[House Prints 118-CP]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



118th Congress 
 2nd Session                COMMITTEE PRINT
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                     

                                     

                                     
 
                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:

                    RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE

                     HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND

                   ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN IN CONTEMPT OF

                  CONGRESS FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH

                     A SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED BY THE

                       COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND

                             ACCOUNTABILITY


=======================================================================

                                for the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 10, 2024

                               __________

                          Serial No. CP:118-7

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
  
  
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov                         
                             
                           ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 54-432PDF          WASHINGTON : 2024
                              
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Jimmy Gomez, California
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York            Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
            James Mandolfo, Chief Counsel for Investigations
            Jake Greenberg, Chief Counsel for Investigations
                        Ryan Giachetti, Counsel
                   Christian Hoehner, Policy Director
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Meeting held on January 10, 2024.................................     1

Committee Assignments Approved...................................     1

Resolution Reported..............................................     2

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Letter, from Jan 6 Committee to Rep. Biggs; submitted by Rep. 
  Moskowitz.

  * Letter, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. Brooks; submitted by 
  Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Letter, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. Jordan; submitted by 
  Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Letter, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. McCarthy; submitted by 
  Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Letter, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. Perry; submitted by 
  Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Article, Washington Examiner, ``Archer says one Dem claim 
  about Biden business is `categorically false';'' submitted by 
  Chairman Comer.

  * Fourth Bank Records Memo; submitted by Chairman Comer.

  * Article, The Hill, ``Eric Swalwell and the politics of 
  contempt''; submitted by Rep. Donalds.

  * Subpoena, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. Biggs; submitted by 
  Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Subpoena, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. Brooks; submitted by 
  Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Subpoena, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. Jordan; submitted by 
  Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Subpoena, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. McCarthy; submitted 
  by Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Subpoena, from Jan. 6 Committee to Rep. Perry; submitted by 
  Rep. Moskowitz.

  * Article, CNN, ``USCP says shooting of January 6 rioter Ashli 
  Babbitt lawful''; Rep. Raskin.

  * Press Release, DOJ, DOJ Closes Investigation into Death of 
  Ashli Babbitt; submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Rep. Raskin tweet; submitted by Rep. Greene.

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.


                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:



                    RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE



                     HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND



                   ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN IN CONTEMPT OF



                  CONGRESS FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH



                     A SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED BY THE



                       COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND



                             ACCOUNTABILITY

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, January 10, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Turner, Gosar, 
Foxx, Grothman, Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, 
LaTurner, Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, 
McClain, Fry, Luna, Langworthy, Burlison, Waltz, Raskin, 
Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-
Cortez, Porter, Bush, Gomez, Brown, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, 
Lee, Casar, Crockett, Goldman, Moskowitz, and Tlaib.
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will please come to order. A 
quorum is present.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule 11, Clause 
2, the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on the 
question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an 
amendment on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are 
ordered.
    The first order of business is ratifying the new 
Subcommittee roster. The clerks have distributed the roster 
electronically. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
approve the appointments and assignments as shown on the 
roster.
    Without objection, the Subcommittee roster is approved.
    The Chair also notes that points of order pertaining to the 
engaging of personalities against the President will not be in 
order for the duration of this markup. Given the underlying 
subject matter of Hunter Biden's subpoena and this Committee's 
investigation, Members must be allowed to speak frankly.
    Now, pursuant to notice, I call up a report containing a 
Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find 
Robert Hunter Biden in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to 
Comply With a Subpoena Duly Issued by This Committee. The clerk 
will report the report, which has been distributed in advance.
    The Clerk. A report containing a House Resolution 
Recommending that the House of Representatives find Robert 
Hunter Biden in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with 
a Subpoena Duly Issued by this Committee.
    Chairman Comer. I ask unanimous consent that the report be 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The clerk will please report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered to the contempt report, as offered by Mr. Comer of 
Kentucky.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as 
original text for the purposes of further amendment.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for a statement on the 
report.
    Today, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
will consider a resolution and report recommending the House of 
Representatives find Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for 
his refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the 
Committee.
    The House Committees on Oversight and Accountability and 
Judiciary issued subpoenas to Hunter Biden for a deposition to 
be conducted on December 13, 2023. On December 13, Hunter Biden 
failed to comply with the deposition subpoenas relevant to the 
House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry and the 
Committees' oversight investigations. Instead, Hunter Biden 
appeared on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol where he read a 
short, prepared statement without taking any questions from the 
media.
    Our investigation has produced significant evidence 
suggesting President Biden knew of, participated in, and 
benefited from his family's cashing in on the Biden name. Based 
on witness testimony, Joe Biden was the brand his family sold 
around the world to enrich the Biden family. The Bidens and 
their associates raked in over $24 million from 2014 to 2019 
from countries like China, Russia, Romania, and Kazakhstan. 
Witness testimony confirms then Vice President Biden met, spoke 
by phone, dined, and had coffee with his family's foreign 
business associates. President Biden has repeatedly lied to the 
American people about speaking with his son's associates. We 
have also traced how money from the Biden's China deals and 
other influence peddling schemes landed in Joe Biden's personal 
bank account.
    We planned to question Hunter Biden about this record of 
evidence during our deposition, but he blatantly defied two 
lawful subpoenas. Hunter Biden's willful refusal to comply with 
the Committees' subpoenas is a criminal act. It constitutes 
contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate 
United States Attorney's Office for prosecution as prescribed 
by the law. We will not provide Hunter Biden with special 
treatment because of his last name. All Americans must be 
treated equally under the law, and that includes the Bidens.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We believe that 
everyone subpoenaed by Congress, whether it is Hunter Biden or 
Jim Jordan or Andy Biggs or Steve Bannon or Scott Perry, should 
engage in good faith compliance with the Committee's requests 
and the Committee's subpoenas. We are here today because the 
Chairman has bizarrely decided to obstruct his own 
investigation and is now seeking to hold Hunter Biden in 
contempt after he accepted the Chairman's multiple public 
offers to come answer the Committee's questions under oath 
before the American people. This is at the same time that they 
stand by the categorical noncompliance of Republican Members of 
Congress, like Mr. Jordan, who will have material information 
about extremely violent attack----
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Chairman Comer. One moment. The cameras cannot be in the 
well. Cameras cannot be in the well. Cameras cannot be in the 
well.
    Proceed, Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I was just making the point that our 
colleagues who are arraigning Mr. Biden today on charges that 
he has not rendered 100 percent compliance, allegedly with a 
subpoena, are standing by Republican colleagues who have 
rendered zero percent compliance with their subpoenas, 
including Mr. Jordan, Mr. Biggs, and Mr. Perry, when they have 
material information about the violent attack on the Capitol, 
the Congress, and the Vice President of the United States on 
January 6, 2021.
    In any event, for the last 11 months, the Chairman has 
repeatedly refused offers from Hunter Biden's attorney to meet 
with the Chairman and his staff and with Members of this 
Committee. On February 9, just 1 day after the Chairman's first 
letter to Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden's lawyer responded and 
offered Chairman Comer to ``sit with you and your staff, 
including the Ranking Member and staff, to see whether Mr. 
Biden has information that may inform some legitimate 
legislative purpose and be helpful to the Committee.'' The 
Chairman never responded.
    On September 13, Mr. Biden's lawyer again wrote to Chairman 
Comer after a Newsmax interview in which the Chairman falsely 
claimed that he never got a response back to his original 
letter. Mr. Biden's attorney explained the Chairman actually 
never responded to his offer to sit down and discuss the 
Committee's request but stated that he remained available to 
have the discussion, but the Chairman, again, completely failed 
to respond.
    Two months later, on November 8, Chairmen Comer and Jordan 
issued subpoenas to Mr. Biden requiring his appearance for a 
deposition on December 13. In the cover letter, the Chairman 
noted, ``Given your client's willingness to address this 
investigation publicly up to this point, we would expect him to 
testify before Congress.'' Throughout the fall, the Chairman 
urged Mr. Biden to come up here at a public Committee hearing 
on September 13th. On Newsmax, the Chairman stated Hunter Biden 
is more than welcome to come in front of the Committee. If he 
wants to clear his good name, if he wants to come and say, you 
know, they were not 20 shell companies, he is invited today. We 
will drop everything. On October 31, on a nationwide podcast, 
the Chairman stated, ``We have mountains of evidence. Now we 
are ready to bring them in. We are in the downhill phase now 
because we have so many documents, and we can bring these 
people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they 
choose, and we can ask these questions with evidence.''
    On November 6, again on Newsmax, our good Chairman stated, 
``I will extend that invitation on your show right now, Rob. If 
the Biden family wants to join Tony Bobulinski in an official 
Oversight Committee hearing and answer questions that the 
American people have, then that invitation is open right now. 
They can come on in and do that.'' On November 28, Hunter 
Biden, through his lawyer, agreed to Chairman Comer's multiple 
public requests. He agreed to appear precisely at a public 
hearing under oath to answer the Committee's questions on 
December 13, exactly what our good colleagues, the Republicans 
who had information about January 6, never agreed to do. They 
never agreed to testify anywhere under oath about what they 
knew.
    The letter that came in from Mr. Biden embraced the 
importance of having a public proceeding that ``would prevent 
selective leaks, manipulated transcripts, doctored exhibits, or 
one-sided press statements, especially in light of the 
Committee's past use of closed-door sessions to manipulate, 
even distort the facts and misinform the public.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I have an inquiry.
    Chairman Comer. State your point.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, don't we have House rules and 
Committee rules regarding subpoenas, and then rules about 
having hearings and having questions with witnesses, that must 
be followed?
    Chairman Comer. We do.
    Ms. Greene. Please state the rules, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Raskin. Chairman Comer, I would like to reclaim my 
time.
    Chairman Comer. Hold on. Hold on.
    Mr. Raskin. We can just interrupt each other if there was 
an inquiry?
    Chairman Comer. Your time was expired.
    Ms. Greene. I would like to know the rules of the House and 
our Committee.
    Mr. Raskin. They are available to every Member.
    Chairman Comer. The rules state for a deposition, if that 
is what you are asking, 3 days' notice. You have to have the 
stenographer and all of that. So that is----
    Ms. Greene. Just to clarify, we cannot have someone just 
walk in----
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Raskin's time has expired.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, a point of inquiry.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I did endure multiple 
interruptions in my opening. Could I finish with the----
    Chairman Comer. You went over your 5 minutes, but I will 
give you 30 more seconds.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. The Chairman refused to take yes for an 
answer from Hunter Biden. Instead on December 1, they pulled a 
bait and switch. They changed the terms of their request. They 
rejected his offer or his acceptance of their offer and 
insisted that he now come in and sit for a secret closed-door 
deposition. On December 6, Hunter Biden's lawyer reiterated 
that Hunter Biden was willing to accept the Chair's original 
request and once again offered to appear on December 13, or any 
other date in December to answer any questions pertinent and 
relevant to the subject matter. He again raised concerns about 
closed-door sessions.
    That is what brings us to today, Mr. Chairman. He has 
materially, substantially in good faith complied with what your 
requests were.
    Chairman Comer. He complied with a subpoena.
    Mr. Raskin. We would have----
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Raskin. We would have loved----
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Members wish to be heard? The 
Chair recognizes Ms. Mace from South Carolina.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Comer. First of 
all, my first question is who bribed Hunter Biden to be here 
today? That is my first question. Second question, you are the 
epitome of white privilege coming into the Oversight Committee, 
spitting in our face, ignoring a congressional subpoena to be 
deposed. What are you afraid of? You have no balls to come up 
here, and----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, point of inquiry.
    Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Comer. The lady is recognized----
    Mr. Moskowitz. If the gentlelady wants to hear from Hunter 
Biden, we can hear from him right now. Mr. Chairman, let us 
take a vote and hear from Hunter Biden. What are you afraid of?
    Ms. Mace. I am speaking. Are women allowed to speak in 
here?
    Chairman Comer. Hold on. Hold on. Order. Order.
    Ms. Mace. Are women allowed to speak in here, or no? Are 
women allowed to speak in here?
    Chairman Comer. Order.
    Ms. Mace. You keep interrupting me.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I will interrupt the Chairman. I do not know 
that he is a lady.
    Ms. Mace. I think that Hunter Biden should be arrested 
right here right now and go straight to jail. Our Nation is 
founded on the rule of law----
    Mr. Mfume. Come on. Come on. Come on.
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. And the premise that the rule of law 
applies equally to everyone, no matter what your last name----
    Mr. Biggs. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order.
    Ms. Mace. It does not matter who you are.
    Mr. Biggs. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Biggs over 
here.
    Chairman Comer. State your point, Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. My point of order is this. Are we going to 
continue on with this blatant interruption? This is absurd and 
inappropriate. I intend to give my statement. I do not intend 
to have anybody interrupting. I am not going to interrupt your 
statements. I think you should have decorum and courtesy and do 
not act like a bunch of nimrods.
    Mr. Moskowitz. You just interrupted a woman.
    Chairman Comer. And that is five--I gave everyone else 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Mfume. Can we agree that everyone gets 5 minutes?
    Mr. Biggs. Point of order again. The assertion that I 
interrupted was absolutely false. That is typical of the 
gentleman who spoke it. I have got permission to speak from the 
Chairman. I spoke. I was interrupted yet again by the gentleman 
who does not choose to go through the Chair and follow proper 
order. I encourage us, I think if we are going to have any 
respect at all, we need to have proper decorum.
    Chairman Comer. Well said. Well said.
    Ms. Mace. I would like to finish.
    Chairman Comer. The rules are everyone is going to be 
recognized for 5 minutes. Anyone that wants to be recognized 
will be recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Mace has 4 minutes and 13 
seconds left. The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace.
    Ms. Mace. It does not matter who you are, where you come 
from, or who your father is, or your last name. Yes, I am 
looking at you, Hunter Biden, as I am speaking to you. You are 
not above the law at all. The facts in this case are crystal 
clear. This Committee used and issued a lawful subpoena to 
Hunter Biden, a critical witness in this Committee's 
investigation into Biden family corruption. Hunter Biden and 
his lawyers did not claim privilege of any kind, because 
clearly, he has none. They did not contest the legitimacy of 
our reasons for issuing the subpoena, no reasons because they 
clearly are legitimate, and yet he refused to comply.
    Trump's family members, Don Trump, Jr., he did not defy a 
congressional subpoena. He showed up multiple times for 
multiple depositions for several hours. In doing so, you know, 
Hunter Biden broke the law. He did so deliberately. You did so 
flagrantly. You showed up on the Hill on the Senate side the 
day of that congressional subpoena to defy it and spit in the 
face of this Committee. That is what you did. The question the 
American people are asking us is, what is Hunter Biden so 
afraid of? Why can't you show up for a congressional 
deposition? You are here for a political stunt. This is just a 
PR stunt to you. This is just a game that you are playing with 
the American people. You are playing with the truth.
    Hunter Biden was not afraid to sell access to Joe Biden to 
the highest bidder when he was in elected office. He was not 
afraid to trade on the Biden brand, peddle influence, and share 
those ill-gotten gains with members of his family, including 
Joe Biden. He was not afraid to compromise the integrity of the 
presidency and vice presidency by involving Joe Biden's shady 
business deals with our foreign adversaries. But Hunter Biden, 
you were too afraid to show up for a deposition, and you still 
cannot today.
    I believe that Hunter Biden should be held completely in 
contempt. I think he should be hauled off to jail right now 
because it was not long ago, to my friends on the other side of 
the aisle, that you also believed in the power of a 
congressional subpoena. Not long ago at all, you believed in 
holding those who refuse to comply with a congressional 
subpoena accountable, and I stood with each and every one of 
you. I am the only Member in this room today who has held a 
Member of my own Party in contempt of Congress for not showing 
up for a subpoena, and I see nothing but complete hypocrisy on 
the other side of the aisle. The Ranking Member of this 
Committee even so eloquently put it: ``The lesson is, please 
tell your children out there in America, if you get a subpoena 
to go before Congress, go. You have a legal responsibility to 
do so.''
    So, the hypocrisy is stunning. What are we to tell our 
children today? There is nothing the other side can say with a 
straight face. As the only Member of this Committee to vote to 
hold a Member of contempt of my own Party, let me be clear: 
this should not be a partisan issue. If Congress issues a 
subpoena, you show up, period. This is not a responsibility we 
take lightly. It brings no joy for us to do this, but the 
President's son broke the law and must be held accountable in 
the same way anybody else would. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to do so. And my last message to you, Hunter 
Biden, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentlelady yield for a question? 
Would the gentlelady yield, will my friend yield from South 
Carolina?
    Ms. Mace. Sure.
    Mr. Raskin. I do want to commend the gentlelady, who was 
the only Republican who stood up and voted to hold in contempt 
the Republican Members of the House who blatantly and 
categorically refused to comply with subpoenas that came from 
the bipartisan January 6 Committee. I would like to ask my 
friend, Ms. Mace from South Carolina, whether she is aware of 
all the case law which says that the Committee has to engage in 
good faith interaction with the witnesses they have called, and 
they are supposed to arrive at a solution? And what do you 
think about the fact that the Chairman on multiple occasions 
gave this witness the opportunity to come before the full 
Committee, and he agreed to that?
    Ms. Mace. We issued a congressional subpoena, and I know 
with your constitutional law background, you know exactly what 
that means, and he should have showed up. And because of your 
vote and because of your statements, you should be voting to 
hold this man in contempt of Congress today, right now, if you 
are going to be consistent on your own policies, in your own 
words.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired. The 
Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see 
you after a long break. So, I am listening to the gentlelady 
from South Carolina about the witness being afraid to come in 
front of the Committee. It is interesting. He is here, does not 
seem to be too afraid. In fact, for some reason, the Chairman, 
who on multiple occasions invited the witness to come, on TV, 
so apparently the Chairman wants to pretend like his statements 
on television or in interviews do not matter, but it did not 
happen once. It did not happen twice. It happened multiple 
times.
    The Chairman said the witness can choose whether to come to 
a deposition or to a public hearing in front of the Committee. 
The witness accepted the Chairman's invitation. It just so 
happens the witness is here. If the Committee wants to hear 
from the witness and the Chairman gave the witness that option, 
then the only folks that are afraid to hear from the witness 
with the American people watching are my friends on the other 
side of the aisle. I do not know if there is a proper motion, 
Mr. Chairman, but I will make a motion. Let us vote. Let us 
take a vote. Who wants to hear from Hunter right now, today? 
Anyone? Come on. Who wants to hear from Hunter?
    No one. So, I am a visual learner, and the visual is clear. 
Nobody over there wants to hear from the witness. Oh, one. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Greene. Will you yield for a question?
    Mr. Moskowitz. I am not there yet, but I will eventually. 
So, there is no one, other than one or two, that want to hear 
from the witness. So, the majority of my colleagues over there, 
including the Chairman, do not want to hear from the witness 
with the American people watching. So, Mr. Chairman, I just 
want to hear from you. Will you acknowledge that you invited 
the witness on television to choose whether he could come to a 
public hearing, and do you stand by your words, or do you 
renege that invitation to the witness?
    Chairman Comer. To answer the question, what I have said 
repeatedly, after the deposition, Mr. Biden can come in front 
of a public hearing.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to play the 
video, but that is not what you said on television multiple 
times, and we have the quotes. We can put them up. You said the 
witness can choose between a deposition----
    Chairman Comer. Listen, Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Biden does not 
make the rules. We make the rules.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman, you make the rules, and the 
rule you made is that he can choose. Those----
    Chairman Comer. The rule is----
    Mr. Moskowitz. Those were your words. Reclaiming my time.
    Chairman Comer. He was issued two lawful subpoenas.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. No, you 
issued those subpoenas after he took you up on your invitation 
to come. And then you were like, oh, no, no. Oh my God, what 
did I do? I invited him to come so the American people can hear 
his side of the story. I put my foot in my mouth. So now I must 
bury him in the basement where we can decide what we are going 
to release to the public so that we can continue to tell that 
story. Mr. Chairman, you have said multiple times that this is 
not about Hunter. It is about Joe Biden.
    And even this morning, on ``Mornings with Maria,'' she 
asked another simple question, the question you have been asked 
multiple times, which is, do you have evidence to impeach the 
President of the United States. Before you said, ``I hope so,'' 
today you said, ``I think so,'' and the answer is you do not. 
And you still do not, and so we continue to be here and have 
these charades.
    To my colleagues who talk about lawful subpoenas, I 
appreciate the gentlelady from South Carolina who voted to hold 
people in contempt. Listen, I will make this bipartisan. I will 
vote for the Hunter contempt today. You can get my vote. You 
can get my vote, but I want you to show the American people 
that you are serious. Here is the subpoena to Representative 
Scott Perry, who did not comply. I would like to enter this 
into the record. Here is the subpoena to Mark Meadows, I would 
like to enter this into the record, who did not comply. Here is 
the subpoena to Jim Jordan, who did not comply with a lawful 
subpoena. I would like to enter that into the record. Here is 
the subpoena to Mo Brooks who did not comply. I would like to 
enter that into the record. Here is the subpoena to Mr. Biggs 
who did not comply. I would like to enter that into the record. 
And here is the subpoena Mr. McCarthy, who did not comply. I 
would like to enter that into the record.
    There is an amendment coming to add some of those names 
onto the contempt order. You vote to add those names and show 
the American people that we apply the law equally, not just 
when it is Democrats, like it is a crime when it is Democrat, 
but when it is Trump and Republicans, it is just fine. No, show 
that you are serious and that everyone is not above the law. 
Vote for that amendment, and I will vote for the Hunter Biden 
contempt. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Ms. Greene from Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, Hunter. 
Apparently, you are afraid of my words.
    Ms. McClain. Whoa. Aww. Aww.
    Ms. Greene. I would like to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Order.
    Ms. McClain. Wow, that is too bad.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Greene from 
Georgia.
    Ms. Greene. I think it is clear and obvious for everyone 
watching this hearing today that Hunter Biden is terrified of 
strong conservative Republican women because he cannot even 
face my words as I was about to speak to him. What a coward. 
And this is also a coward that sat right here in front of Micki 
Babbitt, Ashli Babbitt's mother, who was murdered on January 6 
by Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police officer, and you want to 
talk about a committee, a political sham.
    I totally disagree with you, Ms. Mace. That January 6 
Committee was not bipartisan. It was a complete setup to go 
after President Trump, go after Republicans, go after anyone 
that believes in free and fair elections, people that believe 
the Department of Justice should be fair and balanced, not a 
political weaponized department of the Federal Government that 
is targeting President Trump, his supporters, people that 
walked in the Capitol on January 6, and now people that stood 
outside the Capitol.
    There has been no justice for Ashli Babbitt's family. 
Michael Byrd has never been charged with anything. He was let 
off, and he was given a promotion and allowed to walk free. And 
Hunter Biden just walked out. That is an example of not 
following the law. Hunter Biden thinks he is above the law. 
Don, Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka, Trump family members had to come 
in to Democrat subpoenas and be questioned by Democrats for 
over 8 hours, each of them. Hunter Biden runs away.
    Hunter Biden did not come when we subpoenaed him. He did 
not follow the law. And then one of our colleagues helped him 
evade his subpoena by going and reserving a press conference 
for him, on his behalf, helped him evade the subpoena, helped 
Hunter Biden break the law. Let us talk about his own father's 
words. President Joe Biden said in October 2021 that 
individuals who defy subpoenas from the January 6 House Select 
Committee should be prosecuted, and the Justice Department 
indicted Steve Bannon for doing so in November 2021.
    Hunter Biden's father, the President of the United States, 
said that he should be prosecuted, anyone that defies a 
subpoena should be prosecuted. Hunter Biden did not show up for 
his subpoena. Hunter Biden showed up today to make a clown show 
of himself to show that he is nothing but someone that will not 
obey the law, that wants to show up when he wants to and sits 
here with a smug look on his face, and runs away when it is my 
turn to talk. Not only is he a criminal, but he is a coward, 
nothing but a coward.
    Let us talk about voting for things. We have Members on 
this Committee that are on record on their own Twitter accounts 
talking about people blowing off subpoenas on the January 6 
Committee that states the rule of law is stirring all over 
America. That is Representative Jamie Raskin, right here. I 
will enter this for the record.
    Representative Jamie Raskin, ``Steve Bannon has been 
convicted of acting in contempt of Congress. My argument with 
Rep. Gates is now settled. If subpoenaed, you show up and 
assert any privilege you think applies to specific questions, 
but you cannot blow off the proceeding.'' He blew it off. 
Walking in today is too late. We have to hold Hunter Biden in 
contempt of Congress because he is not above the law, and 
neither is the President of the United States. And this 
Committee has produced more evidence, more evidence that any 
Democrat ever dreamed of having against President Trump and his 
family. While they constantly make up lies and attacks about 
the Trump family and President Trump, they make them up all day 
long, it is nothing but a political witch hunt.
    This Committee has produced the evidence that Joe Biden has 
taken payments through his son, Hunter Biden, and all their 
dozens of fake LLCs. You cannot buy a Biden product, you cannot 
hire a Biden for a service unless you are a foreign country. 
And you are asking and paying for political favors and 
political payouts, and that is exactly what the Biden brand is 
all about. We will hold Hunter Biden in contempt, and if the 
Democrats are not the hypocrites that they constantly display 
that they are, then they will vote for contempt of Congress 
because they voted for it on every other subpoena that did not 
go through.
    And here is the last thing. You guys had your chance. If 
you wanted to hold people in contempt of Congress, you could 
have done it last Congress, but you did not do it. And it would 
have been a major mistake because you know that it could have 
been turned exactly back on you. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is really 
interesting to hear the gentlelady from Georgia speak about 
Hunter Biden leaving, and she is the person that showed nude 
photos of Hunter Biden in this very Committee room, showing 
dick pics in this Committee room of Hunter Biden.
    Ms. Greene. [Inaudible].
    Mr. Garcia. I have my 5 minutes, gentlelady. And so, I 
think it is really ironic, hypocritical, quite shameful that 
the person who is complaining about somebody leaving when she 
is showed nude photos of him to this Committee in this very 
room.
    And you also talk about decorum. You are talking about 
January 6. You know, Ms. Greene, I was there with you when we 
went to the January 6 jail and when you are hugging, high-
fiving, talking to, and providing so much comfort and joy to 
the insurrectionists that attacked our Capitol, 
insurrectionists that attacked our Capitol. You were hugging 
and giving them all the support----
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has his time.
    Chairman Comer. Stop the clock. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Garcia. You have 3 minutes and 50 seconds.
    Mr. Garcia. I want to continue my 5 minutes, and I just 
want to remind everyone, one, that this is, again, about the 
Donald Trump revenge show. We are here today, and the Majority 
is doing this hearing because this is all about Donald Trump 
and trying to make sure they do everything they can to support 
him. For weeks, we as Democrats and Republicans and the 
Chairman demanded a public hearing, and I agree with Mr. 
Moskowitz, yet, Mr. Chairman, you have denied it.
    We want a public hearing. If we need to take a vote or ask 
unanimous consent, we should hear from Mr. Biden today. That is 
what the public demands. Democrats are united, we want to see 
the same thing. And I would like to see a vote to actually have 
Hunter Biden actually, with unanimous consent, do actually a 
hearing and address us today if possible.
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Well, the fact of the matter is, 
Mr. Biden showed up this morning and was willing to show up 
weeks ago to appear at a public hearing, which he was led to 
believe was his option, and today is all about a combination of 
chutzpah and delusional theory. We just heard some of the 
delusional theory from the gentlelady from Georgia. But the 
chutzpah is a bunch of people who defied subpoenas themselves 
now want to have a contempt citation for the son of the 
President because they do not have sufficient evidence. In 
fact, they have no evidence of any kind to pursue the President 
himself. So, when you cannot go after the principal, try to 
hurt the people around him, including a wounded member of his 
own family who has had all too public troubles put before our 
country. It is mean-spirited, it is cruel, and it is beneath 
the dignity of this Committee and this body.
    If you want to have political differences with the 
President of United States, our system invites it, but 
resorting to punitive measures against members of his family 
because you cannot get at him, I think crosses a boundary. And 
by the way, I counseled Democrats in the previous 
Administration to take great care in going after members of 
President Trump's family because I felt the same dynamic at 
work.
    So, I would urge that we give real serious consideration to 
the matter at hand, that we show more respect for the President 
and his family, whoever that President may be at any given 
time, and that we respect due process, and we hold ourselves to 
the same standard we are asking this body to act on today, in 
terms of a contempt citation. We have let many of our fellow 
Members off the hook in defying the January 6 subpoenas. I 
yield to Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Garcia. Can I have the rest of my time? Just, Mr. 
Chairman, I think Mr. Biden has agreed to address this 
Committee publicly. I just want to ask unanimous consent to 
swear in Mr. Biden either today or at a future meeting and have 
every Member be able to ask 5 minutes of questioning to the 
witness. So, I would like to officially ask that, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Yes, we object to that, not in order.
    Mr. Garcia. How is that not in order?
    Chairman Comer. It is just not in order. The time has 
expired. The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to 
remind Members of this Committee, anybody watching, that this 
is a duly constituted Committee, under the rules of the House 
of Representatives, duly constituted. You see Republicans on 
this side and Democrats on that side. The Democrats on that 
side were selected by their leadership and their process. Same 
thing for the Republicans on this side.
    Why do I mention that? Why do I bring that up? Because this 
is a stark difference from what is being referenced on the 
other side of the aisle. This so-called J6 Committee, which was 
nothing more than a Soviet show trial in America. That is what 
that was. And so, every single action that they took, 
subpoenaing people, disparaging people, referring charges of 
people, were not legitimate. Were not legitimate. So, to 
compare what is happening today to what happened years ago, it 
is completely out of context. You need to understand that. This 
is a game for these folks. Sure, they want to support their 
guy. They do not care about America. They do not care about 
what the President is doing to destroy America. They are just 
locking horns, locking arms to support their guy, and God bless 
them, they can do that. If you want to vote for people that do 
that, that is your right.
    Now, in my opinion, this Committee is not interested in 
prosecuting Hunter Biden, not interested in that. Hunter Biden 
is a sad tale by his own right, by his own admission, by 
leaving his evidence all around for everybody to see. The other 
side complains that documents and photographs are shown in this 
Committee about Hunter Biden. Do not blame the person that 
showed the documents or the photographs. The person that 
committed the acts is the person who is responsible for the 
acts.
    And we do take no joy because it is a waste of time to 
prosecute Hunter Biden, but he created this for himself, along 
with the rest of his sad tale of his life, unfortunate that it 
may be. But we, in this Committee, on both sides of the aisle, 
on behalf of the American people, are charged with finding the 
facts. And the facts show that President Biden profited from 
his name, and the person that arranged the deals was Hunter 
Biden. And so, we would like to delve into that.
    Now, Hunter Biden, regardless of his last name, even though 
he thinks he is special, he thinks he can leave evidence all 
around and blame it on the Russians when he knows it was him. 
He can go on TV and say that he thinks he is special because 
his last name is Biden and that no one will touch him. Ladies 
and gentlemen, the great thing about America is, is that we are 
all special because the law is blind to each one of us, 
regardless of our station, our economic position, or our 
political position.
    Hunter Biden sadly chose to violate Federal law. That is 
unfortunate, but we are duty bound to do something about it 
because without law, we have anarchy, and that is what Hunter 
Biden would like. By coming here today, he shows that he can be 
here. He displays that he could show up to a lawfully, 
legitimately presented subpoena, but he chooses not to, and 
that is his choice. He can do that. But there are consequences 
for that, ladies and gentlemen. There are consequences for 
that, and we are duty bound----
    Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield? Down here, Mr. 
Perry?
    Mr. Perry. I will not yield. We are duty bound to pursue 
the consequences of that so that the American people can trust 
in the system of justice in the United States of America, which 
they do not right now. They do not trust it, and nor should 
they because this side of the aisle has made a mockery of it 
for the last 3 years and beyond that.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield for----
    Mr. Perry. I will not yield. Mr. Biden is not special. He 
was given a subpoena. He should have appeared. He chose not to. 
We have no choice. If we are to uphold our oath to uphold and 
defend the Constitution of the United States, we have no choice 
except to refer charges and find Hunter Biden in contempt. His 
choice. That was his choice.
    Now we have to make our choice, and conflating the so-
called J6 Committee, unduly authorized, not a committee. Not a 
committee. No jurisdiction, no authority whatsoever under the 
law of anything. To conflate that with these proceedings today 
is an abomination. My friends on the other side of the aisle 
know what they are doing, should be ashamed, should be 
embarrassed but will not be. Regardless, we must forge on for 
the sake of this republic. I yield the balance.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Goldman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel like I am an 
``Alice in Wonderland'' after that. Every American receives the 
same application of the law, and it does not matter what your 
last name is. So, I guess that means if your last name is 
Perry, that subpoenas apply to you as well, lawful subpoenas. 
Now, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania's argument 
that the January 6 Committee was not a duly constituted 
committee, and, in fact, he and many others made that same 
argument to a number of courts of law. The courts are charged 
with interpreting our laws and whether a committee is a duly 
constituted committee and whether a subpoena is a duly 
constituted subpoena. And even though my friend from 
Pennsylvania may not like the fact that a neutral judge, 
multiple judges, in fact, did not agree with him, it still 
remains the law of the land, not what Mr. Perry says, not how I 
would interpret the January 6 Committee, but how every single 
court of law interpreted it and said it was a validly 
constituted committee, and every single subpoena issued by that 
committee was a duly authorized lawful subpoena, no different 
than the subpoena to Hunter Biden.
    Mr. Perry. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Goldman. No, unfortunately, sir, you did not yield to 
me, so I will not yield to you.
    The fact of the matter is that subpoenas should apply 
equally, and for my colleagues to actually claim that we on 
this side of the aisle are hypocritical because we will not 
vote to hold someone who has made every effort to comply in 
every way, other than the specific means of providing the 
evidence, somehow should be held in contempt when three Members 
of this Committee refused to comply in any way, shape, or form 
with a court-determined lawful subpoena, is beyond me.
    Now, I find it interesting that my friend from Pennsylvania 
also chastises us for just supporting our guy, and I wonder how 
he would define ``supporting our guy.'' Would he define 
``supporting our guy'' as trying to instigate a coup at the 
Department of Justice to install a lackey and remove the 
Attorney General and the deputy attorney general, so that he 
could keep his guy in office, even though he lost? Is that just 
supporting our guy? Because that is what Mr. Perry did.
    The reality is that we are here because, plain and simple, 
two reasons: retribution for Donald Trump and the fact that the 
Republicans have no evidence. And you will hear them talk about 
evidence. You will hear them say, ``We have so much evidence, 
we have so much evidence,'' and we are going to get into some 
of these details as we go forward. But the reality is that you 
have been moving the goalposts the entire time because you 
cannot make any connection, notwithstanding all of your false 
statements, to the President.
    So instead, let us subpoena Hunter Biden because what we 
will expect is that he will not testify or that he will take 
the Fifth Amendment because he is under criminal indictment. 
And then we get to say, ah-hah, all of our specious allegations 
must be true because if they were not, he would come here and 
testify. Well, he called your bluff, and now you are 
scrambling, and now you----
    Mr. Donalds. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Goldman. No, I will not----
    Mr. Donalds. You sure?
    Mr. Goldman. [continuing] And now you are scrambling. Now 
you are desperate, desperate to find anything to divert 
attention away from your abject lack of evidence connecting 
President Biden to any business venture of Hunter Biden's, to 
any wrongdoing. So, we are going to hold us here on a contempt 
hearing because you do not want to see him testify in public. 
You just want to be able to filter his testimony and closed-
door testimony as you have been doing this entire Congress.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Goldman. I will yield to my Ranking Member. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. The District Court for the District 
of Columbia, Judge Kelly, obliterated the argument that Mr.----
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Biggs for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the risk of taking 
the bait, which is all this is, it is laying a little bait. It 
might be just too attractive for me, so I got to get in on it 
maybe just a little bit.
    I am intrigued by the assertions of my colleagues, who 
claimed that the Hunter Biden violation of the subpoena 
scenario is the same as issuing subpoenas to four Members of 
Congress. I am intrigued by that. I really am. It is 
interesting. Had the illegitimate J6 group decided to pursue to 
enforce its dubious subpoena against me, my counsel was 
prepared to argue that service of that subpoena was 
insufficient, and so asserted to counsel for the J6 Committee. 
Had the illegitimate J6 gaggle sought to enforce its subpoenas, 
my counsel, and I believe the counsel of each Member of 
Congress who had been subpoenaed, ostensibly subpoenaed, 
punitively subpoenaed, would also have asserted successfully a 
privilege under the Constitution of the United States.
    Those questions never rose formally because the now defunct 
J6 Committee, which has no authority anymore because it passed 
with the closing of the last session of Congress, I think that 
that cabal surely understood how its tenuous claims were and 
chose not to try and enforce its questionable subpoenas. And 
why do I say that? I say it because in reporting to Reuters, 
the Committee's own Chairman, Bennie Thompson, said this: 
``There are some questions of whether we have the authority to 
compel testimony from Republican colleagues.'' He knew you did 
not have that authority, but yet you still try to assert it.
    Now, what is the distinction? Well, Hunter Biden has no 
claim to insufficiency of service of process. Why do we know? 
Because he stood on the lawn of the Senate the same day that he 
was supposed to be here and asserted publicly, hey, I am 
supposed to be somewhere else. I am supposed to be giving a 
deposition, but I will not do it. I will not do it. Second, 
Hunter Biden has claimed no privilege against testifying before 
this Committee or the Judiciary Committee pursuant to the 
subpoena, except for this privilege that he has claimed 
throughout his life.
    And as the LA Times said about Hunter Biden, ``Biden is 
still on the nepotism gravy train.'' As the Daily Mail 
reported, ``Hunter admits he got $50,000-a-month job on the 
board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma because of his family 
name.'' And it goes on and on. Again, the LA Times describes 
Hunter Biden as a ``child of privilege.'' That is the only 
privilege Hunter Biden has ever asserted. He asserts not that 
he should be exempt from testifying because there is some 
constitutional prescription that even the Chairman of this 
Committee would agree to as Bennie Thompson agreed to on the J6 
Committee's issuance of subpoenas to Members of Congress. No, 
he does not assert that kind of privilege. He asserts only the 
privilege that he does not need to come and testify before the 
U.S. Congress, who has issued him subpoena, his attorneys 
acknowledged that subpoena, and he personally has acknowledged 
that subpoena, for the simple reason that he is a Biden.
    So where are we? Merrick Garland has authorized pursuing 
Republicans for contempt of Congress. He must also authorize 
prosecution of Hunter Biden. Failure to do so on the part of 
the Attorney General will show his contempt for Congress as 
well, but it will show even greater contempt for the American 
people who now recognize the weaponization of Federal 
Government and the two-tier system promulgated by Democrats.
    Mr. Chairman, to former Chairman Thompson's questioning of 
his own authority to actually issue subpoenas to Members of 
Congress, Chairman Jordan requested legal analysis and 
authorities, but Chairman Thompson never responded. That 
Committee could have pursued contempt if they thought there was 
valid subpoenas issued and a warranted contempt citation. They 
chose not to, their authority expired, and ours is not expired. 
We should issue contempt. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three names: Jordan, 
Perry and Biggs. Not a law firm. Three Members of this body who 
defied a legitimately issued subpoena upheld by courts of law. 
I think it is really important to remember that when the word 
``hypocrisy'' is thrown around by some of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle.
    The other thing I think that is really important before I 
yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Biden--Hunter Biden
    -knows that if he appeared in camera and in secret to be 
deposed, Republicans would cherry pick what he said and leak 
it. He preferred sunshine. He preferred to come here out in the 
open and testify before the entire American public, this body, 
and everyone watching, and take his chances with public 
testimony that could not be used to his detriment by cherry 
picking and distortion. That is and ought to be the right of an 
American citizen. I yield to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Connolly. I wanted to 
introduce for the record, Mr. Chairman, United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia opinion in RNC v. Nancy 
Pelosi, rendered by Judge Tim Kelly, rejecting, obliterating, 
and demolishing every argument that we heard from Mr. Perry and 
Mr. Biggs. Their whole argument seems to be that Republicans 
were entitled to blow off subpoenas of the U.S. Congress that 
came from the January 6 Committee because they did not like the 
committee. They did not think it was legitimate. They thought 
it was not validly authorized. The courts roundly and uniformly 
rejected those arguments, so now they purport to render the law 
for themselves. If they do not want to comply with a subpoena, 
they will not, and yet they would now hold other witnesses, 
like Hunter Biden, to a standard they will not accept for 
themselves, and that is a remarkable thing.
    I started off this hearing, Mr. Chairman, by saying we 
believe that everybody should respond in good faith to the 
subpoenas of U.S. Congress. Now, Mr. Biden asserts that he 
responded in good faith to what you repeatedly publicly asked 
him to do, and he has at least got an arguable, colorable claim 
that that is true. All the case law I have been able to read, 
Mr. Chairman, suggests that the Committee is supposed to engage 
in good faith negotiation with witnesses, which is precisely 
what the January 6 Committee did.
    The dates do not always work out. The times do not always 
work out. Some people want to assert privilege. Some people do 
not. There are certain questions that are agreed to or not, so 
there are negotiations, but as I read at the beginning of this 
hearing----
    Mr. Perry. Will the gentleman take a question?
    Mr. Raskin. I will soon as I get to that----
    Mr. Connolly. Excuse me. It is my time, Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. So, why has the 
Committee not engaged in that negotiation with Hunter Biden? I 
just do not understand that. I mean, he is the guy who appears 
to be 99 percent willing to do what you even asked him to do in 
the written subpoena, but he has given 100 percent good faith 
compliance with what you repeatedly publicly challenged him to 
do.
    So, I do not understand why you will not meet with them and 
work it out, which is what every court in the land has said. 
The courts do not want to be involved in all this stuff, 
especially when you have got a guy like him who is 
overwhelmingly complying with what you are asking for, unlike 
all of these colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who, 
unfortunately, 100 percent defied the subpoenas of the U.S. 
Congress, which is what they did. And I do not think those 
people should be able to vote on any subpoena relating to any 
witness in this Committee until they render cooperation with 
the January 6 Committee and come forth and tell us what they 
know.
    Now, there is another point that I need to make, and I want 
to thank Mr. Connolly for his indulgence here. Our good friend, 
the gentlelady from Georgia, referred to the murder of Ashli 
Babbitt. Well, the Department of Justice, the United States 
Attorney, and the U.S. Capitol Police Inspector General all 
rejected the idea that there was any----
    Ms. Greene. Point of order, Mr. Chairman, or inquiry.
    Mr. Goldman. There is no such thing.
    Ms. Greene. There has never been a court hearing.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, we agree----
    Ms. Greene. Michael Byrd was never charged.
    Chairman Comer. Reclaiming order here. The time is Mr. 
Connolly's. I yield back to Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Raskin. But I will submit for the record a document 
entitled, ``Department of Justice Closes Investigation Into the 
Death of Ashli Babbitt.'' United States Capitol Police: ``The 
USCP Completes Internal Investigation into the January 6 
Officer-involved Shooting.'' I think it was a scandal. It was a 
tragedy that people died because Donald Trump put them at risk, 
as many of the former insurrectionists, that are now willing to 
say publicly that he said you have got to go and you have got 
to fight and fight like hell, or you will not have----
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired. Mr. Connolly's time 
has expired. Mr. Connolly's time has expired. Mr. Connolly's 
time has expired. Order. Order.
    Mr. Raskin. I was trying to reclaim the time the gentlelady 
stole from me. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. We stopped the clock. I watched it. I am 
paying close attention. I do feel compelled to respond to this. 
We have engaged in good-faith negotiation. We have offered 
every witness a narrow scope of topics, documents in advance. 
They can choose the day. Hunter Biden's lawyer has not engaged 
with the Committee regarding Hunter Biden.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Waltz, our newest Member, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Goldman. Did you respond to their letters to offer to 
cooperate, sir? Mr. Chairman, did you respond to the lawyer's 
offer to cooperate with the Committee and meet with the 
Committee?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Waltz for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an incredible 
first hearing with the Committee----
    Chairman Comer. Yes. Welcome to the Oversight Committee.
    Mr. Waltz. It was, but, you know, I mean, this was entirely 
predictable, I think, what we were going to hear and see today. 
We saw that Hunter came and staged a PR stunt with my friend 
from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz, that was clearly organized and 
recognized. But what I am hearing from the Ranking Member and 
his colleagues that claim that transcripts are subject to 
``partisan and twisted leaks and distortions'' is incredibly 
rich.
    Let us talk about calling the kettle black. First, the 
country suffered through an entire impeachment proceeding of a 
President of the United States because of a false dossier in a 
SCIF, a compartmented facility, where every hearing and every 
transcript started with this in an unclassified proceeding, 
then to have it selectively leaked and lied to the American 
people to the great damage to this Nation, but then bring it to 
this Committee.
    Because I am new, I watched yesterday as Committee 
Democrats continue to spin false narratives, several of which 
went out just yesterday as interviews were ongoing with Hunter 
Biden's art dealer, which is rich in and of itself, that 
Congressman Goldman on the other side of the aisle went to the 
press during the interviews and spun a narrative while it was 
going on. But he conveniently admitted that 70 percent of the 
art buyers were Biden donors, so we can go down the line and 
talk false spin.
    Mr. Goldman. That is absurd. That is not the fact.
    Mr. Waltz. But the other thing that we are hearing today, 
well, Member so-and-so, Congressman so-and-so, Congressman 
Jordan, they did not comply with their subpoenas, but let us 
have a quick lesson on the Constitution. Article I, Section 6 
of the Constitution, the Speech and Debate Clause, essentially 
protects all of us from abiding by each other's subpoenas. 
Otherwise, this body would do nothing but subpoena each other. 
So, I would encourage my colleagues to look up Article I, 
Section 6, and look at the case law of the Speech and Debate 
Clause and why my colleagues rightfully did not abide by that 
subpoena.
    But let us talk about precedent for a moment of a 
President's son abiding by lawful subpoenas of the Congress. 
Donald Trump, Jr., came before this body. He came before the 
House Intelligence Committee, he came before the House 
Judiciary Committee, he came before the Senate Intelligence 
Committee twice, he came before the so-called Jan. 6 Committee, 
all behind closed doors, where lawyers can sit down, both sides 
of the aisle, and have a conversation, go through documents all 
under oath, which is the precedent for any committee. Don, Jr. 
came before committees and came before this body 5 times behind 
closed doors. What is Hunter Biden afraid of? What won't he do?
    And, Ranking Member Raskin, you are going to reap what you 
sow my friend. I mean, you insisted on depositions for those 
who appeared before the Jan. 6 Committee. When Steve Bannon 
agreed to testify publicly, you argued, sir, that he should 
have to sit for a closed-door interview, just like every other 
witness. ``The way we have treated every single witness is the 
same. They come in behind closed doors. They talk to the 
Committee there.'' You said on an interview in front of CBS in 
2022. But now that Republicans are doing the same process, 
following House rules, doing the investigating, somehow Hunter 
Biden, because he is a Biden, should be held to a different 
standard. At the end of the day, we had a government official 
and the President of the United States, a Vice President, set 
up 30 shell companies. Why? What product did those companies 
sell? Nothing.
    Vice President Biden was charged with two countries in his 
portfolio, China and Ukraine. While the Vice President, his son 
traveled on official business on Air Force Two and received 
massive monetary contributions afterwards. We have laws in 
place, colleagues, that prevent foreign powers from influencing 
government officials. World policies changed as a result of the 
dinners, the calls, the text messages that we know President 
Biden engaged in through his son. We have a duty to get to the 
bottom of it. We will reference this contempt, and we will see 
if the Attorney General will uphold a fair standard of the 
law----
    Mr. Raskin. The time is up, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Waltz [continuing]. And prosecute Hunter Biden. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Crockett for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. OK. All right. So, we love the Constitution 
today, and we also want to talk about foreign money coming in. 
Have you all seen the report that was just produced where this 
Chairman decided that he was going to block this Committee from 
receiving additional information about you all's guy, Trump, 
and all the money that he took? From what we did receive, we 
know that Trump got almost $6 million that we can account for, 
and we know that there is more there. From China specifically, 
we found almost $8 million total that he accepted from foreign 
governments while he was serving as the President of these 
United States. But we are concerned about the President's son.
    The President's son, who has not been involved in his 
Administration.
    I just want to run it back, though, to the very beginning 
because this is something that I just cannot get over. I cannot 
get over the gentlelady from South Carolina talking about White 
privilege. It was a spit in the face, at least of mine as a 
Black woman, for you to talk about what White privilege looks 
like, especially from that side of the aisle. And let me quote 
your now ousted Speaker and what he had to say about the 
Republican Party and you all's lack of diversity. ``When you 
look at the Democrats, they actually look like America. When I 
look at my Party, we look like the most restrictive country 
club in America.'' So let me tell you something, you all do not 
know what white privilege looks like, but I am going to show 
you a little bit of something.
    You see, you want to talk about a two-tiered justice 
system, and this is the only time that you all have ever 
referenced it when this country has a history, when it comes to 
Black and Brown folk, of having two separate sets of rules.
    And right now, what you want to do is have two separate 
sets of rules because Mr. Moskowitz offered you all a fair 
situation. He said he would vote for Hunter to be held in 
contempt. Even if you all remove all of the Members of 
Congress, there are still other people that you all have not 
decided, that you all have excuses for, but you all do not want 
to hold them in contempt, but for some reason, it makes sense 
to hold Hunter Biden in contempt who has tried to comply.
    And let me tell you why nobody wants to talk to you all 
behind closed doors: because you all lie. That is just the 
bottom line. You have done it thus far in this investigation. 
You have done it thus far as it relates to this Committee and 
every single hearing, you all spin, spin, spin. I do not know 
how you all are still standing right now because you should be 
quite dizzy from all the spinning that you are constantly doing 
when it comes to spinning the truth. You talk about free and 
fair elections, but you back a guy who we know tried to steal 
the election.
    And this is not about what Democrats have to say. Let me 
remind you, for those of you that do not know, how the justice 
system works. It is not a matter of the President went in and 
indicted Trump, but we are talking about grand juries. Grand 
juries are comprised of American citizens, and the people that 
have entered pleas of guilty that will be flipping on your 
leader in a minute. They are Republicans--I do want to point 
that out--and half of them were Republicans that were 
handpicked by Donald Trump himself.
    So, to be clear, whatever happens to your little leader is 
going to be because of the actions that he took. So, you can 
talk all you want to about how January 6 was nonsense, but all 
of you all were running. At that time, you all were grabbing 
you all's gas masks, and you all were running to your offices 
because you did not know that they were coming to kill you. You 
should have cared that somebody was there to protect you, but 
instead, you want to play games because you found out that it 
was your leader that decided that he wanted to propagate an 
insurrection on our country. So do not tell me that you care 
about the Constitution because you do not. All you care about 
is Trump getting reelected. And I will yield the last of my 
time to my leader.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Ms. Crockett, for your 
eloquent and powerful and irrefutable remarks. I would like to 
just add a couple of points to what you have said. On January 
6, Senator Ted Cruz described it as terrorism. They later came 
to attack him during their revisionist Orwellian, Stalinist 
attempt to rewrite history. Unfortunately for them, we know 
that 147 or 48 of our officers were wounded, bloodied, and 
hospitalized by the rabid mob that beset the Capitol that day.
    We know that Kevin McCarthy, one of their deposed leaders 
over on their side, called Donald Trump from his office to 
complain about how his people were storming the Capitol and 
putting people's lives in danger. And Donald Trump said, no, 
no, those are not my people, those are Antifa, and McCarthy 
corrected him and said, no, those are your people, Mr. 
President, to which Donald Trump said, well, maybe they just 
care a little bit more about who won the election than you did, 
Kevin McCarthy. You guys have got to deal with reality here.
    By the way, the Speech and Debate Clause stands for the 
exact opposite principle, who our distinguished new Member just 
spoke about a moment ago. It says that Members of Congress 
cannot be questioned anywhere else other than Congress, so you 
should read the Speech or Debate Clause aloud.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Comer. Let him finish his sentence there. Now the 
Chair recognizes Mr. Burchett from Tennessee for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Green. Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues even 
will not talk about the justice system, so let us talk about 
it. November of last year, the Chairman issued a subpoena to 
Hunter Biden to appear on December 13 for a closed-door 
deposition. Instead of respecting the rule of law, Hunter Biden 
chose to give a press conference on the front steps of the 
Senate. To show such contempt for Congress without fear of 
repercussions highlights a theme throughout this Administration 
and Democrat administrations before it. If you are a big-name 
Democrat, then you are immune to prosecution. Former Attorney 
General Eric Holder said as much in a memo he wrote regarding 
collateral consequences.
    For those who do not know, the collateral consequence 
policy allowed prosecutors to consider whether charging a 
company or individual results in greater societal harm than not 
charging them. It is why the banks were not held criminally 
accountable to the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis. It is 
why Jeffrey Epstein's clients are not behind bars. Is also the 
mindset of President Biden and his family: too big to jail, not 
too big to fail, too big to jail.
    The two-tiered justice system is a disgrace to our country 
and the principles it was founded on. I thank the Chairman and 
the Committee for the hard work they put into hold the Biden 
Administration accountable, but I doubt our Justice Department 
has the guts or the wherewithal to do anything about it. And I 
would like to yield my time to my friend from Florida, Byron 
Donalds. Actually, let me yield to Ms. Mace. She has not gotten 
enough quality TV time today, so I will give her a little more 
time.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, and then I will yield to my colleague 
from Florida. So, I am going to try to be quick here because I 
was accused by my colleague on the other side of the aisle 
about my White privilege. I want to say, No. 1, as the former 
Ranking Member of the Civil Rights Subcommittee under Chairman 
Raskin last session, I take great pride as a White female 
Republican to address the inadequacies in our country. I come 
from a district where rich and poor is literally Black and 
White, Black versus White on most days. My largest jail in my 
district, which is the largest jail in the state of South 
Carolina, has had 7 or 8 deaths in the last 2 years, and I was 
there with our Black and African American council members 
trying to get the right thing done. And I come from a district 
where Black men had been killed by law enforcement, tased to 
death in our jails. And I have stood with those Black families 
because I know the differences that they see day to day in 
their life, and I try to do the best that I can.
    I come from a district where the first African American, 
first Black man in the U.S. House of Representatives was Joseph 
P. Rainey--represented my district back in the 1800s with that. 
The last Black Member of the U.S. House of Representatives 
before Reconstruction came from South Carolina, George P. 
Murray, a Black man, former slave, an entrepreneur who founded 
the Republican Party in South Carolina. One of the founding 
members was named Robert Smalls, who commandeered a Confederate 
ship and gave it to Union soldiers and served his country 
admirably in the process. In my district was Harriet Tubman, 
and you can see it in the movie ``Harriet,'' who rescued more 
than 700 slaves in one night in Beaufort County, South 
Carolina.
    So, I am very well aware of our rich history and try to 
recognize it as best as I can in the position that I have, and 
I resent the fact that you are going to throw that in my face 
up here. I am one of the few people that you will see on my 
side of the aisle trying to do the right thing to the right 
people every single day. And I would like to yield the 
remaining balance of time to my colleague from Florida.
    Mr. Donalds. This has been a very interesting hearing. Mr. 
Waltz, welcome to Oversight. Yes, it usually gets like this. 
Let us be very clear. This is not about Hunter Biden's White 
privilege. This is about Hunter Biden's Democrat privilege 
because Donald Trump Jr. showed up for five congressional 
subpoenas. There was never this circus where he was subpoenaed 
by House Democrats and he showed up on the Senate side or 
showed up at the White House to answer in some fake, phony, 
lame press conference, not actually going to the House and 
doing what he was compelled by a subpoena to do. Hunter Biden 
did that.
    And then he has the unmitigated gall to show up here when 
we know that we are going through, actually, the legislation 
for contempt, which by the way, Mr. Chairman, we should 
actually get to the legislation of contempt. Speechifying is 
great, but let us do our business, Members. He has the gall to 
come here, show up, and then when the Democrats are saying, 
hey, he wants to speak, he leaves. This is a joke. This is a 
farce. The man has been subpoenaed by Congress.
    Oh, and by the way, the January 6 Committee, Mr. Raskin, 
which you did sit on, by the way, that was not a normally 
ordered committee of Congress because Nancy Pelosi did not want 
the Republican Members that then Leader McCarthy put up.
    Mr. Raskin. According to the courts, it was.
    Mr. Donalds. It is my time, sir. Be quiet.
    Mr. Raskin. But would you yield for a correction?
    Mr. Donalds. I will not. I was respectful of your time. I 
did not say anything. So, ladies and gentlemen, let us move 
forward with our business. He should be held in contempt. There 
was a subpoena. He did not answer it. Any other American would 
be held in contempt by Congress, any other. This is Democrat 
privilege of the highest order. Let us do our jobs. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Ocasio-Cortez from New York.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to address 
briefly, quickly, that moment about privilege and all of this 
that we are seeing here. It was a very beautiful speech by the 
gentlelady, who, as she mentioned, helped lead the now Majority 
side's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee. But I 
think it is so exemplary of the point that she also oversaw the 
elimination of the Civil Rights Subcommittee on this Committee, 
which really kind of gives the whole game away.
    We show up, we give speeches, we give flowery words, but at 
the end of the day participate in the structural erosion of the 
rights and representation of people that are marginalized--
women, people of color, people that just need to see their due 
process and civil liberties protected in this country--but I 
will move on.
    Also, the Republican side had mentioned in their many 
raisings of the January 6 Committee, that it is not just Hunter 
Biden, you, me, any individual subject to equal treatment under 
the law, to be held up to accountability under the law, but it 
is also these committees and this Committee that is subject to 
oversight and law. We must comply with the law here as well.
    Now, I may be one of the very few people that actually 
believes in Congress, you know, in this country, but I do, and 
many of us do here. And we have an obligation to engage in 
good-faith participation, to execute and comply with a 
subpoena. The Chairman said in front of the country several 
times to Hunter Biden, you can show up here in front of the 
world, in front of the public. Hunter Biden took him up on that 
offer. He said, I will show up in public. I will show up in 
public. He showed up here today. He showed up here in the past.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I know you do your best with what you 
have got, but you have got Members here that has submitted 
falsified evidence to the record, you have Members here that 
have submitted in mischaracterized closed-door hearings. And 
people want to say back and forth, at the end of the day, it 
does not matter what Party it has happened from. You have got 
Members who have engaged in revenge porn in this Committee. So, 
it is understandable why Hunter Biden would want to testify in 
front of the public for the American people to be able to 
witness that testimony for themselves. You have got Members who 
have defied subpoenas. You have got Members, who, we are 1 year 
into the term, asking what the rules are at the beginning of 
the Committee. The book was given to us on day one, and so what 
we should do is allow the man to testify.
    I believe in the power of the Oversight Committee. Frankly, 
I believe in it, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats 
have the Chair, because I believe that this Committee should 
have the power of oversight, and we cannot do that on a 
partisan basis. And so, for that, I implore this Committee to 
allow Hunter Biden to testify publicly. I implore and I ask for 
that to happen, and we cannot do that by getting engaged in 
this back and forth on a defiance of the subpoena. Let him 
comply. Let him do it today, let him do it tomorrow, but let 
the man do it. And with that, I yield back to the Ranking 
Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I think you went 
right to the heart of the issue here. You know, if this ended 
up going to court, Mr. Chairman, and I hope it does not. I 
really hope that this Committee will act in a way to negotiate 
and achieve a compromise with the witness. But if it goes to 
the court, it is going to present a novel question. What 
happens when a Committee, represented by its distinguished 
Chairman, goes out in public and repeatedly invites and 
challenges a witness to come before the Committee, and then 
that witness gives the answer, yes, I will come in. At that 
point, the Committee pulls a bait and switch and says, well, we 
actually do not want you to come before the full Committee as 
was offered repeatedly in public by the Chairman, but instead, 
we would like you to come to a backroom and do it there in a 
closed deposition.
    Now, undoubtedly, if that had been the original offer, the 
Committee would stand in a very good place, the way we did with 
Mr. Biggs and Mr. Perry and Mr. Jordan, because they were told 
to come in, they were subpoenaed, and they blew off the 
subpoenas of the Committee, which is why I do not think anybody 
should be voting on that side, other than Ms. Mace because Ms. 
Mace is the one who took the position that the rule of law 
means something, and I take the position, if we give somebody a 
subpoena, they should come in. But there is a very sticky 
problem now. What happens when we give them one offer, A, and 
then switch it over to offer B? That is why I hope you will 
work it out, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding.
    Chairman Comer. And the gentlelady's time has expired. To 
respond to the gentlelady, he can come in for a hearing after 
the deposition. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. McClain for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. McClain. So, I just want to bring everything back 
home. This hearing is a contempt of Congress hearing for Hunter 
Biden. It is not about January 6. It is not about Mr. Perry. It 
is not about White privilege. It is a contempt of Congress 
hearing about Hunter Biden. Although I appreciate the diversion 
tactics, like my colleague from Florida said, let us get back 
to our business, which is actually the contempt of Congress.
    I also want to thank my colleague, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I 
agree, let him comply, right? Let him comply, and with our 
Ranking Member: let us follow the rule of law. So, in contrast, 
let me read the rules of the Committee, real quickly. It is on 
page 9 of the rulebook, right? And it talks about notices, 
notices for the taking of depositions shall ``specify the date, 
the time, and the place of examination.'' Depositions may 
continue from day to day. Then you go to Section D: 
``consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the 
Committee shall include,''--listen for it, listen for it--``3 
calendar days' notice.''
    So, although I am sure any defendant would like to come in, 
and say, judge, I want to come in on this day, and the 
defendant is going to tell the judge and the legal system how 
the trial is going to run. Unfortunately, that is not how it 
works. It is really simple. So, I do agree with you, let him 
comply. Let him comply with the subpoena that we gave him. He 
chose not to. So, therefore, we are holding Hunter Biden in 
contempt of Congress. And I would also like to say, you had the 
opportunity when you all were in charge to do the same with the 
Members on our side of the aisle. You did not do that. That is 
not our fault. That is yours. So, we are here to talk about 
Hunter Biden.
    For everyone watching today and for my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, I want to be clear, again, what this 
hearing is really about. Hunter Biden was subpoenaed to answer 
Congress, right? That is it. Questions. But he violated Federal 
law by failing to appear before the Committee. You cannot spin 
that for my colleague on the other side of the aisle. You 
cannot spin that.
    The bottom line is Hunter did not show up, and he committed 
a crime. You see, we are a land of laws, and we must follow 
those laws, and that is what we are here to do today. Instead, 
he was on the grounds to the U.S. Capitol where he made a 
public statement without taking questions from the media, 
conveniently. So instead of showing up for his legal 
obligation, he showed up just steps away from a hearing room to 
spit in the face of this Congress. And unfortunately, that is 
Hunter Biden's MO.
    We are merely doing our job. What we are doing here today 
is showing the country that Hunter will not receive special 
treatment due to his last name, it is very, very simple, and he 
will be held to the same standard that every other American 
citizen would be expected to do. Can you imagine if you are 
average America, and you get a subpoena and you go in and tell 
the judge, hey, let me tell you, here is how it is going to 
work, judge. I am not showing up. I am not showing up. I am 
going to do it my way. I know we have laws, but, ah, do not 
worry about those laws because--that would never fly, but that 
is exactly what Hunter Biden is doing.
    And if we care about this institution, if we care about 
democracy, at some point in time we have to hold the law and 
people who break the law accountable or, like my colleague 
said, we are going to have anarchy. So simply put, it is not 
about anything else. We are talking about Hunter Biden and his 
noncompliance. And you can get up and scream and holler, and 
rant and rave. And talk about everything but the fact we 
subpoenaed--Congress, legally--Hunter Biden, and he chose not 
to show up. Read the rules. He has to follow the law. I know 
that is a very foreign concept, but you have to do it, and for 
the Biden family, you, too, have to follow the laws. And with 
that, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Raskin. A quick parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady makes an excellent point about 
the 3-day notice requirement for subpoenas. I do not think that 
has ever been complied with in this Committee. Will you commit 
to----
    Mrs. McClain. That is not my issue. I am just reading the 
laws.
    Mr. Raskin. No, it is my time, Mrs. McClain. Thank you so 
much. Would you commit to honor the 3-day notice requirement 
that Mrs. McClain properly invoked?
    Mrs. McClain. Would I comply?
    Chairman Comer. I will say this to answer the Ranking 
Member's questions, then I will recognize Ms. Stansbury. We 
have complied with the 3-day.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, we might have a dispute about it, but 
you will continue that going forward. You will continue going 
forward.
    Mrs. McClain. Will you comply?
    Chairman Comer. We have followed the rules.
    Mrs. McClain. That is my question. Will you comply?
    Mr. Raskin. We do not have the Chair, Mrs. McClain, and you 
do not have the time.
    Chairman Comer. We have followed the rules. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Stansbury.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it is always 
a wild and interesting adventure here in the Oversight 
Committee, and this morning certainly does not disappoint.
    You know, I want to talk for a few moments about the 
resolution that has been proposed in the ANS here because that 
is what we are here to debate this morning, and really the 
content of that, including the assertions about the 
investigation that led to the moment that we are at here today. 
But I am really glad that my colleague mentioned that we are a 
land of laws and that every citizen should have to comply with 
them, including Members of this Committee, not to mention, a 
Chairman, who was subpoenaed during the last Congress and 
refused to respond.
    So, if we are going to apply these laws, then they must 
apply equally, I would think, to even Members of this 
Committee, and certainly to the frontrunner in the GOP's 
Presidential election, which I will get to in a moment. But let 
us talk a little bit about this ANS and about the background 
and correct the record a little bit.
    First of all, I want to talk about the evidence that was 
presented to this Committee as part of this investigation: more 
than 62,000 pages of records from the National Archives on top 
of 20,000 pages that were already made publicly available; 
30,000 pages of private bank records; 2,000 pages of activity 
reports provided by the Treasury Department; dozens of hours of 
testimony from special counsel, U.S. attorneys, DOJ officials, 
FBI, IRS agents, financial advisors, friends, business 
partners; evidence provided by the Ways and Means Committee; 
and expert witness testimony by the GOP's own witnesses right 
here in this Committee in September, who sat right there at 
that table and said there was not sufficient evidence to 
support proceeding with an impeachment. In fact, there are 
numerous members of the GOP currently serving in Congress who 
do not believe there is sufficient evidence. So, my question 
is, where are the receipts? You have reviewed thousands of 
pages of documents, countless hours of testimony, talked to 
expert witnesses, including your own witnesses, that cannot 
provide a single iota of evidence of wrongdoing by this 
President.
    But last week, House Democrats released this. We have the 
receipts. In fact, they are all right here in the Mazars 
report. And for any of you that have not dug in on this report, 
I want to talk a little bit about what this report shows 
because it is actual receipts from foreign governments who 
spent $7.8 million at Trump properties during his presidency 
while they were actively seeking to influence foreign policy 
and decisions by the Administration.
    Mr. Donalds. Will the gentlelady yield for a question?
    Ms. Stansbury. So, let us talk about some of the receipts 
that are in here. Malaysia: over a quarter million dollars was 
spent by representatives of Malaysia while their ex-President 
was being investigated for a massive corruption scheme and 
which Trump's ex-fundraiser was indicted for illegally lobbying 
on. Saudi Arabia: tens of thousands of dollars spent by the 
Saudi government and by the Crown Prince and his staff----
    Mr. Donalds. Do you yield to a question?
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Who later gave $2 billion to 
Jared Kushner's private firm. Qatar: tens of thousands of 
dollars spent by Qatar during what was described as a charming 
offensive and an arms sale to the Government of Qatar by the 
Trump Administration. Kazakhstan: thousands of dollars spent by 
the President of Kazakhstan on a controversial visit, which 
raised questions about human rights violations, business 
dealings, and a money laundering scheme involving Donald 
Trump's properties in New York.
    So, my question is, if the GOP actually cares about 
criminal activity, how about they investigate the receipts that 
we have right here----
    Mr. Donalds. Can I answer that question?
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. And the evidence of influence 
peddling by Donald Trump, and a man who is currently facing 
trial in four jurisdictions on 91 counts of criminal activity, 
who has been twice impeached by this body and is currently 
trying to run for President again and which much----
    Mr. Donalds. I would love to answer your question.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Of this Committee has already 
endorsed. This is not factually based. This is a farce. This is 
a political stunt, and it is designed to help Donald Trump 
secure the nomination this November.
    Mr. Donalds. Will you yield to a question?
    Ms. Stansbury. So, let us call it what it is, and with 
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time back to the Chair.
    Chairman Comer. Four seconds, 3, 2. All right. Time has 
expired.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter 
information for the record.
    Chairman Comer. What is the information? State the 
information.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you.
    Mr. Raskin. I reserve the right to object. The Minority was 
not provided a copy of the material for the record. In the past 
she has displayed pornography. Are pornographic photos allowed 
to be displayed in this Committee room, Mr. Chairman?
    Ms. Greene. It is not pornography.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. You are the expert. I will----
    Ms. Greene. I am not an expert, Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, I object to the unanimous consent.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Chairman, I object.
    Chairman Comer. Hold on. Hold on.
    Mr. Raskin. All you need is one objection.
    Chairman Comer. We need decorum. I am going to let the lady 
state, and then if you object still, we will go from there.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, do not we have an opportunity to 
review the material before it is provided?
    Ms. Greene. I reclaim my time. Mr. Chair, I reclaim my 
time. I would like to enter for the record an excerpt from a 
bank statement, a bank statement that is public in regards to 
Hunter Biden and his bank accounts and his payments----
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Mfume has already objected.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Chairman, I object to the Styrofoam 
board. It is not a document.
    Chairman Comer. Reclaiming order. Reclaiming order. 
Reclaiming order.
    Ms. Greene. Clearly, Democrats today do not want the truth 
to come out.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, this just means that any Member 
will be able to add to their 5 minutes by putting on a display 
of the placard.
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter for the 
record a statement from a bank report that shows proof of 
Hunter Biden's bank account----
    Mr. Goldman. Could we get some order here?
    Chairman Comer. OK, OK. Let us hold off on this. There are 
several objections. We are going to talk, staffs between each 
other, and then we will go from there, but I understand. I 
think what you are saying is from the laptop?
    Ms. Greene. Someone on this Committee accused me of revenge 
porn, and I have a right to respond to that, and I would like 
to introduce into the evidence for the record.
    Mr. Raskin. But within the rules of the Committee, 
everyone, Mr. Chairman----
    Ms. Greene. This is important evidence for the record, and 
it pertains to our investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter 
Biden, and this comes from----
    Mr. Goldman. So, do it behind closed doors like you do it--
--
    Chairman Comer. It does not appear to be bad, but you all--
--
    Mr. Raskin. But, Mr. Chairman, she has got nine placards 
here. Does she get an additional 5 minutes or 10 minutes?
    Ms. Greene. But I do not understand how any of you, who 
support the genital mutilation of children and drag queens 
showing their body parts at parades, are offended----
    Chairman Comer. OK. OK. OK. We are going to reclaim order 
here. We will suspend and let the staff discuss the evidence 
from the laptop being entered into the record. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Fallon from Texas.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Hold on. Hold on. We will suspend, so 
we need to stop for a moment. OK. Hold on. We will do this. You 
all are going to discuss.
    [Pause.]
    Chairman Comer. Reconvened. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Fallon from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, you have to 
acknowledge that there is a concentrated effort to deflect and 
distract. And this is not about January 6, and unfortunately 
for the Democrats, it is not about Donald Trump. This is about 
Biden family corruption, plain and simple. And what really gets 
me is from just an individual and to being an American, is the 
fact that I disagree vehemently with most of our friends across 
the aisle when it comes to politics. I will submit that most 
folks that serve in Congress, whether they are Democrats or 
Republicans, are not corrupt. They are not on the make. They 
are not trying to enrich themselves. Hunter Biden is. The Biden 
family was.
    And so, to sit here and defend a fellow that does not merit 
that kind of defense is just interesting, and, quite frankly, I 
find it sad as well. And I think he is a coward to come in here 
with this stunt again because, you know, you can define someone 
that is all about themselves by the way in which they act, and 
he clearly does that. That is what we are here to discuss.
    So, let us talk about the process because we have been told 
that, hey, he was here. He is ready to testify. Just let him 
testify. For the American people, to make it very clear and 
digestible, when you are deposed in Congress, the Majority gets 
an hour and the Minority gets an hour, and it can go on 
indefinitely. So, what usually happens is you can get 100 hours 
of questions in, you can go drill down, you can get into the 
efficacy of the procedure because you can go in depth, and you 
can hold whoever is the witness to account.
    If we have just public testimony, what happens here is we 
all get 5 minutes times, roughly, about 60 equals 300. Doing 
the math without a calculator, that is 5 hours. So, instead of 
hundreds of hours, you only get 5. And witnesses are very good 
with their counsel to deflect and distract and answer really 
slowly, et cetera. That is why this is about procedure: a 
hundred hours, 200 hours, and then we can come in to public 
testimony and ask questions about what we have read and make 
that public.
    He was here. He left, unfortunately, because I would have 
loved to at least ask questions while he is in the room for the 
first time. I have never laid naked eyes on the man until just 
now. But I would have loved to have asked certain questions, 
like why did he feel special that he could evade paying taxes 
on millions of dollars of income? Why doesn't he pay it back? I 
know a lot of it is already outside of the statute of 
limitations, so he cannot be prosecuted for it, but he can 
certainly still pay it back. That is a moral obligation that 
any American has. I would like to ask him what he did, his 
company did, to ``earn'' $3.5 million from Yelena Baturina, who 
is married to a corrupt oligarch who used to be the mayor of 
Moscow. What did he do to have Kenes Rakishev from Kazakhstan 
to wire him $142,300? The very next day he bought a Porsche. 
What did he do for Mr. Rakishev? What did he do? Did he get a 
naked bribe of $5 million by Mykola Zlochevsky, and did he have 
any experience in the energy sector prior to his father 
becoming Vice President because Zlochevsky paid him a million 
dollars a year?
    Interestingly enough, the CFO of Burisma, Vadym Pozharsky, 
had dinner after he paid Hunter Biden millions of dollars, had 
dinner with his then-sitting Vice President dad at Cafe Milano. 
Did that happen because it seems like it did. Did Kenes 
Rakishev, who essentially bought him the Porsche, he also had 
dinner with his dad. And, yes, coincidentally, Yelena Baturina 
as well had dinner with his sitting Vice President father at 
the time, who I would also like to have asked him, having been 
an entrepreneur, a businessperson myself, why create 30 shell 
companies if you have a legitimate business? What did your 
business do? What services did they provide? What goods did 
they sell? Who pockets seed money? I have never met anybody in 
business that pocketed seed money. It is the lifeblood of your 
venture. Why did you take millions from foreign entities? Who 
was the big guy? Mr. Hunter Biden, was it your dad?
    ``Ten percent for the big guy.'' When you said in that 
WhatsApp message that ``I am sitting right here with my 
father,'' was your father really there? Will you give up your 
geolocations on your phone with your dad so we can determine if 
you guys were actually in the same room at that time? Why did 
you email your daughter or text her and tell her about, ``Well, 
I wish I did not have to give 50 percent of my salary to dad.''
    This all is just questions that, under a deposition when we 
have hundreds of hours, we could ask this, and I am only one 
Member of a committee of 60. I am sure my colleagues would have 
plenty of questions as well. So, this is what it is about. It 
is about justice, and think about who you are defending here. 
He is not worthy of your defense. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Donalds [presiding]. The gentleman yields. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Lynch for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will agree with my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, that this is a 
sad day, but perhaps sad for different reasons. This whole 
process has become such a sham.
    The underlying purpose at the beginning of these hearings 
was that, as was the title of one of the first hearings we had, 
a hearing on the basis for an impeachment inquiry against 
President Joseph R. Biden. And at that hearing, the Republicans 
and the Democrats had an opportunity to bring witnesses forward 
that would actually provide evidence to the Committee so that 
we could make a decision to substantiate or to undermine the 
call for an impeachment. And we sat in this hearing and the 
Republicans brought their witnesses in and, I have to admit, 
witnesses that had considerable experience and expertise and 
impressive resumes. So, this is the big moment. We ask these 
expert witnesses that the Republicans had brought in, are there 
any bases or underpinnings that would warrant an impeachment 
inquiry at this point? And these witnesses had reviewed almost 
all of the 14,000 documents that have been provided: 
transaction reports, Treasury reports.
    And I will give you the answers. These are the Republican 
witnesses. This is Jonathan Turley and I think Bruce Dubinsky 
who were the consultant. One witness said he ``did not believe 
that any of the current evidence would support articles of an 
impeachment.'' That is the Republican witness that you had your 
moment. You had your moment to bring in the witnesses----
    Mr. Gosar. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Lynch. No, I will not yield. I will not yield. The 
other witness that the Republicans brought forward against 
President Biden, he said under questioning he had no basis to 
even suggest that there was corruption, fraud, or any 
wrongdoing on the part of the President.
    Now, we are all familiar with Hunter Biden, his conduct. 
There have been explanations of his drug addiction that had 
been widely publicized, something that maybe a few families of 
Members of this Committee might be familiar with when people go 
sideways because they are addicted to drugs. But the very 
moment to pursue the underlying purpose of these hearings has 
been completely diverted. There has been no evidence brought 
forward against the President of the United States.
    And as to this witness, coming here today or his reluctance 
to submit himself to private investigations can be, I think, 
credibly explained, given the lack of trust that has surrounded 
these hearings. There have been story after story about leaks 
coming from those private interviews, blatant misinformation 
and disinformation that the Chairman and other Members of the 
Committee have offered to the press, so-called bombshells. That 
is what it was on Fox TV, bombshells, turned out to be a dud, 
turned out to be completely false. But under the auspices of 
this Committee, those Members, including the Chairman, put out 
these stories in the press because they could not be refuted. 
They were not subjected to cross-examination. They were not 
provided for or provided by any credible witness. It was just 
made up in the minds of the Chairman or those Members. That is 
why this gentleman wanted to testify in public so someone could 
not distort his statements and leaked them wrongfully to the 
press. The Chairman----
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Luna for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Luna. This contempt proceeding is about upholding the 
rule of law. You know, with recently what happened with Jeffrey 
Epstein and the client lists, we can see that many rich and 
powerful people, to include people in Washington, were held 
above the law, and that is simply not fair. And interestingly 
enough, though, one of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein--Virginia 
Giuffre--actually vindicated Trump. What you will notice is 
that the media did not want to cover that, but why is that? It 
is because it will show a double standard that exists within 
our justice system, and also the media bias against those, 
especially Republicans and conservatives, that are simply not 
guilty of what they are accusing us of.
    So, I just want to put this in perspective. The reason we 
are doing this today is because Hunter Biden failed to comply 
with our subpoena. Hunter Biden--I do not care about his drug 
addiction. Yes, you are right. Many of us have experienced some 
of these awful things impacting our family, but that does not 
mean that Hunter Biden gets a pass or that we should feel any 
sympathy for him breaking the law.
    I want to just point to behind me, U.S. Code 192, Refusal 
of a Witness to Testify or Produce Papers. It means that you 
should be, one, subject to a misdemeanor, a fine up to $1,000, 
and anywhere from 1 to 12 months in prison. For your average 
American that does not have the connections that Hunter Biden 
has, this is what you face.
    So, I want to just point out that when my colleague 
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says we must comply 
with the law, I agree with you. When Ranking Member Raskin 
pointed out that Donald Trump's allies should be held--and we 
should not tolerate these contemptuous violations of the rule 
of law, I agree with that, but then let us use these exact same 
standards against their own.
    Frankly, I think that as of right now, there is a double 
standard that exists. We have to hold him accountable. He broke 
the law. He will be held accountable, and that is exactly why I 
am supporting this contempt proceeding. Thank you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Tlaib for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to yield to our 
Ranking Member. But before I do, after coming back and being in 
our districts for so long, no one is asking me about this. They 
cannot pay their bills. There is a lot of cost-of-living 
struggle all over our districts, and I just wish we would use 
this Committee to talk about those issues. I mean, even on 
having the Sadler folks in here and talking about that, the 
cost of insulin. I mean, Mr. Chair, I would love to work with 
you in a bipartisan way to talk about those issues that I 
think, really, there is responsibility all over the place in 
regards to the fact that so many of our American residents and 
communities across the country are struggling. With that I 
yield to our Ranking Member Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Ms. Tlaib, for your tremendous and 
enduring devotion to your constituents and the public good of 
all Americans.
    Why are we here, colleagues? Well, between January 2017 and 
January 2021, we suffered the most lawless presidency of our 
lifetime. It began by Donald Trump saying that he would keep 
his more than 500 businesses going--that is right--and he would 
not divest himself of any of those businesses, and he would not 
adopt a rule in honor of the Emoluments Clause, consistent with 
the Emoluments Clause, declining to take money from Saudi 
Arabia, China, United Arab Emirates, and so on. And then he 
proceeded, as we have learned, to collect at least $7.8 million 
from foreign governments, and that is actually a tiny fraction 
of what he got because that was only for the first 2 years 
before the Chairman, in his wisdom, decided to tell Mazars to 
stop complying with a judicial court order. And so that was all 
we got was 2 years for four businesses out of more than 500, 
and that was just for 20 countries out of 195 countries on 
earth.
    But the lawlessness lasted up until yesterday when Donald 
Trump's lawyer got up before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
and asserted that President Trump or any other President for 
that matter, has a right to order assassinations of his 
political opponents and not be prosecuted for it, unless he is 
impeached and convicted first, which is completely at odds with 
the text of the Constitution, the history of the Constitution, 
but he asserted a right to assassinate other citizens, unless, 
first, he is impeached or convicted, which means all you got to 
do is kill your political opponents, and then kill enough of 
your political opponents in the House and Senate to keep 
yourself from being impeached or convicted.
    My friends, please do not look at your phones and papers 
right now. This goes to the heart of the Republic. Take a 
position on it. Even if you are going to support it, take a 
position on it. Do not stick your heads in the sand. Donald 
Trump is doing this to our country. He is asserting the right 
of the President to murder people and not be prosecuted for it. 
Well, so why are we here? Well, Donald Trump insisted to 
numerous Republicans and in public and on Twitter and on Truth 
Social that Joe Biden be impeached. Why? Well, because Donald 
Trump was impeached twice, the last time for inciting a violent 
insurrection against his own Vice President, against the 
Congress of the United States, to overthrow an election.
    And if you do not believe that, you have got to tell me 
that if Mike Pence had buckled under to weeks and months of 
pressure, that Donald Trump would have said, oh no, I was just 
kidding. I am not actually going to seize the presidency. Come 
on. If you believe that, you are too innocent to be let out of 
the house by yourself. So anyway, Donald Trump says I do not 
want to be the only one running for President who has been 
impeached. Impeach Joe Biden, figure out something. We were 
here for a year. You guys did not lay a glove on Joe Biden. You 
do not have a single credible piece of evidence, not one iota 
showing any crime by Joe Biden. As Mr. Lynch says, even your 
witnesses came up and said they did not see it at the one 
hearing that you had on impeachment. So why are we here? Well, 
we cannot go after Joe Biden. He is clean. Let us go after 
Hunter Biden. Let us go get him.
    And that is why I am so suspicious of where we are today, 
Mr. Chairman, because I heard you numerous times say, come 
before the Committee, come and testify before the world, come 
and tell everybody what happened, and he took you up and he 
said yes, and I said, finally, we will get to hear from Hunter 
Biden. We will get to hear answers to all of those questions, 
Mr. Fallon posed, but then you would not take ``yes'' for an 
answer. You said, no, we want to go to a back room and do it 
there, and then we will leak out appropriate details, which, of 
course, we have seen, has allowed for radical distortions of 
people's testimony before this Committee. You have not released 
the vast majority of transcribed interviews that had been in 
the back room, so we can leak out specific details, so that is 
not right. That is why we have questions about it.
    But I am with Ms. Mace. Let us bring them all in. Let us 
bring in all the Republicans who still have not testified about 
what they know about what happened on January 6, and let us 
bring Hunter Biden in, and let us do that all together. I beat 
for that. And thank you for yielding, Ms. Tlaib, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Langworthy for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, we have certainly had enough 
distractions here today and a political stunt that we saw here 
at the beginning of this hearing, Hunter Biden strutting in 
here like a real tough guy while he refused to sit for a 
deposition that he had been lawfully subpoenaed to do. It must 
be embarrassing to have to defend all of this. And we certainly 
have Trump derangement syndrome on display in a big way in this 
chamber today.
    Over the last year, the Oversight Committee has uncovered a 
plethora of evidence that is directly pointing at the 
corruption from Joe Biden and his family. This level of 
corruption is what you would expect to see in a Third World 
country, not the United States of America. If the volume of 
evidence was uncovered on any other influential family in the 
United States, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
would no doubt initiate thorough investigations. Now, just 
imagine, if Hunter was a Republican. The President's son does 
not deserve special treatment, period. Holding Hunter Biden in 
contempt of Congress is the responsible reaction to his blatant 
disregard for Federal law and our duty to investigate potential 
wrongdoings by the President of the United States.
    This Committee has analyzed thousands of pages of bank 
records, leading to the discovery of $24 million of wire 
transfers and payments from foreign companies and foreign 
nationals directly to this Biden family. Through interviews 
with Biden family closest associates, the Committee discovered 
that Hunter Biden used his father's name and influence in 
meetings with foreign nationals over 20 times. Witness 
testimonies prove that Hunter Biden dined with foreign 
individuals from countries such as Russia, Ukraine, and 
Kazakhstan alongside his father, who was the sitting Vice 
President of United States, and the list of evidence goes on 
and on.
    The President himself has been exposed for lying. Both the 
White House and Hunter have used every tool at their disposal 
to obstruct this investigation and to block the gathering of 
evidence. This blatant corruption must be held to account. It 
is one of the major duties of this very Committee, and that is 
why on September 12, 2023, as a result of this significant 
evidence against the current President, the Speaker of the 
House asked the Oversight Committee to conduct an inquiry to 
determine whether or not sufficient grounds existed for the 
impeachment of President Biden.
    Hunter Biden's testimony is a critical component of the 
impeachment inquiry into whether President Biden or his family 
personally profited from his office as Vice President or his 
current role as President of United States, and these facts 
cannot get in the way. We have got to get on with this 
investigation and end the distractions that we have heard here 
today. Let us get this contempt provision put forward, and let 
us move forward with this impeachment inquiry.
    Mr. Gosar. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman 
yield?
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Gosar is asking you.
    Mr. Langworthy. I yield my time to Mr. Gosar.
    Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Langworthy. Note to the 
Ranking Member, we are cherry picking, and to Mr. Lynch, we are 
cherry picking because if you go back to those individuals we 
had as witnesses, they all said there does not exist that 
information now, but there exists the potential to be there, 
and the inquiry is different than an impeachment. It is a 
search for that document. So, I think we have got to be very, 
very careful on both sides when we are talking about this, that 
we give the whole picture, not part of the picture, the whole 
picture to this.
    Mr. Raskin. And what has been found since then?
    Mr. Gosar. Well, once again, there is stuff there, so----
    Mr. Raskin. I am sorry?
    Mr. Gosar. There is stuff there.
    Mr. Raskin. There is stuff there?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Can you share it with us?
    Mr. Gosar. Because, yes, because you stack up these random 
corporations, what are you producing? If I am the manufacturer, 
I would do that because, I mean, I have different businesses 
accomplishing that. They had nothing to sell. Some paintings? 
It was access to the President. So now whether that reaches to 
high crimes and misdemeanors, I do not know. I am not an 
attorney.
    But last but not least--I want to make sure we also get to 
this--is that you did a process and you stated it. The language 
has been repeated over and over again. You do this massive hunt 
with attorneys, not people like dentists or others. You do it 
with attorneys to gather that information, and then they 
selectively compile it. You guys get questions, we get 
questions, and we cover the ground more efficiently. That is 
why this process works. I agree with you. You do the behind the 
doors, then you come out here for the public. I think there is 
no difference there. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Good. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Casar 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My distinguished 
colleague, the gentlelady from Florida, held up a poster board 
saying we should hold Hunter Biden in contempt because of a 
provision saying, ``refusal of a witness to testify,'' but that 
does not apply in that we have a witness that was here and is 
willing to testify.
    Now, I will give everybody credit here. There seems to be 
disagreement about whether to do the closed-door deposition, 
but there is an area of agreement, and the area of agreement is 
to have a public hearing. And so, what I am interested in--I 
will yield a minute of time over to you, Chairman, or somebody 
from the other side--we have been here for hours. And I have 
still yet to figure out why we do not have Mr. Hunter Biden 
here to answer our questions for whatever period of time we 
want in front of the Oversight Committee. So, I want to 
understand. I want to give Mr. Fallon due credit, from the 
great state of Texas, for saying, well, he wants to make sure 
we have enough time. Mr. Chairman, I am sure we could agree to 
whatever amount of time was necessary.
    But I am having a lot of trouble understanding why the 
Republican majority will not take ``yes'' for an answer and ask 
questions of Hunter Biden here publicly. I think we would 
really learn, because all I have been hearing on TV news is, 
over and over again, that we need to ask Hunter Biden 
questions. He is saying we can. Why refuse to have this public 
hearing--that, it sounds like a minority issue?
    Chairman Comer. Are you yielding?
    Mr. Casar. Yes, I am happy to yield you 30 seconds.
    Chairman Comer. So, we have obtained thousands of pages of 
bank documents. We have reviewed 170 suspicious activity 
reports from banks filed against the Bidens, from my banking 
background, and that is unprecedented to have that many bank 
violations that allege very serious things from money 
laundering to tax evasion to bribery, and we have a lot of 
questions. We want to treat him like any other witness. He does 
not get to set the rules. We will depose him. And look, we will 
split time with Democrats. You all get an equal amount of time 
with Hunter Biden, then we will have a public hearing.
    Mr. Casar. But I guess my question is, if there is 
disagreement, and it sounds like there is, around the 
deposition, why not have the public hearing?
    Chairman Comer. We will, after the deposition.
    Mr. Casar. I understand, Mr. Chairman, but nobody has 
explained to me clearly yet, and I think to your own district, 
to my district, why not call Hunter Biden in tomorrow? Why not 
ask him in next week? We are ready to----
    Mr. Donalds. Will the gentleman yield? I would love to 
answer that question.
    Mr. Gosar. Yes, would you yield?
    Mr. Casar. Yes.
    Mr. Gosar. Yes. So, I would have loved to depose him right 
here today. We have rules. We have 3 days.
    Mr. Casar. Let us do it in 3 days.
    Mr. Gosar. My whole point is behind closed doors. I would 
have gone right now. He is here. He has got his legal 
representation there. Let us play this game, but we have rules 
that say you have 3 days.
    Mr. Casar. I am not playing a game. One, I am sure we could 
waive the 3 days. Second, we could have it here in 3 days if 
there is agreement about if what we are hearing from the 
Republican side over and over and over again is they have got 
questions for Hunter Biden, quotes from this hearing that 
Hunter Biden's testimony is critical.
    Chairman Comer. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Casar. I want to delve into questions I have for Mr. 
Biden. Why not ask for those? Why not ask for that tomorrow?
    Chairman Comer. The deposition tomorrow?
    Mr. Casar. No. We would have him here in public tomorrow in 
front of everyone.
    Chairman Comer. After the deposition.
    Mr. Casar. I understand you are saying after the 
deposition, but my question for you is just very clearly, why 
not have the public hearing tomorrow?
    Mr. Donalds. Will the gentleman yield to that question? Mr. 
Chairman, if I may----
    Mr. Casar. Yes, sir. And, Mr. Donalds, I want to compliment 
you because I remember our first Oversight Committee here, and 
you said it would be good to have these real conversations, so 
I genuinely----
    Mr. Donalds. I am all for this, Mr. Casar. I actually enjoy 
this part, if we ever get to it. But the reality is, and you 
have attorneys on your side of the aisle, there is never any 
proceeding that takes place without a deposition of the 
witness. The reason why is because if something comes up in the 
round of questioning, either A, Members of this Committee may 
not be prepared because they do not have all the information 
from the witness because the witness was never given an 
opportunity with his attorneys present to actually give out 
that level of information. So, you need a deposition process 
before you bring a witness into open hearing. This happens all 
the time. This is actually the protocol of the House. And, Mr. 
Casar, what your side of the aisle is requesting, with all due 
respect, is a deviation from the historical precedent of the 
House of Representatives.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Casar. I will yield back to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you for moving the ball forward 
with that explanation. That has been the practice sometimes, 
not all times. The vast majority of witnesses who come before 
this Committee come without being deposed first. We come and 
ask for their testimony. But in any event, even for a witness 
who is being subpoenaed, like Mr. Biden was, we have a 
completely different situation when the Chairman goes out 
publicly and says we will give you the choice, A or B, you can 
have a deposition or you can come in to a hearing, but I 
challenge you, I invite you, I insist that you come before the 
Committee, and repeatedly says that. So that is why I think, 
legally, it is a very complex question, but I do not see why we 
take this all the way to court. If you guys really want to hear 
from him, let us have a public hearing and then depose him 
afterwards. But he is saying he does not want to be 
misrepresented. Thank you for yielding.
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Burlison from Missouri.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What should be 
obvious to the American people, I think we need to just say to 
the American people, is to point out that this kind of food 
fight, this kind of the circus that we have experienced is the 
reason why we want to have a deposition. In a deposition, you 
do not get people distracting the American public with all 
these other topics, and during a deposition, they do not get to 
lie to the American people for 5 minutes at a time. They do not 
get to distract, they do not get to lie. And they do not get to 
divert from the facts of what is happening.
    But what I see happening is what is being telegraphed here 
is that they are building a case, a political case, really, 
because that is what this is. It is all politics that that they 
are entering into for why the Department of Justice--or giving 
Merrick Garland an excuse--which we all knew that he probably 
not prosecute these contempt charges because it would be 
hypocritical if he did so. He would because he prosecuted Steve 
Bannon, even though Bannon was actually working for the 
President and was able to raise the Speech and Debate Clause 
that was mentioned in the Constitution. Merrick Garland still 
prosecuted him for that.
    Here is that what is really frustrating to the American 
people, and they see right through this. We are now going 
through a second process over really the same crimes that were 
committed when Joe Biden was Vice President, and those crimes 
include the creation of dozens and dozens of limited liability 
companies, dozens of bank accounts, when people say, where are 
the facts? Well, I want to ask, what facts are you looking for, 
because to me, bank records are facts. Suspicious activity 
reports are facts. Copies of checks are facts. When you 
juxtapose that with the WhatsApp message, and what is on the 
Hunter Biden laptop, and the deposition from witnesses like Mr. 
Archer, when you add to it further depositions, as we are going 
to hear about soon, the art dealer, when you layer all that 
together, that is a compelling story. There is a lot of facts.
    And you know what? I would hate to be on the other side of 
the aisle and try to defend this situation, and so I think that 
the only outcome would be to distract, to try to make this a 
political process. But it still stands as a fact that when the 
Democrats were in charge, they brought in the President's son. 
They brought him in multiple times, and they brought him in to 
depositions, and he agreed. This is what should be the takeaway 
message to the American people. When the Trump family was 
asked, they came in and they gave depositions.
    Once again, Hunter Biden feels that he is privileged. He is 
privileged, he does not have to pay taxes like everyone else. 
He is privileged that apparently he can traffic sex workers 
across the globe and get away with it. He is privileged that he 
can get away with acting as a foreign advocate and be able to 
get away with it when other people are prosecuted and sent to 
jail for the very same thing. The American people see that 
there are two standards of justice. And when we are trying to 
go about the people's business in a serious manner, we end up 
allowing the food fight, which is exactly why he did what he 
did when he went across the street as far away as he could from 
this building and had his press conference, and then why he 
today showed up when the hour was way too late. I yield the 
remainder of my time.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Brown.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a lawyer and 
nor do I try to pretend to play one on TV, but it is plain for 
all of us to see we are here on behalf of one man, the self-
proclaimed dictator on day one. That is twice impeached, four 
times indicted, insurrection initiator and supporter, election 
denier, convicted fraudster, and maniacal manipulator from Mar-
a-Lago, the one who lost and lost badly.
    We are here because my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have no positive agenda to run on. They have not 
accomplished one thing in their year in the Majority to improve 
the lives of the people around this country. We are not here to 
hold the President in contempt of Congress. We are not even 
here to hold a member of President Biden's Administration in 
contempt of Congress. For some reason, the Majority has 
gathered us here to hold the President's son, his son, who I 
will remind all of us is not and has not ever been a government 
official, in contempt of Congress, despite his willingness to 
come testify publicly before this Committee. So, getting to the 
truth was never their actual goal.
    Instead of working together to solve big problems on behalf 
of the American people, my Republican colleagues continue to 
pursue a meritless, groundless, baseless investigation into the 
President's family. Meanwhile, back in my district, during our 
recess, I was literally dodging bullets at a funeral of a gun 
violence victim, and I never felt so powerless and vulnerable 
because I know that when I got back here, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle refused to do anything about it. Yet 
they continue to make efforts to ban books, rewrite history, 
make it harder for people that look like me to vote, and to 
make it harder for women to make their own healthcare 
decisions. We see nothing on the other side of the aisle but 
distraction, diversion, deflection, delusion, divisiveness, and 
dangerous destruction of our ever so delicate democracy.
    So, with that, I am tired of the political theater. I want 
to get to work for the people back home in the 11th 
congressional District because they, quite frankly, do not care 
about Hunter Biden.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Brown. And with that I will yield the balance of my 
time to my Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Brown, thank you so much. You know, you 
started off by saying something pretty profound, which is we 
are here instead of doing the business of the American people 
because the Republicans have offered us no positive agenda in 
their year in office. We know we have wasted countless weeks in 
them just trying to pick a Speaker, and we have wasted 
countless weeks with their inertia and their do-nothing 
policies.
    But Ms. Brown, I do not know if you recall, I just do not 
want people having to take your word for it. I think numerous 
Republicans have gotten up on the Floor of the House 
complaining about the fact that they have no agenda. I think 
our colleague, Chip Roy from Texas, said that the Republicans 
had not given him one thing, a single thing, I remember him 
saying, to campaign on. So, I just want to ask you when you are 
saying that they have no agenda, that is not a partisan point. 
You are getting that from Republicans, aren't you?
    Ms. Brown. That is correct.
    Mr. Raskin. One of our colleagues said that there was Trump 
derangement syndrome, and, of course, Trump derangement begins 
with Donald Trump himself. He thinks he has a legal right to 
assassinate U.S. citizens. He thinks he can grab women by their 
genitals, although that is not the word that he used. He said 
that if Joe Biden is reelected President, there will be World 
War II. He is obviously deranged and disoriented.
    But the real Trump derangement syndrome that I see is those 
people who cannot break from Donald Trump after he has proven 
himself to be completely and totally unworthy of your support 
because I am looking at talented, gifted people on the other 
side of the aisle, the ones who have not left Congress in 
frustration or because they have broken with Donald Trump and 
clashed with him. But I am still looking at people who have 
their wits about them, I think, but you are acting like cult 
members, like you are sleeping on the basement of a cult 
listening to tapes all night, and I beg you to get over your 
Trump derangement syndrome. Thank you very much for yielding, 
Ms. Brown.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Donald from 
Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things. 
First, it was said in this hearing, Mr. Chairman, about you 
specifically that you repeatedly said you would give Mr. Biden 
any opportunity, he could choose which one, to come and speak 
in front of this Committee. He could do by deposition, he could 
do by open hearing, it was up to him. The truth of the matter, 
though is, Members, is that the Chairman's words are not 
binding. Like, no other Member's words of Congress are really 
not binding. The binding article----
    Mr. Raskin. Point of order. Does the Chairman agree with 
that? Point of order. Does the Chairman agree----
    Mr. Donalds. Are you going to restore my time? Are you 
going to restore my time?
    Mr. Raskin. Point of order. This is a point of order.
    Mr. Donalds. OK.
    Mr. Raskin. Does the Chairman agree that the Chairman's 
words are not binding on the Committee?
    Mr. Donalds. It is not a point of order. It has nothing to 
do with the order of this hearing. Thank you. Can I go back to 
4 minutes and 34 seconds? That is where I was before I was 
interrupted by Mr. Raskin.
    Chairman Comer. Yes. Reset the clock.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you. Thank you. What is binding is the 
actual written language in the subpoena because a subpoena from 
this Committee is also signed off on by the Clerk of the House. 
That is the binding document that matters here. That is what 
governs. That is No. 1. No. 2, that was said in this hearing. 
It was said that our witnesses said that there was no basis for 
an impeachment. But remember, Members on the Democrat side of 
the aisle, what was said by Mr. Turley at the time was that 
there was plenty of evidence for the continuation of an 
impeachment inquiry, and the purpose of that hearing was the 
relevance basis for an impeachment inquiry.
    The House has now voted for an impeachment inquiry. And one 
of the first things that the House did after the vote of an 
impeachment inquiry was to subpoena Hunter Biden to appear. 
Hunter Biden has evaded that subpoena. So flagrantly did he 
evade it, that he decided to show up at the Senate side to give 
a press conference, and Eric Swalwell, a Member of the House 
helped him get that time on the Senate side to give a press 
conference. That is a flagrant violation of a congressional 
subpoena.
    Secondarily, he has the gall to show up here when we are 
actually discussing contempt, and he did not stay. He was 
sitting right over there. He is not here now. He said he wants 
to talk. He can stay through the whole proceeding. He chose to 
leave. That is his business, but he was subpoenaed to come here 
back in December. He chose not to of his own volition. He is in 
violation of that subpoena, a subpoena that was executed with 
the signature of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. 
That is the document that is binding. That is what we work off 
of.
    Mr. Chairman, I actually want to submit for the record an 
article from The Hill, written by Jonathan Turley, and it is 
titled, ``Eric Swalwell and the Politics of Contempt.''
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you. I am glad something got admitted to 
the record. Last, a couple of other points. One quick point I 
want to make, and this is in reference to the Minority's 
reports about this $7.8 million. I want the Minority to 
understand one very important distinction between Presidents 
Biden and President Trump. President Trump has an international 
real estate portfolio that he has amassed over decades. I am 
quite sure if you go back through all of the hotel receipts 
before he was President of the United States that you had 
foreign dignitaries staying at Trump hotels all across the 
world----
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Donalds. I am not going to yield, Mr. Raskin. I am 
making a point because they are actually very nice hotels. They 
look good. People like saying there. President Trump was not 
running the Trump Organization when he was President of the 
United States. To my recollection, Eric Trump, the President's 
son was actually running the Trump Organization when President 
Trump was President of the United States. So, if he had a 
portfolio of hotels, and people choose, you know, through 
Expedia, through Kayak, through Hotels.com, if they choose to 
go and stay there, how was that the President being in 
violation of what, the emoluments clause? Is that what you are 
citing? Stop.
    Ladies and gentlemen, America, this is ridiculous. The 
Biden family has no business. They have never had a business 
except for politics. And the one thing that the Oversight 
Committee, in conjunction with the Ways and Means Committee and 
in conjunction with the Judiciary Committee, has always been 
able to demonstrate is that they shook down foreign nations for 
millions--millions--$26 million at the latest count and 
growing. Millions. And there was never any business entity 
involved except public corruption, and a pay for play scheme.
    The House Oversight Committee would like to get to the 
bottom of this under the impeachment inquiry of the House. We 
have questions for Hunter Biden. We issued a subpoena for him 
to answer said questions. He ignored a congressional subpoena. 
As a private citizen--there are many attorneys on the other 
side of the aisle--if you had one of your clients in your 
private practice ignore a congressional subpoena as a private 
citizen, you would advise them not to because they will be held 
in contempt, and they would actually be punished by the 
Department of Justice. So, I find that interesting----
    Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield so I can respond?
    Mr. Donalds. I am not going to yield, Mr. Goldman, because 
I had a question for you earlier. You did not want to take my 
question, so I am not going to take yours. Thank you. So, in 
closing, I will say private citizens, yes, they have a 
responsibility to answer congressional subpoenas. They do. 
Hunter Biden had it and he was flagrant. He decided to give a 
press conference, so we are going to do this business and he 
should be held in contempt by the full House of 
Representatives. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Very good. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 
Norton from Washington, DC. for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Norton. I yield my 5 minutes to Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. I would like to thank the distinguished 
delegate from the District of Columbia, and I need to correct 
the record because of several false statements made about the 
Foreign Emoluments Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, 
although I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida's attempt 
to at least engage on the matter of substance that was raised 
so powerfully by Ms. Crockett.
    Now, let us start with this. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 
says that neither the President nor any Member of Congress can 
receive a present and emolument, which means a payment in 
office or a title from a prince, a king, a foreign government, 
``emolument'' of any kind whatever, of any kind whatever 
without going to Congress first and obtaining the consent of 
Congress.
    There is no hotel exception, Mr. Donalds, to the Foreign 
Emoluments Clause. There is no international real estate 
syndicate exception to the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Mr. 
Donalds. And also, I will take you up on your challenge to see 
whether the Trump Hotel in Washington, the Trump Hotel in Las 
Vegas, the Trump Hotel on Fifth Avenue, the Trump Hotel U.N. 
Plaza, four of the more than 500 businesses that we got 
documentation for, whether they actually had the same level of 
business coming from Saudi Arabia, the communist bureaucrats of 
China, who were the leading spenders, you know, if you have 
read our report, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India, 
Egypt, and so on. We will make that comparison about what was 
done before if you get the Chairman to call off the ban on 
further documents coming from Mazars. So, if you----
    Mr. Donalds. Have you ever stayed at the Trump Hotel, Mr. 
Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No, and I would never would stay at a Trump 
Hotel. I have got too much self-respect and concern for 
hygiene.
    Mr. Donalds. You stay at bad hotels?
    Mr. Raskin. But in any event, Mr. Donalds, you are totally 
wrong about what the Foreign Emoluments Clause stands for. 
Abraham Lincoln was given two elephant tusks by the King of 
Siam during the Civil War, and he liked them very much. He 
wanted to keep them, but he went to Congress, which is what 
every other President did before and every President did since 
right up until Donald Trump, and he asked whether he could keep 
the tusks, and Congress, though they loved Honest Abe, said, 
no, you cannot keep them. I mean, John F. Kennedy was offered 
citizenship by the people of Ireland because they loved him so 
much, and he refused to take it, saying that even though it did 
not violate the letter of the Emoluments Clause, it violated 
the spirit of the Emoluments Clause. And Donald Trump converted 
the presidency into an instrument for self-enrichment. He raked 
in millions of dollars from the most corrupt governments on 
earth, who came in with specific favors that we document in our 
report that they got from Donald Trump.
    I beseech my colleagues, I will read any book, any 
magazine, any speech you have given that you want me to read, 
read this report, and come back and tell me if you think Donald 
Trump did the right thing in converting the White House into a 
for-profit operation. No other President in American history 
has come anywhere close.
    And you ask why he is so determined to stay in office that 
he would unleash violence against his own Vice President, the 
brother of your colleague, of our colleague. Why would he do 
that? It is because it was a money-making operation, and it was 
a great business grift for a guy who went bankrupt several 
times, and yet out of some misguided partisan loyalty, you are 
going to stick with him. I do not even know why you stick with 
him. He was a Democrat longer than he was a Republican. He 
wanted to run for President on the Reform Party. You guys had 
been taken over by an absolute con man, and now you are acting 
like members of a religious cult who do not even remember how 
you got in it in the first place.
    We say return the profits, Donald Trump, $7.8 million. I 
have got a letter, Mr. Chairman, I am going to share with you 
telling Donald Trump to return the $7.8 million. It is a small 
fraction of what he raked in. We want to know about the other 2 
years in office. We want to know about the other businesses, 
not just those four that we were able to get information on, 
and we want to know about every country on earth, not just the 
20 autocracies and dictatorships that we found.
    This is our government, this is our Constitution, and we 
are going to stand up for it against Donald Trump and anybody 
who follows him to the path of oblivion. Abraham Lincoln 
started your Party as a third Party to replace the Whigs 
because they would not take a moral stand against slavery, was 
a pro-freedom, antislavery, pro-union, pro-honesty Party, and 
your Party has been reduced to a corrupt authoritarian cult of 
personality. And everybody does whatever Donald Trump tells 
them to do, which is what we are doing here today with this 
stupid attempt to hold Hunter Biden in contempt when he has 
come forward to say he will testify and give you everything you 
want as the Chairman of the Committee repeatedly offered in 
public. So, forgive my outrage and indignation, but enough is 
enough. Let us get back to the business of the people, as Ms. 
Brown said.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognize Mr. Higgins for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the 
American people may be surprised to know some of my colleagues 
across the aisle have not served as long as we have, might be 
surprised to know that Representative Raskin and I had been 
building quite a colleague friendship. In my original years of 
service, prior to J6 especially, we would visit and we would 
debate constitutionalist questions, and he honored me by 
observation of my, what he would sometimes call compelling 
arguments, contradictory to his own. So it is with sincerity 
that I say congratulations to my colleague, Mr. Raskin, because 
you have obviously fully recovered from your cancer treatments. 
You----
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, my dear friend, and I do love you.
    Mr. Higgins. You are quite animated, and I believe there is 
a direct correlation between your testimony against former 
President Trump and his poll numbers because I am watching a 
live feed. The more you talk about him, the more his numbers go 
up. So, I may yield you more time, but I would, honestly, like 
to ask you, if I could, regarding the deposition, just from a 
calm--if we could take a step back from the emotion here and 
the political conflict and this sort of prepared for battle 
debate we are in here.
    Just regarding depositions, we have all been through 
depositions in one way or another. They are very cold and 
calculated, and you have your attorney there. And then the bad 
guys, who are always the other guys, they have their attorneys, 
and you are either being sued or you are part of a suit, you 
are either defendant or the plaintiff, and you are in a room 
for hours, until all the questions have been asked.
    So, sincerely, if you were Hunter's attorney or advisor, 
why would you advise him not to participate in a deposition 
wherein his own attorney is there, it is private and everything 
is transcribed, his words cannot be twisted by the fake news. 
Just tell us, Mr. Raskin, and I yield for your answer.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, kindly, and I should tell you that 
your feelings are not unrequited. I still have very fond and 
warm feelings for you. I am sorry that January 6 came between 
us and I look forward to a day in our republic when we will be 
really good friends again. But in a direct answer to your 
question, if I were his lawyer and I were his advisor, I would 
never advise him not to come and testify before the Committee, 
except for one thing, and this is why and I started out this 
way.
    Mr. Higgins. Specifically, I am asking about deposition.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. So, about a deposition.
    Mr. Higgins. Because we want the deposition first, to 
clarify----
    Mr. Raskin. I would recommend----
    Mr. Higgins. And then the public testimony.
    Mr. Raskin. Just to answer your question, I would recommend 
it except that they were publicly given the offer numerous 
times to come before the whole Committee, and they state a fear 
on their part, which is not unreasonable, that their words will 
be distorted. And the transcript of the interview will never be 
released because the vast majority of the transcribed 
interviews have not been released. And I would use this as an 
opportunity to call on the Chairman to----
    Mr. Higgins. Let me just say that I think that is solid 
counsel. But that brings us to our next point, my next point, 
which is that as a free American, which I mean, to a certain 
extent, we still have some individual rights and freedoms, 
including to not comply with a subpoena. But so, as a free 
American, Hunter Biden has a right to not comply with the 
congressional subpoena. But we have the right to take the next 
step as a Congress, if we believe the subpoena was righteous 
and his noncompliance with that subpoena was unrighteous. If we 
believe that our subpoena was lawful and we have presented 
probable cause and lawful argument to support that subpoena, 
then we have not only the right but we have the obligation to 
consider that he was in contempt of Congress when he took that 
stand of noncompliance, which is where we are right now.
    It does not have to be emotional. The man had the right to 
not show up, we have the right to hold him in contempt, and 
that is what is happening. So, by all means, as my colleague 
just stated, let us move forward with the people's business. 
The people's business today in this Committee is to move 
forward with the vote to hold Hunter Biden in contempt. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Does any other 
Member wish to be heard before we begin the amendment process?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, I understand there is an 
amendment at the desk. Oh, Mr. Cloud, I am sorry. I recognize 
Mr. Cloud from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cloud. Well, in the true D.C. meeting maxim of 
everything has been said, but not everyone said it, since I 
have not said anything yet, I will go ahead and mention it. But 
we have heard words about irrefutable evidence being presented, 
and, you know, I just have to say I do not think that word 
means what you think it means.
    And there is a stark contrast as has been pointed out 
between how the Democrats have investigated and how we 
investigated. They are opposed to a closed-door deposition, 
which they have held a number of times. As a matter of fact, 
during the impeachment hearings, I sat in the SCIF, along with 
others, while they withheld the transcripts that they are 
worried about. And so oftentimes it seems like they are 
portraying their motivations on us, and that is just not the 
case.
    I remember sitting, for example, in one of the hearings, 
and one of the witnesses who worked at the White House was 
asked did the President talk to you before coming here and 
said, well, we passed in the hallway and had a conversation. 
What did he say? Just tell the truth. Ironically, that part did 
not leak from the Committee hearing, but a number of lies did. 
And let us also look at how these two investigations got 
started. One was based on evidence that was false evidence that 
was paid for by a political opponent of Trump as a candidate 
and created a whole Russian collusion narrative that we spent 
millions of government tax dollars on perpetrating this Big Lie 
that our colleagues on the other side helped promote.
    This one began with a laptop that Hunter Biden produced 
himself and then was backed up with bank documents and then 
evidence of shell companies all over the place. And then there 
is talk about the business, the fact that Trump's business has 
made money from people who stay at the hotels. Is that not 
shocking? I think every American expected that people in other 
countries, where some of his hotels are, might have stayed at 
those hotels. That is not a shocking thing. But the big 
difference, of course, is that President Trump and his son is 
not manning the reservation desk, and they are not the ones 
answering the call and handing it over and saying the Big Guy 
sitting with me, would you like a room at the hotel? That is 
not happening. But yet for these shell companies that Hunter 
Biden has set up in the Biden family, that is exactly what we 
have seen is been happening.
    And I would say that money that comes into the Trump 
organization does not go directly to him. Now, I am sure there 
is some return on the investment that the Trump family has 
made, but it also employs several employees that get money from 
what comes in. I doubt that these 20 shell companies have 
nearly the employees of one hotel that a Trump property has, 
probably not as many employees as you would find working the 
lobby of one of these hotels. So, this is completely, 
completely, completely different. They are trying to compare 
apples and oranges and confuse the American people back home. 
It is totally not the case.
    And getting back to the point of today's hearing. This 
really is about contempt. And so, what we have seen happen is 
Hunter Biden has come here now twice, just to not speak to this 
Committee. So, contempt is defined as a lack of respect or 
reverence for something, a willful disobedience, or open 
disrespect for a court judge and legislative body. He flew all 
the way over here the day he was scheduled for a deposition 
just to not appear and to kind of thumb his nose here at this 
body. Today, he showed up, and the Minority is trying to make 
the case, well, he showed up to speak.
    We have been here a couple times. I have been in a couple 
of committee hearings, not nearly as many of the Members here. 
Never have I seen a witness show up when they want to show up 
on any sort of thing to say, hey, I am here to speak on what I 
want to speak about. That is not how Congress works. That is 
not how any meeting on the Hill works.
    That is ridiculous to think that somebody is going to be 
able to show up and just mandate the agenda for today's 
meeting, which is further evidence of why he is holding 
Congress in contempt. He thinks he is above the law. He thinks 
it has no weight on him, and understandably so, for the moment, 
because the DOJ refuses to follow up on anything and has done 
their best effort to work with the IRS and other agencies to 
shield and protect the Biden family. This is important, we have 
to hold them in contempt, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Does any other 
Member wish to be heard before we begin the amendment process?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, I understand there is an 
amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. For what purpose does Mr. Goldman seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Goldman. My apologies for jumping ahead. I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to 
all Members. Does everyone have the amendment?
    No. All right, we are going to let the clerk distribute to 
amendment. I believe it was changed in the last little bit.
    Mr. Goldman. That is OK. I would ask that the clerk read 
the amendment. My apologies, I withdraw.
    Chairman Comer. While we are waiting for everyone to review 
the amendment, I will say we had 3 hours of opening statements, 
so hopefully we can get through these amendments in time. Just 
a note, we are working on printing the amendment because we 
just got it.
    [Brief pause.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as offered by Mr. Goldman of New York.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes to 
explain his amendment.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would 
strike all of the resolve clauses and the report, and it would 
insert language that details all of the extensive efforts to 
cooperate that Hunter Biden and his attorney have made in 
response to this Committee's requests for testimony and 
information from him.
    That began in February when Chairman Comer wrote to request 
documents and communications related to our investigation of 
President Biden's involvement in your financial conduct. The 
following day, his attorney wrote back to Chairman Comer 
offering to sit down with the staff to discuss the request. 
Then 7 months later, Chairman Comer goes on television and said 
he never got a response back from Hunter Biden, which is flat-
out false. And that day, Hunter Biden's attorney wrote again to 
Chairman Comer to say that he did respond, he never heard a 
response, but that he remains available to have a discussion. 
So next, without any response from the Chairman, you went 
straight into a subpoena. The subpoena was for testimony, and 
the witness, Hunter Biden, has put no conditions or limitations 
on his testimony.
    There are no limits on the topics. There are no limits on 
the length of time. He is happy to do it under oath. He has 
said he would not assert the Fifth Amendment privilege, even 
though that is available to him. That is in stark contrast to 
Devon Archer, their star witness, who so narrowly limited the 
time and scope of his testimony that we could not ask him 
anything about any of his own criminal conduct. But the only 
request that Hunter Biden has made is that he wants to give his 
testimony in public, not behind a closed-door deposition, where 
his transcripts would not be released. There is absolutely no 
certainty or guarantee that there would ever be a public 
hearing again, and I would bet a lot of money that you will 
never put him in that witness chair, whether or not he comes 
in. That is all he wanted, just to speak to the American 
people.
    He has not, unlike your dear leader, filed a lawsuit to 
prevent third parties from turning over financial information. 
In fact, you have received tens of thousands of bank records. 
The problem you have is not Hunter Biden's cooperation. It is 
that all of those bank records, which would show any connection 
between Hunter Biden and his father, if there were any, has 
zero--zero--money going from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden related 
to any of his business ventures.
    So, your problem is that the evidence does not show what 
you say it does. It is not that he is not cooperating. So, that 
is why we are here today so that you can change the topic, can 
claim that there is some kind of obstruction, and, therefore, 
Hunter Biden really did do all of these terrible things, and 
Hunter Biden should be impeached. Oh, wait, no, no, it is not 
Hunter Biden who is being impeached here.
    Now, this is far worse because the Chairman, as we have 
discussed many times, has multiple times offered Hunter Biden 
to come testify in public. So, if you had wanted a closed-door 
deposition, I do not understand why you would go on TV, Mr. 
Chairman, and offer for Hunter Biden to come in and testify 
publicly, whichever he chooses. So, why no public hearing? Why 
won't you have a public hearing? The only request.
    This is an incredibly cooperative witness. We have all 
dealt with many witnesses who put a lot of restrictions on 
their testimony. There is one request, one request of Hunter 
Biden, which is to speak directly to the American people, not 
in a closed door to the Republicans who will control the 
release, the dissemination, and the misinformation from that 
testimony. Why not? Well, one of your own colleagues went on 
the House Floor last fall and said that this impeachment 
investigation was ``failure theater.'' A Republican said that. 
So, the theory here must be let us avoid the theater part of 
that and just keep the failure behind closed doors.
    Last month, Hunter Biden showed up to the Capitol, on the 
day that he was subpoenaed, ready to testify in this hearing 
room, you refused to take his testimony. That very same 
afternoon, you went on the House Floor to vote for an 
impeachment resolution on the rationale that you needed to pass 
a resolution to get more evidence. You reject evidence in the 
morning, and then you cry foul about no evidence in the 
afternoon. He is ready to testify. And this is a dangerous 
precedent you are setting if every single line in every single 
subpoena must be adhered to or you are going to hold in 
contempt. I know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who defied subpoenas outright, would be very afraid if that----
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired here.
    Mr. Goldman. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. And I will recognize myself, oppose this 
amendment. This amendment claims that Hunter Biden has 
cooperated with this Committee's investigation. How has he 
cooperated with the investigation if he has not abided by 
congressional subpoena? Abbe Lowell has never discussed scope 
or logic with us, and we have identified at least two checks 
directly to Joe Biden, where we traced the money directly 
through the Biden influence peddling schemes. That is a fact. 
We have published evidence. This is not like Adam Schiff or the 
Steele Dossier where you just make stuff up. We have produced 
bank records and bank records do not lie. So, Mr. Biden mocked 
our legitimate congressional impeachment inquiry and flew to 
D.C. to hang out outside of Congress and did not show his face 
for a deposition. He is not in compliance. He openly defied a 
congressional subpoena.
    Do any other Members wish to speak on this amendment?
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Raskin.
    Mr. Raskin. I want to yield back to Mr. Goldman. Before I 
do, I just want to pose a question to you. When you said that 
there was documented checks involving the President in an 
influence scheme, are you referring to the auto loan repayment 
checks between Joe and Hunter Biden?
    Chairman Comer. You mean the Porsche he got from 
Uzbekistan? Which auto are you----
    Mr. Raskin. I do not know what kind of car, but are those 
the checks that you are referring to?
    Chairman Comer. The checks we are referring to were a check 
for $200,000 that came through the influence peddling scheme 
with AmeriCorps Health and the $40,000 check that came through 
the influence peddling scheme with China, where I believe Mr. 
Bobulinski has stated publicly was a company that Joe Biden was 
supposed to be 10 percent owner.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. I reclaim my time. I think in both cases, I 
mean, there were a lot of words there, Mr. Chairman, but I 
think you are referring to the auto loan repayment with Hunter 
Biden. You are referring to the James Biden repayment. But if 
you have got documented receipts of foreign governments giving 
money directly to President Joe Biden, that is an outrageous 
violation of the Emoluments Clause, like the $7.8 million that 
Donald Trump pocketed while he was President, which for some 
reason, you guys do not care about because you think the 
Constitution only applies to Democrats and not to Donald Trump 
because, hey, you know, that is an identifying characteristic 
of an authoritarian political party.
    It has got a charismatic leader whose word is considered 
above the Constitution, above the rule of law. You refuse to 
accept the results of democratic elections that do not go your 
way if you are an authoritarian party. And then you refuse to 
disavow, or you embrace political violence as an instrument for 
obtaining and maintaining political power. So, you guys did not 
like when President Biden said that your Party under Donald 
Trump has fallen into semi-fascist ways of operation. If the 
shoe semi fits, you semi wear it, OK?
    Now, I would like to yield back to Mr. Goldman----
    Chairman Comer. Will the gentleman yield to a question?
    Mr. Raskin. Well, yes. I will take a quick question.
    Chairman Comer. OK. I just want to clarify. We have a wire 
that went directly from CEFC which banks have identified as a 
state-owned entity from China. That this wire went from CEFC to 
Hunter Biden, then to Joe Biden, for $40,000.
    Mr. Raskin. OK.
    Chairman Comer. Joe Biden has been directly implicated in 
the family influence peddling scheme at least two times.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. I----
    Mr. Goldman. No, you have not. I have not ever seen that.
    Chairman Comer. It is the bank memo.
    Mr. Goldman. The $40,000 is for Jim Biden.
    Chairman Comer. No, no, the $200,000 is from Jim Biden. The 
$40,000 is from Hunter Biden.
    Mr. Raskin. All right, but please produce the 
documentation.
    Mr. Goldman. I look forward----
    Chairman Comer. We have it. We have four bank memoranda.
    Mr. Raskin. Give it to the Members of this Committee and--
--
    Chairman Comer. Four bank memorandums.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Four. There has never been a more 
substantive investigation----
    Mr. Raskin. I am saving my time. You go ahead, but I am 
saving my time.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. In the 7 years I have been in 
Congress.
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Let me say this. The Democrats 
undertook a serious investigation, despite every effort by the 
Chairman to undermine it. And we determined there were $7.8 
million documented receipts from foreign governments to Donald 
Trump. You guys do not care about that. That is unfortunate.
    Mr. Timmons. Will the Ranking Member yield?
    Mr. Raskin. But if you have got document----
    Mr. Timmons. Will the Ranking Member yield?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, just a moment. Let me make my point. OK. 
If you have documented receipts of foreign governments writing 
checks or giving credit card payments to Joe Biden, show it to 
us. We have been at this for a year now. We have not seen 
anything. Then we show you in our more than 100-page report the 
documented receipts of money going to Donald Trump and you do 
not care about it. In other words, you do not care about the 
principle that our government leaders should not be on the take 
from foreign governments. That is outrageous. Because I will--
--
    Mr. Timmons. Will the Ranking Member yield?
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Oppose any government official 
with any political party who is on the take with money from 
foreign governments, and I hope you would join me in that. And 
yet we have shown it to you, and yet you guys do not care about 
it. I mean, that is just unfathomable to me. At least the Trump 
family has responded to it.
    Mr. Timmons. Will the Ranking Member yield for a question?
    Mr. Raskin. The Trump's people say, well, he did not take 
his $400,000 government salary. You know what? That is the only 
thing you are allowed to take, is your salary from Americans, 
not money from corrupt Saudi monarchs who ordered the 
assassination of journalists, not from Chinese communist 
bureaucrats crushing the human rights of people in Tibet and 
the Uyghurs. You are not supposed to be on the take from those 
governments. That is what our Constitution says.
    Then they say, well, we returned the profits. These guys 
think, well if it is a hotel, they could just keep the money. 
At least the Trump family understands. Some lawyer told them 
what the Constitution says. We returned the profits. Well, 
guess what? They did not give us the accounting of the profits, 
and that is not what the Constitution says. The Constitution 
says you cannot take any payments at all from a foreign 
government without going to the Congress of the United States. 
It is not that you can keep the profits from foreign 
governments. Do you guys understand what you are doing here? 
You are putting that----
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Timmons from South Carolina.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues across 
the aisle missed the point here. The Trump family has 
preexisting businesses built over decades, hotels all over the 
world, and President Trump divested himself of control over 
those businesses to his children and business--arms-linked 
transactions between foreign governments and between the Trump 
International Hotel chain. There is actually an arms-linked 
transaction. They are getting hotel rooms. They are getting 
food and whatever from these hotels.
    So, the difference is this: the Biden family does not 
produce anything. They do not have anything. They do not have 
hotels. They do not have services rendered. There are none. 
Hunter Biden has said that he was on the board of Burisma, and 
he has no qualifications. They actually cannot document any 
service rendered by the Biden family, whether it is Jim Biden, 
whether it is Hunter Biden, so that is the issue. The issue is 
that the Biden family, all they have is the Big Guy and his 
policy of favoritism, and that is why we are here. And I just 
think you are muddying the water, and it is not doing the 
American people justice. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Palmer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Timmons. Yes, I will yield to----
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman. I do want to point out 
that, to the point that Mr. Timmons was making, that the 
operation of the Trump Hotel was a legitimate enterprise that 
was approved by this Committee in 2013, before President Trump 
was elected to office, but prior to that it was the old Post 
Office. It was losing $6 million per year. The turnaround was a 
plus $3 million that went to the Federal Government, and as Mr. 
Timmons pointed out, it was divested to the family, to the 
children. It was not run by the President.
    Mr. Raskin. Would you yield for a question on that?
    Mr. Palmer. I will yield for a question.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, when you say it was divested, are you 
claiming that Donald Trump surrendered any ownership interest 
because he continued to own it. He put it into a trust for his 
sole benefit. He said the day-to-day management would be turned 
over to his sons, but he was still the beneficial owner of it, 
and he stayed involved, as we know, because he kept talking 
about all the business that was coming in from abroad.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, the gentleman's question is legitimate in 
the context that most elected officials put their assets in 
trust for their own benefit after they leave office.
    Mr. Raskin. But it was not a blind trust.
    Mr. Palmer. He should not be forced to divest himself of 
the asset, an asset that was approved by this Committee.
    Mr. Raskin. No, but I am afraid----
    Mr. Palmer. I am reclaiming the time yielded to me by Mr. 
Timmons to point out that what is happening right here should 
concern every American citizen because we refuse to prosecute, 
to investigate, prosecute corruption. We were constantly 
pounded about corruption in other countries, but we have got a 
corruption right here. We form partisan sides on this thing, 
and we do not do our job.
    I have been here 9 years and 7 days and gone through 
multiple hearings in the Oversight Committee dealing with 
corruption, and it turns into a partisan battle when we ought 
to be trying to make sure that we restore the American people's 
confidence in this government. What Hunter Biden should have 
done, he should have presented himself and answered to the 
subpoena. I am not trying to take sides in this. I want the 
evidence to speak for itself, and it will never speak for 
itself if we do not have people come before the Committee as 
they are required to do. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Would 
you yield for one final question?
    Mr. Palmer. I will yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, kindly. And thank you for the spirit 
and the substance of your remarks, which I think significantly 
uplift the tone of the conversation.
    You would agree with me that the Emoluments Clause applies 
to government officials, and presumably, you would agree with 
me that Hunter Biden is not and has never been a government 
official. So, this is about a relative of the President, right? 
So, we have Donald Trump, who is collecting $7.8 million, at 
least--it is probably 4 or 5 times that much and that is just 
during the presidency, and he was President----
    Mr. Timmons. Mr. Chairman, I am reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Raskin. And he was President----
    Chairman Comer. It is Mr. Timmons' time.
    Mr. Timmons. Ranking Member, do you have any evidence that 
Donald Trump received any of this money you are alleging that 
was received by the Trump Hotel organization?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, he bragged about it, and, in fact, he 
returned what he called the profits to the government, which 
gave the game away.
    Mr. Timmons. So, $8 million in revenue of which you do not 
know what the costs were associated with that, and you do not 
have any evidence that the President actually received any of 
this money. By the way----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, we have got all the evidence. Have you 
read the report yet, Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. What is the amount of money that you allege he 
has received?
    Mr. Raskin. Seven-point-eight million dollars, and it is a 
tiny fraction.
    Mr. Timmons. It is just not true. That is just factually 
inaccurate.
    Mr. Raskin. You read our report?
    Mr. Timmons. That is revenue. It is not----
    Mr. Raskin. I beseech you to read the report. I will read 
any book you want me to read, any poem, any ghost story 
whatever. Read the report. Please, read the report.
    Ms. Stansbury. Will the gentleman yield, please?
    Mr. Timmons. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time is expired. Before I 
recognize the next Member, since Mr. Raskin's into reading, I 
would like to submit to the record the last bank memorandum, 
the bank memorandum that details the Chinese wire that went to 
Hunter Biden, then to Joe Biden, it is in the bank memorandum. 
This is substantive memorandum. This is the fourth memorandum. 
If you need the other three, we will resend them to you.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, can I introduce any for the 
record, too, before we----
    Chairman Comer. Yes, but without objection, we entered in 
the fourth bank memorandum into the record. Now you have 
something, Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. This comes from Newsweek. This is, 
``Republican Congressman Andy Biggs Warns His Party Has 
`Nothing to Campaign On'.''
    Chairman Comer. All right. Without objection so ordered.
    Mr. Perry. I object. It has nothing to do with subject at 
hand.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, it was very much discussed by the Members 
today.
    Mr. Perry. I still object.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Could I call for a vote on that, then, Mr. 
Chairman? Yes?
    Chairman Comer. Yes. I mean----
    Mr. Raskin. All right. Thank you. Let us get our Members to 
vote.
    Chairman Comer. All those in favor of entering into the 
record a news story, say aye.
    All those opposed, no.
    Mr. Raskin. A recorded vote, Mr. Chairman. Recorded vote.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote called. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed. We have votes coming up on the House Floor, so.
    All right. OK. We have votes on the House Floor. Have they 
been called?
    Votes on the House Floor are going to be called in 30 
minutes. We will recess until the last vote has been recorded, 
then we will reconvene and take up the amendments and the 
votes.
    So, without objection, the Committee is now in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will come to order. The first 
order of business is a vote on Ranking Member Raskin's motion 
to insert a document in the record.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    If you vote aye, you support Raskin's motion. If you vote 
nay, you oppose.
    All those in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, no.
    [Chorus of noes]
    Chairman Comer. The motion fails.
    Mr. Raskin. I would like to ask for a recorded vote, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will call the roll. So, a ``yes'' 
vote means you support Raskin's motion to insert a document in 
the record. ``No'' means you oppose it.
    Clerk, call the report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Waltz votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes yes.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib?
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes yes.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote no.
    How is Mr. Fallon recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon is not recorded.
    Mr. Fallon. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Is Mr. Sessions recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions is not recorded.
    Mr. Sessions. Sessions votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk report the tally?
    Mr. Porter. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Chairman Comer. OK. How is Ms. Porter recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter is not recorded.
    Ms. Porter. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. LaTurner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner is not recorded.
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the tally?
    How is Ms. Norton recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton is not recorded.
    Chairman Comer. Ms. Norton votes yes, I assume? Yes. Ms. 
Norton votes yes.
    How is Mr. Burchett recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes yes.
    Mr. Burchett is not recorded.
    Mr. Burchett. I will be a no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Mrs. Luna recorded?
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna is not recorded.
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And is Mr. Moskowitz recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz is not recorded.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Will the clerk please report the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 10, the 
nays are 19.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Motion fails.
    Now the question is on the amendment, offered by Mr. 
Goldman.
    Does anyone else seek recognition?
    Ms. Greene. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Greene.
    [Chart]
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the 
importance of Hunter Biden obeying his subpoena and some of the 
evidence that we had questions about today. When we had 
arranged with Hunter Biden and his attorneys for him to come 
in, then he evaded his subpoena, and there is serious evidence 
that needs to be discussed. That has to do with many of the 
bank reports that we had read in the Treasury outlining very 
serious crimes that Hunter Biden had committed or has allegedly 
committed, and then we have evidence of that: crimes of Mann 
Act violation, human trafficking. These were in the bank 
reports, and the American people deserve to know about it.
    Here is another excerpt from a bank report----
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Point of order.
    Ms. Greene [continuing]. Talking about a victim in 
California.
    Chairman Comer. Hold on. One moment, Ms. Greene. State your 
point, Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. What is the gentlelady just showing to the 
cameras?
    Chairman Comer. This is her 5 minutes on your amendment.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, if it is the suspicious activity 
reports, there was an agreement with the Treasury Department 
that the Committee would not disclose the information.
    Chairman Comer. It is my understanding what she is showing 
has already been disclosed in the public long before we started 
this investigation.
    Mr. Goldman. So, this is in the public domain?
    Ms. Greene. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Is that your representation?
    Mr. Raskin. Is it a verbal representation it is in the 
public domain?
    Ms. Greene. This is in the public domain. I reclaim my 
time. Victim 1 is a California resident, currently employed 
with FSS Management between June 2018 and October 2021. Victim 
1, Hunter Biden's victim, was employed by Owasco PC, as 
evidenced by her receipt of biweekly payroll remittances from 
Owasco PC. However, during the same period of time, Victim 1 
also received large round dollar wires from Owasco PC, which 
reference new hire K Wage 10K golf member. Victim 1 received 
five wires totaling $44,508 in a 4-month period between June 
12, 2018 and October 2, 2018. These are reports that are 
calling so-called employees of Hunter Biden and his law firm, 
victims.
    And here is evidence of Hunter Biden violating the Mann 
Act. This is trafficking women across state lines for 
prostitution. This is an airplane ticket, and it was purchased 
by Hunter Biden for this victim where she flew from Los Angeles 
to Washington D.C. and then the next day flew back to Los 
Angeles. She flew in from Los Angeles on June 14, 2018 and was 
flown back to Los Angeles the following day. And this is 
pictures that Hunter Biden had produced and uploaded to porn 
websites, and it is marked out----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.
    Ms. Greene. These are marked out showing proof of Mann Act 
violations. Democrats should not be offended by pictures that 
are blacked out----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, have I been recognized?
    Ms. Greene. They should be offended by whole human 
trafficking.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. All right. State your point.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, kindly, Mr. Chairman. On July 26, I 
sent you a letter about the last time this happened when the 
gentlelady introduced before this Committee, without any notice 
to anyone, nude photos, pornographic images that were 
completely irrelevant to the purpose of the hearing itself. And 
my question to you is, are Members allowed to simply put up 
sensationalistic, voyeuristic, pornographic images if they are 
not relevant to the actual object of the legislative 
proceeding? I want a parliamentary ruling on that.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Raskin, that is probably part of the 
questioning for Mr. Biden. Violations of the Mann Act. Ms. 
Greene has lead on that issue.
    Mr. Raskin. No, no. This is a question of the rules of the 
Committee.
    Chairman Comer. These pictures have already been entered 
into the record.
    Mr. Raskin. So, in other words, you have accepted the idea 
that Members can introduce irrelevant, sexually based, 
voyeuristic----
    Chairman Comer. How is this irrelevant?
    Mr. Goldman. How does it relate to Joe Biden?
    Mr. Raskin. How does it relate to----
    Mr. Goldman. We are not doing a criminal investigation of 
Hunter Biden.
    Mr. Biggs. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order.
    Chairman Comer. We have had several people testify in the 
FBI, DOJ, IRS that they were told to stand down investigating 
various crimes of the Biden family, did Joe Biden tell them to 
stand by? Who told the IRS, the FBI, and everyone else to stand 
down? This is what we are investigating.
    Mr. Biggs. No, no.
    Mr. Raskin. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Ms. Greene. I believe it is my time.
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    Ms. Greene. I am reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Raskin. No, I have been recognized. I object to the use 
of this exhibit, Mr. Chairman. This is not a criminal 
investigation of the Mann Act or prostitution or anything else. 
It is completely irrelevant to a subpoena, the validity of that 
subpoena, and whether or not there has been compliance with 
that subpoena. It is totally extraneous, immaterial, and 
irrelevant, and someone should explain that to Ms. Greene if 
she does not understand.
    Mr. Biggs. Point of parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman Comer. And let the Chair rule. You had a point of 
order. This is evidence. You objected. We got that evidence 
that Hunter is a material witness in this investigation.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, does that mean you can put up 
pornographic pictures of other people that Hunter Biden has met 
in his life? I mean, come on. Like, how far does that go? It is 
not relevant to your motion.
    Chairman Comer. Well, you can ask him that in the 
deposition.
    Mr. Raskin. It is not relevant. I mean, no, honestly, Mr. 
Chairman. It is not relevant to your motion of whether or not 
he violated that subpoena. How do those naked pictures of----
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
    Ms. Greene. We talked about a lot of things today that were 
not relevant----
    Mr. Raskin. This is not the ``Jerry Springer'' show. This 
is the U.S. House of Representatives.
    Chairman Comer. And let me say this. This is not 
pornography. It is appropriately censored evidence in an 
ongoing investigation.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. OK. It is appropriately censored evidence 
in an ongoing investigation. Mr. Biggs----
    Mr. Raskin. I just want to say, pursuant to Clause 6 of 
Rule 17, I object to the use of this exhibit as irrelevant, 
extraneous, sensationalistic, voyeuristic, and totally 
antithetical to the legislative purposes of this Committee and 
this House. This is not the ``Jerry Springer'' show. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs for a point 
of order.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks.
    Chairman Comer. Your clock stopped, Ms. Greene.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. My point of order is----
    Mr. Raskin. And I appeal the ruling of the Chair, if that 
was a ruling, Mr. Chairman. Did you rule on it? Because I 
appeal your ruling.
    Mr. Biggs. So, I was recognized for my point of order.
    Chairman Comer. Go ahead.
    Mr. Biggs. And I get it he wants to have an appeal.
    Mr. Raskin. Chairman?
    Mr. Biggs. I am trying to keep this in order as much as we 
can. Mr. Chairman, my question is to you, is now the objection 
based on relevance going to be encountered here and constrain 
what can be presented in this Committee? And the reason I ask 
that is because, there is virtually nothing--a comment I made 
in the press about that, and it was totally tangential to this 
that they just tried to get in. All of that becomes irrelevant. 
If that is the case, then the entire Democrat testimony that we 
have heard today should be stricken as being irrelevant.
    Chairman Comer. No, I think you are----
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Irrelevant and pornographic.
    Chairman Comer. We are going to have a ruling, Mr. Biggs. 
So, Ms. Greene is attempting to enter this into the record, 
unanimous consent, Mr. Raskin has objected, and we are going to 
vote on it just like we voted on the last amendment.
    Yes. The ruling is the point of order will not be 
recognized, and Ms. Greene is in order. If you want to object--
--
    Mr. Raskin. Well, yes, I object. And, Mr. Chairman, you 
have the authority to bring to the full House, under Rule 17, 
whether or not pornographic material should be entered without 
a clear shown relevance, and I would ask you to bring that to 
the Floor of the House. Let the Members of the House decide 
whether that is the new standard, whether Congresswoman 
Marjorie Taylor Greene's----
    Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, may I have my----
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Standard is going to be the 
standard for the whole House.
    Chairman Comer. Decorum is within discretion of the Chair. 
We overruled your objection.
    Mr. Raskin. OK, and I appeal that.
    Chairman Comer. You appeal the ruling of the Chair?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, I do. I would like to----
    Chairman Comer. We are going to vote on that.
    Mr. Raskin. We are going to vote on the pornography.
    Ms. Greene. May I finish?
    Chairman Comer. Hold on. Mr. Gosar, you are recognized.
    Mr. Gosar. I move to table the motion.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Motion to table the motion of Mr. 
Raskin. This motion is not debatable. As many as are in favor 
of tabling, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the yeas have 
it, and the motion to table is agreed to.
    The Committee will now resume----
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I would move for a recorded vote. 
I mean, if that were a book, she would censor it, but she wants 
to advertise it through the House of Representatives.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. A recorded vote 
is ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. If we are going by courtroom, speaking 
objections do not work, chief.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will call the roll. The clerk 
will call the roll. If you vote yes, you table the motion.
    So, Clerk, call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes yes.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes yes.
    Mr. Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
    Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
    Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes aye.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes aye.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Waltz votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes no.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
    Mr. Mfume?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes no.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes no.
    Mr. Gomez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes nay.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes no.
    Ms. Tlaib?
    Ms. Tlaib. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chairman votes yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please report the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the nays are 15. The 
ayes are 21.
    Chairman Comer. The yeas have it, and the motion to table 
is agreed to.
    The Committee will now resume consideration of the Goldman 
Amendment. Ms. Greene has 2 minutes remaining.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, this 
information is extremely important because Hunter Biden refused 
to obey his subpoena, and we are holding him in contempt of 
Congress for doing so. This is important evidence of human 
trafficking, Mann Act violations, that we had questions for the 
President's son about, and there is evidence. I would like to 
show the evidence of payments. These are payments made from 
Hunter Biden and his law firm to so-called assistants. These 
were not assistants. These are prostitutes that he was 
trafficking, and I think these victims are important. And just 
because our Democrat colleagues do not like the evidence does 
not mean that it is not relevant, and I am especially offended 
by the women on this Committee that do not care about these 
women's rights. They are victims of Hunter Biden.
    Here is another excerpt from bank reports talking about 
victims. These are banks, and these banks are identifying these 
women as victims, Victim 2, talking about Victim 2, Victim 1. 
Each appear to be in the adult entertainment industry and are 
receiving payments from Hunter and Owasco PC. It is unclear 
what relationship Hunter or Owasco PC have with these 
individuals, and based on public media, it appears possible the 
payments may be associated to prostitution or adult 
entertainment services. Victim 2 is a New York resident and 
employed as freelance. Per internet research, she is a social 
media influencer and adult entertainer. She received six 
Quickpays for $6,250 from Hunter between 3/29/2018 to 11/20/
2018. This is clear evidence, Mr. Chairman. These are important 
questions we have for the President's son----
    Ms. Crockett. Time.
    Ms. Greene [continuing]. Pertaining to Mann Act violations.
    Ms. Crockett. Time.
    Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. I did not 
want to interrupt the good lady, but two points here. One is 
the Majority has purported to be in possession of the laptop, 
and you are supposed to share all evidence with us. We have 
been asking for a year. Will you make the laptop available to 
the Democrats so we can look at it? The guy who originally 
apparently leaked it, he said he cannot vouch for anything they 
are talking about because he does not understand the chain of 
custody. We do not know who made those pictures. We do not know 
who made those statements. If it is coming from the laptop, we 
don't know where it is coming from. So please, could you please 
share with us what you have got?
    Mrs. Luna. If I can interject. I can give you a copy of it. 
Marco Polo has the actual entire publication. We can get every 
single Democrat Member a copy of that.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I want to get at least the copy that the 
Majority is using. I do not even know what Marco Polo is.
    Mrs. Luna. I promise. Like, I am not trying to be rude. I 
will get you a copy.
    Chairman Comer. But you mentioned you wanted to read some 
stuff. That would probably be something good to read, the Marco 
Polo report.
    Mr. Raskin. But what about your copy because, you know, you 
have an obligation under the rules to share with us any 
evidence you claim to have. So as far as we know, all of that 
stuff is completely confected. It is just made up.
    Chairman Comer. With all due respect, Mr. Raskin, you spent 
a lot of time investigating the former President and you have 
not spent any time on this. The American people are keeping up 
with this investigation.
    Mr. Raskin. We want to investigate.
    Chairman Comer. But you all are three or four steps behind 
the investigation.
    Mr. Raskin. Give us the evidence.
    Chairman Comer. So, Ms. Greene's time has expired. Does 
anyone else wish to speak on the Goldman Amendment?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Moskowitz.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, again, 
just to reiterate the point but rather than my words or my 
opinion, I think I am going to quote Senator Ted Cruz who the 
Chairman appeared on his podcast, and, in fact, just to remind 
the Chairman of Ted's own advice to the Chairman. I made a 
board for you, Mr. Chairman. You were on the show with Ted Cruz 
in which Ted Cruz said to you, ``I am going to give you some 
unsolicited advice.'' Now, by the way, Ted Cruz, right, clerked 
at the Supreme Court. He knows the Constitution pretty well. 
You guys know who Ted Cruz is, right? He has run for President 
a couple times. So, Ted Cruz said to you, Mr. Chairman, you 
should have Hunter Biden in a public hearing. He actually said 
his advice to you is just have him in a public hearing.
    And, again, I go back to what is the Majority so concerned, 
or to use some of the words of my colleagues, afraid, to have 
Hunter Biden sit at this desk? Mr. Chairman, you control the 
rules. You could give everybody 10 minutes. You could give 
everybody 15 minutes. You could give everybody 20 minutes. You 
could give your side as much time. We could go on for days 
here, quite frankly, because, again, you control the rules, as 
you just showed.
    But the one difference that you guys object to, is you 
object to the cameras because you do not want the American 
people to hear the answers. No. You want to take the transcript 
and release it 6 months after you have gone out and lied about 
what has happened, and so, again, because the gentlelady from 
Georgia, I know, is such an advocate for women's rights, as she 
mentioned, and is so concerned about grooming, and apparently 
we do not have any standards here anymore.
    [Chart]
    Again, I just want to remind my colleagues because I do not 
want them to forget about hypocrisy, OK? I do not want them to 
forget about hypocrisy. But Donald Trump was asked about 
Jeffrey Epstein, and when he was asked, he said, you know, 
Jeffrey likes them young. Well, how did the President know 
that? How did he know that Jeffrey Epstein likes them young? 
Perhaps some people are saying he was there, since you are so 
concerned, right? But again, again, I bring this up not to make 
jest. I bring it up----
    Mr. Biggs. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I thought we were not going to interrupt.
    Chairman Comer. We are going to stop the clock. We did this 
with Ms. Greene.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK.
    Chairman Comer. State your point.
    Mr. Biggs. I am just curious about the impugning of the 
former President's character----
    Mr. Moskowitz. I do not have to do that. He does that 
himself.
    Mr. Biggs. Have we basically thrown that rule out? I am 
just curious. Are we going to follow that rule?
    Mr. Raskin. Would you accept a pornographic photo?
    Mrs. Luna. Of Bill Clinton?
    Chairman Comer. Yes. We suspended the rule to the current 
President, but we did not suspend it to the former President.
    Mr. Moskowitz. By the way, please, so you are making the 
point that we can disparage Joe Biden but not Donald Trump. 
Please make that point to the American people. Please. Bill 
Clinton is not running for office.
    Mr. Biggs. That is my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. All right.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I will wrap it up.
    Chairman Comer. We suspended the rule on disparaging the 
current President because this is a contempt proceeding with a 
Biden, so he is part of the investigation.
    Mr. Biggs. But the rule remains in place for all prior 
Presidents, including----
    Chairman Comer. I would say that, but in all honesty, they 
have broken the rule many times today.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, it does not apply to the prior 
Presidents.
    Chairman Comer. It does not apply to former. All right.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. Very good. Thank you.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Listen, I will not talk about the photo and 
the 11 of them and the fact that he was on the plane and on the 
island anymore. What I will point out is the hypocrisy of 
today. The hypocrisy of today is you guys break the rules by 
not complying with subpoenas in the last Congress, and now you 
are shocked. You cannot believe, after you broke all of that, 
that now it does not work.
    You come up here and talk about Hunter Biden's behavior, 
and you are so disgusted, but the guy that you all kneel to, 
OK, associates himself with a pedophile. But remember, I get 
it. I----
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Chairman, that should be stricken.
    Mr. Biggs. I ask his words be taken down.
    Mr. Raskin. It is a statement of a fact in his time.
    Mr. Moskowitz. It is a fact.
    Mr. Biggs. I ask that his words be taken down.
    Chairman Comer. OK. There is a motion to strike the words.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. On what grounds? On what grounds?
    Mr. Biggs. To say that we associate with pedophiles.
    Mr. Raskin. No, no. He was referring to Donald Trump.
    Mr. Moskowitz. No, no. I said Donald Trump associates.
    Mr. Higgins. The man just said that we all kneel. I kneel 
to Christ. I stand for the flag. And if you are concerned about 
pornography being shown in public----
    Mr. Moskowitz. I will change my word to ``support.''
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Ranking Member, you might look to the 
library books that your people support.
    Mr. Raskin. No. OK. So, you are referring to the ``kneel 
down,'' Donald Trump, said that someone tried----
    Mr. Cloud. I move for his words to be taken down. It is a 
motion.
    Mr. Raskin. And I think he withdrew that.
    Mr. Moskowitz. I withdraw my----
    Chairman Comer. He withdrew it. He withdrew. That will be 
taken from the record.
    All right. Everybody good? That is going to be taken from 
the record.
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK. I withdraw the ``kneel down.'' I will 
use the word ``very much support.'' We OK with that? No 
snowflakes offended? OK. Wonderful.
    Anyway, back to the point, Mr. Chairman, is that I just 
think the American people are tired of the hypocrisy, right? 
They are just tired of it because what they have recognized is 
when Donald Trump does something, it is just fine, but when 
someone else does it, it is a crime, time and time again. You 
think the Chinese stayed at his hotel because they did not have 
another choice? You think he wanted to have the G7 at Doral 
because Doral is the best property in America? Come on, you 
guys are smarter than this. You know he was trying to make 
himself rich. But when Donald Trump does it, when Donald Trump 
does it, when Donald Trump does it, it is just fine, but when a 
private citizen you claim does it, it is a crime. You guys do 
not have any credibility. You might have credibility on the 
``Charlie Kirk Show,'' but you do not have any credibility with 
the American people anymore. You just do not. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask for the 
last word to be stricken, and I would like to yield to 
Representative Timmons.
    Chairman Comer. OK.
    Mr. Timmons. I thank my friend. I want to correct the 
record. It seems this entire hearing, we are chasing all of 
these logical arguments that really do not have any merit. And 
earlier, before we recessed, we were discussing the Ranking 
Member's $7.8 million in foreign payments from at least 20 
countries during his presidency, and I knew the answer. I knew 
that that was revenue, and it was not actually profits. Hold 
on. I will let you ask questions at the end of this.
    And you said did I read the report, and so I did. And in 
the report, it actually specifically says these included 
payments from foreign governments and foreign government-owned 
or controlled entities to properties owned by Donald Trump, 
including Trump International Hotel in D.C., Vegas, Fifth 
Avenue, and--this is my favorite--Trump World Tower at 845 
United Nations Plaza in New York. So, let us just use that one 
alone because if you go down to Footnote 23, it actually 
clarifies where this money came from to include the amount of 
money. And so, what you all did is you took a building that was 
built in 1999 and completed in 2001, and it is a hundred yards 
from United Nations. So, these foreign countries owned 
multimillion, $10 million, $20 million condos in one of the 
nicer buildings in New York.
    And I was just kind of shocked because I knew that you were 
using revenue and you were not using actual profit that the 
President or the Trump organization made. You actually used HOA 
payments. Do you know how duplicitous it is for you to use HOA 
payments on a $20 million condo in New York? Like, it is 
outrageous.
    No, no, no, I am going to go through. We are going to go 
through all of them because you list them. You list them. And I 
see Saudi Arabia, $615,422, Trump World Tower, and you go and 
you look, there is nothing there that is under $10 million, $12 
million. So, you are taking a $12 million property that was 
owned since 2001, and you are saying that this is somehow 
similar to Hunter Biden running all over the world and selling 
the ``Big Guy's'' influence. These are completely different 
things. And the fact that you even created this report and you 
are using it to shield us pursuing justice to make sure that 
this President is not compromised because his son has sold 
secrets to China, to Ukraine, is so disingenuous, it is so 
duplicitous. It is not even misrepresentation. It is a lie.
    I am happy to hear this from you because, again, you told 
me to go read it. I read it. That is what it says. I can read 
you in Footnote 23 where it says this report uses common 
charges or rent payments. All of these properties were owned 
prior to 2018. They did not go out and purchase them because of 
the President. They were there for decades before this 
happened. That is the point. That is the difference.
    Mrs. McClain. Do not let the facts get in the way of a good 
story.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Will the gentleman yield? Will the 
gentleman yield?
    Mr. Timmons. Absolutely.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, my dear friend, for engaging in 
substance and not ad hominem attack. I very much appreciate 
that. Having said that, first of all, you said that there are 
lies in here. Can you find one factual inaccuracy? There is not 
one.
    Mr. Timmons. For you to tell the American----
    Mr. Raskin. You are quoting us.
    Mr. Timmons. Reclaim my time. For you----
    Mr. Raskin. Let me make this point. Let me make this point 
which is that China gave $5.5 million----
    Chairman Comer. It is Mr. Timmons' time. It is Mr. Timmons' 
time.
    Mr. Timmons. For you to tell the American people that $7.8 
million went to President Trump is an outright lie. It is a 
fabrication--hold on--and I will tell you exactly why, because 
you are using businesses that existed decades prior to when he 
became President.
    Mr. Raskin. And you are saying all of them?
    Mr. Timmons. Hold on. And you are using HOA fees for 
multimillion dollar properties that have been around since 
2001, and, again, even the fees that they pay for hotel rooms, 
that is a fee for a product for a service. There is no service 
with Hunter Biden other than influence of the Vice President or 
the President of the United States. And that is why we are here 
because he will not answer questions in the exact manner that 
you have required for last Congress and the Congress before 
that.
    I mean, it is difficult to chase all of your logical 
fallacies surrounding this, but at the end of the day, he is 
going to do exactly what Don Jr. did. He is going to do exactly 
what you required of every other Member, except every other 
person you have subpoenaed, except for Members of Congress who 
actually do have immunity, which you are pretending like you do 
not know what that means. We need to get to the bottom of this. 
The American people demand it, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Excellent. Does any other Member wish to 
speak? You wish to speak on the amendment?
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Ms. Stansbury is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just quickly, 
before I speak on the amendment, I do want to address the 
assertions that were just made about this report and the 
receipts that have been provided about the funding that came 
into various properties and businesses owned by Donald Trump 
while he was President.
    To address the inaccuracy put forward by Mr. Timmons, if 
you go to the source material, which is the actual receipts 
from Trump International Hotel, other hotels in New York, yes, 
there are condo fees. There are a number of different 
businesses, but it is very clear that there was influence 
peddling going on. So, for example, there are receipts----
    Mr. Timmons. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Stansbury. No. There are receipts that show the 
Malaysian Government, between September 10 and 13, was spending 
$10,000 a night--butler service, personal trainers, lavish 
meals--at the same time that they were meeting with Donald 
Trump, and the media reports from the time say that they 
discussed their stay at Trump's hotel in the Oval Office. So, 
this is just not true.
    And another one, UAE. During a military delegation visit in 
March 2018, they were negotiating an arms package with the 
White House at the time. They dropped $85,000 at Trump Hotel 
and were discussing their stay at the hotel while they were 
negotiating the arms package. The Saudi crown prince and his 
staff dropped tens of thousands of dollars in Trump's hotel 
while Trump was in office. They were not only negotiating an 
arms deal, they were seeking the Iranian deal or the Iranian 
agreements under the previous administration to be overturned. 
And we know that months after Trump and Kushner left the Oval 
Office, the MBS committed $2 billion to Kushner against the 
advice of his own investment advisors. And we know that in 
Kazakhstan, we had the Kazakh President who came and stayed, 
again, in Trump's New York and D.C. properties while there was 
these very nefarious activities going on.
    So, I would encourage our colleagues to actually look at 
the receipts and then go look at the dates and what was 
actually happening in the media. It is very clear that whether 
or not Trump encouraged them to stay in his hotels or 
properties, or these foreign governments stayed in them and 
then told Trump and his son-in-law, they were seeking influence 
by staying at his property and, thus, were trying to bribe him, 
which is a violation of the Emoluments Clause of the United 
States Constitution.
    So, let us move back to the amendment here just for a 
moment. I do want to just establish a little bit of a timeline, 
and, Mr. Chairman, if it is OK, I would like to just ask some 
clarifying questions on the timeline. It is my understanding 
that in February of last year, that you transmitted a letter to 
Biden's attorneys seeking documents and communications from the 
investigation. Is that correct? I will go ahead and answer on 
your behalf because we have the records for that, if it is not 
immediately at your hands.
    Our understanding from the witness is that the Chairman and 
his staff never responded to that request. In fact, they did 
not hear another thing until 7 months later when in September, 
Mr. Comer, you appeared on a TV news station on Newsmax and 
said, ``Hunter Biden is more than welcome to come in front of 
the Committee if he wants to clear his good name. If he wants 
to come and say, you know, that these were not his dealings, 
then he could come and clear his name.'' And so literally, the 
next day on September 13, Biden's attorney responded and wrote 
you back and said you never responded to our offer. I will come 
in. I will come do a public testimony.
    A couple months later, after the impeachment hearing that 
just completely fell apart, Chairman, you went on the ``Benny 
Show,'' and you extended another offer to Hunter Biden to come 
testify in front of the American people under oath. And yet 
again, when Biden's attorney transmitted a letter offering to 
do so, instead you issued a subpoena to do a closed-door 
deposition. It is just very odd, right? Like, here we are. 
There has been a lot of yelling today. I think we are all 
getting real tired of all of this, but the reality is, is that 
Hunter Biden has, even today, showed up in front of the 
Committee ready to testify under oath. So, you know, like, let 
us be real. And I think the reality is, is that of all of these 
tens of thousands of documents that have been provided to the 
Majority in their investigation, none of them have actually 
shown any wrongdoing by the President. And so, it is easier to 
create a smoke screen to keep this narrative in the media and 
to peddle in disinformation----
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired, and there are so many 
inaccuracies with your statement, we do not have time to 
address them all. The Chair recognizes Mr. Donalds for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, we should be 
voting down this amendment. It is not needed. What is clear is 
that the only document that matters is the fact that there was 
a subpoena issued by this Committee signed by the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives. That is the only thing that governs 
subpoenas before anybody coming to this Committee. It does not 
matter if any Member of this Committee did an interview any 
place, whether it is the Chairman or any other Member. That is 
irrelevant.
    The only thing that matters is a signed subpoena by the 
Chairman of this Committee and the Clerk of the House. The 
semantics about what Hunter Biden thought he could do or what 
Abbe Lowell, his attorney, tried to get him to be able to 
posture or get out of it is meaningless. And the Democrats know 
this is meaningless. This is a subterfuge because their guy 
bucked a subpoena against the law, period, full stop. Members, 
vote down this amendment. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The question is on the amendment, on the 
Goldman Amendment. All those in favor.
    Mr. Goldman. We have another.
    Chairman Comer. What is that?
    Mr. Goldman. We have another.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Norton----
    Ms. Norton. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman----
    Mr. Raskin. From New York.
    Ms. Norton. From New York.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you. I appreciate my distinguished 
colleague from D.C. I want to just take this opportunity to 
address some of the Chairman's evidentiary allegations that you 
made earlier today.
    First, I would just note that we keep hearing this over and 
over and over again, that Donald Trump had a business, Donald 
Trump had real estate, Donald Trump sold widgets or whatever it 
is. Obviously, there are many different ways of investing or 
spending money or getting paid for services or for simply 
putting capital into another company. So, I do not know what 
these investments were that Hunter Biden and Devon Archer and 
these other folks were involved in. Devon Archer testified that 
it was private equity. That is a legitimate form of business to 
invest capital in other companies.
    Mr. Donalds. Don't you believe we should get that question 
under oath?
    Mr. Goldman. You got it under oath from Devon Archer, sir. 
In any event, let us go back to, I think the Fourth Bank 
Memorandum is what you pointed me to earlier today, because you 
alleged, Mr. Chairman, that there is money that went directly 
from CEFC, a Chinese company, to Hunter Biden, then to Joe 
Biden in $40,000?
    Chairman Comer. Through the shells, yes.
    Mr. Goldman. Oh, through the shells. Through the shells. 
You did not say that. That you did not say. So, I went back----
    Chairman Comer. You have had a hard time understanding what 
a shell company is, but anyway go ahead.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, you would know, wouldn't you?
    Chairman Comer. Oh yes. I try.
    Mr. Goldman. So, here we are looking at this fourth 
amendment. Well, I will show this chart first because it shows 
how clear it is.
    [Chart]
    Mr. Goldman. You have got a Chinese company going to Biden-
China joint venture, going to a Hunter Biden individual entity, 
going to James and Sarah Biden entity, going to James and Sarah 
Biden personal bank account, going to Joe Biden. So that, I 
guess, is what is directly money from China to Joe Biden. It 
just had to go from a Chinese company to a joint venture that 
Hunter Biden entered into with another Chinese company.
    Chairman Comer. Would you yield for a question?
    Mr. Goldman. I just want to finish going through what you 
told me to go through, and then I am happy to yield.
    Chairman Comer. OK.
    Mr. Goldman. Then it went to Hunter Biden's personal 
company that he generally used for a variety of his business 
ventures. Then it went to another entity for James and Sarah 
Biden. Then it went to James and Sarah Biden. Then Jim Biden, 
almost a month later, sent a $40,000 check to his brother, the 
President, which said it was for a loan repayment, and the same 
bank records where you got this from showed that a loan went 
from Joe Biden to Jim Biden. So, this is the kind of duplicity 
that we are talking about.
    You want to say there is evidence connecting Joe Biden to 
Hunter Biden's business ventures, and you make a false and 
inflammatory allegation that money went from China to Hunter to 
Joe when, in reality, it is 4 pages, it is 21 bullet points of 
information to get from A to B to C to D to E to F. There is no 
possible way that you could ever show that Jim Biden knows----
    Chairman Comer. He----
    Mr. Goldman. This is my time, Mr. Chairman. There is no 
possible way you could ever prove under any circumstances that 
Jim Biden knew where that money came from. And you certainly 
cannot show with any evidence at all that Joe Biden would know 
that on month before, six different transactions earlier, 
somehow this money came from a Chinese investment that Hunter 
Biden had. You are desperate. You are misrepresenting the 
facts. There is no evidence. There is no evidence of Joe 
Biden's involvement in Hunter Biden's business interests. There 
is no evidence of Joe Biden's involvement in any Mann Act or 
prostitution stuff.
    Hunter Biden should be investigated by the Department of 
Justice, and he has been for 5 years. He is a private citizen. 
This is what you call an impeachment investigation to the 
President of the United States based on complete fiction and 
smoke and mirrors. There is not a piece of evidence that links 
anything that Hunter Biden did to Joe Biden, and this is a 
complete sham.
    Chairman Comer. Your time has expired, and those accounts 
that they went through were depleted. It was not hard to trace 
the money when there is not any money in the account and it 
passes through----
    Mr. Goldman. He does not have bank----
    Chairman Comer. No, no. You have the bank records, too. You 
all get every bit of evidence we have.
    Mr. Goldman. No one who receives the money has the----
    Chairman Comer. The accounts were depleted. Order. Order.
    Mrs. Luna. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Mrs. Luna is recognized.
    Mrs. Luna. Can I say something?
    Chairman Comer. Yes. You have----
    Mrs. Luna. No one is above the law. Even if you think that 
he is innocent, he cannot defy a congressional subpoena. That 
is what this is about. People here, I am sure on that side too, 
have family members that have gone to jail for probably less 
offenses, so why is he given the special privilege? We have no 
authority if you have the President's son who is sitting there 
doing illegal things. I mean, I know it probably does not make 
you feel good to defend the guy, but, like, for goodness' sake, 
he has denied. He should be held accountable. At least bring 
him in and admit that.
    Mr. Goldman. He should be held accountable by the 
Department of Justice where he is being held accountable.
    Mrs. Luna. Yes. Wait, wait, wait, wait. He should be held 
accountable by the Department of Justice, but that is what we 
are voting to do, is to send that to investigation because he 
denied and defied a congressional subpoena.
    Mr. Goldman. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Mrs. Luna. Wait, let me finish. If the DOJ does not uphold 
that, though, we have a serious problem in this country that 
this man is held above the law, and that is why we are arguing 
here today. We are trying to send it to the DOJ, but you are 
arguing against that. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you. Would you agree that Members of 
Congress who outright defy subpoenas should also be held to the 
same standard?
    Mrs. Luna. I believe that certain Members are protected 
under the Speech and Debate Clause. Some people here can 
probably school me on that, but aside from that, this is a 
serious investigation. There has been a lot of personal attack 
in this entire correspondence that we have had in the last, I 
do not know, couple hours that we have been here. But what I 
will say is that Hunter Biden is not above the law. We want to 
send him to the DOJ and we want to trust the DOJ to do their 
job. But right now, the American people have a serious distrust 
factor with the DOJ and for good reason. So, we would like to 
pass this, send it to the DOJ, and let us see if they will do 
what they promise the American people they would do. I yield my 
time.
    Chairman Comer. Very good.
    Ms. Tlaib. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman Comer. Ms. Tlaib? Yes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes. Thank you so much. I would like to yield my 
time to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Ms. Tlaib, thank you very much. I wanted to 
pursue the very interesting conversation that we began about 
the Foreign Emoluments Clause. And again, I am just delighted 
that after 7 years, several Republicans now are actually taking 
an active interest in the Foreign Emoluments Clause as a part 
of their investigation into the potential impeachment of Joe 
Biden, which we have been working on for a year.
    Let us start with this. When Donald Trump took office, he 
refused to divest himself of any of his more than 500 
businesses, and he refused to put any of his more than 500 
businesses in a blind trust. He said he would continue to be 
the owner of those businesses, but he would transfer some of 
the day-to-day management to his sons. If anybody wants to 
contradict me on that, I will stand to be corrected, but that 
was what Donald Trump said when he was told by George W. Bush's 
ethics advisor that he was putting himself in extremely 
dangerous territory unless he stated that he was going to 
refuse to accept any money in the future from foreign 
governments. He ignored and defied the advice of all the ethics 
advisors for Republican administrations, for Democratic 
administrations.
    I want you to recognize the radically unprecedented nature 
of what he did at that point, and he set himself up for the 
trouble he got into. Now----
    Mr. Timmons. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Raskin. I will. As soon as I make these points, I will 
come right to you.
    No. 2, my good friend makes it sound like Donald Trump was 
totally innocent. Well, he was a businessman, and he did not 
know any of this was going to happen with these foreign 
governments. Really? Read the report in detail, my friend. For 
example, go to page 69. Here is a quote from Donald Trump as he 
was campaigning: ``I love the Saudis. Many are in this 
building. Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. 
They buy apartments from me. They spent $40 million, $50 
million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very 
much.'' We can find quotes just like that about the Chinese 
Government. This is your guy.
    Now, the governments knew exactly what they were buying at 
the exact same time. For example, take ICBC, and, by the way, 
the vast majority of businesses were not paying before as 
tenants. That is not right. They were patronizing the hotels in 
Washington and New York. They were going to the golf clubs and 
so on. A handful of them were preexisting tenants. That in 
itself is unconstitutional and illegal. You want to be 
President of the United States? Then you get out of that. You 
divest, which is what other Presidents have done. Look at what 
Kennedy said. Look what Obama did. Look what Abraham Lincoln 
did. Every President before Trump scrupulously followed the 
Foreign Emoluments Clause.
    Go to page 10. There is a corrupt Chinese-owned bank called 
ICBC, one of Trump's tenants, and the Department of Justice 
recommended sanctions against them for funneling money and 
services to North Korea. And Donald Trump reversed them 
because, as he was saying, he collected money from some of 
these people, like Saudi Arabia. He knew who he was collecting 
money from. Of course, Donald Trump knew that. He is a 
businessman.
    Is there anybody that would dare to challenge that idea? 
Here is the former Republican Chairman, Ed Royce, of the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee, who called on Trump to apply maximum 
financial and diplomatic pressure by targeting Chinese banks 
that do business with North Korea, like ICBC, and Donald Trump 
let them off scot-free, just like he did with Saudi Arabia 
after the homicidal crown prince ordered the assassination of 
Jamal Khashoggi. They covered up for him. He said, we saved his 
``blank.'' We saved his ``blank,'' and he owes us now, and, of 
course, as soon as the Administration ended, his son-in-law 
created a business and brought back--what do you know--$2 
billion from Saudi Arabia, even though the Sovereign Wealth 
National Investment Fund said it was a terrible idea, overruled 
by the crown prince whose ``blank'' was saved by Donald Trump.
    So, our founders would be offended that we even have to get 
into the specifics of what was done because they said 
categorically, nobody can take a dollar from a foreign 
government. Do you understand that? No payment ``of any kind 
whatever.'' So, we do not have to have this ridiculous, 
humiliating debate about how far one of our Presidents debased 
himself to line his own pockets.
    Mr. Gosar. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Raskin. Sure. I would love to yield.
    Mr. Gosar. So, my thought process here is I understand that 
the President lost money during his tenure.
    Mr. Raskin. Really?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, he went bankrupt 5 times. It does not 
surprise me if that is true, but I doubt it because I think 
they made more money that year than they had in the several 
prior years before he became President.
    Mr. Gosar. Well, he dropped out of the top 100, so I----
    Mr. Raskin. Well, yes, because they started finally 
checking the records. You know that your guy cooked the books a 
little bit, but in any event, Donald Trump----
    Mrs. Luna. Cooks the books with the rules that the 
Congress, pre-dated, made the rules for----
    Chairman Comer. All right. All right. All right.
    Mr. Raskin. He has just been punished by the state of New 
York.
    Chairman Comer. Are we ready to vote on the amendment?
    Are we ready to vote on the amendment? All right.
    All those in favor of the Goldman Amendment, signify by 
saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, no.
    [Chorus of noes]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. Recorded vote, please.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    All right. Now, I understand, Mr. Raskin, you have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Raskin. I do.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to 
all Members.
    [Pause.]
    Chairman Comer. Does everyone have the Raskin Amendment? 
Does everyone have it? OK. The clerk will designate the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as offered by Mr. Raskin of Maryland.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order.
    The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes to 
explain his amendment.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Since we have 
not read the amendment, I am just going to work through the 
basic terms of it. ``Resolved, that the initial deadline for 
Hunter Biden to comply with the subpoena issued on November 8 
was December 13, 2023;
    ``Resolved, that current Members of Congress and three 
Members of this Committee have refused to comply with subpoenas 
duly issued under the authority of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, including Mr. Biggs of Arizona, Mr. Jordan of 
Ohio, and Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania;
    ``Resolved, that the aforementioned Members of Congress 
have firsthand knowledge and information related to the January 
6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and on this body and on the Vice 
President of United States, that is of critical importance for 
the American people and the work of this Committee;
    ``That the deadline for Hunter Biden to comply with the 
November 8 subpoena be changed to the date upon which the 
aforementioned Members of Congress supply their knowledge and 
information to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.''
    In other words, Hunter Biden has until the date upon which 
our own Members comply with the subpoenas that were issued in 
the last Congress that have still not been supplied, and that 
``the aforementioned Members of Congress shall be ineligible to 
vote on matters pertaining to contempt of Congress considered 
by this Committee until the date upon which the aforementioned 
Members of Congress supply this knowledge and information to 
the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.'' In other 
words, you should not be standing in judgment on contempt of 
other people who allegedly have violated their subpoenas when 
you have violated a subpoena and have not complied with the 
orders of the U.S. House of Representatives.
    I would also like to raise a problem that struck me as I 
was looking through the paperwork on this, Mr. Chairman, which 
is that the subpoena that was sent to Mr. Biden, which came 
around a week before or a couple of months before it was issued 
on November 8, 2023, was issued before the House of 
Representatives had voted on impeachment. I remember there were 
numerous Republican Members who were very hesitant about voting 
for it because of the testimony of the Majority's own witnesses 
who said there was nothing closely approximating a quantum of 
evidence that would justify impeachment. And so, there had been 
no vote on it, you will recall.
    Mr. Gosar. A point of order.
    Mr. Raskin. And on November 8, the subpoena was issued. The 
subpoena date for appearance was on December----
    Chairman Comer. If I could----
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Gosar has a point of order to explain.
    Mr. Gosar. Yes, we are not talking about impeachment. We 
are talking about impeachment inquiry. We need to be very 
considerate about that.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, exactly right, and that goes right to the 
point of this question I have. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. The 
subpoena was issued on November 8 for a subpoena date of 
appearance on December 13. And that was the same date when, you 
will recall, we were called to the House, and then there was a 
vote on impeachment. So, the underlying subpoena here is at 
least arguably invalid for the purposes of holding him in 
contempt of not complying with the subpoena related to 
impeachment, and I wonder if we could clear that up.
    But at any event, I would press the amendment. Certainly, 
those Members who have outstanding subpoenas from the U.S. 
House of Representatives who blew off the subpoenas should turn 
over what they know about the violent attack on the U.S. 
Capitol, the worst domestic political violence designed to 
overthrow an election in American history at the Capitol, and 
they should turn that over. And at that point, then--yes, I 
will yield, 1 second--and then Mr. Biden should also be forced 
to comply at that point. In the meantime, those Members really 
should not be voting on contempt motions related to other 
witnesses. And somebody had a question.
    Mr. Biggs. I did. You yield?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Are you sure that everybody up there actually 
received a subpoena? I mean, your board says certain people 
received a subpoena, and, in my experience, some of those 
people up there did not receive a subpoena and so notified 
counsel for your bogus J6 Committee.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, first of all, every court in the land has 
rejected the claim there was anything bogus about it. As you 
know, the courts rejected the idea that it was somehow----
    Mr. Biggs. Was it heard before every court of the land?
    Mr. Raskin. Every court that heard it. Do you have any 
authority on your side for that outrageous proposition? I know 
you would like to believe it, but your fantasies are not the 
law of the United States.
    Mr. Biggs. I have great fantasies.
    Mr. Raskin. I am certain you do. You and Ms. Greene might 
want to discuss them together, OK?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, but you have not answered the question. You 
do not know if those people actually even received the subpoena 
and you have put it on the board, and you are going forward and 
trying to hold people in contempt.
    Mr. Raskin. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. I 
served for more than a year on the bipartisan January Select 
Committee to investigate the attack, and you might not like Liz 
Cheney anymore, who was head of your conference, but it was 
bipartisan, my friends. And so was Adam Kinzinger, who served 
this country well, so, but in any event, nobody ever claimed 
that they had not gotten the subpoena. And----
    Mr. Biggs. Go back and check the record, sir.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, if that is the argument, have them come 
forward and explain that. I would like them to testify under 
oath that they never received it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we 
immediately dispense with the amendment for lack of 
germaneness.
    Chairman Comer. OK. I am prepared to rule the amendment is 
not germane to the bill. Therefore, the amendment is not in 
order.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to appeal the ruling 
of the Chair. It is clearly germane. It goes right to the heart 
of what we are doing here today.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The motion to appeal the ruling of the 
Chair is not debatable.
    All those in favor of tabling the appeal----
    Mr. Gosar. Wait. Wait.
    Chairman Comer. Go ahead.
    Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes, Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. I move to table.
    Chairman Comer. All right. OK. Mr. Gosar's motion is not 
debatable.
    All those in favor of tabling the appeal of the Chair 
signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it, and the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair is tabled.
    The Committee will now resume consideration of any further 
amendments before this body.
    Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 
It is Garcia Number 3.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Who said that?
    Voice. Mr. Garcia.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. For the Amendment Number 3.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk report?
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as offered by Mr. Garcia of California.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order.
    Mr. Garcia is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know obviously what 
we are seeing today has been quite insane. We have seen 
pornographic images. We have talked about White privilege, but 
what we have not seen is any sort of evidence linking President 
Biden to any sort of wrongdoing. There has been absolutely zero 
evidence discussed today, and as we know, all the demands for a 
public hearing with Hunter have gone unanswered, even today 
when we asked for that vote.
    But what we do have is plenty of evidence that we have 
uncovered in this Committee and that have been against the 
Constitution with our investigation of foreign government 
payments to President Trump through his businesses. And what do 
we have as Democrats, we have receipts, proof, a timeline, 
screenshots. We have everything we need to prove conclusively 
that foreign governments were funneling money through Trump 
properties and into Donald Trump's pockets, all in violation of 
the Constitution. Now, we do not have access to all of Trump's 
properties, and he has hundreds, by the way, of properties and 
business interests, and we do not have access because our 
Chairman actually chose to end that investigation, but my 
amendment will fix that by demanding a full accounting of 
Trump's businesses.
    Now we know that we can already prove about almost $8 
million of foreign payments, illegal payments, against the 
Constitution back to the Trump Organization, and that is just a 
tip of the iceberg because we do not have access to the other 
hundreds of businesses and properties. That $8 million of 
receipts and payments that we have is only from a total of four 
properties of the hundreds of businesses of Donald Trump and 
his family. No family in history has ever benefited more than 
the Trumps and the Kushners.
    And actually, I want to talk about Jared over here, 
especially his son-in-law. His son-in-law was brought in to run 
Middle East Policy at the start of the Trump White House, by 
the way, having zero experience in doing that work and against 
the objections of the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. Trump 
and Kushner, of course, made their first state visit to Saudi 
Arabia, overruling the State Department, this is the same time, 
by the way, that Jared was actually putting together a $110 
billion arms deal for the Saudis.
    But what was happening during that time? The Saudis were 
paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in room stays and 
foreign gifts that were illegal under the Constitution back 
into the Trump Organization. Over and over through hotels and 
properties, these shady investments by the President, his sons, 
and his son-in-law, who was an employee of the White House, all 
worked to enrich the Trump family and Donald Trump himself.
    And the insane part is that just months after leaving the 
White House, Jared Kushner received a $2 billion, with a ``B,'' 
investment from the Saudis to manage and be paid directly as 
well out of that fund that the Saudi Government organized. I 
want to just mention also that our Chairman also said that this 
``crossed the line of ethics.'' So why have we not investigated 
the Trump crime family and the current and ongoing abuse by 
Jared Kushner as a government official? And I remind folks, 
Hunter actually never worked for the government. He was a 
private citizen.
    That is why I want to offer my amendment which lays out the 
details of not just the $8 million in illegal unconstitutional 
foreign payments but also demands Donald Trump to pay back the 
taxpayers. It demands a full accounting of all of his 
properties, and it subpoenas the Kushner businesses so we can 
understand the complete grift not just from Saudi Arabia, but 
the 20 other foreign governments which we have records for and 
the governments that we do not have records for, like places 
like Russia, which we know there was a series of investments 
made there as well. And so, with that, I urge support for this 
amendment.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Palmer from Alabama.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I move to dispense with the 
amendment immediately. It is not germane.
    Chairman Comer. I am prepared to rule. The amendment is not 
germane to the bill. Therefore, the amendment is not in order.
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to appeal the ruling 
of the Chair. It is clearly germane and relevant.
    Mr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, I----
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes, I move to table the motion.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The motion to table Mr. Raskin's appeal 
is not debatable.
    All those in favor of tabling the appeal of the Chair 
signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed say no.
    [Chorus of noes]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    The motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair is tabled. The 
Committee will now resume consideration.
    Are there any other amendments?
    Mr. Frost. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Frost. Will the clerk please report?
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as offered by Mr. Frost of Florida.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The clerk will distribute the amendment 
to all Members. We are waiting on copies of the amendment.
    [Pause.]
    Chairman Comer. OK. The clerk, have you designated the 
amendment? You have?
    The Clerk. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    Chairman Comer. I reserve a point of order.
    Mr. Frost is recognized for 5 minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am offering an amendment 
to this misguided resolution that would essentially work to 
take out the lies and the smoke and mirrors and insert the 
truth of the matter before us. And the fact of the matter is 
that Chairman Comer has a history of selective treatment of the 
facts presented to him that would really make any witness 
concerned about any kind of closed-door procedure or 
deposition.
    My amendment outlines how last month, Chairman Comer tried 
to push this fake impeachment by selectively--selectively--
talking about a truck that President Biden initially made 
payments on while he was still a private citizen that his son, 
Hunter Biden, later paid him back for. The month before, 
Chairman Comer selectively released just one page of a 4-page 
email chain to falsely claim that regulators were concerned 
that Hunter Biden was money laundering, when that was not true. 
What the Chairman selectively forgot to share is that the other 
three pages of the email directly contradicted his claims. 
Regulators explicitly stated that the transactions were 
reasonably and consistent with the business profile and that 
``the entity was transparent.''
    And it does not stop there. My amendment outlines how the 
Chairman has misrepresented the mountain of bank records that 
show no wrongdoing, the fact that Chairman Comer has only 
released 2 of the 17--2 of the 17--witness transcripts so far. 
We want him to release the transcripts. And we also know the 
Chairman has interviewed some of Hunter Biden's associates and 
no dirt could be found, and because of that they wanted to bury 
the truth, but the truth is out because the truth is that this 
has been a complete waste of time. Republican claims all 
throughout this case barely hold up to the slightest bit of 
scrutiny, and it is not just me saying that. We have heard it 
on Fox News. We have heard it from The Wall Street Journal, The 
Washington Post, CNN, and others who have been investigating 
the Chairman's false claims of evidence against President 
Biden.
    And once again, it has been said time and time again, 
Hunter Biden took us up on the offer of sitting in that chair 
in this Committee and publicly answering questions, so that way 
the public can see it, and so that way he does not have his 
words misrepresented in a closed-door deposition, and what this 
works to do is give the entire story.
    If you are going to vote to hold him in contempt, at 
least--at least--vote yes on this amendment so we can include 
the full story in this piece of legislation. It is the fear of 
the truth that has stopped the Chairman from accepting Hunter 
Biden's offer to testify publicly, and my amendment essentially 
lays it all out on the table. I urge adoption of my amendment, 
and then let us move on and do the real work of the American 
people, especially in these difficult times. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member wish to----
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Donald.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, my inquiry is this, that 
considering we are going to be going into these amendments, 
where the context of the matter at hand has been debated since 
10 a.m. this morning, I would move, Mr. Chairman, that further 
debate on amendments will be considered under 20 minutes of 
structured debate in total, 10 minutes for each side of 
Majority and Minority on the Committee, to fully debate the 
merits of each amendment going forward, Mr. Chairman. That is 
my question for the parliamentarian.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, I would move to accept that and move by 
unanimous consent that we accept that.
    Chairman Comer. OK. Without objection, so ordered. Ten-
minute debate on each side. Does any Member wish to debate 
further?
    Ms. Porter. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. OK. Ms. Porter.
    Ms. Porter. I am glad that my colleague from the other side 
has moved to limit debate because this hearing, to put it 
bluntly, has sucked. There is one thing that Republicans and 
Democrats seem to have in common today, which is that we are 
willing to be players in the game, both sides at times using 
this hearing to take shots at our favorite political nemeses. 
And I see some Members practically patting themselves on the 
back when they get a good insult or counterpoint in. But this 
is not a game. Oversight is not a game.
    Under this Republican Majority we have wasted month after 
month, censuring, expelling, holding people in contempt and 
almost impeaching, and for what? Republicans have passed 
nothing of substance in the House. What our Oversight Committee 
should be doing, instead of spending now dozens of hours 
arguing about Hunter Biden, is real oversight of issues that 
affect all Americans, like corporate price gouging, 
unconstitutional government surveillance, and waste at the 
Pentagon. The fact that Members think that real Americans 
outside of this partisan environment and Capitol Hill care 
about this is everything that is wrong with Washington, so that 
Americans who love this country and just want a better future 
do not have to listen to hours of frustrating attacks and 
procedural debates in a partisan game.
    Let me sum it up. One, there is zero evidence of President 
Biden doing anything wrong, including in connection with his 
son, no evidence of an impeachable offense. Not a little, not 
something, none. Two, Hunter Biden has offered to testify in 
public in front of this Committee. If Republicans only want his 
secret, private testimony, that is, as the kids say these days, 
sus. If my Republican colleagues are truly in this to get 
answers, and I hope they are, stop wasting all our time and 
holding Hunter Biden in contempt on a deposition and ask him 
your questions. He will be here under oath, and the American 
people can watch. What is more transparent than that? What is 
better accountability than letting the American people hear 
Hunter Biden's answers? That is real accountability, not 
political gamesmanship behind closed doors.
    This is a game where nobody wins and everybody loses. It is 
Washington at its worst, and I will tell it like it is without 
pointing the finger at either Party. This sucks. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Does any further Member wish to debate on 
the Frost amendment?
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. I appreciate the gentlelady's remarks, but I do 
want to point out that one of the reasons it is necessary for 
Hunter Biden to appear to give a deposition is that he is a 
material witness in an ongoing investigation of potential 
corruption at a very high level. I think, to your point, that 
this has devolved into partisan politics. We have an obligation 
as Members of this Committee, a very solemn responsibility, to 
pursue evidence and investigate charges legitimately and not 
let it become what it has become today, and I do not think we 
are getting there.
    I do think that Hunter Biden has a responsibility to 
respond to the subpoena, through his legal counsel if he so 
chooses, in a responsible way. What he did in showing up 
outside the steps of the Senate is contemptible. He should not 
have done that. But we need to investigate this. We need to 
follow the evidence, and he needs to appear as a material 
witness to an ongoing investigation. If he comes in to testify 
before this Committee, there are other issues related to his 
activities that I think would be germane. But I really believe 
at this point we need to move forward to this, and, frankly, I 
think Hunter Biden should have responded to the subpoena either 
himself or through his legal counsel. With that, Mr. Chairman, 
I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I 
appreciate the gentleman's solemn points and pleas, but the 
reason why the folks on this side of the aisle have a hard time 
digesting that is because your curiosity on what violates the 
law only applies when it is politically convenient to talk 
about Hunter Biden, when it is pennies compared to $2 billion 
from a foreign government.
    And I am not saying that Jared Kushner violated the law, 
but what I am saying is that was probably negotiated before he 
left: a $2 billion deal, you announce it months after you 
leave, probably negotiated before. He had never run a hedge 
fund before. We talk about Hunter Biden having no experience. 
He never had run a hedge fund before. He was put in charge of 
Middle East. The $2 billion is from the Middle East. He had no 
experience in the Middle East, but there is no curiosity 
because it is Jared and because he is Trump's son-in-law.
    And so, coming to us and pleading with us about Hunter 
would not sound so hypocritical if there was one of you, just 
one of you, that would look into the camera and speak into the 
microphone and say, you know what? That smells pretty bad. We 
should look into that as well. And I think, quite frankly, the 
American people would believe you more about your inquiry and 
about Hunter if they saw your curiosity into the Biden family 
with the same curiosity into the Trump family. And so that is 
why we are where we are. It is why the American people have no 
faith in this institution, and it is also why, quite frankly, 
you know, many Members of your own Party have gone in front of 
the camera and admitted the 118th Congress has done nothing.
    And so, we are here. We would like to do oversight and 
apply the law and the rules universally. But when we talk about 
Trump or Jared Kushner, you all look down just to make sure 
Donald Trump does not see you on camera. You cannot even, like, 
look up and be interested that a foreign government, months 
after someone who actually worked in the White House--Hunter 
Biden never worked in the White House--months after someone who 
worked in the White House and was in charge of that very region 
got $2 billion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Palmer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Sure. Yes, I would. I would.
    Mr. Palmer. With great respect, your allegations have 
absolutely nothing to do with what this Committee is 
investigating. And----
    Mr. Moskowitz. You are not curious about it, though?
    Mr. Palmer. Well, it has absolutely nothing to do with 
anything that we are investigating, and it is just----
    Mr. Moskowitz. But don't we get to decide. There are 
questions----
    Chairman Comer. Order. Order. You are going back and 
forth----
    Mr. Moskowitz. OK. Sorry.
    Mr. Palmer. And I do not want to use up the time, but I 
made my point. I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to 
respond to my friend from Florida, the gentlelady from 
California. I think this, unfortunately, does devolve into a 
partisan exercise, and I just listened with interest at what 
you say kind of, I am not going to use ``galls.'' Folks on the 
other side of the aisle, it bothers you, and I respect that.
    So, I want to let you know what galls or troubles us on 
this side of the aisle based on all of the claims that you have 
made, because many of us, I was one of them, sat in a SCIF week 
after week, day after day for an impeachment. One of the 
Members of this Committee, now, as a staff member, then a staff 
attorney, then knew there were lies being told to compel the 
impeachment, to back up the impeachment, to reinforce the 
impeachment. Lies. Abject, straight-up lies. Not to mention the 
fact that for years, the other side of the aisle pursued the 
then duly elected President of the United States based on pure 
hyperbole about some Russian hoax that has now turned into, you 
know, it is the same old story from the 1930's in Germany and 
the 1940's. If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the 
truth.
    We sat and watched you dismantle the country and the 
presidency and any agenda that the American people have voted 
for based on that. And to date, to this minute, to this moment, 
I do not think one of you have ever, to use your phraseology, 
the kind gentleman from Florida, stood in front of a camera and 
said, you know, that was pretty bad. Holy smokes, I cannot 
believe we did that. And now with the benefit of hindsight, we 
look back, and I look back and I say, how could we have ever 
done that? How did we ever mislead the American people? How 
could we have lied? How can we make up for that? How can we 
recover the lost time? How can we recover the lost reputations? 
No interest whatsoever. None whatsoever.
    And again, this is not about looking back at the past. This 
is a markup. This is not a hearing. This markup is strictly and 
specifically about the actions chosen by Hunter Biden. I said 
before and I will say it again, I do not think this Committee 
has any interest in prosecuting or pursuing Hunter Biden. He 
did this to himself. He made this choice. We all make decisions 
and there are consequences to the decisions. He did that. Our 
duty is to say, is this a breach in the law? Is it a breach, 
yes or no? Clearly, he can come to Congress. He sat in this 
very room today. He was on the grounds the day that he was 
supposed to appear, so clearly he can come. He has chosen not 
to.
    Look, Secretary Clinton got away with it, right? She was 
allowed to be deposed, not under oath, and her deposition on a 
Saturday--you know what--a holiday weekend. She got to do that. 
That galls the rest of America who says when the FBI or the 
local magistrate or some law enforcement agency comes knocking 
on my door and says you are going to appear, you have been 
served. Well, see here, I think I will set the terms of how and 
where I will appear. I will just do that. Me, Citizen X.
    You know who gets to do that? Apparently, Hunter Biden, who 
thinks he is above the law, who thinks he is special, who, he 
and with the rest of his family, and, with all due respect, 
this Administration shows contempt for the law, contempt for 
the American people, contempt for the Constitution, and 
contempt for the citizens of this country. Contempt, and that 
is what this markup is about. And if you want to know what 
galls us is, you are not interested. You are not the least 
curious about all of that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the 
balance.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, may I respond since my friend 
from Pennsylvania directly addressed me? And I am happy to have 
this conversation to compare the 2019 impeachment 
investigation. Why are you leaving, Mr. Perry? I am happy to 
have a conversation.
    Mr. Perry. I have got a meeting.
    Mr. Goldman. Because what you saw in that investigation was 
17 fact witnesses who came in and testified under oath, and 
then 12 of them appeared in a public hearing. There was not a 
single thing that any Democratic Member of Congress said that 
was not supported by neutral Trump Administration fact 
witnesses and what their testimony and their documents said.
    Contrast that with what we have here. We have not had a 
single public hearing with a single fact witness, not one. The 
only public hearing we had was a complete debacle where the 
Republicans' own witnesses said that there is nothing 
approximating an impeachable offense here, so we are done. We 
are not having anything out in the public, and you have not 
even released the transcripts of all of the depositions.
    When we had our first impeachment hearing with the 
constitutional law professors--and I would note, I at least 
admire your fellow colleagues on the Homeland Security 
Committee, which, I also said they did not even bother to bring 
in any constitutional law or impeachment experts in their first 
impeachment hearing today. At least they learned from the 
debacle that was yours. But at that hearing, we moved to have 
your own fact witnesses come here and testify in public as part 
of the impeachment inquiry, and you voted it down. You voted it 
down.
    So, if you want to compare 2019, that is fine, let us do it 
because every single fact that was in a 300-page report was not 
spoken by counsel, me, by Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, by any Member of the Democratic Party. 
It was testimony from witnesses who had knowledge, who actually 
had expertise and experience and factual information about the 
topic at hand. We do not have that here.
    And when we have a witness who is willing to come and sit 
here and give you the evidence that you claim you want to have, 
you say no. You say no. You understand the accommodation 
process and how that works in Congress. That means that 
Congress issues a subpoena and the receiving Party works with 
Congress to accommodate the interest of both parties so that 
Congress can get what it needs and the interest of the witness 
can also be served. Hunter Biden's attorney has done that. He 
has agreed to every single thing in your subpoena, every single 
thing, under oath, any questions you want, any topic you want, 
any date you want. He will not raise privileges available to 
him under the Fifth Amendment. He will answer your questions. 
The one accommodation he wants is to do it in public in front 
of the American people, and you are too afraid to let him do 
that. And I will yield the remainder of the time to Mr. Raskin.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Raskin is going to have a minute and 3 
seconds. The Chair is going to recognize Mr. Gosar. I just have 
to throw away, and you must have been absent when the IRS 
whistleblowers testified with respect to the number of crimes 
and evidence that the IRS had on the person who were voting to 
hold in contempt today. You remember that hearing? The Chair 
recognize Mr. Gosar.
    Mr. Goldman. He was being prosecuted by the Department for 
Justice because----
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognized Mr. Gosar.
    Mr. Gosar. I will tell you, the gentleman from New York has 
got some facts wrong. You know, when we were talking to these 
witnesses, Jonathan Turley, they said they rose to the occasion 
of impeachment, but they said there was a suspicion. And that 
is what the impeachment inquiry is all about, to go get that 
information, if there is. They all said that there was a 
suspicion based on these shell corporations, so they did say 
that. They did not say what you just said. You mischaracterized 
that. So, you know, from that standpoint, we have to be very, 
very careful with how we are cherry picking this information. 
Maybe we do it, but you do it, too, and you did it right there 
because they did not have----
    Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Gosar. I will give you----
    Mr. Goldman. A quick question. I said that the witness 
testified that there was insufficient evidence to impeach Joe 
Biden.
    Chairman Comer. It was an impeachment inquiry hearing. He 
said there was more than enough evidence to proceed with the 
impeachment inquiry. That is what we are doing. Let us be clear 
about what we are doing here.
    Mr. Goldman. But did he also say that there was 
insufficient evidence----
    Chairman Comer. It is Mr. Gosar's time.
    Voice. [continuing] Sufficient evidence.
    Mr. Goldman. He said both. He said both.
    Voice. [continuing] Oversight.
    Mr. Gosar. You know, and when you are comparing apples to 
apples on the two impeachments of Mr. Trump, you did not even 
go through an impeachment inquiry. You did not vote on the 
Floor on one of those. So, if you are talking about apples and 
apples, we are not even close to that. You know, the one thing 
I thought was the Lady Justice is blindfolded. She has got the 
scales. You put the information in there, and she is going to 
give you a result. She is blindfolded. She does not see who 
that is. You know, Trey Gowdy made that comment.
    We are missing the point here, is that the information that 
we got is factual based. There is information there that is 
suspicious. Why would you stack all these shell companies up? 
You got the IRS folks who said this, the whistleblowers, they 
have been exonerated. I got to tell you, they are not liars. 
They are not liars. They need to do one thing. They are good at 
auditing. So, I think what we can do is we can get back to the 
order of business; that is, Hunter Biden violated the context 
of the subpoena. You know, he is not above the rule of law, so 
we ought to be just continuing that vote. I yield.
    Chairman Comer. Now, Mr. Raskin has a minute and 3 seconds.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. First, to my friend, Mr. Gosar, we did not 
launch an impeachment inquiry for the second impeachment 
because Donald Trump tried to overthrow the Constitution on 
January 6, 2 weeks before he left office, and we were the 
targets of that impeachable offense. We all saw it, we were the 
witnesses, and we were the ones to vote on it. And we did not 
quite have time for all of those niceties, but all of us knew 
exactly what happened.
    Second, I am sorry that Mr. Perry, you know, left the room 
at Josh Hawley speed when Mr. Goldman began to speak there 
because he made two really important points. One was he said 
that if you get a subpoena, you comply with the subpoena, you 
answer it. Yes, I would like to tell him, Mr. Perry, you 
complied with your subpoena, but no, he decided to irrigate the 
law to himself and to claim that the January 6 Committee was 
invalid, it was illegal, it was unconstitutional, all claims 
that were rejected by Federal courts. They do not have a single 
case authority for that at all, and yet, he is going to now 
lecture other people about complying with subpoena? I mean, he 
should, I think, delegate some of his time to some other 
Members to speak on that. It is a little uncomfortable there. 
And then finally----
    Mr. Gosar. The gentleman----
    Mr. Raskin. Yes. I will yield, yes, go ahead.
    Mr. Gosar [continuing]. Will allude to good process, builds 
good policy, builds good politics, would you agree?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, I totally agree.
    Mr. Gosar. You do not skip, and the severity of 
impeachment, you never skip that process. But you did.
    Mr. Raskin. Donald Trump was already arguing that he could 
not be tried because it was too late at that point. He was 
already arguing.
    Chairman Comer. OK. All right. Your 10 minutes has expired. 
Mr. Fallon, I think we have a minute and a half.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know what? This 
has devolved into is deny, deny, deny, counter-accuse. It is an 
old adage, and it is unfortunate because, and again, and we 
have been talking about this now, 5, 6, 10 times. The 
difference between a deposition is hundreds of hours can be 
expended and you could really drill down and you can have 
accountability. You can get an in-depth interview. And then at 
that point, after we have all read that, we can come here, and 
each of us can get our 5 minutes. This is a very big 
difference, and it is a distinction that needs to be, again, 
reiterated and refuting some of the Democratic arguments.
    And then I read this actual amendment and I see this 
Footnote Number 17, this amendment where the author says, 
``Chairman Comer has also dishonestly and repeatedly suggested 
that the then Vice President Biden had the prosecutor of 
Ukraine fired as part of a bribery scheme.'' Where is the 
proof? And then you read the footnotes and there are opinion 
pieces. The fact is that according to the FBI, the informant, 
the human source, was very reliable. They paid him over 
$100,000, and they have been working with him for almost 10 
years. Did Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor, get fired? Yes. Who 
was advocating for that? Joe Biden was advocating for that.
    Mykola Zlochevsky, the corrupt oligarch who was the CEO of 
Burisma, paid his son millions of dollars. And Viktor Shokin, 
the prosecutor, had seized land, a few homes and a Rolls Royce 
from Zlochevsky, so he was apparently doing his job. But even 
when he was fired, the President of Ukraine on the call to Joe 
Biden said we thought he was doing a good job, but you wanted 
him fired, so he is gone. Biden bragged about that. These are 
all facts. So, I am going to vote against the amendment because 
the amendment is factually incorrect, and I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The time has expired for both sides.
    The question is on the Frost Amendment.
    All those in favor of the Frost Amendment, signify by 
saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it, and the amendment is not agreed to----
    Mr. Raskin. Recorded vote, please.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I----
    Chairman Comer. Does any Member wish to be recognized? Ms. 
Stansbury, is that----
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment to 
all Members.
    [Pause.]
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will designate the Stansbury 
Amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as offered by Ms. Stansbury of New Mexico.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order.
    The gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes 
to explain her amendment.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and I appreciate the opportunity to offer what I hope is a 
pretty straightforward amendment.
    We have heard a lot today. There has been a lot of high 
emotion and intensity and yelling, but this is really about 
getting the facts correct in the resolution itself. So, Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment actually corrects the ANS, which 
replaced the original resolution text to correct the record in 
this resolution in the section that begins on page 5 of your 
resolution and goes to page 7 on the background on the 
investigation.
    And with all due respect to my colleagues who were yelling 
a few moments ago about this only having to do with Hunter 
Biden, it is very clear this is a political act, and you do not 
really need to dig much further than actually read the 
resolution itself because what the resolution does is make 
conclusions that are not based in evidence, which are not 
factual. And, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be honest, I am a 
former Senate staffer. I am embarrassed. I mean, we cannot send 
this to the Floor. It is not factual. It is filled with all 
kinds of misinformation.
    So, what my amendment would do is clarify the actual 
evidentiary background that was conducted as part of this 
investigation. Which I would like to note, it did not just 
begin, though there was a vote on the Floor a few weeks ago. 
This actually began last year, at the beginning of last year, 
and I will get back to that here in a moment. But over the 
course of this investigation, 82,000 pages of records have been 
reviewed from the National Archives. There have been 30,000 
pages of bank records reviewed; 2,000 pages of Treasury 
records; dozens of hours of testimony from special counsel, 
U.S. attorneys, DOJ officials, FBI, IRS agents, financial 
advisors, business partners. Ways and Means provided evidence. 
We had expert witnesses come and testify under oath live in 
front of the Committee, including during the impeachment 
hearing in September, and other witnesses who have been called 
in for depositions and recorded interviews.
    And so there has been a massive body of evidence actually 
brought before this Committee. And, in fact, in the September 
impeachment hearing, as has been said many times here today, 
the witnesses that were called here, including the GOP's own 
expert witnesses, concluded that there was not sufficient 
evidence to proceed with an impeachment. Now, I understand that 
there is a rhetorical argument here being made about an 
impeachment investigation, but Mr. Chairman, with all due 
respect, that is not actually what your resolution says. Your 
resolution makes declarative statements about the President. It 
makes statements about his involvement in his son's activities, 
which are just factually untrue. We do not have any evidence. 
There is no material evidence that has been provided before 
this Committee.
    So, what my amendment does is it corrects the record about 
what evidence has come before the Committee so that if you are 
going to send this to the Floor next week for a vote, which we 
understand that you are, it is actually factual. I mean, that 
is what we are here to do, right?
    The other kind of comments I would like to add here is, you 
know, Mr. Chairman, you said yourself just a few moments ago, 
we cannot just make stuff up. We are the Oversight Committee, 
so we want to make sure that the evidence that we are telling 
the American people about is clear and factual, and what we are 
telling the American people about what is happening not only 
publicly in this domain, but also within the Committee's 
investigation, is factual.
    And you know, I had the opportunity yesterday to sit in one 
of the taped interviews with one of the witnesses who has been 
called before this Committee. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I 
was really shocked. You know, we sat there. The witness 
answered the questions of the Majority, and, man, those Members 
who were sitting in that room, they ran downstairs as soon as 
they heard the first few minutes of testimony, and then they 
went directly to the press gaggle and shared a complete 
misrepresentation of what happened in that room. And that is 
why Mr. Biden is trying to appear under oath publicly in front 
of the American people because time and again, and I saw it 
with my very own eyes yesterday, we have Members who are 
participating in this inquiry who are misrepresenting the 
facts. So, let us get the facts correct inside of this 
resolution.
    Now, finally, I want to just point out that this 
impeachment inquiry actually precedes even, like, some of the 
conspiracy theories that are even being put forward here today. 
We heard, you know, back in the summer that two Members of this 
Committee had competing impeachment resolutions on the Floor, 
one of which had nothing to do with the evidence that the 
Committee is trying to bring in on this matter. And they had 
gotten in a vocal fight on the Floor of the House because they 
were, you know, so ravenous to prove to Donald Trump that they 
were his supporters and going to help impeach Joe Biden. So, 
let us not play games. This is a political activity, but if you 
are going to engage in a political activity, let us make sure 
it is factual. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I move that this motion be 
immediately dispensed with and tabled. It is not germane to the 
markup.
    Mr. Raskin. Parliamentary inquiry. Can you explain what is 
not germane about it?
    Chairman Comer. Well, I have not ruled, but I am going to 
rule it is not germane. It violates the fundamental purpose of 
the report.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, in other words, it addresses the 
fundamental purpose of the report.
    Chairman Comer. No. It violates the fundamental purpose of 
the report. That is the ruling of the Chair.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. I would like to appeal the ruling.
    Chairman Comer. All right. The----
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, point of order, please?
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Could you please clarify what you mean by 
the report because my understanding is the ANS is a resolution 
to hold Mr. Biden in contempt, but this amendment is to correct 
the resolution so that there is a factual accounting of the 
errors of the----
    Chairman Comer. There is a factual accounting. We have been 
very transparent. This has been a very transparent, substantive 
investigation.
    Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I 
encourage the American people to read the----
    Chairman Comer. No, I think the American people are keeping 
up with this. We will see.
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Pages that are in this 
resolution, not report. I also encourage the Chairman to use 
the correct terminology when engaging in parliamentary 
procedure.
    Mr. Gosar. Chairman, I seek recognition.
    Chairman Comer. I am sorry? Yes, Mr. Gosar.
    Mr. Gosar. Yes, I seek recognition. Move to table to 
motion.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The motion by Mr. Gosar to table is not 
debatable.
    All those in favor of tabling the appeal of the Chair may 
signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    The motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair is tabled.
    The Committee will now resume consideration of any other 
amendments.
    Are there any other amendments? Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
    [Pause.]
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk designate the Crockett 
Amendment?
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as offered by Ms. Crockett of Texas.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman Comer. Ms. Crockett is recognized for 5 minutes to 
explain her amendment.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am introducing this 
amendment to emphasize the importance of telling the truth. 
Chairman Comer has given us alternative facts about the 
testimony of Mr. Devon Archer provided to this Committee, the 
Democrats and Republicans, but behind closed doors. Again, it 
is commonsense not to trust my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle when it comes to stating the facts because they are 
the same ones that gave us alternative facts about the 
election, they gave us alternative facts about January 6, and 
thus far, they have given us alternative facts, at least to the 
American people, about their motivation for this impeachment 
inquiry. So, I do have a few receipts that I would like to go 
through.
    On December 6, 2023, Chairman Comer tweeted out that 
President Biden emailed with his son's business associates, but 
let me be clear. When consulting the transcript, it was 
determined that those were alternative facts. The actual facts 
found in Mr. Archer's transcribed interviews show that 
President Biden was not involved in his son's business 
activities, and that during his more than a decade-long 
business relationship with Hunter Biden, Archer never witnessed 
President Biden have any involvement in his son's business 
dealings or take any official actions to benefit Hunter Biden 
or his businesses. And Archer never witnessed Hunter Biden 
discuss the substance of his business with his father or ask 
his father to take any official actions.
    Again, in August 2023, Chair Comer stated in an interview 
to Newsmax that Mr. Archer ``admitted that the Burisma 
executives were squeezing Hunter Biden to try to do everything 
he could to get the Prosecutor Shokin fired'' because they were 
going after their corrupt energy company, and lo and behold, a 
few days later, Joe Biden actually did that. After consulting 
the transcript yet again, it was determined another alternative 
fact. The actual facts are that Mr. Archer specifically spoke 
about Ukraine and Hunter Biden's role with Burisma, the 
Ukrainian energy company on whose board they both served, and 
repeatedly stated Hunter Biden never discussed Burisma with his 
father and never asked his father to take an official action to 
benefit him or Burisma. Mr. Archer further stated that he had 
no reason to believe Vice President Biden's call for Shokin's 
removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. Government's 
anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.
    Chairman Comer again tweeted--he loves his Twitter--on 
December 6 that President Biden was on speaker-phone with the 
Biden family business associates over 20 times. We consulted 
the transcript, and it was determined, again, another 
alternative fact. Mr. Archer's transcribed interview actually 
states that while Hunter Biden spoke frequently with his 
father, sometimes when Hunter Biden was with other people, Mr. 
Archer stated he never witnessed any discussion of substantive 
business during these calls. Again, Chair Comer's association 
with reality about information brought forth by witnesses he 
demanded come in, well, Chair Comer, we spun it again about Mr. 
Archer's statements when it came down to President Biden.
    When we consult the transcript over and over and over, it 
has been determined that the facts that have been laid out by 
the Members of this Committee on the Republican side have been 
alternative facts. When Mr. Archer was directly asked during 
the transcribed interview, if President Biden was the brand, 
Mr. Archer clarified that D.C. was the brand, and that he and 
Hunter Biden helped to assemble a team of attorneys, lobbyists, 
and public officials, public affairs professionals to handle 
Burisma's government relations, and President Biden was not 
part of the D.C. team.
    It is no wonder that Hunter Biden wanted to come before 
everyone in public because, Mr. Chairman, it is vital that we 
continually have to set the record straight and make sure that 
alternative facts are not what is being handed out to the 
American people, but instead the facts, the real facts, 
reality. I would also like to----
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady----
    Ms. Crockett. Yes?
    Mr. Raskin. Just for a quick question, Ms. Crockett, and I 
thank you for that illuminating intervention because I am 
starting to wonder if the Russian hoax should apply to the lie 
about Burisma, which sits at the very heart of this 
investigation. That is the real hoax, isn't it? In fact, Lev 
Parnas, who helped make it up, has been out there begging 
Chairman Comer and the Republicans to end this wild goose chase 
and to have him come testify about how they tried to concoct 
the lie in the first place, and yet, that is a witness that 
they do not want to hear from. Thank you. I yield back to you, 
Ms. Crockett.
    Ms. Crockett. They do not want to hear that. And if we care 
about making sure that the American people know that we have 
transparency and truth on this Committee, then I would implore 
this Committee to release the transcripts publicly instead of 
tweeting out alternative facts about what has been testified 
to.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. As previously approved, each side has 10 
minutes debate. Well, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Palmer.
    Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I move--make a motion that we 
table this amendment. It is dilatory and not germane to the 
markup.
    Mr. Raskin. But, Mr. Chairman, didn't we already agree, I 
think to have 10 minutes on each side? I am not sure Mr. Palmer 
was aware of that agreement.
    Chairman Comer. OK. We already agreed to have 10 minutes 
debate. I am sorry. I did not make that clear.
    Mr. Palmer. I withdraw that motion.
    Chairman Comer. Does anyone wish to speak? Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you. I think this amendment is very 
important because it goes to the heart of the dispute that the 
Chairman and the witness seem to be having, which is where 
would his testimony take place. The Chairman is insisting that 
it would be done in a closed-door deposition, whereas the 
witness is insisting to take up the Chairman's original offer 
to do this in a public hearing. And one of the reasons that the 
witness continues to push for a public hearing is the Devon 
Archer closed-door transcribed interview. That is one of only 
two transcripts of, I believe, at least 18 transcribed 
interviews or depositions that this Republican Majority has 
released. But it gives us really, really good insight into 
exactly what the Chairman and the Majority would plan to do 
with Hunter Biden's closed-door testimony.
    Let us take for example, just, I think, earlier this 
weekend, Chairman Jordan of the Judiciary Committee, also a 
Member of this Committee, said on television that the most 
powerful evidence of President Biden's wrongdoing is the 
testimony of Devon Archer. So, I wondered, I wonder what is 
that testimony that is so powerful? Was it the testimony of 
Devon Archer when he said that President Biden was never 
involved in any of Hunter's business ventures, or was it the 
testimony that President Biden never received any money from 
Hunter's business interest? And remember, Devon Archer 
testified he was Hunter Biden's primary business partner. He 
was on the board of Burisma with Hunter Biden, so he had 
firsthand knowledge of all of Hunter Biden's business deals.
    Now, maybe if it was not those. It was the fact that 
President Biden, according to Devon Archer, never received any 
bribes from the Ukrainian Government. In fact, maybe it was 
even that he said that President Biden never discussed business 
with Hunter Biden or Hunter's business associates. It must be 
that he was focusing on the times when President Biden met or 
spoke to Hunter Biden's business associates. That clearly has 
to be what the Chairman was talking about. So it must be that 
when you look at the transcript, what he was referring to is 
when Devon Archer repeatedly said that they never discussed 
business, that they only talked about ``niceties,'' including, 
and this is according to Devon Archer's testimony, ``how the 
weather was'' and that none of the discussions ever related to 
business. So, the best evidence that these Republicans want to 
put forward is testimony that completely absolves President 
Biden from any involvement, association, benefit from, or other 
interactions with Hunter Biden's business interests.
    Now, Chairman Comer, you were asked a few weeks ago on CNN 
what you thought the best evidence was of wrongdoing by 
President Biden, and you said that the allegations of the bribe 
from the Burisma founder. Should we call it, I guess the 
Burisma hoax now because unlike with Russia's interference in 
the 2016 election, which Special Counsel Mueller unequivocally 
determined was known to the Trump campaign, was welcomed by the 
Trump campaign and was used by the Trump campaign, in this 
case, Vice President Biden's urging Ukraine to fire the 
prosecutor general of Ukraine, which was consistent with the 
official U.S. policy--it was consistent with the European Union 
policy, it was consistent with a bipartisan Senate delegation 
who urged it as well--was actually bad for Burisma, and, 
therefore, it was bad for Hunter Biden. And who should we look 
to to determine whether that is the case? How about Devon 
Archer, the star witness, who was also on the board of Burisma?
    No, Devon Archer said that it was his understanding that 
Burisma had Shokin, the prosecutor general, under control and 
that getting rid of him would have been bad for Burisma. And, 
of course, it was bad for Burisma because as soon as Shokin was 
gone, after he had allowed a British case to lapse, the next 
prosecutor general came in and did start investigating the 
founder of Burisma, so it turned out to be exactly correct. 
This is why Hunter Biden wants to testify in public is because 
if you had not released that transcript and we had just relied 
on the false representations of the Majority Members of this 
Committee about what Devon Archer said, we would never have 
known that Devon Archer actually absolves Joe Biden of any 
involvement of any wrongdoing related to Hunter Biden's 
business interests, and the public would not know that this 
entire investigation is a complete sham. And I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. The Minority will have 4 minutes. The 
Majority has 10 minutes. I will go first.
    I must oppose this amendment, but I have to state 
something. I want everyone to understand this. I want everyone 
to understand this. A lot has been said about people on this 
Committee running to the press during a deposition or during an 
interview. During the two main interviews of this impeachment 
inquiry investigation, the Devon Archer interview and the 
George Burgess interview, the very first person, the very first 
person on this Committee, to run to the reporters was none 
other than Dan Goldman. That is a fact. Does anyone want to 
dispute that right now? The very first person.
    Mr. Goldman. I would like you to identify one thing that I 
said that was not consistent with the transcript.
    Chairman Comer. You are talking about----
    Mr. Goldman. Check the transcripts.
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. Running to the press and 
leaking.
    Mr. Goldman. I wanted to release the Burgess transcript.
    Chairman Comer. You said Hunter Biden did not want to come 
because of the leaks. You are the leaker. You are the leaker, 
Mr. Goldman.
    Mr. Goldman. You do your check.
    Chairman Comer. You have 4 minutes remaining.
    Mr. Goldman. I say the truth. You gave false information.
    Chairman Comer. This is not the time. You are out of order. 
You are out of order. I let you sit there and regurgitate your 
baloney for 6 minutes.
    I oppose this amendment. This amendment strikes the entire 
section about why Hunter Biden's testimony is necessary for the 
Committee's legitimate oversight investigation. The amendment 
discusses a single deposition with Devon Archer and gets rid of 
all other relevant information as to why his deposition is 
important. The amendment distorts the reality of how the 
Committee has handled this investigation.
    Devon Archer has stated publicly that claims made by the 
Democrats in this amendment are categorically false. 
Specifically, Devon Archer stated that Democrats' claims that 
President Biden was not involved in Hunter's businesses in any 
way was false. Devon Archer said that is categorically false. 
He said Joe Biden, ``was aware of Hunter's business. He met 
with Hunter's business partners.''
    I recommend that all Members of this Committee oppose this 
misguided amendment, and I ask to submit to the record Devon 
Archer's interview where he says one Democratic claim about the 
Biden business is categorically false, and that was what I just 
mentioned with respect to Joe's involvement and knowledge in 
his businesses.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. Now, the Minority Party has 4 minutes 
remaining. The Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just very quickly 
want to clarify that when I mentioned that the Majority had run 
to the press and misrepresented what happened in that interview 
yesterday, the point was that they misrepresented what happened 
in the interview. And I know that for a fact because somebody 
shared with me the text message that the Republican staff sent 
around all the Members, and I also heard directly from the 
press what was said. So, that is what we are talking about here 
is misrepresentation of the facts. And with that, I yield to 
the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. And I am fascinated by 
this exchange because most committees I have been on, when the 
transcripts are released, it serves the vital function of 
transparency, but it also keeps people from misrepresenting and 
distorting the facts in advance. But if you withhold all but 
two transcribed interviews--I think there is something like 16 
or 17 that have not been released by the Majority--then that 
does become an incentive to misrepresent and distort.
    I do not blame Mr. Goldman if he rounded the press to try 
to get out the true story before others go out and tell a lie 
about what is taking place if we are not going to turn the 
transcripts over. And I wonder whether you, Mr. Chairman, could 
commit to turn over all of the transcribed interviews in the--
--
    Mr. Higgins. Will the gentleman yield for question?
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. Committee and to the Congress and 
to the people of the United States of America.
    Mr. Higgins. Ranking Member----
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, by all means.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Yield for a question?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Mr. Higgins. Will the Ranking Member presume that his 
Republican colleagues intend to lie about transcripts?
    Mr. Raskin. But I----
    Mr. Higgins. You seem to have that presumption.
    Mr. Raskin. No. Well, what I will presume is based on the 
fact that there have been multiple distortions and 
misrepresentations in the past, and the vast majority of the 
transcribed interviews have not been released. Someone give me 
the exact numbers, but I believe only 2 transcribed interviews 
out of 17 or 18 have been released. I have never seen that 
before, and I am baffled by it. I do not understand.
    Mr. Higgins. And the Ranking Member's esteemed background 
and knowledge of judicial affairs, when there was ongoing 
investigations and multiple witnesses and complex cases, isn't 
it common for full transcripts to not be released----
    Mr. Raskin. No, it is not.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Within the parameters----
    Mr. Raskin. No, I do not think so.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. Or investigation?
    Mr. Raskin. But anyway, we are talking about some that took 
place 6 months ago, 8 months ago, but somebody is going to give 
me a list of how many we are talking about here. There are 17 
total. Only two transcribed interviews have been released. So, 
then it does become a race to get out to say, you know, what 
you think happened. Why don't we just give the people the 
transcribed interviews? We talk about transparency and 
accountability. That is the dominant theme of this Committee. 
Isn't that something we can agree to?
    Mr. Goldman. Will the Ranking Member yield for 1 minute?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Goldman. I have a question for the Ranking Member. If 
it is generally the practice of an investigator to withhold all 
of the transcripts during the investigative phase, would that 
normally also include releasing two of them?
    Mr. Raskin. Well, that strikes me as odd. That does look 
like, you know, the famed cherry-picking. It is as if to say, 
well, two of these interviews helped us, 15 or 16 of them do 
not help us, so we are going to bury them someplace, so that is 
odd. But I want to presume the best of my colleagues, Mr. 
Higgins, and that is why I am asking the Chairman to explain 
what is the practice here.
    Chairman Comer. Well, you complained that we do not release 
transcripts. You complained because we do release transcripts. 
Honestly, we released those two transcripts because you had 
misrepresented so much what Devon Archer said. That is probably 
one reason he went on Tucker Carlson show to call you out for 
misrepresenting what he said in the transcribed interview, but 
you let them get leaked.
    Mr. Raskin. So, you are able to get them ready. You are 
able to get them ready, in other words, and you thought that it 
was important----
    Chairman Comer. We have other witnesses to interview. You 
know how it works, Mr. Raskin. You know, you are playing like 
you do not know how this works. You are playing and trying to 
act like you have never done an investigation before when you 
have led both impeachments in the January 6----
    Mr. Raskin. I did not lead the first impeachment, but----
    Chairman Comer. I would not want to admit to leading that 
first impeachment either.
    Mr. Raskin. I would have 10 nicknames from President Trump 
by now if I, like, led that one, but----
    Chairman Comer. I think your all's time is pretty much 
expired. Does anyone on our side have anything to add? I do not 
see anything. Who is that, Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes. You know, we talk about facts. It was not 
U.S. policy to do what Biden did in Ukraine. The Obama 
Administration actually said that Ukraine had complied with the 
law, and that the loan should go through--yes, they did--and 
then the Vice President changes it on an audible over there. 
So, the other thing I want to point out is, is if the President 
did not know anything about Hunter Biden's businesses, how do 
you explain the 14, 15, 16--I cannot remember now how many 
times his partner actually went to the White House. How do you 
explain that? How do you explain this guy Devon Archer shows up 
at the White House? Who are you? Normally, the person is going 
to say, well, I am Hunter Biden's business partner. That is 
typically what the average person would say, but how come he 
did not know anything about that?
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Gosar, for the six people in America who 
are still watching our hearing, could you just explicate what 
you think the Presidential crime is?
    Mr. Gosar. I am just saying, right now, we are just talking 
about the facts. The facts here are misplayed. I mean, you 
complain about us. I am going to complain about you, because I 
am stating the facts.
    Mr. Goldman. Will the gentleman yield for 1 second?
    Mr. Gosar. I will give you a second.
    Chairman Comer. It is Mr. Gosar's time.
    Mr. Goldman. I am not going to ask you to take my 
representation for it. I would ask you to go read the 
transcripts of the State Department witnesses in the first 
impeachment who were in the Ukraine embassy and in the State 
Department, and were the ones who created and made the official 
U.S. policy, who all testified that Vice President Biden was 
acting consistent with official U.S. policy.
    Mr. Gosar. OK. Well, that is not what we received. And when 
you start looking at this, you know, the courts, you know, the 
Ranking Member always goes to the courts. You know, you had a 
judge that basically said this honeypot of a deal for Hunter 
was no good, and no one was going to get that. How do you 
explain the slow walking? You led the Justice Department on the 
IRS claims, and how many people get a chance to do that?
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentleman yield? That is a great 
point, and when the courts ruled against Hunter Biden, I do not 
think you heard a single complaint from anybody on our side of 
the aisle. We said let the justice system proceed, but when the 
court said that the January 6 Committee was validly and 
constantly composed, we still have people today who violated 
their subpoenas who are whining about how the committee is 
illegal. I mean, come on. I mean, how do you feel about that 
one?
    Chairman Comer. Could I ask you a question?
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. Just out of curiosity, why did you all not 
hold them in contempt?
    Mr. Raskin. Hold who in contempt?
    Chairman Comer. The people that did not----
    Mr. Raskin. Oh, we did not have time at that point. I mean, 
we got up to the very end of the Congress.
    Chairman Comer. I was just wondering.
    Mr. Raskin. But if you want to work on it now, let us do it 
now.
    Chairman Comer. No.
    Mr. Raskin. I am totally with you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. No, I was just curious as to why you did 
not. All right.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, let us make it bipartisan.
    Ms. Stansbury. I would like to----
    Chairman Comer. Everybody good? We square?
    Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Motion that we hold anyone who 
has violated----
    Chairman Comer. Well, I was just wondering. I mean, that is 
a tool that Congress has. You have been on TV several times 
saying that people should honor congressional subpoenas.
    Mr. Raskin. And I believe----
    Chairman Comer. But then you do not hold them in contempt.
    Mr. Raskin. Whether it is Steve Bannon, Dan Scavino, Jim 
Jordan, or Hunter Biden, if somebody----
    Chairman Comer. But you did hold----
    Mr. Raskin [continuing]. If somebody----
    Chairman Comer [continuing]. The other two.
    Mr. Raskin. I am sorry?
    Chairman Comer. You did hold two of those in contempt.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, Steve Bannon has been convicted by a 
court. He has been convicted in court.
    Chairman Comer. Department of Justice----
    Mr. Raskin. And still, I do not think you get a single 
person on your side of the aisle, other than Ms. Mace, to utter 
a word about people who violated subpoenas in the last 
Congress. I mean, that is extraordinary. And of all that I have 
been thinking about Hunter Biden is he accepted what was your 
original offer. You did not like that offer anymore. You put 
out----
    Chairman Comer. Let me say this. And then, your time has 
expired.
    Mr. Raskin. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. And we are going to get to the vote. Hunter 
Biden is more than welcome to come for a hearing after the 
deposition.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. You did not say that before, but that is 
cool. You have changed----
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chairman, hold up. Will you----
    Chairman Comer. Now, the time is expired.
    Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Guarantee that there will be a 
public----
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Goldman, you have talked and talked and 
talked.
    Mr. Goldman. Will you guarantee that there will be a public 
hearing if he were to come in?
    Chairman Comer. Ater the deposition, I guarantee.
    Mr. Goldman. You say right now----
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman [continuing]. We will have a public hearing----
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Goldman [continuing]. With Hunter Biden.
    Chairman Comer. Absolutely. We have said that.
    Ms. Greene. He already said----
    Mr. Goldman. Yes, I know. We heard a lot about public 
hearings that have not happened.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The question on the amendment--I do not 
even remember who offered the amendment--Ms. Crockett.
    The question is on the Crockett Amendment.
    All those in favor of the Crockett Amendment, signify by 
saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed signify by saying no.
    [Chorus of noes]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Raskin. Recorded vote on that, please.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. As previously 
announced, further proceedings on the question will be 
postponed.
    Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares the 
Committee in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. We will 
plan to reconvene in 15 minutes, to get everyone together.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The Committee will come to order.
    The Committee will now resume consideration of the report's 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Mr. 
Goldman from New York. The clerk will call the roll on the 
Goldman Amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
    Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes no.
    Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Ms. Boebert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Waltz votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes yes.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes yes.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Casar?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Ms. Tlaib?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk call the roll?
    How is Mr. Casar recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar is not recorded.
    Mr. Casar. Votes yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Fallon recorded?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon was not yet recorded.
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Langworthy recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy is not yet recorded.
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Chairman Comer. How is Ms. Tlaib recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib is not yet recorded.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
    Chairman Comer. She voted yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. The clerk report?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 18. The 
nays are 22.
    Chairman Comer. OK. The noes have it, and the amendment is 
not agreed to.
    The question now is on the previously postponed amendment 
to the amendment in the nature of substitute, offered by Mr. 
Frost. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
    Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes no.
    Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Ms. Boebert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Waltz votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes yes.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes aye.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Ms. Tlaib?
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes yes.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. No, and how is Mr. Burchett recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no. Mr. Burchett is not yet 
recorded.
    Mr. Burchett. How did Gosar vote?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    Mr. Burchett. Then I will be a no.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Burchett votes no. How is Mr. Turner 
recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no. Mr. Turner is not yet 
recorded.
    Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman on this vote, the nays are 24. The 
ayes are 20.
    Chairman Comer. The noes have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the previously postponed amendment 
in the nature of substitute, oh, on the Crockett Amendment. The 
clerk will call the roll on the Crockett amendment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Tuner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes no.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes no.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Foxx votes no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes no.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes no.
    Mr. Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes no.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes no.
    Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes no.
    Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes no.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes no.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes no.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes no.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes no.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes no.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes no.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes no.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes no.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes no.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes no.
    Ms. Boebert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes no.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes no.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes no.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes no.
    Mr. Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Waltz votes no.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes aye.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes aye.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes aye.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes aye.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes aye.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes aye.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes aye.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes aye.
    Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes aye.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes aye.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes yes.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes aye.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes yes.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes yes.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes aye.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes aye.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Ms. Tlaib?
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes yes.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Do any other Member wish to vote?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, will the clerk report the 
tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 20. The 
nays are 24.
    Chairman Comer. The nays have it, and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the contempt report.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes]
    Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying nay.
    [Chorus of nays]
    Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to the report 
is agreed to.
    The question is on favorably reporting the report. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner?
    Mr. Turner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Turner votes yes.
    Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes yes.
    Mr. Grothman?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes yes.
    Mr. Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
    Mr. Palmer?
    Mr. Palmer. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes yes.
    Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes yes.
    Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes yes.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes yes.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes yes.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    Mr. LaTurner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes yes.
    Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes yes.
    Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes yes.
    Mr. Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
    Mr. Timmons?
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    Ms. Greene. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Greene votes yes.
    Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes yes.
    Ms. Boebert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Waltz votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
    Mr. Khanna?
    Mr. Khanna. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
    Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Nay.
    The Clerk. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez votes nay.
    Ms. Porter?
    Ms. Porter. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes no.
    Ms. Bush?
    Ms. Bush. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush votes no.
    Mr. Gomez?
    Mr. Gomez. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
    Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. No, ma'am.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    Ms. Crockett?
    Ms. Crockett. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
    Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes nay.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moskowitz votes nay.
    Ms. Tlaib?
    Ms. Tlaib. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. Yes, and how is Chairman Jordan recorded?
    The Clerk. The Chairman votes yes. Mr. Jordan is not 
recorded.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Member wish to be recorded?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the clerk will report the 
tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman on this vote, the ayes are 25. The 
nays are 21.
    Chairman Comer. Pursuant to this vote, the Committee hereby 
adopts this report recommending that the House of 
Representatives find Robert Hunter Biden in contempt of 
Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by 
this Committee.
    We will move the report to the full House.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2, Committee Members 
shall have the right to file with the clerk of the Committee 
supplemental, additional Minority and dissenting views within 2 
days.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary 
technical and conforming changes to the report ordered reported 
today, subject to the approval of the Minority.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    If there is no further business before the Committee, 
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 5:41, p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]