[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 10, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H129-H143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the majority leader,
pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 12)
establishing a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on
the Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 12
Resolved,
SECTION 1. SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
(a) Establishment; Composition.--
(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established for the One
Hundred Eighteenth Congress a select investigative
subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary called the
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal
Government (hereinafter referred to as the ``select
subcommittee'').
(2) Composition.--
(A) The select subcommittee shall be composed of the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, together with not more than 13 other Members,
Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner appointed by the
Speaker, of whom not more than 5 shall be appointed in
consultation with the minority leader. The Speaker shall
designate one member of the
[[Page H130]]
select subcommittee as its chair. Any vacancy in the select
subcommittee shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment.
(B) Each member appointed to the select subcommittee shall
be treated as though a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary for purposes of the select subcommittee.
(b) Investigative Functions and Authority.--
(1) Investigative functions.--The select subcommittee is
authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete
investigation and study and, not later than January 2, 2025,
issue a final report to the House of its findings (and such
interim reports as it may deem necessary) regarding--
(A) the expansive role of article II authority vested in
the executive branch to collect information on or otherwise
investigate citizens of the United States, including ongoing
criminal investigations;
(B) how executive branch agencies work with, obtain
information from, and provide information to the private
sector, non-profit entities, or other government agencies to
facilitate action against American citizens, including the
extent, if any, to which illegal or improper,
unconstitutional, or unethical activities were engaged in by
the executive branch or private sector against citizens of
the United States;
(C) how executive branch agencies collect, compile,
analyze, use, or disseminate information about citizens of
the United States, including any unconstitutional, illegal,
or unethical activities committed against citizens of the
United States;
(D) the laws, programs, and activities of the executive
branch as they relate to the collection of information on
citizens of the United States and the sources and methods
used for the collection of information on citizens of the
United States;
(E) any other issues related to the violation of the civil
liberties of citizens of the United States; and
(F) any other matter relating to information collected
pursuant to the investigation conducted under this paragraph
at any time during the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.
(2) Authority.--
(A) The select subcommittee may report to the House or any
committee of the House from time to time the results of its
investigations and studies, together with such detailed
findings and legislative recommendations as it may deem
advisable.
(B) Any markup of legislation shall be held at the full
Committee level consistent with clause 1(l) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
(c) Procedure.--
(1) Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives
and the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary shall apply
to the select subcommittee in the same manner as a
subcommittee except as follows:
(A) The chair of the select subcommittee may, after
consultation with the ranking minority member, recognize--
(i) members of the select subcommittee to question a
witness for periods longer than five minutes as though
pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(B) of such rule XI; and
(ii) staff of the select subcommittee to question a witness
as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(C) of such rule XI.
(B) The Committee on the Judiciary (or the chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary, if acting in accordance with
clause 2(m)(3)(A)(i) of rule XI) may authorize and issue
subpoenas to be returned at the select subcommittee.
(C) With regard to the full scope of investigative
authority under subsection (b)(1), the select subcommittee
shall be authorized to receive information available to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, consistent with
congressional reporting requirements for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities, and any such information
received shall be subject to the terms and conditions
applicable under clause 11 of rule X.
(2) The provisions of this resolution shall govern the
proceedings of the select subcommittee in the event of any
conflict with the rules of the House or of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
(d) Service.--Service on the select subcommittee shall not
count against the limitations in clause 5(b)(2)(A) of rule X
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(e) Successor.--The Committee on the Judiciary is the
``successor in interest'' to the select subcommittee for
purposes of clause 8(c) of rule II of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
(f) Sunset.--The select subcommittee shall cease to exist
30 days after filing the final report required under
subsection (b).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution shall be debatable for 1
hour, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the
minority leader or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
general leave
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H. Res. 12.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 12, a resolution
establishing the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the
Federal Government.
This select subcommittee is modeled on the famous Church Committee,
which investigated the American intelligence community in the 1970s and
uncovered and exposed a wide variety of abuses, including many directed
against American citizens.
Similar to the situation that confronted America in the 1970s, in
recent years we have witnessed abuses of the civil liberties of
American citizens committed by the executive branch.
The select subcommittee will operate as a select investigative
subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee and will be tasked with
studying and reporting on the executive branch's authority to collect
information on or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States.
It will investigate how executive branch agencies work with and
exchange information with the private sector and other government
agencies to facilitate action against American citizens; how executive
branch agencies collect, compile, analyze, use, or disseminate
information about citizens of the United States; the laws, programs,
and activities of the executive branch as they relate to the collection
of information on citizens of the United States; and any other issues
related to the violation of the civil liberties of American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is undeniable that, in recent years, the executive
branch of the Federal Government has abused its authority and violated
the civil liberties of American citizens, often for political purposes.
There are many examples to point to, ranging from a father being
labeled a ``domestic terrorist'' for confronting a school board over
the sexual assault of his daughter, to the Federal Government's role in
suppressing information on Twitter, to the Department of Homeland
Security's plans to create a Disinformation Governance Board, and to
the revelations regarding the FBI's abuse of its Foreign Intelligence
and Surveillance Act authority.
All these examples and many more demonstrate how prevalent such
abusive actions have become.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve to have confidence in their
government. They deserve to know that the broad powers granted through
the Federal Government to the FBI, to the Department of Homeland
Security, and to the intelligence agencies are not being abused. They
deserve to know that the executive branch is not positioning itself as
the final arbiter of what constitutes truth. They deserve to know that
they will not be labeled a domestic terrorist for advocating for their
children in front of a school board.
Mr. Speaker, it was Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who stated
that ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' At the end
of the day, that is the purpose of the select subcommittee. It will
bring abuses by the Federal Government into the light for the American
people and ensure that Congress, as their elected representatives, can
take appropriate action to remedy them.
I have confidence that this select subcommittee will accomplish that
goal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, we will consider the creation of a new
subcommittee here in the House that Republicans call the Select
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. I call it
the McCarthy committee, and I am not talking about Kevin. I am talking
about Joe.
Mr. Speaker, this committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by
the MAGA extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party and now want
to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense.
Let's start with the subcommittee's mandate, which is recklessly
broad.
[[Page H131]]
Speaker McCarthy is essentially handing Mr. Jordan the power to target
anyone and anything he doesn't like, anything and anyone he deems
unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical.
Who decides what is unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical? Mr.
Jordan does.
{time} 1330
Why don't we just be blunt here? Republicans claim to care about law
enforcement, but this new committee is about attacking law enforcement.
It is about going after people. It is about destroying people's careers
and lives. It is about undermining the Department of Justice, defunding
the police, and settling scores on behalf of the twice-impeached and
disgraced former occupant of the Oval Office.
The MAGA extremist fringe of the Republican Party will use this
committee to push QAnon conspiracy theories and lies from Truth Social.
They are going to use it to gin up fake investigations into nonexistent
scandals. I think we need to just start calling this the tinfoil hat
committee.
Speaker McCarthy even changed the language at the last minute to
provide unprecedented authority for the subcommittee to interfere in
ongoing criminal investigations.
Let me repeat: The Republican Party, the party that claims to care
about law and order, has created a committee not just to defund the
police based on their wacky conspiracy theories, but to actually try to
shut down ongoing investigations, including into domestic terrorists,
phony electors, insurrectionists, people who are on trial for sedition
because they tried to overthrow the government, and even disgraced
former President Donald Trump.
This is outrageous. We are a country of laws, but this committee
seeks to undermine the law, undermine the police, and make a complete
mockery of the investigative and oversight powers of the House.
As seen on this week's Sunday shows, some sitting Republicans being
investigated right now by the FBI and the Department of Justice want to
serve on this committee.
I mean, what? I mean, come on. Give me a break. I know my Republican
friends have some ethically challenged members who asked for pardons
from the former President, but this is beyond the pale. This is
unconscionable. This is a conflict of interest.
First, they gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. Now, they give
Members of Congress the ability to investigate and to try to shut down
criminal investigations that they are subjects in. One set of rules for
the American people, another set of rules for Republican Members of
Congress. It is incredibly offensive.
On their first real week in the majority, this is what my Republican
friends are pushing through? Not a bill to fight inflation. Not a bill
to raise wages for people. A bill for Republican Members of Congress to
shut down investigations into their own wrongdoings. What is wrong with
these people?
On top of all of that, this subcommittee expects to use the power of
the subpoena to advance their delusional QAnon conspiracy theories and
harass Federal law enforcement agents.
I would say it is almost comical if it wasn't so disturbing that
Speaker McCarthy and Mr. Jordan refused to comply with bipartisan
subpoenas issued by the January 6th Committee. So I guess for them, it
is do as I say, not as I do.
In my mind, it speaks volumes that House Republicans are choosing to
prioritize this kind of dangerous partisan garbage instead of actually
trying to help everyday Americans.
Whatever happened to Republicans' commitment to America? They
promised to tackle inflation, end the opioid crisis, reduce the
national debt, and more. None of those issues are addressed in their
first 12 bills.
In fact, the very first bill they passed last night doesn't reduce
the deficit, it adds $114 billion to the deficit by making it easier
for billionaires to cheat on their taxes.
This is where we are week 2 of the 118th Congress, and we are
creating a witch-hunt committee where Republicans plan to air their
grievances and further incite crazy fringe conspiracy theories from the
internet at the taxpayers' expense.
Senator Joseph McCarthy would be very proud of what Republicans are
doing today. Putting their own personal power and partisan politics
over the needs of the American people. Just like Senator McCarthy
looking for imaginary communists, they are going to find QAnon
conspiracies everywhere they look because that is what they want to
find.
Just like the McCarthy committee, this will become another shameful,
disgraceful moment for the Congress of the United States.
This has nothing to do with the rule of law, nothing to do with
proper oversight of government. It is simply about revenge. It is about
disrupting and destroying rather than collaborating and creating. It is
about putting politics over people instead of putting people over
politics to build a better future for America.
This subcommittee is an awful idea, and I urge my colleagues, in the
strongest possible terms, to vote ``no'' on this monstrosity that will
further empower the extremists at the expense of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan), who is my very good friend and the distinguished incoming
chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
A ploy? It is not a ploy when the Department of Justice treats
parents as terrorists; moms and dads who are simply showing up at a
school board meeting to advocate for their son or daughter. It is not a
ploy when the FBI pays Twitter $3 million, not 1, not 2, $3 million to
censor American citizens.
It is not a ploy when the Department of Homeland Security tries to
set up a disinformation governance board because we all know that the
Department of Homeland Security can tell what is good speech and what
is bad speech. You have got to be kidding me.
I will tell you what, dozens of whistleblowers who have come and
talked to Republican staff on the Judiciary Committee don't think this
is a ploy. That is why they came to talk to us. They know how serious
this is.
The former Democrat chair of the Judiciary Committee is in the press
today saying we are going to fight this tooth and nail. This is
political. Meanwhile, the former Democrat chair of the Intelligence
Committee pressured Twitter to censor a journalist. You have got to be
kidding me.
This is about the First Amendment, something you guys used to care
about. I had actually hoped we could get bipartisan agreement on
protecting the First Amendment, the five rights we enjoy as Americans
under the First Amendment: Your right to practice your faith, your
right to assemble, your right to petition the government, freedom of
press, freedom of speech. Every single one has been attacked in the
last 2 years.
The Government was telling people they couldn't go to church just a
few years ago; your right to assemble. Your right to petition the
Government. The Democrats kept the Capitol closed. You couldn't, as a
citizen, come to your Capitol that you pay for to address your Member
of Congress to redress your grievances because Nancy Pelosi wouldn't
let you in.
Freedom of the press. I just told you what the head of the Intel
Committee tried to do to a journalist. The most important right we
have, though, is your right to talk. Because if you can't talk, you
can't practice your faith, you can't share your faith, you can't
petition your government. The right to speak is the most important, and
that is what they are going after. That is why we have had dozens of
whistleblowers come talk to us. We want to focus on that because we
want it all to stop. We want the double standard to stop. This idea
that, oh, if you are a pro-life activist, you are going to get your
door kicked in and you are going to get arrested and handcuffed in
front of your seven kids and your spouse for simply praying in front of
abortion clinic, and telling the guy who was harassing your son to
knock it off you are going to have the FBI raid your home; but the
protests that went on at Supreme Court Justices' homes in the aftermath
of the leak of the Dobbs opinion, oh, no problem there. Americans are
sick and tired of it.
We don't want to go after anyone. We just want it to stop. We want to
respect
[[Page H132]]
the First Amendment to the Constitution that the greatest country in
the world has. That is what this committee is all about, and that is
what we are going to focus on. That is what we are going to do.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from
The Hill titled: ``January 6 panel names six House GOP lawmakers who
asked for pardons.''
[From The Hill, June 23, 2022]
Jan. 6 Panel Names Six House GOP Lawmakers Who Asked for Pardons
(By Mychael Schnell and Emily Brooks)
The Jan. 6 committee investigating the attack on the
Capitol revealed Thursday that at least a half-dozen
Republican lawmakers asked for presidential pardons for their
role in voting to overturn election results in certain states
on Jan. 6, 2021, according to testimony from former Trump
aides.
Testimony from Trump aides named Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) Mo
Brooks (Ala.) Louie Gohmert (Texas), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and
Scott Perry (PA.) as seeking pardons.
An aide also said that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.)
contacted the White House Counsel's office seeking a pardon.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the panel who
played an elevated role in Thursday's proceedings, presented
an email from Brooks, dated Jan. 11, 2021, in which the
congressman asked for presidential pardons for himself,
Gaetz, and lawmakers who objected to the Electoral College
vote for Arizona and Pennsylvania.
``President Trump asked me to send you this letter. This
letter is also pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz,'' the
email reads.
``As such, I recommend that President give general (all
purpose) pardons to the following groups of people:,'' the
email adds. ``Every Congressman and Senator who voted to
reject the electoral vote submission of Arizona and
Pennsylvania.''
A spokesman for Brooks forwarded a full copy of the email,
which included a concern that Democrats would ``abuse
America's judicial system by targeting numerous Republicans
with sham charges.''
``The email request says it all. There was a concern
Democrats would abuse the judicial system by prosecuting and
jailing Republicans who acted pursuant to their
Constitutional or statutory duties under 3 USC 15,'' Brooks
said in a statement. ``Fortunately, with time passage, more
rational forces took over and no one was persecuted for
performing their lawful duties, which means a pardon was
unnecessary after all.''
The panel also showed a video of former special assistant
to the president Cassidy Hutchinson, saying Gaetz and Brooks
``both advocated for there to be a blanket pardon'' for
members of Congress involved with a meeting that took place
on Dec. 21, 2020, presumably the huddle at the White House
that focused on overturning the 2020 presidential election.
She also said Gaetz and Brooks advocated for a blanket
pardon for ``a handful of other members that weren't at the
Dec. 21 meeting.'' Those were meant to be ``preemptive
pardons,'' she noted.
Additionally, Hutchinson said ``Gaetz was personally
pushing for a pardon, and he was doing so since early
December,'' but said she did not know why.
Gaetz reached out to Hutchinson asking for a meeting with
Meadows ``about receiving a presidential pardon,'' according
to her closed-door testimony presented at Thursday's hearing.
Hutchinson said Biggs, Gohmert and Perry also asked for
pardons, but did not reveal more details.
And she said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a fierce defender of
Trump, ``talked about congressional pardons, but he never
asked me for one,'' noting that he was largely inquiring
about whether or not the White House was going to grant the
lawmaker pardons.
Brooks, Biggs, Perry and Jordan were all issued subpoenas
by the select committee in May.
Perry previously denied that he asked for a pardon, and
stood by that in light of new testimony.
``I stand by my statement that I never sought a
Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress.
At no time did I speak with Miss Hutchinson, a White House
scheduler, nor any White House staff about a pardon for
myself or any other Member of Congress--this never
happened,'' Perry said in a statement.
A spokesman for Perry previously denied that he asked for a
pardon, calling it ``laughable, ludicrous, and a thoroughly
soulless lie.''
In a statement Thursday night, Gohmert said he requested
pardons for U.S. service members and military contractors--
not himself.
He called the claim that he requested a pardon for himself
``malicious, despicable and unfit for a U.S. Congressional
hearing.''
``I requested pardons for brave U.S. service members and
military contractors who were railroaded by the justice
system due to superiors playing politics, as well as a
civilian leader who was also wronged by a despicable
injustice,'' Gohmert said. ``These requests were all far
prior to, and completely unrelated to January 6.''
Biggs also objected to the committee's assertion that he
sought a parton, writing in a statement Thursday night that
Hutchinson ``is mistaken.''
He said the testimony of Hutchinson discussing the pardons
was ``deceptively edited to make it appear as if I personally
asked for her a presidential pardon.''
Greene, Hutchinson said, did not contact her directly, but
she said she had heard that Greene contacted the White House
Counsel's office for a pardon.
Greene pushed back on the testimony in a tweet, but did not
directly deny asking for a pardon.
``Saying `I heard' means you don't know,'' Greene said.
``Spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the January 6th
Witch Hunt Committee is all about.''
Eric Herschmann, a former Trump White House attorney, was
also asked by the Jan. 6 committee in a deposition if Gaetz
was seeking a pardon.
``Believe so,'' Herschmann said in a video presented at the
hearing. ``The general tone was, `we may get prosecuted
because we were defensive of, you know, the President's
positions on these things.''
Herschmann said that Gaetz's pardon request was ``for any
and all things,'' and that Gaetz had mentioned former
President Richard Nixon's pardon. Herschmann said that
Nixon's pardon was not that broad.
Trump adviser John McEntee also testified that Gaetz told
him he asked Meadows for a pardon.
A spokesman for Gaetz responded to testimony about the
pardon request by pointing to a tweet from Gaetz calling the
committee a ``political sideshow.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there were at least six House Members who
sought pardons from President Trump following the January 6
insurrection, and many of them would like to be on this committee, we
are told.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution, which appears designed to launch a dangerous and
unprecedented attack on our law enforcement agencies.
Last week, Americans across the country watched the Republican Party
melt down the moment it encountered its first test. For days, the
extremist wing of the party held the rest of their caucus hostage as
they demanded a steep price for their support. Today, we have the first
of their many demands on display, an open-ended investigation into
whatever conspiracy theories may be headlining the rightwing echo
chamber at the moment, with unchecked authority to undermine ongoing
criminal and intelligence investigations.
For example, the select committee can use its expansive authorities
to protect Donald Trump, those who perpetrated fake elector schemes to
overturn the 2020 Presidential election, insurrectionists facing trials
for their crimes, and other domestic terrorists.
It aims to undermine the safeguards of our democracy and to embolden
MAGA extremists who would rather see our institutions fail than to see
Democrats and President Biden succeed.
Make no mistake, the destroy democracy subcommittee will enable the
House Republicans to interfere with the free operation of businesses
they do not like, to inhibit the fight against domestic terrorism, and
to settle political scores on behalf of Donald Trump.
The Judiciary Committee has serious work to do. But rather than
trying to solve the problems of the American people, this new
subcommittee will expend untold time and money undermining our Nation's
law enforcement agencies, our justice system and our intelligence
community, all for a political stunt catering to the extremist wing of
the Republican Party.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues
to do the same.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Comer), my very good friend, the incoming chairman of the
Oversight Committee.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the creation of
the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government exists to serve the American people,
administer the law impartially, and protect our cherished freedoms
enshrined in the Constitution.
However, some unelected, unaccountable Federal bureaucrats have
abused their positions of power. The other side of the aisle likes to
talk about ``threats to democracy,'' but they refuse to do any
congressional oversight as the Federal Government weaponized its
authority, influence, and power to target American groups and citizens
based on their political and ideological views.
Just yesterday, we learned that classified documents from Joe Biden's
time
[[Page H133]]
as Vice President were stashed in an unsecured closet. The National
Archives knew about these documents several months ago, before the
election, but the American people were just informed yesterday, thanks
to some investigative reporting.
Meanwhile, the FBI conducted a raid on former President Trump's Mar-
a-Lago residence for the same violation. Why has President Biden, who
has repeatedly kept classified materials in an unsecured location for
years, never faced a raid? Is it because we have a two-tier system of
justice?
The left also continues to push for an expanded IRS, even though the
agency has a history of targeting conservative political groups. They
have pushed for more audits of middle-class Americans instead of better
customer service. In another example, at President Biden's direction,
the Department of Homeland Security formed a dystopian disinformation
board tasked with policing American speech online.
While this board has been disbanded, we continue to learn more almost
every day about how the Biden administration pressures big tech to
censor and oppress Americans' views online that are contrary to their
political narrative.
The Biden administration's Justice Department also actively targeted
parents concerned about woke curricula in their children's schools and
labeled many as domestic terrorists. The American people have made it
clear that they want accountability for these abuses.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, we cannot delay accountability any longer. We
need to get to work now. We must expose the abuses committed by the
unelected, unaccountable Federal bureaucracy and enact solutions to
prevent similar abuses from happening in the future.
I look forward, as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, to work
closely with this new select committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a CNN article
titled: ``There are clear distinctions between Trump and Biden's two
cases.''
[From CNN Politics, Jan. 10, 2023]
There Are Clear Distinctions Between Trump and Biden's Two
Cases
(By Stephen Collinson)
Republicans seized on revelations that several classified
documents from Joe Biden's time as vice president were found
in his former private office to create cover for former
President Donald Trump's hoarding of secret records.
The disclosures Monday about the material found last fall
spun up an immediate political storm at a time when Trump is
in increasing legal peril. The new GOP House majority is
meanwhile rushing to undermine investigations against him and
unleashing a wave of counter investigations against the
current president.
But there are clear distinctions between the two cases.
The new controversy so far appears to be on a smaller scale
than the more than 100 classified documents--some bearing the
highest designations of government secrecy--taken from
Trump's resort at Mar-a-Lago after a court-approved search by
FBI agents. And Biden appears to be cooperating with the
National Archives and the Justice Department in a way that
Trump failed to do and unlike the former president he is not
being investigated for possible obstruction of justice.
But Trump, who brands attempts to make him face
accountability for his conduct in office and afterward as
political victimization, sought to capitalize on Biden's
discomfort over the documents in a post on his Truth Social
network.
``When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe
Biden, perhaps even the White House? These documents were
definitely not declassified,'' he wrote.
New House Oversight Chairman James Comer told CNN: ``This
is (a) further concern that there is a two-tiered justice
system.''
New House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also moved quickly to
respond to the discovery of the documents in an office used
by Biden after he left the vice presidency.
``Oh, really? They just now found them after all these
years,'' he told CNN. ``What has he said about the other
president having classified documents?''
Attorney General Merrick Garland has asked the US attorney
in Chicago to review the material, some of which bore the
marking ``sensitive compartmentalized information''--showing
that it came from intelligence sources.
Questions Biden must face
Fairness and respect for the law dictate that Biden should
answer many of the same questions that Trump is facing,
regarding whether he was entitled to the records, why they
were not previously turned over, whether they were securely
stored and how they ended up in his office in the first
place.
Critics will also wonder why Biden didn't immediately
disclose the discovery of less than a dozen documents last
fall to the public, given the huge sensitivity of the Justice
Department probe of Trump on a similar question. And the
president will be sure to face accusations of hypocrisy given
his sharp criticisms that Trump did not take the proper steps
to secure classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Still, even if there are adequate answers to these issues,
any distinctions in the severity of the Biden and Trump
documents will be obliterated in the political torrent that
is already stirring and with conservative media likely to
draw false equivalencies between the two cases.
The report offers an immediate opening for Trump as he
seeks to dodge culpability for his behavior and claims he's a
victim of persecution to thwart his 2024 campaign. The former
president is a master at turning one incident into an entire
campaign narrative--as he did with former Democratic nominee
Hillary Clinton's emails in 2016.
And the report will give the new Republican House majority
fresh material as it unleashes a multi-front investigative
assault against the White House. And while there so far
appear to be clear differences in the magnitude of the cases,
the report--first carried by CBS--about Biden will inevitably
raise political pressure on Special Counsel Jack Smith's
investigation into Trump's retention of classified material.
Smith is also now reaching even deeper into the ex-
president's inner circle by subpoenaing his former lawyer
Rudy Giuliani as part of a federal grand jury probe looking
at Trump's fund raising, among other issues related to the
2020 election.
Garland's dilemma
The Biden document disclosures will also deepen the already
intense political headache facing Garland as he contemplates
an eventual decision on whether to charge Trump, whose status
as an ex-president and an active 2024 candidate carries huge
political implications.
Garland insists that investigations will go where the
evidence and the law demands as he seeks to stress the
independence of the Justice Department--which was perpetually
in question when Trump was president. But now, inevitably and
however the Biden vice presidential documents issue is
resolved, a decision to charge Trump over the classified
documents case but not to take the same action against Biden
would incite political uproar among conservatives who would
be sure to allege double standards.
The former president's legal team issued a temperate
response to the Biden report that sought to broaden openings
that could shield their client. One lawyer said that the
Biden story was ``indicative of a larger problem with trying
to keep track of classified information in the offices of the
President and the VP. There is an over classification
problem, and at the end of an Administration, things get
packed up and moved and it's hard to keep track.''
The lawyer also warned that if Trump were to be charged,
his representatives would demand all communications between
the National Archives and Biden's team on the matter.
The Biden discovery
Biden's attorneys found the documents in a locked closet in
a private office in Washington the future president used as a
visiting professor with the University of Pennsylvania. The
White House Counsel's office notified the National Archives
and officials at the agency took control of the documents the
morning after they were found. Biden wasn't aware the
documents were in the office until his personal lawyers
reported their existence and remains in the dark of the
content of the material, a source familiar with the matter
told CNN. Federal office holders are required by law to
relinquish official documents and classified documents when
their government service ends.
Unlike in Trump's case, Biden doesn't appear to have tried
to assert ownership of the files, to obstruct their handover
or make outlandish claims that he had previously declassified
them based on an undisclosed private thought.
Trump is being investigated by Smith to see whether he
infringed the Espionage Act by keeping classified material
and for the possible obstruction of justice.
Republicans muster for investigative assault on White House
The Biden documents case will intensify the showdown
already emerging between the new Republican House majority
and the White House.
For two years, Trump has been rocked by blow-after-blow
from congressional and criminal probes over his conduct
during and after his presidency that have nudged him ever
closer to accountability.
But help is on the way.
The new Republican majority in the House is ready to
unleash a vast investigative machine apparently designed to
discredit and distract from Trump's alleged transgressions
and to wound Biden's nascent reelection race.
Such an offensive was always coming, given the extent to
which the deeply conservative House GOP remains in thrall to
the
[[Page H134]]
ex-president. But the intensity, scope and financial muscle
of the investigations was bolstered by the concessions
offered by McCarthy as he caved to right-wing hardliners in
order to win his speakership last week. And it represents a
fast-expanding challenge for the White House, which has
already spent months preparing its defense.
A new House rules package passed on Monday for instance
will set up probes into alleged political bias in agencies
like the FBI and the Justice Department and what Republicans
see as political weaponization of such agencies.
The move cements the GOP's sharp turn away from the FBI,
once seen as one of the most conservative agencies in the US
government following Trump's repeated claims he was illegally
targeted by investigations and his failure to enlist the
bureau as a weapon to advance his political grievances.
Rigorous scrutiny and oversight are inevitable and
desirable as part of the constitutional duty of Congress and
responsibility to ensure accountability with taxpayer money.
And in the first two years of the Biden administration, there
are multiple questions that merit further investigation and
over which the public deserves more clarity.
This includes the chaotic management of the withdrawal from
Afghanistan in 2021, the way that Covid-19 mitigation funds
were spent or the administration's unwillingness at least
until recently to consider the rising numbers of migrants
crossing the southern border as a crisis. Proper oversight
can avoid the repeat of errors and inform better policy in
future.
But as always in Congress, there are questions over when
genuine oversight stops and hyper-partisan politically
motivated witch hunts begin, especially in the case of key
Republicans who have a long record of crossing over the line.
Incoming House Judiciary Chairman Rep Jim Jordan, for
instance, was a leading player in a previous investigation by
a GOP House into the death of US ambassador to Libya Chris
Stevens and three other Americans who were killed by Islamic
militants in Benghazi in 2012.
The two-year GOP-run House probe found a perfect storm of
bureaucratic inertia, rapidly worsening security in Libya and
inadequate resources led up to the killings. But Jordan was
not satisfied when the final report did not bear out
conservative attacks on the conduct of Hillary Clinton--who
was Secretary of State at the time of the deaths.
The Ohio lawmaker released his own far more critical
report, along with then Rep. Mike Pompeo, who later became
Secretary of State himself. And at the time, McCarthy boasted
that the investigation harmed Clinton's 2016 presidential
campaign, apparently revealing partisan motivations behind
the probe.
As well as the building storm over classified documents, a
key focus of the new GOP House majority will be to
investigate the House Select Committee in the previous
Democratic-run House that painted a damning picture of
Trump's behavior following the 2020 election and before the
Capitol insurrection.
The fact that many of the current members of the House
voted to deny certification of Biden's election victory based
on lies about electoral fraud Trump was using to try to steal
power underscores why many observers are raising new
questions about the partisan nature of Republican
investigations.
But after the revelations about documents found in Biden's
office, Republicans know a political gift when they see it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the difference is clear. Unlike in Trump's case, Biden
doesn't appear to have tried to assert ownership of the files to
obstruct their handover or make unhinged claims that he had previously
declassified them through his thinking. Trump is being investigated to
see whether he infringed the Espionage Act by keeping classified
material and for the possible obstruction of justice.
I would just say to my colleague who spoke before, the American
people also have expectations of elected officials, such as respecting
the Constitution and respecting free and fair elections and not trying
to overturn free and fair elections. Unfortunately, a majority of my
friends on the other side of the aisle chose to ignore that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Goldman).
{time} 1345
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make something
crystal clear: The primary purpose of this special subcommittee is to
interfere with the special counsel's ongoing investigation into a
conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
This is a shocking abuse of power, but it is not just the usual
efforts by Members on the other side of the aisle to, once again, do
Donald Trump's dirty work. This time they are trying to protect
themselves.
One of them, a Member from Pennsylvania, had his cell phone seized
pursuant to a court order finding probable cause that he committed a
crime. Yet, he has indicated that he wants to be on this subcommittee
so that he can undermine a criminal investigation into himself.
My Republican counterparts can dress up the subcommittee with a
menacing name, but let's call it what it really is: the Republican
committee to obstruct justice.
The American people don't want that. They don't want yet another
front of the Republican war on democracy and the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' and urge everyone to do so.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Turner), my very good friend and the distinguished incoming
chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, last Congress, I served as the ranking
member of the Intelligence Committee. Chairman Jordan and I have
already been working to ensure that the intelligence community and the
Department of Justice, including the FBI, are not violating the civil
rights of law-abiding Americans.
Sadly, we already have very troubling evidence to begin our
investigation to ensure that our intelligence community and law
enforcement agencies are not violating Americans' constitutional
rights. Some of this information is similar to what has been publicly
disclosed by the Twitter files, which is a small portion of the
information that we have that is gravely concerning about the improper
use of government authority that this committee will be focusing on.
This subcommittee is about protecting rights, a task that everyone in
this body just took an oath to protect last week. Our committee will be
assisting this subcommittee. We look forward to working with Chairman
Jordan on this important issue, and we know that this is important to
the American people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from
The Guardian titled: `` `It's going to be dirty': Republicans gear up
for attack on Hunter Biden,'' and an article from Politico titled:
``It's not just Hunter Biden: Prepare for a 2023 packed with House GOP
investigations.''
[From the Guardian, Jan. 8, 2023]
`It's Going To Be Dirty': Republicans Gear Up for Attack on Hunter
Biden
(By David Smith)
When Borat--alias British actor Sacha Baron Cohen--told
risque jokes about Donald Trump and antisemitism at last
month's Kennedy Center Honors in Washington, Joe Biden was
not the only one laughing in a red velvet-lined balcony.
Sitting behind the US president was Hunter Biden wearing
black tie and broad smile that mirrored those of his father.
The image captured the intimacy between the men but also
the sometimes awkward status of Hunter as both private
citizen and privileged son of a president. It is a dichotomy
likely to come under a harsh public glare this year as
congressional Republicans set about making Hunter a household
name and staple of the news cycle.
``The right wing is licking its chops at the chance to go
after him,'' said Joshua Kendall, author of First Dads:
Parenting and Politics from George Washington to Barack
Obama. ``The level of venom is going to be over the top and
really, really dirty. The Republicans' rhetoric might get so
heated that it detracts from some of the actual behaviour.''
Republicans have been waiting a long time for this moment.
After regaining control of the House of Representatives in
last November's midterm elections, they used their first
press conference to promise to investigate the Biden
administration and, in particular, the president's allegedly
errant son.
Hunter has long faced questions about whether he traded on
his father's political career for profit, including efforts
to strike deals in China and reported references in his
emails to the ``big guy''.
Hunter joined the board of the Ukrainian gas company
Burisma in 2014, around the time that Joe Biden, then vice-
president, was helping conduct Barack Obama's foreign policy
with Ukraine. Hunter earned more than $50,000 a month over a
five-year period.
Senate Republicans claim that his appointment may have
posed a conflict of interest. Last year more than 30 of them
called for a prosecutor to be given special counsel authority
to carry out an investigation into alleged ``tax fraud, money
laundering, and foreign-lobbying violations''. But they have
not produced evidence that it influenced US policy or that
Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing.
House Republicans and their staff have been studying
messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious
laptop that
[[Page H135]]
belonged to Hunter. Having gained the majority, they now have
the power to issue congressional subpoenas to foreign
entities that did business with him.
Richard Painter, who was chief White House ethics lawyer in
the George W Bush administration, believes that Joe Biden
should have recused himself from matters relating to Ukraine.
``The Ukrainian gas company wanted to curry favour with Joe
Biden so they put his son on the board,'' he said.
``It's pretty clear what's going on there but the missing
link the Republicans are looking for--but I don't think
they're going to find--is any kind of a quid pro quo, Joe
Biden for the Ukrainian gas company. Still, it would have
been better if Joe Biden had said: `Look, my son is going to
be on this board, maybe the secretary of state or somebody
else could handle Ukraine,' and he'd step aside.''
Hunter's taxes and foreign business work are already under
federal investigation with a grand jury in Delaware hearing
testimony in recent months. There are no indications that
this involves the president, who insists that he has never
spoken to Hunter about his foreign business arrangements.
Republicans are pulling at another strand. Ethics experts
have accused Hunter of cashing in on his father's name as he
pursues a career as an artist. He is represented by the
Georges Berges Gallery in New York, which reportedly struck
an agreement with the White House to set the prices of the
art and not reveal who bid on or bought it.
Berges said in an lnstagram post in November that
Republicans on the House oversight committee had written to
him with ``certain requests'' and subsequently got into a
Twitter debate with Painter about money and influence in art.
Berges wrote: ``If you're going to scrutinize a profession
then scrutinize all of them and every position that children
of Congress take in DC and elsewhere.''
Painter said in an interview: ``I don't think there's
anything corrupt about the White House or anything corrupt
about President Biden. But keeping the identities of the art
buyers secret was a bad idea. It leads to suspicion that
people are passing money under the table. It's hard to keep
who buys the art secret in the close-knit world of Hunter
Biden's friends or Hunter Biden himself so the secrecy was a
bad idea.''
Fox News and other rightwing media may relish an
opportunity to demonise the president's son ahead of an
election in 2024. But Republicans are in danger of overreach.
Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to examine Hunter's business
dealings led to his first impeachment. His efforts to
weaponise Hunter's troubles in the 2020 presidential election
fizzled.
David Brock, a veteran political operative and president of
Facts First USA, a new group set up to combat the
congressional investigations, said: ``What we're going to see
in the hearings is a recycling and a rehash of old
discredited stories and conspiracy theories. They're doing it
for political reasons. [Congressman] Jim Jordan is on the
record saying that the investigations are all about 2024 and
electing Donald Trump again. That's his own words, not
mine.''
Hunter's 2021 memoir, Beautiful Things, generated sympathy
in some quarters for a man who 50 years ago last month
survived a car crash that killed his mother and sister and
who has been honest about his struggle with alcoholism and
drug abuse. Brock believes that a fresh Republican onslaught
will backfire.
``Going after someone who has an addiction and has had
mental health issues is sadistic politics and I don't think
it will work with the American people,'' he added. ``There
are so many people who have family members who've suffered in
one way or another and will identify with Hunter; they won't
identify with the attackers. The Hunter-hating narrative has
been out there for three years. It hasn't really gained any
traction outside of the far right and I don't think it
will.''
Republicans could also lose credibility by focusing on
Hunter and other retreads of the past instead of advancing a
plan for domestic issues such as inflation, jobs and taxes.
Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist who served as a
senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight
committee from 2009 to 2013, said: ``For all the talk about
Republicans saying they want to return to regular order, they
want to have better stewardship over taxpayer dollars, they
want to act more responsibly with legislative power, well,
OK, but how does investigating Hunter Biden do anything to
help the American people?''
____
[From Politico, July 19, 2022]
It's Not Just Hunter Biden: Prepare for a 2023 Packed with House GOP
Investigations
(By Jordain Carney)
House Republicans are planning to bombard Joe Biden's
administration with investigations next year, from Hunter
Biden to the border to the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from
Afghanistan.
As the GOP prepares for a likely takeover of the chamber
next year, committee chairs-in-waiting have laid out a
lengthy list of oversight goals that goes beyond Biden's
White House--including Democrats' formation of the Jan. 6
select committee. But the party's highest-profile targets are
those with the potential to politically bruise the president
ahead of 2024: his son's business dealings, Afghanistan, the
origins of the coronavirus, inflation causes and the U.S.-
Mexico border.
Months before the midterms, Republican lawmakers are
already working behind the scenes to divvy up which committee
gets which piece of the investigative action next year. That
includes talks with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and other
conference leaders, plus member-on-member discussions.
``I've been really impressed with leadership--both from
[Rep.] Jim [Jordan], from [Rep.] Jamie Comer, from Kevin's
office--in already starting to talk about that,'' said Rep.
Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.).
Republicans view executive-branch oversight as a
significant piece of their 2023 agenda, driven in part by the
reality that divided government would leave no path for most
of their legislative priorities. Investigations also give the
House GOP high-profile chances to lob subpoenas and tough
questions at Biden officials heading into 2024, when it hopes
to take the Senate and White House too.
Republicans still need to nail down the timelines and other
specifics for each investigation, but they've already taken
initial steps such as document preservation requests. Those
have already hit the Jan. 6 panel, administration officials
involved in the Afghanistan withdrawal and Twitter over its
legally challenged sale to Elon Musk, among other recipients.
After four years in the House minority, Republicans have a
backlogged wish list of topics to dig into. Their real
challenge, GOP lawmakers predict, won't be finding areas to
investigate but rather winnowing down their focus.
``It's not something where we're having to drum up, 'OK,
what are we going to do?' It's more of a limiting factor of,
we only have 50 weeks a year,'' said Rep. Michael Cloud (R-
Texas).
Much of the investigative churn will spin out of the
Oversight Committee, a legislative octopus with
jurisdictional tentacles that can reach into several parts of
the administration.
Jamie Comer, the Kentucky Republican who is expected to
lead the panel should Republicans take the majority, said
that he was trying to lay the groundwork now so that he and
his members could start right away in January.
Republicans on the committee plan to hold high-profile
probes into Hunter Biden's dealings with overseas clients,
but they also want to hone in on eliminating wasteful
government spending in an effort to align the panel with the
GOP's broader agenda. They're also expected to probe the
infant formula shortage and the Food and Drug Administration,
which regulates formula.
``We're going to spend a lot of time in the first three,
four months having investigation hearings and then we're
going to be very active in the subcommittee process, focused
on substantive waste, fraud and abuse type issues. . . . I'm
going to bring the Oversight Committee back to what its
original intent was,'' Comer said in a brief interview.
Comer said he's already having conversations with the
expected chairs of other committees to avoid duplicating
investigative work, adding that his panel is ``so broad,
sometimes you ruffle feathers with other chairs.''
The U.S.-Mexico border, for example, is expected to be a
hot point for several committees.
Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican and House Freedom Caucus
founding member who is line to chair the Judiciary Committee,
immediately pointed to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro
Mayorkas and the border as a focus for his panel in 2023.
``We certainly need to dig into more of the terrible way
Mayorkas has run--I think intentionally--the way he has the
Department of Homeland Security,'' Jordan said.
Jordan pointed to two potential areas he wanted to probe:
border enforcement and the creation of a DHS
``disinformation'' board, which the department subsequently
paused after a flood of GOP criticism. Jordan has also been
communicating with Senate Republicans who are brainstorming
their own investigative plans if they are able to flip the
upper chamber this fall.
Republicans are still sorting out how they will probe the
Jan. 6 panel and Capitol security, an area of particular
interest within the conference. Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis,
the current top Republican on the House Administration
Committee, had pledged to use his panel as an investigative
springboard into the select committee next year but recently
lost his primary to Rep. Mary Miller (R-111.).
And some conservatives in the conference are pushing for
investigations into debunked 2020 election fraud claims,
underscoring how embedded former President Donald Trump's
baseless claims to that end have become within the party.
Beyond the headline-grabbing probes, Republicans are
prepping more bread-and-butter oversight hearings that will
give nearly every committee a pathway to dive into government
agencies.
``Oversight is going to be significant. And we'll have
significant oversight of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, as well as the [Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau],'' said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who hopes to
chair the Financial Services Committee.
And while Republicans' legislative dreams would have to
clear a high bar--given Biden's ability to veto anything for
the next two years--they see their oversight goals
[[Page H136]]
dovetailing with their legislative agenda, giving them
another lane to pressure Biden and congressional Democrats.
Investigations have a longer political half-life, spanning
weeks and months beyond a one-time floor vote.
Armstrong pointed to a border security and immigration
reform bill, a decades-long legislative white whale, as a
springboard for Republicans holding oversight hearings on
related areas like fentanyl--potentially building pressure on
Democrats heading into 2024.
``If you can't get to 60 in the Senate, you can make it a
real issue . . . going into the next election,'' he said.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, Mr. Jordan will use this
subcommittee to go after people MAGA extremists see as their opponents.
All the MAGA Republicans seem to want to do is create a forum for
settling scores and pushing conspiracy theories. They are not
interested in governing.
They want to go on FOX. They want to investigate Hunter Biden's
laptop. They want to try to steal elections. They want to shut down the
government if they don't get their way.
We are at a very dangerous moment in this country, and it is one of
the reasons why many of us were so stunned that the new Speaker gave
away so much of his authority to a group of extremists in the
Republican Conference who have spent their entire careers trying to
blow this place up.
The bottom line is this committee is basically an assurance that we
are going to see these very partisan, political, MAGA-driven
investigations go forward.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote
``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
As Ranking Member Nadler from the Judiciary Committee said, H. Res.
12 is a dangerous government attempt to interject extremist politics
into our justice system and shield MAGA extremists from legal
consequences for their actions, including January 6 and the follow-up
and investigations that are ongoing now. He is right about that
Republican strategy. H. Res. 12 is both political cover and a political
weapon.
Like any legislation, H. Res. 12 is driven by the motivation of its
sponsors, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. For
example, legislative action on climate change is motivated by urgency
and our collective health and life, but H. Res. 12 is intended to
intimidate, scare, and ultimately cower our public institutions into
standing down as our descent into division and fascism continues.
Power for the sake of power is truly dangerous. H. Res. 12 is just
that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Zinke), my very good friend and a distinguished veteran
who served the United States in a variety of capacities, in and out of
uniform.
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a select committee
to investigate the weaponization of the Federal Government, something I
have a lot of experience with firsthand.
I proudly served as the 52nd Secretary of the Interior. Despite the
deep state's repeated attempts to stop me, I stand before you as a duly
elected Member of the United States Congress and tell you that a deep
state exists and is perhaps the strongest covert weapon the left has
against the American people.
There is no doubt the Federal Government deep state coordinates with
liberal activists and uses politicians and willing media to carry their
water.
The deep state runs secret messaging campaigns with one goal in mind:
to increase its power to censor and persuade the American people.
Dark money groups funded by liberal billionaires and foreign
investors funnel money to shell organizations and repeatedly attempt to
destroy the American West. In many cases, they want to wipe out the
American cowboy completely, remove public access to our lands, and turn
Montana into a national park. They want to control our land and our
lifestyle.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two parts of a five-part series
of investigative articles by the Capital Research Center titled:
``Arabella's Long War: Web of `Pop-Up' Groups'' and ``Arabella's Long
War: `Keep it in the Ground.' ''
[From the Capital Research Center, Nov. 12, 2021]
Arabella's Long War: Web of ``Pop-Up'' Groups--How Leftist ``Dark
Money'' Activists Brought Down Trump's Secretary of the Interior and
Paved the way for Biden's Radical Environmentalists
(By Hayden Ludmig)
A Web of ``Pop-Up'' Groups
Enter Arabella Advisors, a consulting firm based in
Washington, DC, that quietly runs arguably the most powerful
activist and lobbying network in politics. Arabella manages
four in-house nonprofits collectively called the ``sisters,''
each of which controls a small army of activists and a legion
of ``pop-up'' groups. And each pop-up group is made to look
like a slick, stand-alone website. These pop-ups target
virtually every issue in politics--control of the courts,
abortion access, gun control, and voter registration and
mobilization, even the Trump-Russia collusion hoax--pushing
left-wing policies in every corner. What makes Arabella so
powerful is how these ``pop-ups'' deceive individuals into
believing they represent genuine local grassroots interests,
such as one pop-up in Alaska created to oppose creation of
the Pebble Mine run from Arabella's plush offices in DC.
Arabella's network is extraordinarily well-funded. In 2019
alone, the four ``sisters'' reported total revenues exceeding
$730 million and poured out $648 million. Between the
network's creation in 2006 and its Form 990 filing for 2019
(the latest available), Arabella's empire has received more
than $3 billion and spent nearly $2.5 billion. Most of that
funding was directed to the network's flagship 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, the New Venture Fund, whose largest known donors
include the Gates, Ford, Hewlett, Packard, and Buffett
Foundations.
Beginning in 2017, Arabella turned its guns on Trump's
Department of the Interior using a pop-up pair: Western
Values Project (WVP) and its ``sister,'' Western Values
Project Action (WVPA).
According to their websites, WVP and WVPA were created in
2013 in Helena, Montana, to expose corrupt corporate
lobbyists preying on public lands in the West. In reality,
WVP is run by the 501(c)(3) New Venture Fund while WVPA is
run by the 501(c)(4) Sixteen Thirty Fund, Arabella's in-house
lobbying shop. Whatever staff the groups actually have would
have been paid by one of Arabella's nonprofits or possibly by
Arabella Advisors itself; we'll likely never know. But in its
2018 Form 990, New Venture Fund revealed that it is the
``paymaster'' for Sixteen Thirty Fund (which reported zero
employees on its own 2018 Form 990) and ``pays the salary and
immediately invoices Sixteen Thirty Fund, which reimburses
the full amount.''
It's common for groups to use both kinds of nonprofit to
maximize their ability to lobby through the 501(c)(4) and
raise non-lobbying funds through the 501(c)(3), since donors
may deduct donations to the 501(c)(3) from their taxes. But
Arabella takes that tactic to another level, using pop-up
fronts for its nonprofits that can take advantage of the New
Venture and Sixteen Thirty Fund's respective tax advantages
without disclosing their relationship to one another.
Donations to WVP and WVPA in fact benefitted the Arabella-run
nonprofits behind the projects, as an archived version of
WVP's website from October 2019 reveals.
Until late 2019 the website for WVP and WVPA revealed a
handful of staffers, including Chris Saeger, ex-
communications director for the Montana Democratic Party and
former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) staffer;
Jayson O'Neill, a Democratic staffer for Montana's
legislature and Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D); and Yetta Stein, a
staffer for the left-wing political action committee End
Citizens United and staffer for the 2018 reelection campaign
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT). The archived website also showed a
small advisory board consisting of:
Kjersten Forseth, a former chief of state for Colorado
State Senate Democrats, former director of the left-wing
strategy group ProgressNow Colorado, political director for
the Colorado AFL-CIO, and chief political strategist for
Rocky Mountain Voter Outreach, a Denver-based get-out-the-
vote and ballot initiative firm.
Kent Salazar, an environmental health manager for
Albuquerque, New Mexico, former New Mexico State game
commissioner for Gov. Bill Richardson (D), and a board member
for the left-wing National Wildlife Federation.
Pat Smith, a lawyer representing Indian tribes in Montana,
member of the 2010 Montana Redistricting Commission, and
appointee of Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) to the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council.
WVP's advisory board also included Caroline Ciccone, who in
2019 was executive director of the New Venture Fund pop-up
and anti-Trump ``oversight'' group Restore Public Trust.
Ciccone is a former communications director for the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), Obama appointee to the
U.S. Small Business Administration, and Democratic
strategist. From 2014 to 2017 she led Americans United for
Change (AUFC), a top left-wing strategy group whose national
field director Scott Foval was recorded in late 2016 by
undercover journalists from Project Veritas bragging that
AUFC had paid mentally ill and homeless people to instigate
violence at Trump campaign rallies. ``We know that Trump's
people will [tend to]
[[Page H137]]
freak the f-- out,'' Foval said in the video. ``It is not
hard to get some of these a------- to `pop off.' '' The
scandal ultimately led back to Robert Creamer, co-founder of
the powerful consulting firm Democracy Partners and a former
general consultant to AUFC who directed parts of a vast
network of advocacy groups all aligned in support of Hillary
Clinton's presidential bid. This led to speculation that his
firm helped Clinton's campaign violate collusion laws. Foval
described Creamer's role in the scandal as the ``kingpin''
who is ``diabolical, and I love him for it.'' Within days of
the video's release Creamer resigned, and Foval was fired.
Also present was Kyle Herrig, a New Venture Fund board
member who sat on the advisory boards of at least five New
Venture Fund projects, including American Oversight, a
judicial activist and litigation group; Allied Progress,
which attacked Trump cabinet officials; and the Ciccone-run
Restore Public Trust.
In early 2020 it was announced that Western Values Project
and these three Arabella ``pop-ups'' were being rolled into a
new organization: Accountable.US, itself a former New Venture
Fund project fully established as an independent nonprofit
sometime later that year, headed by president Kyle Herrig and
executive director Caroline Ciccone. (It appears that Western
Values Project Action remains a project of Sixteen Thirty
Fund, but that remains unclear as of writing.)
This reveals that Western Values Project, far from being a
grassroots group, is enmeshed in a deeply networked, highly
coordinated cabal of professional activists--and it always
was.
____
[From the Capital Research Center, Nov. 12, 2021]
Arabella's Long War: ``Keep It in the Ground''--How Leftist ``Dark
Money'' Activists Brought Down Trump's Secretary of the Interior and
Paved the Way for Biden's Radical Environmentalists
(By Hayden Ludwig)
Summary: For years ``dark money'' activists ran a
coordinated campaign to sabotage and undermine the Trump
administration from the offices of Arabella Advisors in
Washington, DC. The campaign culminated in the most extreme
environmentalist regime in American history under President
Joseph Biden. This report goes inside that campaign to
destroy Trump's Department of the Interior and promote the
Left's war on affordable energy.
In 2019, the Capital Research Center's groundbreaking
report on Arabella Advisors exposed the half-billion-dollar
network for the first time, dragging Arabella into the
limelight as the posterchild of the Left's ``dark money.''
Since then we've continued to uncover this now $730 million
activist empire, tracing its shadowy campaigns on everything
from abortion on demand to packing the Supreme Court to its
war on the Trump administration.
This report on the Arabella network examines the
professional Left's years-long campaign to undermine
President Donald Trump's Department of the Interior, laying
the groundwork for the Biden administration's crusade against
oil and the most radical environmentalist policies in
American history .
``Keep It in the Ground''
The U.S. Department of the Interior is primarily
responsible for managing roughly 450 million acres of federal
land and conservation of their natural resources, most
critically the nation's vast reserves of oil and natural gas.
It manages hundreds of dams and reservoirs, regulates
drilling on public lands, runs the National Park Service, and
maintains public monuments, including dozens attacked by
radical Black Lives Matter activists in 2020.
The department also plays a role in foreign diplomacy and
national security. Under President Trump that included
international wildlife trafficking bans, encouraging trade of
precious metals and rare earths, and promoting his Indo-
Pacific security and economic strategy.
But the department's openness to expanding oil and gas
production brought the sharpest attacks from the Left. Since
the department is entirely under the president's purview,
halting all drilling on public land is far easier than
attempting to halt private oil and gas production
nationwide--the radical Left's ultimate goal.
``The natural place to start phasing out supply is on our
public lands and oceans where a ban on new leasing will keep
up to 450 billion tons of carbon pollution in the ground,''
Center for Biological Diversity director Kieran Suckling said
in 2015. Bill McKibben, founder of the ultra-leftist 350.org,
has also stated that ``public lands are one of the easiest
places for us to control the flow of carbon into the
atmosphere.''
Unsurprisingly, that's been the policy of Democratic
presidents and their activist allies for years. President
Barack Obama canceled lease sales in the Artic and Atlantic
offshore sites and banned the leasing of coal on federal
lands. Phasing down ``extraction of fossil fuels from our
public lands'' was in the Democratic Party's 2016 platform.
That same year a 350.org activist asked Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton what she meant by
``extraction on public lands is a done deal?'' Clinton
replied, ``That's where [President Obama] is moving: No
future extraction. I agree with that.'' Her running mate,
Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, later assured another 350.org
activist that ``I actually am now in that position.''
But even ``phasing down'' is too conservative for today's
``keep it in the ground'' Left. No less than 20 Democratic
presidential hopefuls vowed to ban drilling on public lands
outright during their party's 2020 primary. Ever the pawn of
the radical Left, on January 27, 2021--exactly one week after
his inauguration--President Biden indefinitely suspended
development of new oil and gas wells on public lands, which
the left-leaning San Francisco Chronicle cheered as ``a first
step to halting the granting of federal drilling leases
permanently.''
Why does this matter? Federal lands account for roughly 24
percent of America's oil, natural gas, and coal production.
In 2019, total crude oil production reached an all-time high
of 4.471 billion barrels, with a significant chunk of that
growth coming from oil drilled on federal lands. Biden's ban
blocks future development of these key resources, removing
them from the supply stream and hampering the energy
independence the United States struggled to achieve in recent
years. This means higher gasoline and household electricity
prices, an estimated $11.3 billion in lost federal royalties
and rental fees, and the destruction of hundreds of thousands
of jobs across the economy.
With a single executive order, the Left could advance its
crusade to ``keep it in the ground'' for years in the name of
global warming. The stakes couldn't be higher--all that stood
in its way was the Trump administration.
Mr. ZINKE. We all knew politics was ugly, but we need to investigate
and uncover corruption no matter where it lies. It is time to bring
light to the shadows of the deep state and do our duty.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this
critical piece of oversight investigations.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, here is a curious thing. The legislation
that creates this select committee, we were first given this on January
2. Then, it changed on January 6, and we didn't get that until 10 p.m.
on January 6, after 13 Speaker votes.
What changed in this legislation--and this is really curious--is they
expanded the select committee's authority to investigate ongoing
criminal investigations--think about that--in an unprecedented way.
I don't know how many votes that got, but clearly, it was important
enough because we went through 13 Speaker votes before we got to this.
The reason why this is included, and I am sad to say this, is because
we have Members in this Chamber who themselves may be subjects of
investigation. There are ongoing investigations against the former
President. So, this was added.
Why was this added? To try to frustrate those investigations.
When we talk about corruption, when we talk about undermining the
rule of law, let's understand what just occurred here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
Republican select subcommittee to investigate deep state conspiracy
theories.
If you had any doubt about what this committee is really about, about
its true focus, my colleague from Montana just confirmed this is all
about deep state nonsense.
Republicans claim, without merit, that this subcommittee will
investigate the so-called weaponization of the Federal Government. What
it is really intended to do is to undermine the legitimate
investigation of President Trump's incitement of a violent attack on
this building, on this Capitol, on this citadel of democracy, an
investigation that implicates some of the very Members of this body who
want to sit on that committee.
Make no mistake, this investigation, this investigate the
investigators committee, will do deep damage to our national security
and only breed distrust with our national security professionals, who
will be reluctant to share with Congress the information policymakers
need to protect our country.
The committee will also seek to discredit law enforcement like the
FBI, who are so important in the fight against domestic violent
extremism.
Republicans in Congress just don't care. The greatest terrorist
threat to our country comes from violent, rightwing militia groups and
their sympathizers, and Republicans in Congress just don't care.
The last time Republicans were in charge of the House, Kevin McCarthy
[[Page H138]]
pushed to form another bogus select committee, that one on Benghazi. He
did so, as he admitted, to tear down Hillary Clinton's numbers, a
patently political exercise.
Now, McCarthy is at it again, pushed into forming this bogus
subcommittee by the QAnon members of his own Conference.
He sacrificed a lot in his bid for Speaker. That was his choice. Now,
the American people are going to pay the price in the form of a body
blow to our national security.
Vote ``no'' on this ill-considered measure. This is no Church
Committee, not a bipartisan effort to reform government, but a partisan
effort to tear it down, damn the consequences. Vote ``no.''
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), my very good friend.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, in response to the blue anon rhetoric, I
rise in favor of H. Res. 12 to establish a subcommittee on the
weaponization of the Federal Government.
The authoritarian left has used the full might and authority of the
Federal Government to force its agenda on the American people. The
Federal Government has been weaponized to pressure private companies to
censor conservatives; target parents as domestic terrorists simply for
caring about their children and their education; manipulate the
American people by declaring Hunter Biden's laptop as Russian
disinformation; even failing to inform American citizens about
classified documents that a former Vice President had in his
possession; and launch an unwarranted investigation into President
Trump's Presidential campaign.
Mr. Speaker, our Constitution is a contract with the American people
and our government. That contract is designed to produce maximum
freedom and minimum tyranny for this great country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Newhouse). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Sadly, the FBI and the DOJ, and many other agencies,
are violating this contract and working to make the American people
subjects rather than free citizens.
This committee is essential, and I encourage its creation and the
adoption of this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 12, the
insurrection protection committee, which Speaker McCarthy, the 21st
century McCarthyism, had to agree to last week in order to gain the
Speakership.
MAGA extremist Republicans forced, as a consequence of getting their
vote, the Speaker to promise to create this select committee. Donald
Trump had his hands in it. Donald Trump had his hands in it last week.
During this circular firing squad, he was calling the shots, and this
will benefit him.
This insurrection protection committee is set up to insulate the ex-
President, along with various MAGA Republicans who are still serving
here in the House and who are under investigation. It is here to
protect them from that investigation. It is here to disrupt the flow of
justice in this country.
This is a dangerous, extreme committee that is put in the hands of a
group of people who even defied congressional subpoenas and refused to
come to testify before the January 6th Committee.
{time} 1400
Now they are trying to interfere with the Justice Department
deliberations on whether or not they should be accused and charged with
committing criminal offenses in the lead up to, on January 6, and
thereafter. This is a very dangerous piece of legislation.
MAGA Republicans are behind it, led by the head election denier in
this country, who, by the way, instituted something down in Brazil this
weekend. It is a worldwide affair. This is dangerous. We must stop it.
Vote ``no'' on H. Res. 12.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, with great power comes
great responsibility. We entrust our Department of Justice, FBI, and
intelligence community with great power to keep us safe. And yet, as
long as these agencies have existed, they have violated everyday
Americans' civil rights.
The security state believes itself to be above the Constitution and
the laws passed by Congress, or perhaps the belief is only tacit. It is
aware only of power, not authority--power.
The FBI spied on Frank Sinatra, John Lennon, Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., and Muhammad Ali because they were national security threats--
celebrities, but everyday Americans as to their constitutional rights.
The intelligence community abused their power to spy on Presidential
candidates, a sitting President, and Members of Congress and their
staffs.
The FBI continuously coordinated with social media companies to
moderate social content, the public square. So contemptuous and out of
touch are they that when confronted with this just weeks ago, they
said: We were merely engaging with our community partners.
Leading up to the 2020 election, the FBI worked hand in hand with
Twitter and Facebook to silence the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Concealment from everyday Americans. They have continued to censor in
silence criticism of COVID policies and vaccine mandates to the harm of
everyday Americans.
In 2013, the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper,
lied to Congress about the NSA collecting data on millions of
Americans. Yet, he has escaped a reckoning.
The NSA spied on groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, and other NGOs. FBI contractors conducted thousands of
searches on NSA databases. The intelligence community spied on
journalists and political opponents in clear violation of the First
Amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. That is not just all illegal, it is un-
American, and it cannot continue. The government's massive surveillance
apparatus is well-documented, but there is still much more that we do
not know. We owe it to the American people to reveal the rot within our
Federal Government and cut it out so that it can no longer harm
everyday Americans.
Mr. Speaker, today we are putting the deep state on notice: We are
coming for you on behalf of everyday Americans.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I remember after 9/11 when we all
worked together to ensure the protection of the American people through
the Patriot Act and dealing with the FISA courts, we worked together
because truth is important.
I just want to simply be on the floor today to speak about truth. I
work with school boards across my district. I know that there is not
one school board that does not welcome a parent to hear their voices
because obviously they are partners in the education of our precious
children.
In September 2021, the National School Board Association sent Mr.
Biden a letter pointing to a trend of violence and threats against
school officials. It included a brief reference to Mr. Smith's arrest
incident and a long list of examples with a footnote to a news account
that mentioned the arrest in passing but without details, like his
daughter's assault.
The point is that this came about because there were threats against
school board members.
So can we have truth here?
That is what I rise to bring to the attention of this body as relates
to this committee and this select committee.
Is there going to be truth finding? Is this going to be a committee
that is going to collect information or otherwise investigate citizens
of the United States and give the most right-wing Members who may have
an ax to grind the ability to participate or is it going to be fair?
Is it going to be a gross misuse of power with dangerous
implications, unintended consequences, and potentially
[[Page H139]]
expose general operations of our national security infrastructure,
which will put American lives at risk?
Let me be very clear. Russia is one of our most dangerous
adversaries. We are in the middle of a national quagmire, and to
undermine that through investigations of the FBI and Central
Intelligence is going to be extremely dangerous.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this resolution would
also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal
investigations, including those investigating that day that some
declared was just a bunch of tourists on January 6, 2021.
Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my friends on the other side of the
aisle. I have worked with Mr. Roy.
But is this a question of truth?
That is the issue that we stand here discussing today.
In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some
people should be because they don't agree with the force of law being
applied to their activities is contrary to the very fabric of fairness,
justice, and equality that America was founded on.
Let me, as an aside, indicate that we know what has been in the
headlines--10 documents found in a locked closet that Mr. Biden may
have had. Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker, the process of the law is
proceeding. The call was made. The documents were surrendered, if you
will. The process goes forward under the laws of this land. No one
denied it. No one rejected it. No one did not in any way come to say
anything other than: Follow the law. On the other hand, in Mar-a-Lago
no law was found.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider the truth and vote
against this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 12, a
dangerous resolution whose passage would Establish a Select Committee
on the Weaponization of the Federal Government or, more accurately, a
subcommittee that would threaten our nations safety, security, and
freedom.
MAGA Republicans love to hide behind the idea that they are pushing
an agenda that would help the American people, but let's see this for
what it truly is, a blatant assault on our democracy, our law
enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence
community, and an attempt to shield the twice-impeached former
president from ongoing investigations being conducted by the Department
of Justice.
The establishment of this subcommittee would give Republicans the
ability to investigate any agency that ``can collect information or
otherwise investigate citizens of the United States'' and gives the
most right-wing members of the Republican party access to confidential
documents solely intended for the members of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
This gross misuse of power will have dangerous implications and
unintended consequences and could potentially expose general operations
of our national security infrastructure which will put American lives
at risk.
The passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the
ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations including those
investigating the extremist insurrectionists who lead the brutal attack
on this institution two years ago.
In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some
people should be, because they don't agree with the force of the law
being applied to their activities, is contrary to the very fabric of
fairness, justice and equality that America was founded on.
This is a blatant attempt by House GOP members to stifle the federal
government's investigatory powers, claiming that conservatives are
being prosecuted and silenced.
The new Select Subcommittee comes as federal agencies such as the
Department of Justice are investigating the GOP and its allies in
multiple criminal investigations.
Members of the Republican party have been on press tours announcing
this new subcommittee and have laid out their agenda, but how would
this subcommittee help the American people in any way?
For a party that claims to be pro-law enforcement, the Republican
party is now getting ready to undermine the hard work of our law
enforcement and surveillance agencies.
Mr. Speaker what really is the intent here? I can tell you what I
think it is. It is a back door effort to handcuff the current
administration in their normal and usual course of operations?
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and a
completely irresponsible Resolution that will put the lives of
Americans at risk and is a political stunt to further advance their
dangerous conspiracy theories.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York
Times titled: ``Republicans Preparing Broad Inquiry Into F.B.I. and
Security Agencies.''
[From the New York Times, Jan. 8, 2023]
House Republicans Preparing Broad Inquiry Into F.B.I. and Security
Agencies
(By Charlie Savage and Luke Broadwater)
Newly empowered House Republicans are preparing a wide-
ranging investigation into law enforcement and national
security agencies, raising the prospect of politically
charged fights with the Eiden administration over access to
sensitive information like highly classified intelligence and
the details of continuing criminal inquiries by the Justice
Department.
The House plans to vote this week on a resolution to create
a special Judiciary subcommittee on what it calls the
``weaponization of the federal government,'' a topic that
Republicans have signaled could include reviewing
investigations into former President Donald J. Trump.
The panel would be overseen by Representative Jim Jordan,
Republican of Ohio, who is also poised to become the
Judiciary Committee's chairman. It remains to be seen who
else Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who made numerous concessions to
a far-right faction of his party to win the speakership, will
put on it.
In a Fox News interview on Friday evening, Representative
Chip Roy of Texas, a lead negotiator for hard-right lawmakers
who pushed Mr. McCarthy's team for concessions, portrayed the
panel as part of the agreement they struck for their support.
He said Mr. McCarthy had committed to giving the subcommittee
at least as much funding and staffing as the House special
committee in the last Congress that investigated the Jan. 6,
2021, attack on the Capitol.
``So we got more resources, more specificity, more power to
go after this recalcitrant Eiden administration,'' Mr. Roy
said. ``That's really important.''
A spokesman for Mr. Jordan did not reply to a request for
comment, but both he and Mr. McCarthy have spoken for months
about their desire for such an investigation and pledged to
voters during the 2022 campaign to carry one out.
``We will hold the swamp accountable, from the withdrawal
of Afghanistan, to the origins of Covid and to the
weaponization of the F.B.I.,'' Mr. McCarthy said in his first
remarks as speaker early Saturday. ``Let me be very clear: We
will use the power of the purse and the power of the subpoena
to get the job done.''
The text of the resolution establishing the subcommittee
would give the panel essentially open-ended jurisdiction to
scrutinize any issue related to civil liberties or to examine
how any agency of the federal government has collected,
analyzed and used information about Americans including
``ongoing criminal investigations.''
The Justice Department has traditionally resisted making
information about open criminal investigations available to
Congress, suggesting that legal and political fights over
subpoenas and executive privilege are most likely looming.
Republicans are promoting Mr. Jordan's panel as a new
``Church Committee,'' referring to a 1970s investigation by
Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, that uncovered
decades of intelligence and civil liberties abuses by
presidents of both parties.
But in an environment in which Mr. Trump has been the
subject of multiple criminal investigations for years--
including continuing inquiries into his attempts to overturn
the 2020 election results and his hoarding of sensitive
documents--Democrats predicted the new investigative
subcommittee was likely to adopt a more partisan edge.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat
on the Judiciary Committee, said the Church Committee had
been ``a serious and bipartisan attempt to reform the conduct
of the intelligence community, based on hard and verifiable
evidence.'' By contrast, he said that ``this new thing,
fueled by conspiracy theories and slated to be run by the
most extreme members of the MAGA caucus,'' was likely to be
more similar to the notorious House Un-American Activities
Committee of the mid-20th century.
Mr. Jordan is a staunch ally of Mr. Trump. Late last year,
as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee when his
party was still in the minority, he oversaw a 1,000-page
staff report that claimed that the F.B.I. had ``spied on
President Trump's campaign and ridiculed conservative
Americans'' and that the ``rot within the F.B.I. festers in
and proceeds from Washington.''
The resolution appears to give him authority to subpoena
the Justice Department for information about the special
counsel inquiry into Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn the
2020 election and his handling of classified documents, along
with other politically charged matters like an open tax
investigation into President Biden's son, Hunter Biden.
The text of the resolution would also grant Mr. Jordan's
panel the power to receive the same highly classified
information that intelligence agencies make available to
their
[[Page H140]]
oversight committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
Intelligence Committee members have access to some of the
most sensitive secrets in the government, including
information about covert actions, which are not shared with
other lawmakers. Traditionally, House leaders tend to place
on the intelligence panel members of their party they think
are especially trustworthy not to disclose classified
information.
While Mr. Jordan's investigative unit will be housed within
the Judiciary Committee, its 13 members--eight of whom would
be Republicans--will not be limited to lawmakers on that
panel.
It is not clear, for example, whether Republican leaders
would select hard-right members, such as Representative
Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who was
stripped of her committee assignments in 2021 for making a
series of violent and conspiratorial social media posts
before she was elected. Mr. McCarthy has already promised her
a spot on the House Oversight Committee, and she broke with
other far-right members to support his speakership bid from
the first ballot, as did Mr. Jordan.
Such a situation could result in lawmakers trying to
scrutinize a Justice Department investigation as that inquiry
potentially examines some of those same lawmakers' conduct
concerning the events of Jan. 6.
In an interview on ABC's ``This Week'' on Sunday,
Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania,
rejected a suggestion that he should pledge not to serve on
Mr. Jordan's subcommittee because it may scrutinize the Jan.
6 investigation and as a witness in that inquiry, he had a
conflict of interest. Mr. Perry, who played an important role
in Mr. Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020
election, had his cellphone seized by the F.B.I.
``Why should I be limited--why should anybody be limited
just because someone has made an accusation?'' Mr. Perry
said, adding: ``I get accused of all kinds of things every
single day, as does every member that serves in the public
eye. But that doesn't stop you from doing your job. It is our
duty and it is my duty.''
Some Republicans also seem to see the panel as an
opportunity to raise culture-war issues and promote
conspiracy theories. In his interview with Fox, Mr. Roy
described the subcommittee's mission as going ``after the
weaponization of the government, the F.B.I., the intel
agencies, D.H.S., all of them that have been, you know,
labeling Scott Smith a domestic terrorist.''
In fact, no agency labeled Mr. Smith a domestic terrorist.
Mr. Smith, whose daughter was sexually assaulted in a high
school bathroom in Virginia, was arrested after he lunged at
someone at a school board meeting during a tense and chaotic
debate over bathroom policy for transgender students. He was
convicted of disorderly conduct.
In September 2021, the National School Boards Association
sent Mr. Biden a letter pointing to a trend of violence and
threats against school officials. It included a brief
reference to Mr. Smith's arrest incident amid a long list of
examples, with a footnote to a news account of the meeting
that mentioned the arrest in passing but without details like
his daughter's assault. The letter also said acts of violence
and threats against school officials could be classified as
``equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate
crimes,'' and asked for federal help.
A few days later, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland
issued a memorandum directing U.S. attorneys and the F.B.I.
to convene meetings across the country with local officials
to discuss ``strategies for addressing threats'' against
school officials and teachers. His memo did not call anyone a
domestic terrorist, and it specifically distinguished
spirited debate, which it stressed was constitutionally
protected, from acts of violence and threats.
But voices on the right have made Mr. Smith a cause
celebre, falsely telling their viewers and readers that the
Biden-era Justice Department and the F.B.I. consider parents
who disagree with liberal school board policies to be
domestic terrorists.
The subcommittee investigation proposed by Mr. Jordan is
just one of a number of inquiries House Republicans plan to
approve this week.
Included in a separate rules package scheduled to come up
for a vote on Monday is a wide-ranging inquiry into the
coronavirus pandemic, including the origins of the virus, so-
called gain-of-function research, the production of vaccines
and the conduct of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Mr. Biden's former
chief medical adviser, whom Republicans have pledged to haul
before them for questioning.
Republicans are also planning to form a special committee
to investigate the Chinese government's ``economic,
technological and security progress, and its competition with
the United States.''
Both the China investigation and the investigation into law
enforcement are scheduled for a vote on Tuesday.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my friend.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from
Texas as she recounted some of the realities when talking about school
boards. Well, I have come to know Scott Smith of Loudoun County. I
consider him a friend. I have been talking to him since the actions
against his family--in response to his daring to go to the school board
to question the abuse of his daughter--resulted in his name being put
out as the poster child for the weaponization of government against
parents who dare question school boards.
And, yes, in fact, the National School Board Association sent a
letter. But what became increasingly clear is that it was in collusion
with the White House seeking the letter. That has become readily clear
from the emails that we have gotten through Freedom of Information Act
requests, that the Biden White House was seeking the National School
Board Association to have that kind of a letter request in order that
they, the Biden administration, be able to target Scott Smith and other
parents around this country.
Every American should shudder at the power of the government, the
Federal Government, being targeted at parents for daring to stand up
and defend a daughter who was abused in a bathroom in the Loudoun
County Public Schools.
By the way, the superintendent in Loudoun County has been indicted.
This is the truth. Yet, this administration wanted to make Scott Smith
the bad guy--not the rapist, not the school board that allowed this to
occur in the schools in Loudoun County. It is not just parents.
What about Bunni Pounds in the Christians Engaged organization? The
IRS was targeting their nonprofit status because they happened to be
religious. This is the power of the IRS.
How about the power of our public health elite who made decisions and
put out misinformation that undermined the ability of Americans to
stand up and to continue their jobs and continue to go to school?
Instead, they were masked and had needles put in their arms.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Now we want to know the truth. Not the origins, but the
truth. This committee is critically important, and we are going to find
the truth. We are going to defend the American people against the
weaponization of government.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to that
that there are oversight committees that are equipped and ready to look
into all the issues that the gentleman just raised, and into all the
conspiracy theories that they want to raise. But they went ahead and
created this additional committee, and there is a reason for it.
This new committee they are creating has the authority to basically
investigate ongoing criminal investigations. It is unprecedented.
In any event, I would remind the gentleman, you have oversight
committees. You are in charge now; you can do whatever you want to do.
But there is a reason for this committee and there is a reason why
after 13 roll call votes for Speakership they added an additional line
giving this committee the authority to look into ongoing
investigations.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my very good friend, who served the
country in and out of uniform.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise because Americans are completely fed
up. They are fed up with being targeted. And the assertion that I just
heard that MAGA Republicans are domestic terrorists, the assertion that
this is happening throughout the country, I must tell my 90-year-old
grandmother.
Mr. Speaker, this assertion has been made time and time again that
MAGA Republicans will blow something up, that MAGA Republicans are
terrorists. Listen, we have seen censorship and meddling by former
intelligence community experts and current Federal law enforcement
agencies against Republicans and preventing media stories from actually
coming to light. This is a fact.
My friend from Texas just talked about the IRS and other agencies
that have done this. We are not standing idly by, and it is time that
the truth
[[Page H141]]
comes out. When we say things like MAGA Republicans, I think we should
all be very careful and not be disingenuous because there are plenty of
good Americans and patriots that are willing to stand up to get the
truth out.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, it is important that free speech be
upheld--protected free speech be upheld. Not libel, not slander, and
not any sort of assertion that all MAGA Republicans are bad because we
know that that is not true. In fact, there are many good Americans that
are standing up for their rights.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just got up and made all
kinds of assertions that things were just said that weren't said. I
don't know what the hell he is talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I will, again, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against
the creation of that committee because this is unprecedented. This is a
witch hunt. This is a committee designed basically to protect those
who, quite frankly, are under investigation right now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1415
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock), who is my very good friend.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, in order to enforce our laws, we give
terrifying powers to such agencies as the FBI, the IRS, and the CIA,
among others. The misuse of these powers to effect political outcomes
would be fatal to freedom, and it is the hallmark of any dictatorship.
This, our Constitution, was written to prevent whoever is in power.
Now, in recent years we have watched the IRS target individuals
because of their political beliefs. We have seen a glaring double
standard in the enforcement of our laws by our Justice Department based
on the political beliefs of their targets. We have seen their powers
used to intimidate citizens into silence, whether the Tea Party or
parents questioning their school boards.
Most alarmingly, we have seen the use of the FBI and our intelligence
agencies to suppress political viewpoints disagreeable to those in
power or to manufacture or propagate one of the greatest scandals in
American history: the Russian collusion hoax.
Now, when a government can interfere with the elections that govern
it and when agencies can act independently of the outcome of these
elections, then democracy will die.
This select committee is designed to get to the bottom of these
alarming allegations, and I would hope the Democrats would be just as
eager to sort this out as the Republicans. After all, it was not that
long ago that these powers were turned against the left and could be
again if we do nothing.
As Madison warned: Democracy alone is not enough to protect our
liberty, for in a pure democracy, 51 percent of the people can vote any
time to throw the other 49 percent in jail. That is why we have a
Constitution which limits the powers of government through checks and
balances like this Congress and like our Bill of Rights, and it is why
each of us takes an oath to support and defend it.
Let us all honor that oath today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just make this clear for my colleague. A change
was made in this legislation, and it was not just to allow the
committee to investigate ongoing criminal investigations which is quite
nefarious in and of itself.
Originally it was only supposed to be able to have investigative
authority over the Department of Justice, DHS, and the FBI; the CIA and
the IRS were added. This was all done after 13 Speaker votes at 10
o'clock at night clearly in an attempt to win more votes.
The people who are asking for these changes are the same people who
want to investigate the people who are investigating them.
This is really, really unprecedented. I don't know what the hell is
going on here, but this isn't right. This isn't openness, and this
isn't transparency.
My friends talk about corruption. This is corruption. This is
unacceptable. The American people ought to know it, and reasonable
colleagues on the Republican side ought to say no to this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are so concerned all the
time about civil rights, having the majority for the last few years,
they are not interested. They are not interested in what the American
people or the little guy has been enduring every day when he comes home
from a hard day's work. He watches the TV, and asks: How many more
times do I have to say, huh, I told you so?
We just had Social Security numbers of the targets of the so-called
J6 investigation released to the public.
Huh, I told you so. No surprise there.
What about the school board association working in collaboration with
the White House, working in collaboration with the White House and the
Department of Justice to intimidate American citizens.
Thirty miles from here, just a little drive from here, a young lady
was raped. A schoolgirl was raped, and her father was concerned about
her safety and had the gall to question the school board.
And what does he get?
Persecution and intimidation by his own Federal Government.
I told you so. We all told you so.
People on important committees in this institution lie on national TV
over and over and over again with no consequence. They come home and
say: Yeah, I told you so. That is not a big surprise here.
The Federal Government is collaborating with Big Tech to silence
Americans' voices.
Where are their civil liberties?
The Federal Government is collaborating with Big Tech and the health
agencies to silence information that concerns the health of every
single American citizen.
Yeah, I told you so.
How many more times?
I ask the minority: How many more times do we have to say ``I told
you so'' before you will recognize the overwhelming power and the abuse
of power by this Federal Government? Will you ever do anything about
it?
Do you know when you want to do something about it?
When you think you have the Presidency in 2024 and you try and regain
this House, then you are going to be all into it investigating all your
enemies.
That is not what the Federal Government is supposed to be for. It is
supposed to protect our civil rights, so we don't serve it but so that
it serves us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and not to other Members in the second person.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would say what the gentleman just said
is terrible, but this committee has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the very words expressed by those opposed to this
committee demonstrate the dire need for this committee. We have gone 4
years without oversight, and to quote Shakespeare, ``The lady doth
protest too much, methinks.''
Those who argue against transparency may have something to hide. So I
listened very closely when I heard the former chairman of the
Intelligence Committee give the reason that maybe we shouldn't ask for
this information from the intelligence community.
He said that the intelligence community after this committee may be
reluctant to share information with Congress and that Congress needs to
craft legislation.
I would suggest if they are reluctant, then they are disqualified
from holding
[[Page H142]]
these positions. If they have grown so big that they are no longer
accountable to the branch of government that created them, that funds
them, and that is responsible for their oversight, then they need to be
hemmed in.
I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to populate
this committee with serious Democrats. I know there are some over
there. I have worked with them. We have cosponsored amendments on
privacy over the past decade. Some of them have passed.
Please populate it with serious Members.
Please, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, give us the
resources we need to do this job.
If I may rebut one thing that man said on the other side of the aisle
about ongoing criminal investigations, he said that it is unprecedented
that Congress would engage in an investigation that involves an ongoing
criminal investigation.
What was the January 6 Committee?
This is not unprecedented. It is what you wasted millions of dollars
on over the past 2 years.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and support for the
committee that it will create.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say in response to the
gentleman who said that he hopes that we populate this select committee
with serious Democrats that he populate the committee with Republicans
who did not ask for a pardon and who did not have their phones seized
by the FBI.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding.
Last week, as I fought as one of the 20 conservative Members to
secure victories for the American people by dismantling this
institution's broken system and restoring this people's House as it
should be, part of the status quo here in Washington, which we fought
to change, is politicians making empty promises of government
accountability.
But believe me in this, Mr. Speaker, when we vowed accountability is
coming, we meant it. Establishing the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government hands the House a powerful tool
to uncover the two-tiered justice system that is rotting our Republic.
It is no secret that alphabet agencies have been dangerously
weaponized against the American people. As an alarming example, the FBI
has coerced citizens to relinquish their Second Amendment rights and
has used Big Tech companies as private-sector proxies to silence
Americans' free speech.
It is time to thoroughly investigate our Government agencies'
atrocious behavior and abuse of power in disregarding and destroying
America's precious freedoms, and this select subcommittee will have the
teeth to do just that.
I thank Speaker McCarthy and Chairman Cole for their invaluable
support in bringing this resolution to the floor for a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for
this resolution so we may deliver transparency, answers, and, yes,
accountability to the American people as we have promised.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from
The Hill titled: ``Perry won't agree to stay off new House committee
investigating January 6 probes.''
[From The Hill, Jan. 8, 2023]
Perry Won't Agree To Stay Off New House Committee Investigating Jan. 6
Probes
(By Julia Mueller)
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) on Sunday wouldn't pledge to stay
off the possible new House committee that would investigate
probes into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol
despite being a subject of a Department of Justice (DOJ)
inquiry into the matter.
``Why should I be limited--why should anybody be limited--
just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in
America is innocent until proven guilty,'' Perry said on
ABC's ``This Week.''
Host George Stephanopoulos pressed Perry, asking, ``Doesn't
that pose a conflict to you, since you're also part of the
investigation?''
``So, should everybody in Congress that disagrees with
somebody be barred from doing the oversight and investigative
powers that Congress has? That's our charge. And again,
that's appropriate for every single member, regardless of
what accusations are made. I get accused of things every
single day, as does every member that serves in the public
eye,'' Perry countered.
Newly elected Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has
indicated the Republican majority just sworn in plans to
review the work of the House select committee that last year
probed Jan. 6 and look into the federal investigations.
DOJ investigations seized Perry's phone in connection with
the rioting, and obtained email exchanges between Perry and
former Trump attorney John Eastman, among others.
Perry also introduced former President Trump to Jeffrey
Clark, whom Trump considered appointing as attorney general
in order to propagate his claims of election fraud during the
2020 presidential contest.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend that I am prepared to
close whenever he is.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to roll up our sleeves and
get to work. They want us to make progress and deliver results that
help them in their day-to-day lives.
They don't need Congress to bend and break to the will of MAGA
extremists, and they definitely don't need us to push crazy conspiracy
theories and go on witch hunts to settle political scores.
My friends in their rules package gutted the Office of Congressional
Ethics, and here they are with this new subcommittee which threatens
our safety, our security, and our freedom.
It is an unprecedented attack on our Nation's law enforcement
agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues who spoke before about
the intelligence oversight, we have an entire Select Committee on
Intelligence that has oversight responsibilities on those matters. I am
sorry the gentleman who spoke doesn't have confidence in whom the
Republicans are going to propose as chair.
This committee is deranged. It is a bad idea, and it will go down in
history as one of the worst committees that a Congress has ever put
forward. It will be in the same category as the Joseph McCarthy
Committee on Un-American Activities or the Benghazi Committee which now
Speaker McCarthy admitted was an attempt to try to take down Secretary
Clinton.
But here is the deal, and here is what it is all about: There are six
on the other side of the aisle who asked for a pardon from President
Trump. They did his dirty work, but Trump left them hanging. He did not
give them a pardon. So now they are effectively trying to pardon
themselves with the creation of this select committee.
This is unconscionable. It is so blatant. Again, the changes that
were made to give them the ability to pardon themselves were done after
the 13th Speaker vote in the dead of night to try to win their votes
over.
This is not the way this Congress should run. This is not the way
Republicans or Democrats, or any majority should behave. People should
be ashamed of themselves that this is in the rules package and that
this is what my friends are pushing right now.
We are better than this. We should not be going down this road. My
friends said that they want to combat inflation and that they want to
make the lives of the American people better. Let's focus on those
things. Let's focus on areas that actually improve the lives of the
American people. This is a colossal waste of time. But even worse, it
is to me the epitome of what corruption is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this
resolution creating the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the
Federal Government.
In the 1970s it was apparent from revelations in the popular press
that the American intelligence community had committed abuses as part
of their activities. In response, Congress created the Church Committee
which investigated these abuses and brought them into the light.
[[Page H143]]
Today, it is again apparent that the Federal Government has been
weaponized for political purposes. Like the Church Committee--which
this subcommittee is modeled on--the Select Subcommittee on the
Weaponization of the Federal Government will investigate the abuse of
Americans' civil liberties and bring them into the light. I am
confident that this subcommittee will do the American people a great
service. They deserve to have confidence in their government, and that
confidence starts with ensuring that the vast powers of the executive
branch are not abused.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the resolution,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.
Res. 12, a dangerous resolution whose passage would Establish a Select
Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government or, more
accurately, a subcommittee that would threaten our nations safety,
security, and freedom.
MAGA Republicans love to hide behind the idea that they are pushing
an agenda that would help the American people, but let's see this for
what it truly is, a blatant assault on our democracy, our law
enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence
community, and an attempt to shield the twice-impeached former
president from ongoing investigations being conducted by the Department
of Justice.
The establishment of this subcommittee would give Republicans the
ability to investigate any agency that ``can collect information or
otherwise investigate citizens of the United States'' and gives the
most right-wing members of the Republican party access to confidential
documents solely intended for the members of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
This gross misuse of power will have dangerous implications and
unintended consequences and could potentially expose general operations
of our national security infrastructure which will put American lives
at risk.
The passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the
ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations including those
investigating the extremist insurrectionists who lead the brutal attack
on this institution two years ago.
In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some
people should be, because they don't agree with the force of the law
being applied to their activities, is contrary to the very fabric of
fairness, justice and equality that America was founded on.
This is a blatant attempt by House GOP members to stifle the federal
government's investigatory powers, claiming that conservatives are
being prosecuted and silenced.
The new Select Subcommittee comes as federal agencies such as the
Department of Justice are investigating the GOP and its allies in
multiple criminal investigations.
Members of the Republican party have been on press tours announcing
this new subcommittee and have laid out their agenda, but how would
this subcommittee help the American people in anyway?
For a party that claims to be pro-law enforcement, the Republican
party is now getting ready to undermine the hard work of our law
enforcement and surveillance agencies.
Mr. Speaker what really is the intent here? I can tell you what I
think it is. It is a back door effort to handcuff the current
administration in their normal and usual course of operations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and a
completely irresponsible Resolution that will put the lives of
Americans at risk and is a political stunt to further advance their
dangerous conspiracy theories.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous
question is ordered on the resolution.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________