[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4430-H4433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Self). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, this week House Republicans 
will pass a resolution condemning the actions of New Mexico Governor, 
Michelle Lujan Grisham, a former Member of this body.
  Late on a Friday night earlier this month, the Governor took action 
to suspend open carry and concealed firearms in her State. Yeah, you 
heard that right. She claimed so-called emergency powers to combat a 
public health crisis, she said, and on a whim, she attempted to 
restrict the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding New Mexico 
resident, the citizens of her State, the citizens of this country.
  Her action, of course, was overtly unconstitutional. It is 
functionally useless, and it will only divide Americans further. 
Someone with elementary-level knowledge of the Constitution would, of 
course, know this. Fortunately, New Mexico residents and law 
enforcement openly defied her order, and it was panned by lawmakers 
across the country, even some of our Democratic colleagues in this 
body.
  Mr. Speaker, here is the interesting thing I wanted to note today: It 
is ironic that Attorney General Merrick Garland was here on the Hill 
and has been in the Judiciary Committee in an oversight hearing for the 
last several hours. He is America's top law enforcement officer in 
charge, of course, of our top law enforcement agency, the Department of 
Justice. One would think that this type of issue, this event in New 
Mexico, regardless of the politics, that that is something the DOJ 
might intervene in, but they haven't.
  Now, by principle, of course, we are conservatives, and we believe in 
less Federal Government intervention. The less the Federal Government 
is involved in State affairs, the better overall. But this is not the 
case. In this situation, the issue here is the DOJ's selective 
application of justice and its clear targeting of red States for 
passing laws that its duly elected Representatives voted for.
  Think about these few examples.
  In 2021, the DOJ sued the State of Georgia for passing election 
integrity reform. That suit failed, and Georgia had record voter 
turnout just a year later.
  Months later, the DOJ sued the State of Texas over laws--your State, 
Mr. Speaker--passed to protect unborn children. The Supreme Court 
refused to intervene, and statistics show that abortions in Texas have 
plummeted, thankfully, as a result.
  Earlier this year, the DOJ sued the State of Tennessee for a ban on 
child sex change procedures. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 
rejected the suit, and now it is State law.
  The DOJ, Attorney General Garland in particular, has displayed a 
penchant for filing public lawsuits against red States for passing 
conservative policy through their democratically elected legislature. 
They do so with weak charges, based on unconstitutional arguments on 
cases they know they cannot win, but that is not the point. They have 
politicized the DOJ.
  Here is the big question. Given those examples and the trend of this 
Department of Justice, why hasn't Merrick Garland hosted a press 
conference or announced a Federal lawsuit into the State of New Mexico 
for arbitrarily suspending the constitutional rights of its citizens?
  I will tell you why. It is no secret. It is because New Mexico's 
action serves the Biden administration's stated political goals.
  The DOJ will sue red States for passing conservative policy, while 
turning a blind eye to Democrat Governors who unilaterally curtail 
constitutional rights. They will put grandmothers behind bars for 
protesting abortion but refuse to prosecute violent offenders who 
actually attack the pro-life pregnancy centers. They will prosecute 
President Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents, but 
they give President Biden a complete pass for even worse infractions.
  When we say the DOJ has been weaponized, this is exactly what we are 
talking about, and this is what the American people see.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House Judiciary Committee, as I mentioned, 
asked Attorney General Garland about these questions and many more. 
Right now, 65 percent of the American people have no faith in the 
Department of Justice. It is because of his leadership. He has eroded 
the rule of law. He has destroyed public trust in an essential American 
institution.
  I used my time this morning, I was the first questioner on our side 
in Judiciary, and I asked the Attorney General about the DOJ's Hunter 
Biden investigation. This is a big question on the minds of my 
constituents and most of ours around the country.
  I asked him plainly:

       Have you had personal contact with anyone at FBI 
     headquarters about the Hunter Biden investigation?''
       His answer was, I don't recollect the answer to that 
     question.
       Really?
       Okay. Let me get this straight, I told him, the Attorney 
     General of the United States cannot remember if he discussed 
     an FBI investigation into the son of the sitting President of 
     the United States? That is your testimony under oath?

[[Page H4431]]

       Yes, it is, he said.

  It is extraordinary.
  Mr. Speaker, frankly, we didn't expect full transparency today from 
this Attorney General. He and his top DOJ lieutenants have shown us, 
they have demonstrated over and over that they hold no regard for the 
rule of law and really are just acting as political hatchet men 
protecting their boss, President Biden.

  The Attorney General was clearly unwilling or unable to provide the 
essential answers that we needed today. We will continue to press for 
them. That is our job. That is our constitutional duty on Judiciary to 
provide oversight over the DOJ.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a great lineup of Members here to speak this 
afternoon on some very important topics to the country.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Johnson for his 
leadership. Mr. Johnson is focused. He is an individual who is bringing 
this whole body forward, and I look forward to working with him 
continually on these issues.
  There is a saying, we all know it, the truth shall set you free. The 
accusations made against the Bidens more than require an investigation. 
These accusations have painted a picture of corruption, bribery, and 
shameful behavior unbecoming of our executive branch.
  Let's talk about them a little bit.
  Bank records obtained by the Oversight Committee reveal almost $20 
million in payments directed to Biden's associates and family.
  These aren't Republican talking points. These aren't Jeff Van Drew 
talking points. This is the reality of what we have already found.
  Over 150 transactions involving the Bidens have been flagged as 
``suspicious activity.'' That is not only by the banks, but also the 
Treasury Department.
  President Biden himself participated in phone calls with his son, 
Hunter--it is a fact--effectively acting as the merchandise that was 
being sold by his son, Hunter, who was the salesman. They closed deals, 
and we want to know what they are about: calls that led to the 
funneling of millions of dollars to Hunter and other Biden family 
members and Hunter's associates.
  The list goes on and on and on. I am only touching the surface. This 
is more than enough to garner the extra powers granted from an 
impeachment inquiry. Our goal is to get to the truth.
  As I said in the beginning of this conversation, the truth shall set 
you free. If there is nothing for them to worry about, they should 
welcome an impeachment inquiry. They should welcome producing the 
records, and they should welcome producing the statements. It is just 
the truth that we want.
  We have a mission, a duty, and a responsibility. Our duty is to 
restore the American people's faith in our institutions. Our mission is 
to reaffirm that no one person, no one group is ever above the law in 
the United States of America.
  This inquiry will move forward, with full transparency and steadfast 
resolve. If there is nothing here to hide, there is nothing here to 
worry about. If the allegations are confirmed, there will be, and needs 
to be justice.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. He is 
exactly right. We had no choice but to proceed to the impeachment 
inquiry phase because that is where the evidence has led us, as you 
noted. We have a responsibility. Article II, Section 4 of the 
Constitution says very clearly that a President shall be removed from 
office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, high 
crimes and misdemeanors. We have credible allegations of a number of 
those infractions. Bribery is one of them. High crimes and misdemeanors 
are another. We have mounds of evidence now stacking up to support 
those allegations, so we do not have a choice under the Constitution 
but to proceed accordingly, and that is what we will do. We will do our 
constitutional duty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield next to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), my 
good friend and Super Bowl champion.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 684, the 
resolution condemning Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham's 
unconstitutional actions violating New Mexicans' Second Amendment 
rights.
  The Second Amendment is not an optional legal provision that 
bureaucrats can toss aside at their whim. It is a fundamental principle 
to ensure that every law-abiding citizen has the God-granted right to 
protect themselves, their families, their property, and their 
liberties.
  Growing up in the Deep South, I witnessed how Black Codes and Jim 
Crow laws unjustly restricted minority communities from owning 
firearms. In the mid-1950s, Martin Luther King, Jr., kept firearms for 
self-protection, but his application for a concealed weapons permit was 
denied because of racist gun control laws in his State.
  Gun control laws proposed by Democrats and State legislatures, 
Congress, and the White House aggressively erode our basic 
constitutional rights. As it was in the civil rights era, the Black 
community has seen this movie before. As Democrats abridge our rights 
to self-protection, they legislate away the commonsense tools for Black 
Americans to protect themselves. As they push ``defund the police'' and 
``soft on crime'' policies, it is the urban Black community that 
suffers. We are now experiencing all-time highs in homicide, robbery, 
car thefts, physical assaults, and destruction of Black-owned 
businesses.
  House Republicans will never waver in our commitment to defend the 
rights of all law-abiding citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, 
or ZIP Code. We will continue to fight to safeguard Americans' 
inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is an 
honor to lend my support to this House resolution. I pledge to continue 
to champion the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. I thank 
Representative Johnson for bringing us together for this purpose.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. That 
was well said.
  If time permitted today, I am sure we would have every Republican in 
the Conference come to the floor and speak to the same issue because it 
is so outrageous that we have this trampling upon some of our most 
fundamental freedoms; the Second Amendment, of course, being among 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman and former mayor from Texas 
(Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Biden family 
business of selling out America.
  Here is just a sliver of what we know:
  The Biden family and associates received nearly $20 million in 
payments funneled through shell companies. They were paid by Russia, 
China, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Lord knows who else.
  Joe Biden lied about his family receiving over $1 million in payments 
from China through an associate.
  Hunter put Joe on the phone at least 20 times in business meetings 
with foreign nationals.
  Hunter Biden's business associates visited the White House at least 
80 times while Joe Biden was Vice President.
  There were more than 150 bank transactions involving the Biden family 
that U.S. banks flagged as suspicious.
  Not only was Joe Biden involved with Hunter's clients and flying 
Hunter around the world on Air Force Two to generate more business, but 
it is also apparent that Joe was using his office as Vice President to 
manipulate U.S. policy. We see that with Ukraine, Burisma, in the 
firing of the prosecutor.
  Unraveling the mountain of Biden's lies, his shell companies, and 
Joe's actions as Vice President is part of what we will be 
investigating in these hearings, in the impeachment inquiry.
  If you are going to sell out America, this is what it looks like.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend; that was 
well said.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. 
Johnson), for yielding.
  So here we are, after nearly 9 months of investigations into the 
Biden family's influence-peddling schemes, this body has uncovered 
mounting credible evidence of corruption, evidence that

[[Page H4432]]

has come to light through numerous committee meetings, whistleblower 
testimony and interviews, document discovery, and rigorous 
Congressional oversight.
  Despite the false claims of leftwing media outlets such as CNN and 
MSNBC, there is, in fact, evidence of peddling and corruption. Under 
the IRS whistleblower testimony, two IRS agents testified under oath 
that Joe Biden was present at at least one meeting with Hunter Biden's 
foreign clients.
  Agent Joseph Zeigler, formerly known as ``Whistleblower X,'' 
testified that he was handcuffed and hamstrung throughout the IRS's 5-
year investigation of Hunter Biden and was ultimately stopped from 
moving forward in the manner that he believed to be appropriate for the 
offenses committed.
  Over $17 million were sent to Hunter Biden from companies operating 
in authoritarian, oppressive nations.
  The Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers also alleged that the DOJ 
would not let them pursue Joe Biden or any connections that would lead 
to him. They allege a campaign of delay, divulge, deny surrounded their 
requests to pursue leads that led to Joe Biden.
  This allegation has been confirmed by a former FBI SSA. The Special 
Counsel was appointed to obstruct Congressional investigations and 
inquiries behind the curtain of an ongoing investigation.
  The testimony of these IRS whistleblowers have been corroborated by 
the testimony of the FBI SSA and two additional colleagues that claimed 
that they were fired from the investigation by order of Attorney Weiss.
  Devon Archer's testimony to the Oversight Committee is that Joe Biden 
is a brand. Archer alleges members of the Biden family used Joe Biden's 
position as Vice President to sell power and access to interested 
parties. VP Biden would protect oligarchs from competent legal probes 
and investigations into foreign countries, such as Ukraine.
  Hunter or another family member would be paid money, and then Joe 
would meet with the interested party in Washington, D.C.
  A quick summary: An oligarch pays money to Hunter Biden's company or 
associate, which then is paid to Hunter, and a portion of that goes to 
the big guy, his father.
  The Shokin investigation: In 2015, Hunter was pressured by Burisma to 
call D.C. to get help in removing a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor 
Shokin.
  Shokin was indeed later fired, and video evidence has surfaced of Joe 
Biden bragging about getting him fired in order for foreign aid dollars 
to flow to the Government of Ukraine, right on tape.
  Joe Biden's family received $17 million from contacts from foreign 
nations, according to IRS documents.
  What was being done in exchange for this money? The National Archives 
have confirmed that Joe Biden used pseudonyms when communicating with 
Hunter and his business associates from official government emails, 
including the Office of the Vice President.
  So you have DOJ misconduct, confirmed by the FBI SSA and leadership, 
that DOJ--specifically, Merrick Garland--prevented investigators from 
doing their jobs as best as he could.
  The FBI D.C. office tipped off the Secret Service of an interview 
with Hunter Biden that was being planned. The FBI headquarters also 
tipped them off of a planned search of Hunter's residence which gave 
time and forewarning for any incriminating evidence to be removed.
  No ordinary American would ever expect to receive such preferential 
treatment if they were accused of the crimes that Hunter and Joe have 
been. What they can normally expect is a 4 a.m. knock on the door with 
a battering ram for even lesser crimes.

  Investigators are not allowed to ask about the big guy. The bank 
records show over 170 Suspicious Activity Reports filed by banks on the 
Biden family financial transactions. This means banks believe that over 
170 separate financial transactions in Biden's family bank accounts 
were linked to bribery, money laundering, or other serious financial 
crimes.
  An FBI informant documented conversations that indicated to them that 
Joe pressured foreign companies to send millions to the family 
business. The claims from Democrats and their media allies that the 
impeachment inquiry was opened without evidence are not only false but 
also illogical.
  Inquiries exist for the purpose of uncovering evidence. An 
impeachment inquiry is an investigation into whether an impeachable 
offense has been committed. It is not the whole scope of impeachment. 
It gives the ability to do further investigation.
  Where there is smoke, you will probably find fire.
  There is evidence from whistleblowers and former associates that Joe 
Biden was intimately involved in Hunter's corrupt business dealings.
  This is an impeachable offense. The allegations that since this 
conduct allegedly only happened when Joe was VP and not while President 
thus means that an impeachment is not possible, that is false.
  Impeachable conduct includes high crimes, bribery, or other 
misdemeanors that occurred while the accused was in a previous Federal 
office.
  Joe Biden has lied about his connection to his son's corrupt business 
dealings for years.
  Now, we are not supposed to take impeachment lightly around here. 
Indeed, it has been abused the last few years a couple of times, but 
House Republicans are going to go through a process, due process, and 
find real evidence.
  The conclusion is that despite the disparate claims of the partisan 
media and their Democrat allies, there is indeed mounting evidence that 
President Joe Biden was involved in his family's influence-selling 
scheme and intimately involved in Hunter Biden's corruption.
  An impeachment inquiry will help House Republicans get to the bottom 
of this, and I hope Democrats will be interested as well, and then 
determine whether or not there is proof of these crimes. If there 
indeed is, then President Biden has committed impeachable offenses.
  Again, impeachment is not to be taken lightly, not to be just thrown 
around for political purpose but utilized. This impeachment inquiry is 
a very important ability for Congress to answer the questions that 
many, many American people are asking about the obvious corruption that 
is coming forward, thanks to whistleblowers, and others, that are 
bringing this evidence to the front.
  With that, let's proceed, and let's do this properly.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, very well said by the 
gentleman.
  Look, let's hasten to say we take no pleasure in this. There are a 
lot of big challenges that the country needs to fix. We don't want to 
spend time and resources investigating the President, impeaching a 
President.
  Next to declaring war, this is the heaviest power that we have in the 
House of Representatives, but Article I of the Constitution does give 
us the ``sole power of impeachment'' here.
  We have no choice in the matter. Given the evidence, given the 
allegations, we have to pursue it, and we will. We are often asked: Why 
is the House majority, why are the House Republicans spending so much 
time investigating? If we had not done these investigations, we 
wouldn't have all of this evidence.
  Why?
  It goes back to the theme of what I was saying earlier: The 
Department of Justice is simply not doing its job. Under normal 
circumstances, the DOJ would be investigating all these allegations of 
corruption but they simply looked the other way.
  As I noted earlier, Attorney General Garland, who is just now leaving 
the Committee on the Judiciary, he has been here all day, has abused 
the Department to pursue political agendas. He has sued conservative 
States over their local policies. He has raided the home of President 
Biden's main political opponent. The Department is obstructing at the 
same time the Hunter Biden investigation and impeding the House's 
impeachment inquiry into President Biden.
  What are we to do?
  I was home on the August district work period. I was doing townhalls 
in my district in Louisiana, and I will tell you that at every venue, 
the number one question everybody has is: When will there be 
accountability?
  I mentioned earlier that 65 percent of Americans now have no faith. 
They

[[Page H4433]]

don't trust the Department of Justice. We are losing faith in our 
institutions because the people do not see accountability. They don't 
see a fair system of justice. They see a two-tiered system of justice.
  It is frightening. You cannot maintain a Constitutional republic if 
the people do not trust the system of justice. They don't believe it is 
fair. They don't believe that they are going to get a fair shake, that 
every American, regardless of who they are, is going to have equal 
justice under law. That is the threat right now. There is nothing more 
serious than that.
  Mr. Speaker, we will pursue the truth, and we will follow it wherever 
it leads and try to return that accountability to the people.
  Mr. Speaker, I end the Special Order hour here, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

                          ____________________