpoenas requiring Attorney General Garland to turn over the transcripts of the audio recordings of Special Counsel Hur's interviews with President Biden and his ghostwriter.

To date, the Attorney General has failed to produce those recordings. In fact, he told us last week he wasn't going to do it, and that is why we are here. Despite the committee's best efforts, the Department has continued to withhold the audio recordings of those interviews without providing any constitutional or legal basis to do so.

Just hours before the committee was set to meet and consider the contempt resolution, the Department notified the committee that President Biden had asserted, at the Attorney General's urging, executive privilege over the audio recordings.

It is simple. Attorney General Garland holds information vital to the committee's legislative oversight and the House impeachment's inquiry. Remember, this body voted December 13 of last year to enter that phase of our oversight duty and impeachment inquiry. The Department has a legal obligation to turn over the requested material. Attorney General Garland's willful refusal constitutes contempt of Congress.

This resolution upholds the institutional power of the House by recommending that the House find Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with the committee's subpoena. Our oversight and impeachment responsibilities are too important to allow the Attorney General to willfully disregard this.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a good friend.

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

First of all, I never said I wouldn't testify in front of the January 6th Committee. I just wanted to know what the parameters of that testimony were going to be. I never did say ``no'' to that.

Second, the speaker before just said we don't know what we are looking for. We are looking for equal treatment under the law. Special Counsel Hur found that Joe Biden knowingly kept classified information and that Joe Biden knowingly disclosed classified information. He told us that on the very first page of his report, and then he told us later why he did so. He said he had strong motivation for ignoring classified procedures because he was writing a book for which he got paid $8 million.

Again, we have motive, and we have him knowingly disclosing classified information. He doesn't get charged, yet President Trump does. President Trump gets charged by Jack Smith, the guy who had to file with the court a notice saying that he actually altered the order of the documents he seized in the raid of the President's home. He had to tell the court that. The physical documents don't match up with the scanned documents.

You are not allowed to change the sequence of the documents you seize, but Jack Smith did. Jack Smith mishandled the documents he is accusing President Trump of mishandling. You can't make this stuff up.

That is what we are focused on. By the way, we are in the midst of an impeachment inquiry. We are entitled to the best evidence. That is why we want the audiotape.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance.