Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5738-H5748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE REPORT 117-152 AND AN
ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 727

Resolved, That if House Report 117-152 is called up by
direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack on the United States Capitol: (a) all points of
order against the report are waived and the report shall be
considered as read; and (b)(1) an accompanying resolution
offered by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate
the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol shall be
considered as read and shall not be subject to a point of
order; and (2) the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on such resolution to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided among and controlled by
Representative Thompson of Mississippi, Representative Cheney
of Wyoming, and an opponent, or their respective designees.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.
Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 727. The rule provides for
consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-152 under
a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and
controlled by Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.
Mr. Speaker, today, we face a fundamental choice: Whether we are
going to get to the truth about the violent January 6 attack, the worst
assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic
assault on American democracy since the Civil War, or whether we are
going to allow lawful subpoenas to be ignored and the investigation
being conducted by the select committee to be obstructed to puff up the
ego of the former President, who has launched another frivolous
lawsuit, this time against the select committee.
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I still remember January 6 like it
was yesterday. I was standing right where you are now, Mr. Speaker. Our
democracy was in peril; the lives of Members of Congress, our staffs,
and all the workers here were endangered. And Capitol Police officers
were beaten or worse.
Getting to the truth of what happened or placating the ego of a
former President, that shouldn't be a tough call. In any ordinary time,
it wouldn't be. This measure would probably have passed on suspension.
Because as a Member of Congress, we have fewer more important and
solemn duties than what is at the heart of the measure before us today,
and that is protecting our democracy and preventing future attempts to
overturn the results of an election.
This is about country, not about party.
Now, many witnesses are already doing their patriotic duty and
cooperating voluntarily with the select committee.
In fact, 10 of the 11 witnesses required to produce records to the
select committee by the required deadline are engaging with the
committee.
Only one person, Mr. Speaker, is refusing. One. Stephen K. Bannon.
Instead of doing the right thing, the legal thing, the patriotic
thing, Mr. Bannon is hiding behind the former President's false claims
of executive privilege to try to run out the clock on this
investigation.
Now, maybe he has something to hide. I don't know. But the law isn't
on his side. It is not on Donald Trump's side either.
Executive privilege is not absolute, and President Biden has declined
to invoke that privilege.
There is a long history of the White House making accommodations to
investigative requests from Congress. That is especially true when the
public interest outweighs other interests, as it does here.
But apparently facts and the law don't matter to some. Apparently,
Steve Bannon thinks he is above the law. Maybe it is because he was
pardoned by the former occupant of the White House.
But ultimately, in the United States of America, no one should be
above the law.

[[Page H5739]]

That shouldn't be a controversial idea. But we live in an age where
apparently some put fidelity to Donald Trump over fidelity to the
Constitution. And I find that disgusting.
I get it. The former President is in Mar-a-Lago somewhere seething
about our efforts to get to the truth about January 6.
But is he so feared, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues are
going to keep denying what happened that day? And keep trying to sweep
it under the rug as if it never happened? Oh, it was no big deal.
This is our democracy that we are talking about here. This is about
the oath we took and the freedoms we cherish, freedoms that Americans
have fought and died for, Mr. Speaker.
And some on the other side, are they really willing to throw away all
of that to placate the whims of one man? Really?
This has to stop.
The legal scholar James Landis once said: ``To deny Congress power to
acquaint itself with facts is equivalent to requiring it to prescribe
remedies in darkness.''
We need to see the facts in the cold light of day and follow them
wherever they lead.
That means not only holding those who attack this building itself
accountable, as the legal system is currently doing, it also means
holding people accountable when they attack what this building stands
for: Democracy and rule of law.

{time} 1230

We will not tolerate being left in the dark, and certainly not when
something so fundamental is at stake.
Now, this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. And just yesterday in
the Committee on Rules, we debated the underlying measure at length.
And, yes, we heard from the usual Members who rushed to the former
President's defense, who deflected and wanted to talk about anything
other than the events of January 6. But we also saw something more
remarkable.
Chairman Thompson, a Democrat, sat side-by-side with Vice Chair
Cheney, a Republican, two people who probably have never voted for the
same Presidential candidates in their lives; two people who disagree on
virtually every issue. But they agreed on this: On defending the
Constitution and rule of law. Let's follow their example.
Mr. Speaker, I sat across the dais from Congresswoman Cheney for
years on the Committee on Rules when the Republicans were in charge. We
were polar opposites. But yesterday, I couldn't have agreed with her
more, not as a Democrat but as an American.
Now I don't give a damn if you are a Democrat or a Republican, and I
don't care if you like Donald Trump or not. Matters like this are about
something more than petty partisanship.
So I urge my colleagues, let's put our country before our party.
Let's put defending our democracy before defending Donald Trump. Let's
support this rule and the underlying measure, not as Democrats or
Republicans, but as public servants, as Members of Congress dedicated
to preserving American democracy and the rule of law. That is what is
at stake here and nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to ignore the feeling that this is one more
example of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to
distract from the real issues that concern Americans. We have an
administration that can't stop the flood of illegal immigrants at our
southern border, can't unlock the supply bottlenecks at our ports.
What are the Democrats doing about inflation?
What are the Democrats doing about the border issues?
What are the Democrats doing about supply chain issues?
And what are the Democrats doing about the worker shortage?
And I could go on. Instead, we are here going back and forth arguing
if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation
of questionable motives and purpose. No wonder the public thinks we
can't do our job.
That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved
before we can continue with this vote. The Supreme Court has found that
the power rests with Congress for subpoenas if they serve a legitimate
legislative purpose, and be ``related to, and in furtherance of, a
legitimate task of the Congress.''
A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the
leaders of the D.C. National Guard and Sergeant at Arms so that we can
find out what gaps in communications and authorities that need to be
filled and find solutions to ensure that this doesn't happen again. But
have those been issued? No.
Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into
President Trump and their political opponents that voted against the
certification of the election in some States, something that they,
themselves, did just 4 years ago.
What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for
a legitimate legislative purpose? Much of the discussion in the Rules
Committee centered around criminal action, not around legislation.
These concerns would have been raised by Republicans if Speaker Pelosi
had not rejected the minority leader's nominees. But instead, she hand-
picked Members that would fit her and the Democrats' narrative.
It seems the story line has already been decided. We need to ensure
that it is, as stated, intended to investigate and report upon the
facts, circumstances, and causes relating to January 6. Unfortunately,
Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this
committee and its investigation outcome was predetermined when it
tilted representation in favor of Democrats and, again, rejected the
two Republican Members selected to serve on the Commission by the
minority leader.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set here
today as the majority, yet again, embarks on another investigation in
search of a crime.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the
underlying resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Minnesota said we wouldn't be in
this position if we had done what the Republicans had asked us to do.
We did.
And I include in the Record the letter that the minority leader,
Kevin McCarthy, sent to Speaker Pelosi requesting a number of items.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 22, 2021.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are in agreement that the best path
forward for bipartisan legislation is to create an impartial
and bipartisan Commission.
In keeping with the suggestions from the Co-Chairs of the
9/11 Commission, the legislation the House puts forward
should mirror the precedents that fairly and successfully
governed that Commission. Simply put, House Republicans are
asking for no more and no less than what Congress came
together and agreed upon in the past. Specifically, those
precedents include:
An equal 5-5 ratio in appointments by Democrats and
Republicans
Co-Equal Subpoena Power for the Chair and Vice Chair of the
Commission
No inclusion of findings or other predetermined conclusions
which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself
As the Co-Chairs of the Commission stated, a ``bipartisan
independent investigation will earn credibility with the
American public.'' I am confident that following their
procedures and precedents can do just that, in a way that an
overtly partisan commission will not be able to.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing your response.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCarthy,
House Republican Leader.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, those items include: an equal 5:5 ratio on
a committee; coequal subpoena power; no inclusion of findings of other
predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the
Commission itself.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Homeland Security agreed to every one
of them--every single one of them. And what did the Republicans do?
They said, Well, we didn't think you would agree to everything, but we
still don't want the Commission. So they voted

[[Page H5740]]

against it. And then they blocked it in the United States Senate.
So don't talk to me about partisanship or bipartisanship when it was
very clear early on that my friends on the other side had no intention
of wanting to work with us to get to the truth, because they couldn't
take yes for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that today, President Trump issued
a statement--he had to issue a statement because he can't tweet anymore
because of mistruths and embrace of violence. Anyway, he issued a
statement today. This is what he said:
The statement says, ``The insurrection took place on November 3,
election day. January 6 was the protest!''
Let me just say that one more time.
Trump said today in a statement, ``The insurrection took place on
November 3, election day. January 6 was a protest!''
And by the way, he didn't mention that it was a violent protest on
January 6.
Mr. Speaker, are any of my Republican colleagues, aside from
Congresswoman Cheney and Representative Kinzinger, who have shown
courage and patriotism, are any of them willing to come to the floor
and say unequivocally that the election on November 3 was not an
insurrection, as the former President has now said?
It was a free and fair election held by one of the oldest democracies
in the world. And that used to mean something to my Republican friends.
Please, please. The former occupant of the White House is trying to
tear this country apart. And unfortunately, too many on the other side
are going along with him. Enough.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my colleague from
Massachusetts, the fact still remains that when the minority leader did
try to participate in this Commission, the Speaker rejected the two
nominees that the minority leader had offered.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Reschenthaler).
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow
Rules Committee member, Representative Fischbach, for allowing me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I really believe that the issue before us today comes
down to a very simple question, and that is, what is the legislative
purpose of the Select Committee subpoena on a private citizen. This is
a very narrow legal issue.
And what the courts have held is that Congress has the power to
secure information ``in order to legislate.'' So in other words,
Congress's subpoena authority is valid only if it relates to the
furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress.
Now, according to the Select Committee's own press release, the
committee is attempting to tell a story and to find out what happened
that day. But the courts have already determined that that is not a
valid legislative purpose.
In the 1957 decision, Watkins v. The United States, the Court held
that Congress has ``no general authority to expose the private affairs
of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of
Congress.'' Additionally, the quote went on in that case to say
Congress cannot investigate private citizens for ``the sake of
exposure.''
So then what is the legislative purpose before us today? What is the
legislative purpose of a subpoena on a private citizen, including 11
individuals who merely filed and were granted permits to exercise their
First Amendment rights to assemble and to petition the government? This
cannot be perceived as an investigation and still fit within the
framework of case law.
Again, let's be clear, the law is crystal clear here. If Congress
does not have a legitimate legislative function, they simply cannot
subpoena a private individual.
Now, the Constitution gives those powers to the executive and the
judiciary branch. They don't give that power to Congress. So I can,
therefore, only conclude that the purpose of the resolution before us
today is to fulfill a partisan agenda.
If the Select Committee was actually serious about conducting a
legitimate oversight, they would subpoena the former House Sergeant at
Arms and the former head of the D.C. National Guard. That would be an
investigation within the clear purpose of Congress and within the
delegated power that we have in the Constitution.
Instead, we are here voting on a resolution with absolutely no
legislative purpose. We are also setting a dangerous precedent that
will have a chilling effect on the rights of private citizens in the
future.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that someone on the other side would
respond to former President Trump's statement today, which I find
stunning and shocking, but apparently they don't want to talk about
that. They want to talk about legislative purpose. When we get to the
bill, I will let the committee members respond to that.
I do want to say one thing again; that Speaker Pelosi was committed
to a truly bipartisan commission, and we did a bipartisan commission--a
truly bipartisan commission. My friends on the other side of the aisle
tried to undercut it and get their friends over in the Senate to tank
it. That is what happened. They basically destroyed what could have
been a bipartisan commission that, quite frankly, was the way we all
wanted to go.
But then they said, well, she wouldn't let us put who we wanted on
this current commission. Well, the minority leader suggested Mr. Jordan
to be the lead Republican, and he very well may be a material witness
in this investigation. You would put him on to oversee an investigation
of, what, himself and others?

Give me a break. What is going on here? At least be honest enough
with the American people to say what is going on here; and that is, you
don't want to get to the truth about what happened on January 6. You
never did; notwithstanding the violence that occurred right here in
this Chamber, in this sacred building.
So, please, let's not get into this, Oh, we wanted to cooperate but
somehow you wouldn't let us. We gave you everything you wanted, and you
could not take yes for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for truth and accountability. That is why we are
here. We are dealing with common criminals. You see a guy running down
the street in this city with a television on his back strapped to it,
you start to wonder. We have had enough of those incidents to indicate
to us that is what we are dealing with.
The gravest attack ever on the U.S. democracy came 288 days ago. It
was born of lies. Steve Bannon spread those poisonous lies, and Bannon
was guided by the dictator. We must pursue the truth. We go only where
the facts take us. Refusing a subpoena is obstructing justice. We don't
allow the plaintiff to prosecute or to decide. We decide it through the
courts. If you can't take the Constitution, go to Russia. It shows you
have something to hide. What are you hiding?
This is a vote of conscience.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, refusing a subpoena is obstructing
justice. This is a vote of conscience.
Do you agree with the rioting terrorists or our democracy? Are we a
country of laws or a country of men?
We must hold all involved accountable; this includes those who
attacked the police and those organizers who spread the lies, and the
President who organized it.
This is America, not Russia.

{time} 1245

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will
offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional
consideration of H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance
Act, authored by Representative Ferguson.

[[Page H5741]]

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, requiring banks and Federal credit
unions to disclose personal details about their customers' accounts is
an extreme invasion of privacy, and it would have terrible implications
for community banks and credit unions in my district and across the
country.
I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised about this egregious
attempt on behalf of the Democrats. They clearly want as much
government involvement as possible in every possible part of American
citizens' lives. I may not be surprised anymore, but I continue to be
disappointed that they refuse to listen to the American citizens who
time and time again say they want Big Government out of their lives and
their wallets.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question. There is absolutely no denying that the Democrats want to
control every part of your life by allowing the IRS to snoop into your
bank accounts.
This is wrong. And for what? It is really truly all about control.
This unlawful surveillance is their latest gambit.
The Democrats' snooping scheme would include hiring 87,000 new IRS
agents at a cost of almost $80 billion. That is almost enough IRS
agents to fill up Sanford Stadium at the University of Georgia for a
Saturday football game. Now, I will take a college football stadium
full of SEC fans cheering on the Dawgs, but not one full of IRS agents.
The proposal that the Democrats have put out claims to only go after
wealthy tax cheats, but at its core, this is going to target every
single farmer, every single family, every single gig worker, every
single small business owner, and just about anyone who pays rent or
pays a mortgage.
Their bogus attempts to scale it back are meaningless. At any number,
this is wrong. Think about how long it would take, paying $200 a month
out of your bank account, or $200 a week out of your bank account, to
get to the $10,000 number that they have proposed.
Mr. Speaker, simply put, the Democrats' IRS surveillance plan is flat
out wrong. It is an outright violation of the Fourth Amendment of every
American. Government has no business sifting through our personal
information. This is a foundational principle that this country was
built on.
I will say it again. Whether the amount is $1, $600, $10,000, or $1
million, giving the IRS this kind of unfettered and unchecked power is
wrong. The threshold is irrelevant. Americans know that this is wrong.
We know it is wrong, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
know that it is wrong.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so desperate to
find revenue to fund their Big Government socialist programs that they
are willing to violate the constitutional rights of our fellow
Americans. This is wrong. It is egregious on every front. Once again,
we know it; they know it; the American people know it; and that is why
we are pushing back.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
that we can restore some reason and sanity and put an end to this
absurd proposal for the IRS to snoop on Americans' bank accounts.
Defeat the previous question so we can vote to prohibit IRS financial
surveillance of Americans' bank accounts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waste my time debating this
information. What my friend is talking about is a false government
takeover. What about the people who tried to take over our democracy on
January 6? What about what happened here on January 6?
Why is there no interest in getting to the truth? They come with this
instead. Again, I am still waiting for somebody to respond to President
Trump's statement that insurrection day took place on November 3. Do
you really believe that? Is that what we have come to, that my friends
on the other side would embrace such a shocking and such an offensive
statement?
We had a free and fair election, and this is what the former
President--who my friends are all so afraid of--says.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
the underlying resolution.
Mr. Speaker, there are moments in our country's history when we are
presented with stark choices, choices between right and wrong. And the
violence of January 6 has made it clear that we are at such a moment.
January 6 was a shocking assault on our government.
On the orders of the former President, thousands of rioters destroyed
public property, gravely injured police officers, terrorized lawmakers,
and invaded the Capitol to halt the certification of the electoral
college required by the Constitution. That day cannot be minimized or
swept under the carpet because the forces that inspired that attack are
still stoking the fires of chaos and conspiracy.
Congress has tasked a bipartisan select committee with investigating
the January 6 attack, and that committee has outlined why it needs
Steve Bannon's testimony to fully understand the events leading up to
that attack.
However, when subpoenaed to testify, Mr. Bannon told the select
committee to pound sand. Mr. Bannon is a private citizen; he is not
above the law and cannot refuse to obey a subpoena any more than you or
I or any American can. Neither Mr. Bannon nor the former President has
made any credible legal arguments to shield his testimony.
Patriotism demands that anyone with knowledge of that dark day come
forward, and the rule of law and our Constitution demand that everyone
in this Congress support this investigation.
I am incredibly disappointed that Republican leadership and so many
of their colleagues continue to oppose any attempt to investigate the
January 6 attack. They opposed legislation to create a bipartisan
commission. They opposed the creation of the select committee. And they
are now trying to prevent the committee from carrying out its work.
This is not a time for games or delays, all of which have allowed the
former President and his allies, like Mr. Bannon, to escape
accountability thus far. This is a time for courage, the courage to
protect our Constitution and our national integrity.
I am grateful to the members of the select committee for having the
courage to put loyalty to country over partisan politics.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this
rule.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).
Mrs. HINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for
yielding to me today.
Mr. Speaker, President Biden and Speaker Pelosi are moving full steam
ahead with their Big Government, big spending vision for this country.
One of the most egregious proposals in their multitrillion-dollar
reconciliation package would give the IRS access to nearly every single
American's bank account by requiring financial institutions, like your
local bank or your credit union, to report every account with more than
$10,000 of transactions annually to the IRS.
This proposal would give the IRS unprecedented access to sensitive
personal information and unprecedented power to target working families
across Iowa and across America. This government snooping is a complete
invasion of privacy and a massive overreach into our lives and our
livelihoods.
This spying scheme is a lose, lose, lose. It will increase the
existing backlog at the IRS exponentially. It will jeopardize the
privacy of millions of Americans. It will destroy our community
financial institutions. And it will hurt rural communities and working
families hardest of all.
Democrats claim this is about tax evasion. Everyone should pay the
taxes

[[Page H5742]]

that they owe. That is not the argument here. But this misguided
proposal isn't about tracking down missing revenue; it is about
expanded government control, plain and simple.
This proposal, by design, will hit normal working families' bank
accounts. A total of $10,000 in transactions in a year, that is a
year's rent or a series of farm equipment bills, for example. The IRS
should be focused on being more efficient at its current job, not
emboldened and certainly not unleashed on hardworking Americans.
We do not need to be throwing more money at the IRS to put Americans'
daily transactions under a microscope. Iowans have been very clear with
me. They do not want the IRS snooping around in their bank accounts at
that granular level.
I have also heard very serious concerns from our community financial
institutions. These are the folks that are helping our farmers, our
families, and our small businesses access credit. They told me this
proposal could force them to shut down for good, leaving Iowans without
access to credit and capital that they need to help keep our rural
economy going to fuel and feed the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put a stop to this madness and
stand up for our constituents by voting ``no'' on the previous
question, keeping the government out of Americans' bank accounts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind everybody that
democracy doesn't defend itself; people have to defend democracy. It
would be nice to see a little courage on the other side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and
chair of the Rules Committee for yielding and for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the House is a separate and coequal branch of
government. We are the institution that is closest to the people. The
House has a sacred obligation under the Constitution to defend our
democracy, and we should be doing that in a bipartisan way, but
something has happened to the modern-day Republican Party.
The party of Abraham Lincoln is gone. The party of Ronald Reagan is
gone. The party of John McCain is gone. A cult of personality has risen
up to take its place.
Is that why my colleagues refuse to denounce the former President's
lie uttered today, that the real insurrection was on November 3?
Take back your party. You can start today. You can start right here.
You can start by holding Steve Bannon accountable for his blanket
defiance of a congressional subpoena.
What is wrong with Steve Bannon? There is no cult exception to the
United States Constitution. There is a legitimate, bipartisan
congressional investigation that is underway into the violent
insurrection and attack on the Capitol on January 6. It was an assault
on the Congress, the Constitution, and the country.
A lawful subpoena has been issued that Steve Bannon should comply
with. We must hold Steve Bannon accountable for his blanket defiance of
a congressional subpoena, for undermining the rule of law, and for
obstructing a congressional investigation because, in America, no one,
no one, no one is above the law.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that we
can immediately consider H.R. 5586.
This bill would kill a Biden administration proposal that would allow
IRS agents to comb through the bank accounts of any American who spends
more than $10,000 a year.
To put that in perspective, $10,000 a year equates to just $28 a day,
$850 a month, or half of the average Minnesota mortgage payment. In
other words, the Biden administration wants the IRS to be able to spy
on tens of millions of Americans.
Don't be mistaken. This proposal does not just target the 1 percent,
as the President sometimes likes to claim. Instead, it is pointed
directly at working American families.
Today, I led a letter, with more than 200 of my colleagues, urging
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to scrap this proposal to spy on
American citizens.
This is not China. We must protect Americans' right to privacy and
stop this proposed intrusive, unnecessary Biden financial reporting
requirement.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, not only will my
Republican friends not condemn the President's outrageous and
unacceptable and unconscionable statement today, but they won't even
talk about what we are here for.
That is what fear looks like, and it is really unbelievably sad.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that this is not just about
Mr. Bannon. This is about our rule of law, our democracy, and
protecting it for future generations.
On January 6, a mob, incited by the lies of a political leader,
descended on the Capitol. Nooses, vandalism, death threats to elected
officials, Americans remember the violence that took place here.

{time} 1300

Beltway chatter often focuses on the winners and losers of that day.
But on that day, we all lost. Americans lost their lives, and we nearly
lost our democracy. That is why we created a bipartisan January 6
commission. We know that unless we do our jobs, the ultimate losers
will be future generations who will wonder what happened to our Nation.
The commission's work is serious and has no time for the games of Mr.
Bannon or anyone else who would disregard the rule of law. Our
Constitution and our courts have made it clear that Congress has the
power to investigate. This power is vital to the protection of our
democracy, and it must be respected.
I think a lot about our late, dear colleague, Elijah Cummings, and
his words still sit with me. He said that when we are dancing with the
angels, the question will be asked: What did we do to ensure we kept
our democracy intact?
I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, with that quote on my heart,
thinking of my own four grandchildren and when they learn of January 6,
they will see a time when America descended into violence, destruction,
and desecration; when Americans attacked Americans and threatened our
democracy.
And what did I do?
What did we all do to protect our democracy?
So I lend my voice to hold Mr. Bannon in contempt and support the
bipartisan select committee for their work in keeping our democracy and
our future intact.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Georgia explained, if we defeat
the previous question, we will immediately move to bring up H.R. 5586.
This bill is critically important to ensure there will be no expansion
of Internal Revenue Service requirements for financial institutions to
report the ins and outs of bank accounts.
Members may remember this issue during the debate on ObamaCare when
the Democrats tried to require anyone who received a payment of more
than $600 to be given a 1099. People were rightly outraged by this
provision, and it was repealed before it ever went into effect. Now,
with their new reconciliation bill, the Democratic majority is again
looking for payfors and are willing to sacrifice the privacy of all
Americans in that quest. Every threshold being discussed for inclusion
will give the IRS full access to what is in the bank account of every
American.
And what is the justification for that, Mr. Speaker?
It is to help the IRS to identify tax cheats. Well, I can tell you,
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic proposal will make

[[Page H5743]]

everyone who pays rent or a mortgage a target and won't do anything to
help the IRS close the tax gap.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan is an astonishing breach of privacy.
Giving the IRS the power to snoop around financial accounts, even with
no accusation of wrongdoing, violates every protection against
government overreach. Americans have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in their homes and in their personal lives, including their
financial lives. Yet, if the majority has their way, the IRS will be
empowered to go digging around in the bank accounts of everyday
Americans in search of wrongdoing. That is simply beyond the pale.
We have seen what can happen when the IRS abuses its power. It was
only a few short years ago that the IRS was targeting political and
religious organizations for their beliefs, an astonishing violation of
their First Amendment rights.
What the IRS needs, Mr. Speaker, is oversight and accountability, and
that is why we need to bring up and pass H.R. 5586 today. Only this
will ensure that the IRS is not granted unprecedented power to
intervene in the lives of and invade the privacy of ordinary Americans.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution ought to be supported, and the
underlying action that the rule provides for ought to be supported by
every Member of this House who believes that this House has a
constitutional responsibility of oversight, of protecting the
Constitution and the democracy in which we all are privileged to live,
and the integrity of this House.
Oversight is not possible for this House if, in fact, it cannot
request and, indeed, demand the testimony of those who have information
which this House, the people's House and the protector of our democracy
and our Constitution, needs to protect our democracy. This rule and the
underlying action for which it provides is essential.
Mr. Speaker, if I were trying a case, I would offer as Exhibit A a
statement by the man who would be dictator, Donald Trump, who absurdly
and, of course, incorrectly says the insurrection took place on
November 3, election day. January 6 was the protest.
My view is that man, Donald J. Trump, protests too much, because I
believe that he recruited, incited, and deployed an insurrectionist mob
to threaten this institution, its Members, its constitutional
responsibility in the electoral process of the Presidency of the United
States, and democracy itself.
Mr. Speaker, the events of January 6 exposed threats to our democracy
that must be fully understood and addressed. It is a weighty
responsibility that falls to the House Select Committee to Investigate
the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, a bipartisan
committee.
I want to thank Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and all of
those serving on this committee for their commitment to seeking the
truth, defending our democracy, and to giving sufficient information to
our public and our constituents, our people, that they know this to be
a stark and dangerous lie.
The committee is doing a diligent job at finding the truth. This task
should not have fallen to the members of a select committee, this
subpoena for contempt. We should have been able to come together,
Democrats and Republicans, to create a bipartisan commission in the
style of the 9/11 Commission, recognizing that such consequential and
transformative attacks require us to come together as one nation
indivisible to seek answers and identify solutions to make our country
safer.

Sadly, however, we have come to a place where one party is so focused
on defending the indefensible that this institution cannot act as
Americans but, rather, are relegated to acting simply as partisans.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am heartened to see Democrats and some
courageous Republicans working together to uncover the truth of what
happened that day. These Republican Members are exhibiting what
President Kennedy would call profiles in courage.
In order for this committee to perform its work in full--indeed any
committee of the Congress to perform its work in full--ultimately it
has to be able to get the information that it needs from those who know
the information it needs. It must hear testimony from all those who may
have information regarding the events of January 6 in this particular
case. That is why we provided the committee with subpoena authority.
Steve Bannon's refusal to appear, even when subpoenaed is, A, a
demonstration of his contempt, not only for Congress but his contempt
of the Constitution and his contempt for the law. It is unacceptable
and obstructive to this process of uncovering the full story of that
day's attack on the Capitol. He must be found in contempt, not as a
Democrat and not as a Republican, but on behalf of this institution and
the people whom we represent.
Withholding information on the events of that day from the committee
is no less than an act of betrayal of the American people and of our
constitutional democracy.
The American people need to understand what led to the violent
insurrection that sought to overturn our election and led to the deaths
of multiple police officers and others; although, as I said, Exhibit A,
the former President's comments, should be the proof in and of itself
the American people need to understand what led to the deaths of those
police officers and the placing at risk the democratic process of
electing a President of the United States.
We need to understand, Mr. Speaker, how this could have happened, why
it happened, and what ought to be done to hold the perpetrators
accountable and prevent the events of the day from being repeated.
That appears to be the fear on the floor of this House today:
accountability, responsibility, and consequences.
In refusing to appear before the commission, Mr. Bannon has made it
clear where his loyalties lie. He has chosen Trump first and America
last, not America first. Trump first, America last. Trump first, our
Constitution last. Trump first, our democracy last. Trump first, the
House of the people, this House of Representatives last. And he will
have to answer for that to us.
This is a moment of reckoning for our country, reckoning with hard
truths and painful memories, a reckoning that, above all, requires
truth and understanding.
Can't we, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way summon the courage to look
the truth in the eye and vote the truth?
We cannot allow anyone to shirk their responsibility to share that
truth and help the American people understand.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on this
resolution and to vote ``yes'' on the citation for contempt so that
Chairman Thompson, Vice Chairwoman Cheney, and the members of the
select committee can make it clear to Mr. Bannon and to all others
summoned to testify they will seek the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth as they determine what we must do to protect our
beloved country, our beloved Constitution, and our beloved democracy.

{time} 1315

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, as explained prior, if we defeat
the previous question, we will immediately move to bring up H.R. 5586.
This bill prohibits the expansion of the Internal Revenue Service's
requirements for financial institutions to report bank account
transactions.
The Biden administration is searching for ways to pay for their
partisan $5.5 trillion social policy bill, and one of the Democrats'
proposed solutions is to spy on taxpayers' bank accounts.
Their proposal would require financial institutions and service
providers to report data on accounts that deposit or withdraw more than
$600 or maybe $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service to help ensure
that Americans are paying their fair share in taxes.
Democrats claim that this regulatory expansion would only impact
wealthy Americans and businesses. But in reality, it targets virtually
all working-class people in our Nation.

[[Page H5744]]

This government overreach would be an enormous violation of privacy,
jeopardize the financial security of all Americans, and impose
significant compliance costs on financial institutions.
Through this proposal, the Democrats are looking to weaponize the IRS
by creating a new surveillance program, which would allow them to
monitor every single bank account without permission or limit. In order
to conduct this surveillance on Americans, the provision includes $80
billion to double the number of IRS agents, which would be six times
the size of the IRS' annual budget.
This plan was initially included in the massive budget reconciliation
bill and has now since been removed after pushback from financial
institutions and customers. But it is still being considered for
passage.
Regardless, my House Republican colleagues and I are doing what we
can to protect the financial security and privacy of the American
people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Oklahoma.
Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. I have recently written a letter to Speaker
Pelosi, Chairman Neal, Secretary Yellen, and Commissioner Rettig to
express my concerns of overburdening the data collection system,
exposing millions of Americans to potential cyberattacks, and how
distrust in banks negatively impacts our economy.
Additionally, I signed on to a letter and cosponsored two bills that
directly address this pressing issue. The letter to Secretary Yellen
expressed the concern of more Americans unbanking due to privacy
concerns and distrust in banks and how applying extra reporting
requirements for financial institutions would be incredibly burdensome.
The U.S. Government should not have the authority to spy on bank
accounts of American taxpayers. The Biden administration's proposal
would significantly impact the working class, invade privacy, pose
financial security threats for Americans and businesses, and further
burden institutions. House Republicans are working tirelessly to put a
stop to this government overreach and protect the American people's
security, privacy, and trust in this great Nation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman updating us on the bills
that she has cosponsored and her opinions about the IRS, which have
nothing to do with the underlying bill that we are debating here today.
But it is stunning to me that neither she nor any of my friends on the
other side of the aisle will respond to what the former occupant of the
White House said today in a statement, that the insurrection took place
on November 3; that our election, our lawful election in one of the
oldest democracies in the world, was somehow an insurrection; and that
January 6 was merely a protest.
I am stunned by this. I challenge the next speaker, please, can you
say that you disassociate yourself with this statement? Can you make it
clear to the American people that you want no part of this? I get it.
You endorsed this man. He campaigned for you. You are afraid of his
base. You are afraid every time he says anything. But the bottom line
is, this statement needs to be condemned, and the unwillingness of
anybody on the other side to condemn this statement is unconscionable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, they won't question Trump's statement that
the insurrection was November 3 because that is the day each and every
one of them and each and every one of us was elected. It was a free and
fair election when it came to electing Congresspeople, but for
President, they think it was an insurrection. Horse manure.
Bannon, who was thumbing his nose at the Constitution and this
Congress by not responding to his subpoena, said that it would be
different than on election day, on January 6. It wouldn't go as
expected, because he was part of plotting what was an overthrow of our
government.
He was pardoned by President Trump for ripping off Trump supporters.
He got them to give money to an effort to build the wall, and he took
over $1 million for his own personal expenses. Fraud. But Trump didn't
care that he ripped off Trump people for a Trump wall. He pardoned him.
The whole thing is a con game, and we need to end it before democracy
goes out the window.
I urge you to support the rule and the underlying resolution. Protect
America and protect democracy.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota
for yielding and Mr. Ferguson for leading this effort.
If the previous question is defeated, we will amend the rule and
immediately consider H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial
Surveillance Act.
This legislation would prohibit the Treasury Department and the IRS
from implementing any new financial account surveillance regimes. This
is a direct response to this administration's invasive proposal that
would require financial institutions to report transaction data on
every American's bank account that meets their proposed threshold.
I am deeply skeptical of the need for this dangerous expansion of IRS
oversight and believe it to be a significant risk to individual
privacy. The Democrats are leading the American people to believe that
this is needed to target wealthy tax cheats and to help close the tax
gap. Unfortunately, this proposal, even with a $10,000 threshold, would
subject Americans at every rung of the economic ladder to these onerous
reporting requirements. This includes middle-class families, small
business owners, and farmers.
Even with proposed carve-outs, this proposal would turn local banks
into IRS reporting units, which is not only incredibly burdensome but
also costly. I have already been hearing from local bankers in Morton
and Liberty, Illinois, and throughout my district who are deeply
concerned about how this proposal will encourage their customers to
empty out their bank accounts, further exacerbating the unbanked-banked
divide.
In a letter dated September 29, 2021, the Department of the Treasury
cited that the IRS experiences 1.4 billion cyberattacks a year. I don't
know a single American who would like to have their personal data
reported to a system that is highly targeted by hackers and foreign
adversaries. In addition, the IRS' track record for leaking personal
information raises serious questions about their ability to implement a
program of this scale.
I am proud to join my friend, Congressman Ferguson, in his effort to
protect Americans' privacy, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Minnesota
yielded the gentleman from Illinois an additional minute, I was kind of
hopeful that maybe he would be the one to say that he disassociates
himself from the statement of Donald Trump today in which he said that
the insurrection took place on November 3, election day.
I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to him if he wants to say that
this was a statement that is not only unconscionable but that every
American should condemn.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I often quote George Santayana, who warned: ``Those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''
The insurrection on January 6 was the worst attack on our
Constitution since the Civil War. While the secessionists were defeated
in 1865, our Nation's experiment with multiracial democracy during
Reconstruction did not last.
It was extinguished by the Lost Cause mythology that minimized the
evils of the secessionists and raised monuments to the leaders of the
Confederacy that they established. These willful circumventions and
misrepresentations were used as justification

[[Page H5745]]

for avoiding accountability and violently stripping African Americans
of constitutional rights.
We are at risk of repeating that history today. Just as the Lost
Cause laid the ideological groundwork for Jim Crow and all its
inhumanities, the big lie seeks to justify nullification laws that seek
to suppress votes and establish autocratic rule.
The former President and his enablers are using the big lie to deny
the horror of January 6. They are attempting to obstruct and subvert
the select committee's work and to prevent a full accounting of their
efforts to undermine our democracy.
We know from our history that when our government is attacked,
failing to hold the perpetrators accountable emboldens them. Allowing
their myths to gain currency incentivizes them. And underestimating
their disregard for their fellow citizens enables them to deny those
citizens their constitutional rights.
I urge adoption of this resolution so that we avoid repeating the
past, at least that part of our past that dehumanizes our fellow
citizens. We must act to strengthen our democracy and build a better
future for our country so that it can once again be the envy of the
world.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, while my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle are singularly focused on the happenings only within the
walls of Capitol Hill, the rest of us, working families, are struggling
with the consequences of this failed administration, including rising
inflation; pending unemployment; border threats; increased drugs and
violence in our neighborhoods; and an out-of-control, power-hungry
administration.

I cannot explain the chairman's and majority leader's absolute and
unhealthy obsession with a former President, but I sincerely urge them
to seek treatment so that they can focus on the insurmountable harms
that are being caused by the current administration and how they are
currently forcing them on all of the American people.
I rise in opposition to the previous question so that the House can
immediately consider H.R. 5586, legislation critical to stopping the
Democrats' unending attempts to control every aspect of American lives.
Now the left is in an unrelenting pursuit of tracking every penny you
and your family personally earn and spend. If the price tag for their
socialist policies weren't alarming enough, what is hidden inside the
bill should truly horrify all Americans.
If you pay rent, if you buy groceries, or pay a mortgage, you are
going to be subject to surveillance. From the lowest income earners on
up, every American will be checked.
Thousands more IRS bureaucrats will be hired for their new
surveillance program, with authority to monitor every transaction you
make. Every account transaction would be traced and reported to the
Federal Government, edging us closer and closer to a communist-
controlled police state.
Republicans are unified in our fight against this new surveillance
program. My friend and ranking member, Kevin Brady, led the charge to
stop this early on, but not a single Democrat stood up for Americans'
financial privacy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. First, things are reported and monitored, and then
they are controlled. We cannot let Democrats push us down this
dangerous and slippery slope.

{time} 1330

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, oh, my God, can somebody, please--I beg of you on the
other side--can somebody, please, disassociate yourself or condemn the
statement by the former President who said today that the insurrection
took place on November 3?
All my colleagues were elected on November 3 as well. If you believe
that election day was an insurrection, then your election results are
illegitimate.
Can somebody, please, for the sake of our democracy, say that what
was said by the former President is wrong? Please.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth).
Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues today, I rise in
opposition to the previous question so that we can immediately consider
H.R. 5586, Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act.
Mr. Speaker, Hoosiers are outraged. My friends across the aisle would
have you believe that it is just the Hoosier financial institutions
that are outraged at having to hand over the personal account
information of their customers. It is, in fact, those account owners
that are outraged at the notion that my friends across the aisle would
build an apparatus to surveil and snoop in their personal bank
accounts.
Now, their horror only grows as I answer questions for them. First,
they ask, surely this must apply only to the super rich and not to me.
But I reply, no, it applies to you if you spend just over $200 a week.
Then they will ask, surely this must only apply to those that are
suspected of a crime. And I say, no, it is collection on every account,
irrespective of whether there is a suspected crime or tax evasion
afoot.
Then, of course, they will ask me, surely the IRS has a very good
track record of keeping this data safe. And I have to reply, no, the
track record, in fact, indicates the opposite. The IRS has a terrible
track record of keeping this data safe against the intrusion of actors
from around the world and right here at home.
And then they say, well, surely the IRS has a good track record of
not mobilizing this data for political purposes. And yet, again, I have
to say, no, in fact, the evidence indicates the IRS has mobilized this
data for their own political purposes and for the political purposes
across the aisle.
My friends, this is horrifying, this surveillance state that is
trying to be built. Hoosiers understand what is being asked of them.
Trillions of dollars are being proposed to be spent, and now they are
being asked to give up their personal information from their personal
bank accounts to foot that bill for my colleagues across the aisle. I
hope this stops here.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this microphone is working, because I am
not sure my colleagues can hear me when I have asked them over and over
again, can you please disassociate yourself from the former President's
statement today? It is important. It is on topic.
By the way, what the gentleman just talked about has nothing to do
with what we are talking about today. It is amazing that nobody wants
to talk about what is on the floor today.
But my constituents, when they talk to me, you know what they are
fearful about? They are fearful about losing our democracy in their
lifetime. And the inability or the unwillingness of my friends on the
other side to be able to disassociate themselves with a statement by
the former President, which today he said the election on November 3
was somehow the insurrection. It is stunning to me. He is tearing this
country apart, and the silence and the indifference on the other side
is aiding him in his quest to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my good friend.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question.
If we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to
include H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act,
legislation to prevent the IRS from snooping into Americans' personal
financial accounts.
Under President Biden and Congressional Democrats' policies, American
families continue to be squeezed by inflation at the gas pump, at the
grocery store, and in their monthly energy bills. But this inflation
squeeze isn't enough for them. Now, they want to monitor the average
American's bank account. As part of Democrats' misguided tax-and-
spending spree, they

[[Page H5746]]

have proposed new reporting requirements, from financial institutions
to the IRS, regarding private account information.
This vast government overreach would turn financial institutions in
my district into local outposts of the IRS, all with the sole purpose
of reporting Hoosiers' personal financial account information back to
the Government. Make no mistake, this will capture virtually every
American, who will be subject to increased levels of IRS intrusion in
their daily lives.
The IRS already has been challenged by the leak of thousands of
documents, including sensitive taxpayer information. The collection of
additional data would only exacerbate this problem and subject many
Americans to the potential exposure of their personal information.
Let's not forget, under the Obama administration, the IRS
systematically targeted certain groups applying for tax-exempt status
simply because of their political affiliation.
I hope that we can defeat the previous question to protect the
privacy of all Americans and to ensure that the IRS won't be
surveilling every financial transaction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
for closing.
Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen to turn the committee into a
vehicle to push their own narrative, and it is clearly more interested
in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize January 6 rather than
conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into the security
failures leading up to that day.
As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, where is the
legitimate legislative purpose? The Members across the aisle have yet
to address what kind of legitimate legislative purposes could, might,
or even possibly come out of the commission investigation.
A lawful subpoena, according to the Supreme Court, needs to serve a
legitimate legislative purpose. The majority leader used words like
``oversight,'' ``the American people need to understand,'' and ``hold
perpetrators accountable.'' These statements do not qualify as a
legitimate legislative purpose.
This is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to distract
from the very real issues facing Americans every day. I look forward to
getting back to the real work of solving the supply chain issues,
reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to
live their lives without government interference or surveillance.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question, the rule, and the
underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I can't adequately express the outrage I feel about what
happened in this institution on January 6. It was not only an attack on
this building; it was an attack on our democracy.
I will tell you, if we don't have our democracy intact, you are not
going to fix the supply chain issues or the energy issues or any other
issues.
Our democracy is in peril. It was attacked on January 6.
Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the Rules Committee, so I
understand what the rules of the House are, so I cannot say what I
really feel about what went on in this Chamber today with this debate.
I am disgusted, to be quite honest with you.
We are trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, and
many on the other side have done everything they could to frustrate
that effort. Now, we have somebody who doesn't want to comply with a
subpoena, and we are saying we are going to put some force behind that.
We need to be able to do our oversight. We need to get to the truth,
and my friends are trying to frustrate that.
Then today, former President Trump issues a statement saying
insurrection day took place on November 3. That was election day, when
we were all elected. That is what he thought? That is what he thinks
was an insurrection? And January 6 was just a protest.
We were all here that day. We saw the violence. People lost their
lives that day. People were wounded that day. People were traumatized
by that day. Again, it was not just an attack on this building and the
people who work here; it was an attack on our democracy.
And my friends on the other side of the aisle can't even muster the
courage to say that the former President was wrong in his statement.
That is what fear looks like. That is what fear of Donald Trump looks
like. It is so sad that a once great party has come to this.
I said it earlier. Members come and go. I know people are all worried
about the latest polls and where our base is and what political
implications will come from this or that. But at the end of the day,
you ought to be worried about your legacy, about what your children and
grandchildren think.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and
``yes'' on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 727

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 5586) to prohibit the implementation of new
requirements to report bank account deposits and withdrawals.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 3: Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5586.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 206, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 327]

YEAS--221

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne

[[Page H5747]]

Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--206

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--4

Buck
Lamborn
Pence
Scalise

{time} 1411

Ms. FOXX and Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. SPANBERGER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Adams (Brown)
Burgess (Lucas)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
DeFazio (Brown)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
Huffman (Stanton)
Khanna (Bowman)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lynch (Trahan)
Meng (Jeffries)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
Payne (Pallone)
Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
Rush (Underwood)
Salazar (Cammack)
Sires (Pallone)
Tlaib (Omar)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 205, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 328]

YEAS--221

NAYS--205

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin

[[Page H5748]]

NOT VOTING--5

Lamborn
Pence
Reed
Scalise
Westerman

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1430

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``nay'' on rollcall No. 328.

members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

____________________