[House Report 118-345]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                               House Calendar No. 56

118th Congress }                                          { Report 
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session    }                                          { 118-345

======================================================================
 
 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIND ROBERT 
   HUNTER BIDEN IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A 
         SUBPOENA DULY ISSUED BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                                _______
                                

  January 12, 2024.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

             Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on Judiciary, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

    The Committee on the Judiciary, having considered this 
Report, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the 
Report be approved.
    The form of the Resolution that the Committee on the 
Judiciary would recommend to the House of Representatives 
citing Robert Hunter Biden for contempt of Congress pursuant to 
this Report is as follows:
    Resolved, That Robert Hunter Biden shall be found to be in 
contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional 
subpoena.
    Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 192 and 194, 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the 
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the refusal 
of Robert Hunter Biden to appear for a deposition before the 
Committee on the Judiciary as directed by subpoena, to an 
appropriate United States attorney, to the end that Mr. Biden 
be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.
    Resolved, That the Speaker of the House shall otherwise 
take all appropriate action to enforce the subpoena.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Executive Summary................................................     2
Authority and Purpose............................................     3
Background on the Investigation..................................     5
    A. The Committees Seek Information from Hunter Biden Central 
      to the Investigative Purpose of the Impeachment Inquiry of 
      President Joe Biden and the Committees' Legislative 
      Oversight Investigation....................................     7
    B. Hunter Biden's Refusal to Comply with the Committees' 
      Subpoenas for a Deposition.................................    11
    C. Hunter Biden's Purported Reasons for Non-Compliance with 
      the Subpoenas Are Without Merit............................    14
    D. Precedent Supports the Committees' Decision to Proceed 
      with Holding Hunter Biden in Contempt......................    16
Conclusion.......................................................    17
Committee Consideration..........................................    17
Committee Votes..................................................    18
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    28
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    28
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    28
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    28
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    28
Minority Views...................................................    28

                           Executive Summary

    On December 13, 2023, Robert Hunter Biden failed to comply 
with deposition subpoenas issued by the Committees on the 
Judiciary and Oversight and Accountability for testimony 
relevant to the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry 
and the Committees' oversight investigations.\1\ Instead, Mr. 
Biden opted to read a short, prepared statement in front of the 
Capitol. Accordingly, Mr. Biden has violated federal law,\2\ 
and must be held in contempt of Congress. Mr. Biden's testimony 
is a critical component of the impeachment inquiry into, among 
other things, whether Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as Vice President 
and/or President: (1) took any official action or effected any 
change in government policy because of money or other things of 
value provided to himself or his family; (2) abused his office 
of public trust by providing foreign interests with access to 
him and his office in exchange for payments to his family or 
him; or (3) abused his office of public trust by knowingly 
participating in a scheme to enrich himself or his family by 
giving foreign interests the impression that they would receive 
access to him and his office in exchange for payments to his 
family or him.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, to Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP (Nov. 
8, 2023) [hereinafter ``Nov. 8 Letter''].
    \2\See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 (``Every person who having been summoned 
as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give 
testimony . . . upon any matter under inquiry before either House . . . 
or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default . 
. . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . . .'').
    \3\Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The testimony sought by the subpoenas is also relevant to 
ongoing efforts to craft legislative reforms to federal ethics 
and financial disclosure laws. The Committees seek to craft 
legislative solutions that provide transparency when the 
President's or Vice President's family members engage in 
lucrative financial transactions. As part of our investigation, 
the Committees seek to craft legislative solutions aimed at 
deficiencies we have identified in the current legal framework 
regarding ethics laws and the disclosure of financial interests 
related to the immediate family members of Vice Presidents and 
Presidents--deficiencies that may place American national 
security and interests at risk. Specifically, the Committees 
are concerned that foreign nationals appear to have sought 
access and influence by engaging in lucrative business 
relationships with high-profile political figures' immediate 
family members.
    Mr. Biden's flagrant defiance of the Committees' deposition 
subpoenas--while choosing to appear nearby on the Capitol 
grounds to read a prepared statement on the same matters--is 
contemptuous, and he must be held accountable for his unlawful 
actions. Accordingly, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary recommends that Congress find Robert Hunter Biden in 
contempt for his failure to comply with the Committee subpoena 
issued to him.

                         Authority and Purpose

    The Constitution vests the House of Representatives with 
the ``sole Power of Impeachment''\4\ and provides that the 
``President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the 
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, 
and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.''\5\ As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit has stated, ``[t]o level the grave 
accusation that a President may have committed `Treason, 
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' U.S. Const. 
art. II, Sec. 4, the House must be appropriately informed.''\6\ 
Congress's authority to access information during an 
impeachment investigation can be broader in certain instances 
than in a purely legislative investigation,\7\ a fact that the 
Executive Branch traditionally has recognized.\8\ An 
impeachment inquiry is the traditional means by which the House 
assembles and evaluates relevant information.\9\ Indeed, 
conducting an impeachment inquiry without all pertinent 
evidence would be an affront to the Constitution and 
irreparably damage public faith in the impeachment process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5.
    \5\Id. art. II, Sec. 4.
    \6\Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 
968 F.3d 755, 765 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (en banc).
    \7\Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv.: Legal Sidebar, LSB11083, 
Impeachment Investigations, Part II: Access, at 1 (2023) (``[T]here is 
reason to believe that invocation of the impeachment power could 
improve the committees' legal claims of access to certain types of 
evidence relevant to the allegations of misconduct against President 
Biden.''). See also In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. 
Supp. 3d 129, 176 (D. D.C. 2019) (``[D]enying [the House Judiciary 
Committee] evidence relevant to an impeachment inquiry could pose 
constitutional problems.''), aff'd, 951 F.3d 589 (D.C. Cir. 2020), 
vacated and remanded sub nom. on other grounds, DOJ v. House Comm. on 
the Judiciary, 142 S. Ct. 46 (2021); In re Request for Access to Grand 
Jury Materials, 833 F.2d 1438, 1445 (11th Cir. 1987) (concluding that 
``limit[ing] the investigatory power of the House in impeachment 
proceedings . . . would clearly violate separation of powers 
principles'').
    \8\See Garvey, supra note 7 (``As a historical matter, all three 
branches have suggested that the House possesses a robust right of 
access to information when it is investigating for impeachment 
purposes.''); Jonathan David Schaub, The Executive's Privilege, 70 Duke 
L.J. 1, 87 (2020) (``[P]residents and others have recognized throughout 
the history of the country that their ability to withhold information 
from Congress disappears in the context of impeachment.'').
    \9\See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 116-346, at 28 (2019) (``Here, 
consistent with historical practice, the House divided its impeachment 
inquiry into two phases, first collecting evidence and then bringing 
that evidence before the Judiciary Committee for its consideration of 
articles of impeachment.''); H.R. Rep. No. 111-427, at 7 (2010) 
(``[T]he impeachment inquiry was referred by the Committee on the 
Judiciary to a Task Force on Judicial Impeachment . . . , comprised of 
12 Committee Members, to conduct the investigation.''). See also 
Hearing on the Basis for the Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph R. 
Biden: Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 118th Cong. 
(Sept. 28, 2023) (statement of Jonathan Turley, Professor, The George 
Washington University Law School); Memorandum from Rep. Jim Jordan, 
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. 
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, H. 
Comm. on Ways & Means, to Members of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, H. 
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, and H. Comm. on Ways & Means 
(Sept. 27, 2023) [hereinafter ``Sept. 27 Memo''].
    \10\See In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. Supp. 3d at 
176 (``Impeachment based on anything less than all relevant evidence 
would compromise the public's faith in the process.''); In re Request 
for Access to Grand Jury Materials, 833 F.2d at 1445 (``Public 
confidence in a procedure as political and public as impeachment is an 
important consideration justifying disclosure.''); In re Report and 
Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F. Supp. 1219, 1230 (D. 
D.C. 1974) (``It would be difficult to conceive of a more compelling 
need than that of this country for an unswervingly fair [impeachment] 
inquiry based on all the pertinent information.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 27, 2023, pursuant to the directive of the 
Speaker, the Chairs of the Committees, along with the Chair of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, released a memorandum setting 
forth the justification for and scope of the inquiry into 
whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of 
impeachment against President Biden.\11\ On December 13, 2023, 
the House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 918, 
directing the Committees, along with the Committee on Ways and 
Means, to continue the ongoing impeachment inquiry.\12\ By 
approving House Resolution 918, the House also adopted House 
Resolution 917,\13\ which affirmed that ``[t]he authority 
provided by clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to the Chairs of the Committees . . . included, 
from the beginning of the existing House of Representatives 
impeachment inquiry . . . the authority to issue subpoenas on 
behalf of such Committees for the purpose of furthering the 
impeachment inquiry.''\14\ House Resolution 917 also 
``ratifie[d] and affirm[ed] any subpoenas previously issued . . 
. by the Chairs of the Committees on Oversight and 
Accountability, Ways and Means, or the Judiciary as part of the 
impeachment inquiry.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 9.
    \12\H.R. Res. 918, 118th Cong. (2023).
    \13\Id.
    \14\H.R. Res. 917, 118th Cong. (2023).
    \15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The deposition subpoenas to Mr. Biden were issued as part 
of the Committees' impeachment inquiry. As will be explained in 
detail below, Mr. Biden's testimony is necessary for the 
Committees to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for 
the Committees to draft articles of impeachment against 
President Biden.
    However, the impeachment inquiry was not the only purpose 
underlying these deposition subpoenas; the subpoenas were also 
issued to Mr. Biden pursuant to the Committees' authorities to 
conduct legislative oversight.\16\ Article I of the 
Constitution vests in Congress a ``broad and indispensable'' 
power to conduct oversight and investigations that 
``encompasses inquiries into the administration of existing 
laws, studies of proposed laws, and surveys in our social, 
economic or political system for the purpose of enabling 
Congress to remedy them.''\17\ Pursuant to the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary is 
authorized to conduct oversight of the Department of Justice 
(DOJ) and criminal justice matters in the United States to 
inform potential legislative reforms,\18\ while the Committee 
on Oversight and Accountability has been delegated broad 
authority to investigate ``any matter'' at ``any time.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\See Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, R. XI, cl. 
2(m)(1) (2023) (providing that ``a committee or subcommittee is 
authorized . . . (B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the 
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such 
books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it 
considers necessary''); Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, R. 12(g) (``The Chair of the Committee shall . . . 
[a]uthorize and issue subpoenas as provided in House Rule XI, clause 
2(m), in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of 
investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee.); Rules of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, R. IV(a) (``A 
subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chair, in accordance with 
clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct 
of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or 
activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following 
consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.'').
    \17\Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020).
    \18\Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, R. X, cl. 1(l) 
(2023).
    \19\Id., cl. 4(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To further the Committees' constitutionally mandated 
oversight and legislative duties, full compliance with the 
Committees' duly authorized subpoenas must be obtained, which 
includes unrestricted testimony on all relevant matters. The 
information that the Committees seek from Mr. Biden relates to, 
among other matters, his knowledge of President Biden's 
involvement in his family's business dealings, and whether 
President Biden, as President and/or Vice President, took any 
official action or effected any change in government policy to 
enrich or improperly benefit himself or his family, or traded 
access or the appearance of access to himself and his office in 
exchange for payments to himself or his family. This 
information is necessary to inform the need for and shape of 
potential legislative reforms, including criminal law reforms, 
to address influence-peddling by Presidential and Vice-
Presidential family members.
    The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Congress' inherent 
contempt power to fine, detain, or imprison individuals who 
refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena. In Anderson v. 
Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821), the Court held that the Speaker of 
the House may command the Sergeant-at-Arms to take a 
noncompliant witness into custody, and that this power is 
essential to the fulfillment of Congress' duties. In Jurney v. 
MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935), the Court opined that the 
Senate ``had authority to require the production of papers as a 
necessary incident of the power of legislation; and that the 
Senate had the power to coerce their production by means of 
arrest.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125, 144 (1935) (citing McGrain 
v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Background on the Investigation

    In February 2023, the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability launched an oversight investigation into the 
Biden family's foreign business dealings by issuing subpoenas 
for bank records related to companies and individuals who 
conducted business with certain Biden family members and their 
related companies.\21\ Through those records, the Committee 
uncovered evidence that Biden family members and their 
associates received over $24 million from foreign companies and 
foreign nationals, with more than $15 million received by the 
Biden family and $9 million by business associates during the 
five-year period from 2014 to 2019.\22\ The Oversight 
Committee's subpoenas issued to various banks for Biden family 
members' bank records also showed a direct benefit to President 
Biden through a series of complicated financial 
transactions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\See, e.g., Subpoena from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. 
on Oversight & Accountability, to Financial Institution 1 (Feb. 27, 
2023).
    \22\See Memorandum from Maj. Comm. staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, to Members of the H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, Re: New Evidence Resulting from the Oversight 
Committee's Investigation into the Biden Family's Influence Peddling 
and Business Schemes (Mar. 16, 2023); Memorandum from Maj. Comm. staff, 
H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, Members of the H. Comm. on 
Oversight & Accountability, Re: Second Bank Records Memorandum from the 
Oversight Committee's Investigation into the Biden Family's Influence 
Peddling and Business Schemes (May 10, 2023) [hereinafter ``May 10 
Memo'']; Memorandum from Maj. Comm. staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, Members of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 
Re: Third Bank Records Memorandum from the Oversight Committee's 
Investigation into the Biden Family's Influence Peddling and Business 
Schemes (Aug. 9, 2023) [hereinafter ``Aug. 9 Memo''].
    \23\See Memorandum from Maj. Comm. staff, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, to Members of the H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, Re: Fourth Bank Records Memorandum from the Oversight 
Committee's Investigation into the Biden Family's Influence Peddling 
and Business Schemes (Nov. 1, 2023) [hereinafter ``Nov. 1 Memo''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the spring of 2023, two brave whistleblowers stepped 
forward to notify Congress of how DOJ had impeded, delayed, and 
obstructed the criminal investigation of the President's son, 
Hunter Biden.\24\ Following their testimony, the Committees on 
the Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, and Ways and Means 
requested and conducted relevant interviews with officials from 
DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).\25\ On September 12, 2023, the 
Speaker of the House directed the Committees to conduct an 
inquiry to determine whether sufficient grounds existed for the 
impeachment of President Biden.\26\ On September 27, 2023, the 
Committees released a memorandum laying out, among other 
things, the subject matter of the impeachment inquiry, 
including: (1) foreign money received by the Biden family; (2) 
President Joe Biden's involvement in his family's foreign 
business entanglements; and (3) steps taken by the Biden 
Administration to slow, hamper, or otherwise impede the 
criminal investigation of the President's son, Hunter Biden, 
which involves funds received by the Biden family from foreign 
sources.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\See generally Transcribed Interview of Gary Shapley, 
Supervisory Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. (May 26, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Shapley Interview'']; Transcribed Interview of Joseph 
Ziegler, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Serv. (June 1, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Ziegler Interview''].
    \25\See e.g., H. Comm. on the Judiciary et al., 118th Cong., the 
Justice Department's Deviations from Standard Processes in its 
Investigation of Hunter Biden, at 1-2 (2023); Transcribed Interview of 
Lesley Wolf, former Assistant U.S. Att'y, Dist. of Del. (Dec. 14, 
2023).
    \26\Press Release, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, 
Speaker McCarthy Opens an Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 12, 2023).
    \27\Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As part of this investigation, on November 9, 2023, the 
Committee on the Judiciary issued a subpoena to Mr. Biden 
compelling him to appear for a deposition to begin at 9:30 a.m. 
on December 13.\28\ The Committee noticed the deposition 
pursuant to House and Committee rules.\29\ Willfully ignoring 
the Committee's subpoena, Mr. Biden did not appear for his 
deposition. Instead, Mr. Biden read a prepared statement in 
front of the U.S. Capitol and immediately departed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\See Subpoena from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, to Mr. Robert Hunter Biden (Nov. 9, 2023) [hereinafter 
``Nov. 9 Judiciary Subpoena'']; Relatedly, on November 8, the Committee 
on Oversight and Accountability issued a companion subpoena to Mr. 
Biden for testimony on December 13. Subpoena from Rep. James Comer, 
Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, to Mr. Robert Hunter 
Biden (Nov. 8, 2023) [hereinafter ``Nov. 8 Oversight Subpoena'']. 
Regulations issued by the Committee on Rules authorize such a joint 
deposition. See Regulations for the Use of Deposition Authority, 169 
Cong. Rec. H115, H147, 118th Cong. (Jan. 10, 2023). See also Rules of 
the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, R. XI; Rules of the H. Comm. on 
Oversight & Accountability, R. 15(f).
    \29\See Joint Deposition Notice, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability and H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Deposition of Robert 
Hunter Biden on December 13, 2023 (Dec. 7, 2023) [hereinafter ``Biden 
Joint Deposition Notice'']; Rules of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, R. 
XI; Rules of the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, R. 15(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Judiciary Committee, with the other investigating 
committees, has accumulated significant evidence suggesting 
that President Biden knew of, participated in, and profited 
from foreign business interests engaged in by his son, about 
which the Committees intended to question Mr. Biden during his 
deposition.\30\ Mr. Biden's decision to defy the Committees' 
subpoenas and deliver prepared remarks prevents the Committee 
from carrying out its Constitutional oversight function and its 
impeachment inquiry.\31\ Mr. Biden's refusal to comply with the 
Committees' subpoenas is a criminal act. It constitutes 
contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate 
United States Attorney's Office for prosecution as prescribed 
by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Biden Joint Deposition Notice, supra note 28.
    \31\See Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, C-
SPAN (Dec. 13, 2023), https://www.c-span.org/video/?532415-1/hunter-
biden-statement-subpoena-investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  A. The Committees Seek Information From Hunter Biden Central to the 
Investigative Purpose of the Impeachment Inquiry of President Joe Biden 
        and the Committees' Legislative Oversight Investigation

    Information held by and known to Mr. Biden is vital to the 
impeachment inquiry of President Biden and the Committees' 
ongoing efforts to craft legislative reforms to federal ethics 
and financial disclosure laws. Throughout 2023, the Committees 
have been investigating (1) foreign money received by the Biden 
family; (2) President Biden's involvement in his family's 
foreign business entanglements; and (3) steps taken by the 
Biden Administration to slow, hamper, or otherwise impede the 
criminal investigation of the President's son.\32\ The 
Committees have collected evidence that President Biden not 
only knew about, but also participated in and profited from, 
his family's international business activities, including 
business conducted by his son, Mr. Biden. This evidence 
includes bank records, discussions with Mr. Biden's former 
business associates, interviews with investigators from Mr. 
Biden's criminal investigation, and government records from the 
Department of the Treasury, National Archives and Records 
Administration (National Archives), FBI, and IRS.\33\ 
Cumulatively, the evidence obtained thus far warrants further 
investigation by the Committees. To do so, the Committees must 
take Mr. Biden's deposition. With the possible exception of 
President Biden, Mr. Biden is the most important witness 
possessing information about President Biden's involvement in 
his son's business dealings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\See generally Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 9.
    \33\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To date, the Committees have collected hundreds of pages of 
documents and witness testimony relevant to the impeachment 
inquiry that demonstrate why Mr. Biden's deposition is crucial 
to the Committees' investigation. During a transcribed 
interview with the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
Devon Archer, a long-time associate of Mr. Biden, described how 
President Biden was ``[t]he Brand'' and was used to send 
``signals'' of power, access, and influence to enrich the Biden 
family from foreign sources while he served as vice 
president.\34\ Mr. Archer testified that Mr. Biden placed his 
father on speaker phone during meetings with business 
associates approximately ``20 times.''\35\ Importantly, Mr. 
Archer detailed specific instances of then-Vice President 
Biden's involvement in his family's foreign business 
entanglements in 2014 and 2015.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Transcribed Interview of Devon Archer, at 29-30 (July 31, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Archer Interview''].
    \35\Id. at 51.
    \36\See infra notes 37-42 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Archer testified that then-Vice President Biden dined 
with foreign individuals from countries such as Russia, 
Ukraine, and Kazakhstan who conducted business with Mr. Biden. 
Specifically, in February 2014, then-Vice President Biden dined 
at Cafe Milano with oligarchs from Russia and Kazakhstan who 
funneled millions of dollars to Hunter Biden and his business 
associates.\37\ Then-Vice President Biden dined with other 
foreign business associates of Mr. Biden, including Ukrainian 
Burisma executive Vadym Pozharsky, at Cafe Milano in April 
2015.\38\ At the time, Burisma was under investigation by 
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin for corruption.\39\ 
In 2015, then-Vice President Biden hosted Mr. Biden, Mr. 
Archer, and other business associates at the official residence 
of the Vice President.\40\ According to Mr. Archer, the topic 
of discussion was filling the top seat at the United 
Nations.\41\ The Kazakhstani government official who wanted the 
U.N. position attended both dinners at Cafee Milano with then-
Vice President Biden.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Archer Interview, supra note 344, at 57.
    \38\Id. at 65-66.
    \39\Press Release, Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. Oversight & 
Accountability, Comer Presses State Department for Information on then-
Vice President Joe Biden's Sudden Shift on Ukraine Policy (Sept. 12, 
2023).
    \40\Archer Interview, supra note 344, at 45-46, 57, 65-66, 78.
    \41\Id.
    \42\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional documents obtained by the Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability demonstrate then-Vice President Biden's 
involvement in business dealings with Burisma. On December 4, 
2015, Eric Schwerin, a business associate of Mr. Biden, wrote 
to Kate Bedingfield in the Office of the Vice President 
providing quotes to use in response to media outreach regarding 
Mr. Biden's role in Burisma.\43\ Later that day, Ms. 
Bedingfield responded to Mr. Schwerin saying, ``VP [Biden] 
signed off on this[.]''\44\ In addition, according to Mr. 
Archer, following a Burisma board of directors meeting in Dubai 
on the evening of December 4, 2015, Hunter Biden ``called 
D.C.'' to discuss the pressure that Burisma had asked him to 
relieve.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\E-mail from Eric Schwerin to Kate Bedingfield (Dec. 4, 2015, 
10:45 AM).
    \44\E-mail from Kate Bedingfield to Eric Schwerin (Dec. 4, 2015, 
2:30 PM).
    \45\Archer Interview, supra note 344, at 33-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Committee on Ways and Means obtained 
communications in which Mr. Biden invoked his father to 
influence his foreign business deals. For instance, the 
Committee uncovered a threatening message from Mr. Biden to a 
Chinese business executive related to a business deal with CEFC 
China Energy, a now-defunct Chinese conglomerate with close 
ties to the Chinese Communist Party, in which Mr. Biden wrote, 
``I am sitting here with my father and we would like to 
understand why the commitment made has not been 
fulfilled.''\46\ Four days later, on August 3, 2017, Mr. Biden 
sent another message to a CEFC executive suggesting that now-
President Biden may have been involved in his business 
ventures, boasting that ``[t]he Biden's [sic] are the best I 
know at doing exactly what the Chairman wants from this 
partnership[].''\47\ The following day, a CEFC subsidiary wired 
$100,000 to a company owned by Mr. Biden.\48\ On August 8, 
2017, nine days after Mr. Biden invoked his father in a 
threatening message to a CEFC executive, a Chinese company 
affiliated with CEFC wired $5 million to a company jointly 
established by Mr. Biden and another CEFC associate.\49\ The 
same day, Mr. Biden transferred $400,000 from this joint 
venture to his personal company.\50\ Through a complicated 
series of transactions designed to make the funds difficult to 
trace, laid out in full by the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, now-President Biden ultimately received $40,000 
of the proceeds.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Shapley Interview, supra note 244, Ex. 11.
    \47\Id.
    \48\May 10 Memo, supra note 222, at 25.
    \49\Nov. 1 Memo, supra note 23, at 5.
    \50\Id.
    \51\Id. at 5-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Biden's business associates have also indicated that 
now-President Biden was involved in his son's business affairs. 
For instance, on May 13, 2017, James Gilliar, one of Mr. 
Biden's business associates, emailed another associate, Tony 
Bobulinski, and carbon copied Mr. Biden and a third associate 
named Rob Walker, about ``renumeration packages''' for six 
individuals involved in a deal with CEFC.\52\ The email listed 
an equity split in the new business venture that includes ``10 
held by H for the big guy?''\53\ Although DOJ prosecutors 
prohibited IRS and FBI investigators from pursuing the identity 
of ``the big guy'' during the criminal investigation of Mr. 
Biden,\54\ Mr. Bobulinski has publicly confirmed that not only 
is the email authentic, but also that ``the big guy'' refers to 
now-President Biden.\55\ A week later, on May 20, 2017, Mr. 
Gilliar told Mr. Bobulinski in a WhatsApp message, ``Don't 
mention Joe being involved [in the CEFC deal], it's only when u 
are face to face, I know u know that but they are 
paranoid[.]''\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\E-mail from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski et. al. (May 13, 
2017, 5:48 AM).
    \53\Id.
    \54\Shapley Interview, supra note 24, at 18, 120.
    \55\Michael Goodwin, Hunter biz partner confirms email, details Joe 
Biden's push to make millions from China: Goodwin, N.Y. Post (Oct. 22, 
2020).
    \56\WhatsApp message from James Gilliar to Tony Bobulinski (May 20, 
2017). See also Emma-Jo Morris et al., Hunter Biden's ex-business 
partner told `don't mention Joe' in text message, N.Y. Post (last 
updated Oct. 23, 2020) (reporting that the message concerned Joe 
Biden's involvement in the CEFC deal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notwithstanding the significant evidence uncovered to date, 
President Biden has continuously changed the narrative on his 
involvement in his family's business dealings. Following IRS 
whistleblower testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means,\57\ 
the White House issued a statement that President Biden ``was 
not in business with his son.''\58\ In August 2023, a reporter 
asked President Biden if he lied about never speaking to his 
son about his business dealings.\59\ President Biden replied, 
``no.''\60\ Following contradictory testimony from one of Mr. 
Biden's former business associates that President Biden was 
``on speakerphone'' with Mr. Biden's former business associates 
``talking business,'' President Biden angrily told reporters, 
``I never talked business with anybody. I knew you'd have a 
lousy question.''\61\ The reporter followed up, asking 
President Biden to explain why the question was lousy, and 
President Biden responded, ``Because it's not true.''\62\ In 
his prepared remarks on December 13, Mr. Biden provided yet 
another account of President Biden's involvement in his 
business dealings, claiming that his ``father was not 
financially involved in [his] business.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\See generally Shapley Interview, supra note 24; Ziegler 
Interview, supra note 24.
    \58\Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and FEMA 
Administrator Deanne Criswell, The White House (Aug. 14, 2023).
    \59\GOP Oversight, Reporter: ``Did you lie about never speaking to 
Hunter bout his business dealings?'', YouTube (Aug. 21, 2023), https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6y5kIQ9N1M; Steven Nelson, Biden insists he 
told truth about not talking foreign biz with Hunter--despite mounting 
evidence, N.Y. Post (June 26, 2023).
    \60\Id.
    \61\Alexander Hall, Biden scorched for response to question about 
talking to Hunter's business associates: `Pathological liar,' Fox News 
(Aug. 10, 2023).
    \62\Id.
    \63\Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, supra 
note 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committees are also investigating the national security 
implications of a Vice President's or President's (and 
candidates for such offices) immediate family members receiving 
millions of dollars from foreign nationals, foreign companies, 
or foreign governments without any oversight. Current financial 
disclosure laws and regulations do not require non-dependent 
family members of senior elected officials to provide any 
information to the public. Consequently, the Committees are 
seeking meaningful reforms to government ethics and disclosure 
laws that will provide necessary transparency into a Vice 
President's or President's immediate family members' income, 
assets, and financial relationships.
    The Committees also intend to craft legislation that would 
strengthen reporting requirements relating to certain foreign 
transactions involving senior elected officials' family members 
and that would implement robust financial disclosure 
requirements that shed light on ownership of opaque corporate 
entities. Moreover, in order to prevent financial transactions 
from being structured in a way to evade oversight, the 
Committees are examining whether certain reporting 
requirements, including any new reporting requirements for 
senior elected officials' family members, should extend for a 
period of time after a President or Vice President leaves 
office.
    The Committees aim to draft legislation that delivers more 
transparency to the American people, deters foreign interests 
from attempting to obtain influence over and access to the 
highest levels of the federal government by entering business 
deals with Presidential and Vice-Presidential family members, 
discourages such family members from profiting from their 
relative's public service, and ensures the nation is safe from 
our foreign adversaries. Mr. Biden's deposition is critical in 
achieving these legislative goals. In particular, the Committee 
must understand precisely how such influence-peddling has 
occurred. Given the complicated financial transactions 
surrounding Mr. Biden's foreign business dealings, as well as 
the apparently close relationship between his foreign business 
dealings during and after his father's tenure as Vice 
President, it is imperative for the Committees to depose him to 
be able to shape effective and targeted legislative solutions 
that would expose and thus hopefully deter attempts at 
influence-peddling by similarly situated family members, 
including activities that could jeopardize national security.
    In sum, the Committees have uncovered that the Biden family 
has accumulated more than $15 million from foreign entities, 
with most going to Mr. Biden.\64\ Mr. Biden was central to 
these business arrangements and his deposition is vital to 
properly understanding them. In addition, President Biden's 
statements regarding his involvement in his son's business 
ventures are collectively inconsistent and further underscore 
the need for Mr. Biden's testimony. It is vital to the 
Committees' investigation that Mr. Biden be deposed, under 
oath, about how he utilized his father and the power of his 
father's positions to influence foreign business aboard and 
enrich the Biden family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\Hearing with IRS Whistleblowers About the Biden Criminal 
Investigation: Before the H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 118th 
Cong. (July 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Hunter Biden's Refusal To Comply With the Committees' Subpoenas for 
                              a Deposition

    On November 8, 2023, and November 9, 2023, the Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability and the Committee on the 
Judiciary, respectively, issued to Robert Hunter Biden 
subpoenas to appear for a deposition on December 13, 2023, at 
9:30 a.m.\65\ The joint cover letter detailed the Committees' 
rationale for issuing the subpoenas, including to determine 
whether President Biden:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\Nov. 8 Oversight Subpoena, supra note 288; Nov. 9 Judiciary 
Subpoena, supra note 288; Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1.

          (1) took any official action or effected any change 
        in government policy because of money or other things 
        of value provided to himself or his family, including 
        whether he asked then-Vice President Biden to intervene 
        in a Ukrainian investigation of a company that paid 
        your client substantial sums of money; (2) abused his 
        office of public trust by providing foreign interests 
        with access to him and his office in exchange for 
        payments to his family or him; or (3) abused his office 
        of public trust by knowingly participating in a scheme 
        to enrich himself or his family by giving foreign 
        interests the impression that they would receive access 
        to him and his office in exchange for payments to his 
        family or him.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1, at 4.

    The cover letter noted that the ``Biden family used 
corporate bank accounts of third-party associates to receive 
wires from foreign companies and nationals.''\67\ These 
``associates then dispersed money to various Biden family 
members in incremental payments over time.''\68\ Mr. Biden 
``was at the center of many of these transactions and actively 
involved in the web connecting the Biden family to foreign 
money.''\69\ Mr. Biden was able to bring in millions of dollars 
for the Biden family and did so by ``leveraging the Biden brand 
and the positions of trust held by his father.''\70\ For 
example, Mr. Biden ``arranged and attended meetings between 
then-Vice President Biden and foreign individuals who directly 
or indirectly paid [Mr. Biden] millions of dollars, including 
individuals from Kazakhstan, Russian, and Ukraine.''\71\ In 
short, Mr. Biden has the relevant information that the 
Committees need to determine whether President Joe Biden abused 
his oath of office to benefit himself and his family. The 
Committees also detailed the legislative purpose underlying the 
subpoena, explaining that Mr. Biden's testimony is ``relevant 
to ongoing efforts to craft legislative reforms to federal 
ethics and financial disclosure laws.''\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\Id. at 1.
    \68\Id.
    \69\Id.
    \70\Id. During the transcribed interview of Devon Archer, a Biden 
business associate, Archer confirmed that then-Vice President Joe Biden 
was ``the brand'' that Mr. Biden sold. Archer Interview, supra note 
344, at 29-30.
    \71\Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1, at 2 (citing Aug. 9 Memo, supra 
note 22, at 2).
    \72\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 28, 2023, Mr. Biden's attorney, Abbe Lowell, 
wrote to the Committees regarding the subpoenas to Mr. 
Biden.\73\ On behalf of Mr. Biden, Mr. Lowell disparaged and 
attacked the Committees' inquiry, challenged the Committees' 
legislative purpose in issuing the subpoenas, and demanded that 
the Committees treat Mr. Biden in a manner unlike any other 
witness in the investigation.\74\ In particular, Mr. Lowell 
represented to the Committees that Mr. Biden would only 
``appear at a public Oversight and Accountability 
hearing.''\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP, to 
Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability 
(Nov. 28, 2023) [hereinafter ``Nov. 28 Letter''].
    \74\Id.
    \75\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 1, 2023, the Committees responded to Mr. 
Lowell's letter.\76\ The Committees informed Lowell about the 
relevant Supreme Court case law and evidence supporting the 
subpoenas.\77\ Although the Committees notified Mr. Lowell that 
Mr. Biden would be allowed to testify at a public hearing at 
the appropriate time, the Committees denied Mr. Biden's attempt 
to receive special treatment, explaining:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, and Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability, to Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP (Dec. 
1, 2023) [hereinafter ``Dec. 1 Letter''].
    \77\See id.

          The subpoenas Mr. Biden has received compel him to 
        appear before the Committees for a deposition; they are 
        not mere suggestions open to Mr. Biden's interpretation 
        or preference. Several Justice Department, FBI, and IRS 
        officials have testified in transcribed interview and 
        deposition settings, as has Devon Archer, Mr. Biden's 
        business associate. Notably, other Hunter Biden 
        business associates are also cooperating with our 
        subpoenas and not demanding a public hearing first. Mr. 
        Biden seems to believe that he should be treated 
        differently than other witnesses before the 
        Committees.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\Id.

The Committees asked Mr. Lowell to confirm by December 4 
whether Mr. Biden would appear for his deposition.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\Id.

    On December 6, 2023, Mr. Lowell responded to the 
Committees, writing that Mr. Biden had ``chosen'' to testify 
only at a public hearing and demanding that the Committees 
deviate from their standard investigative procedure to provide 
Mr. Biden with special treatment.\80\ The same day, the 
Committees again responded to Mr. Lowell, reiterating that the 
subpoenas do not provide Mr. Biden a choice to make--rather, 
``the subpoenas compel him to appear for a deposition . . . 
.''\81\ The Committees warned Mr. Biden that failure to appear 
pursuant to the terms of the subpoenas would result in the 
Committees initiating contempt of Congress proceedings.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP to 
Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & Accountability at 3 
(Dec. 6, 2023) [hereinafter ``Lowell Dec. 6 Letter''].
    \81\Letter from Rep. James Comer, Chairman, H. Comm. on Oversight & 
Accountability and Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, to Abbe D. Lowell, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP (Dec. 6, 
2023) [hereinafter ``Committees Dec. 6 Letter''].
    \82\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following day, on December 7, 2023, the Committees 
issued a joint deposition notice for Mr. Biden to appear on 
December 13, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.\83\ Biden did not appear for his 
deposition.\84\ At 9:39 a.m. on December 13, 2023, the 
Committees convened the deposition and opened the record.\85\ 
The Committees then introduced the following documents into the 
record: (1) the November 8, 2023 subpoenas issued by Chairmen 
Comer and Jordan compelling Mr. Biden to appear for a 
deposition on December 13, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.; (2) the November 
28, 2023 letter from Mr. Lowell to Chairman Comer; (3) the 
December 1, 2023 letter from Chairmen Comer and Jordan to Mr. 
Lowell; (4) the December 6, 2023 letter from Mr. Lowell to 
Chairman Comer; (5) the December 6, 2023 letter from Chairmen 
Comer and Jordan to Mr. Lowell; and (6) the December 7, 2023 
joint deposition notice issued by Chairmen Comer and 
Jordan.\86\ Following further discussion by Members on both 
Committees, the deposition concluded at 9:58 a.m.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\Biden Joint Deposition Notice, supra note 299.
    \84\See generally Deposition of Robert H. Biden (Dec. 13, 2023) 
[hereinafter ``Biden Deposition'']; Jordain Carney, Hunter Biden defies 
Public GOP subpoena, demanding public hearing at the Capitol, Politico 
(Dec. 13, 2023).
    \85\Biden Deposition, supra note 84, at 1.
    \86\Id. at 6-7.
    \87\Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, at around 9:40 a.m., Mr. Biden arrived on the 
grounds of the U.S. Capitol and read a prepared statement to an 
assembly of reporters.\88\ In his prepared remarks, Mr. Biden 
generally denied the allegations against him and his family, 
attacked the Committees and the inquiry, and renewed his demand 
for special treatment in how the Committees obtained his 
testimony.\89\ He read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\See Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, supra 
note 311.
    \89\Id.

          Let me state as clearly as I can. My father was not 
        financially involved in my business, not as a 
        practicing lawyer, not as a board member of Burisma, 
        not in my partnership with a Chinese private 
        businessman, not in my investments at home nor abroad, 
        and certainly not as an artist. . . . There is no 
        evidence to support the allegations that my father was 
        financially involved in my business because it did not 
        happen. James Comer, Jim Jordan, Jason Smith and their 
        colleagues have distorted the facts by cherry-picking 
        lines from a bank statement, manipulating texts I sent, 
        editing the testimony of my friends and former business 
        partners, and misstating personal information that was 
        stolen from me. . . . No matter how many times it is 
        debunked, they continue to insist that my father's 
        support of Ukraine against Russia is the result of a 
        non-existent bribe.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ Id.

Mr. Biden departed the Capitol without ever appearing for his 
deposition.

    C. Hunter Biden's Purported Reasons for Non-Compliance With the 
                      Subpoenas Are Without Merit

    Through his attorney, Mr. Biden has offered several 
generalized and amorphous bases for his noncompliance with the 
Committees' subpoenas. These excuses are unpersuasive, and the 
Committee rejects them.
    First, in Mr. Lowell's November 28 letter to the 
Committees, he suggested that the Committees' investigation 
lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.\91\ Contrary to this 
assertion, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has a 
``broad and indispensable'' power to conduct oversight,\92\ and 
that a legislative purpose is valid if it ``concern[s] a 
subject on which legislation could be had.''\93\ The Committees 
have repeatedly described the legislative purposes of the 
investigation,\94\ including in direct correspondence with Mr. 
Lowell.\95\ Mr. Lowell has not contested the legitimacy of 
these stated purposes but rather has taken issue with how the 
Committees have chosen to conduct their investigation, which is 
a matter for the Committees to decide, not Mr. Lowell or Mr. 
Biden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\Nov. 28 Letter, supra note 73; see also Hunter Biden Statement 
on Subpoena and Investigation, supra note 311 (``I'm here today to 
answer at a public hearing, any legitimate questions Chairman Comer and 
the House Oversight Committee may have for me. I'm here today to make 
sure that the House committee's illegitimate investigations of my 
family did not proceed on distortions, manipulated evidence and lies.'' 
(emphasis added)).
    \92\Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020) (quoting 
Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187, 215 (1957) (internal 
quotation marks omitted)).
    \93\Id. (quoting Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 
506 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In the prepared remarks 
he delivered on the Capitol grounds on December 13, Mr. Biden claimed 
that the Committees were improperly investigating his personal affairs. 
This is not the case; however, to the extent that Mr. Biden's personal 
affairs bear on the investigation, case law is clear that ``Congress 
may inquire into private affairs and compel their exposure, if this 
exposure is in pursuit of an independent legislative purpose.'' 1 
Ronald D. Rotunda & John E. Novak, Treatise on Constitutional Law: 
Substance and Procedure Sec. 8.4(d)(iii) (2022) (citing Watkins v. 
United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)). See also Barenblatt v. United 
States, 360 U.S. 109, 127 (1959) (``Congress may not constitutionally 
require an individual to disclose his political relationships or other 
private affairs except in relation to [a valid legislative] purpose.'' 
(emphasis added)); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 161 (1955) 
(stating that Congress's ``power to investigate, broad as it may be . . 
. cannot be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid 
legislative purpose.'' (emphasis added)).
    \94\See, e.g., H. Comm. on the Judiciary et al., 118th Cong., The 
Justice Department's Deviations from Standard Processes in its 
Investigation of Hunter Biden, at 77 (2023); Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 
9, at 5 (Sept. 27, 2023); Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary, et al., to Merrick Garland, Att'y Gen., U.S. 
Dep't of Just. (July 21, 2023).
    \95\Dec. 1 Letter, supra note 75; Nov. 8 Letter, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committees are considering legislative reforms such as, 
but not limited to, meaningful reforms to government ethics and 
disclosure laws that will provide necessary transparency into a 
Vice President's or President's immediate family members' 
income, assets, and financial relationships, as well as 
potential reforms to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The 
Committees are also weighing legislation that would strengthen 
reporting requirements related to certain foreign transactions 
involving senior elected officials' family members and that 
would implement robust financial disclosure requirements that 
shed light on ownership of opaque corporate entities. Moreover, 
to prevent financial transactions from being structured in a 
way to evade oversight, the Committees are examining whether 
certain reporting requirements, including any new reporting 
requirements for senior elected officials' family members, 
should extend for a period of time after a President or Vice 
President leaves office. Additionally, the Committees' 
oversight of DOJ's preferential treatment of Mr. Biden will 
inform potential legislation which could include strengthening 
laws protecting whistleblowers from retaliation, reforming the 
``special attorney'' statute,\96\ codifying the special counsel 
regulations,\97\ and reforming DOJ's Tax Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 515.
    \97\See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, Mr. Biden has challenged the validity of the 
ongoing impeachment inquiry.\98\ The House's constitutionally 
vested impeachment power is separate and distinct from its 
legislative powers.\99\ Although the House approved House 
Resolution 918, which directed the Committees to continue their 
impeachment inquiry on the same day that Mr. Biden refused to 
appear for his deposition, such a resolution is not necessary 
for the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry.\100\ The 
Constitution includes no requirement that the full House vote 
to start an impeachment inquiry. In fact, the House has 
launched several impeachment inquiries without a full House 
vote,\101\ and four years ago a federal district court 
expressly rejected the argument that a House resolution is 
required to begin an impeachment inquiry.\102\ As set forth in 
the memorandum issued on September 27, 2023, the impeachment 
inquiry started well before the Committees issued deposition 
subpoenas to Mr. Biden.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\Nov. 28 Letter, supra note 72; Hunter Biden Statement on 
Subpoena and Investigation, supra note 311. Even if this attack on the 
legitimacy of impeachment inquiry had merit, which it does not, the 
subpoenas issued to Mr. Biden by the Committees would still be valid in 
furtherance of the Committees' legislative oversight work as discussed 
above.
    \99\Garvey, supra note 7 (``By launching an impeachment inquiry, 
the House is effectively signaling a transition in the purpose of its 
investigations. Applied to the current topic, whereas previously, the 
committee investigations into the Biden family served the committees' 
consideration of potential legislation . . . the investigations are now 
also pursuing evidence relevant to a possible impeachable offense. 
These two purposes are not mutually exclusive.'').
    \100\See In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. Supp. 3d 
129, 168 (D.D.C. 2019) (``Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a 
House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an 
impeachment inquiry.''), aff'd, 951 F.3d 589 (D.C. Cir. 2020), vacated 
and remanded sub nom. on other grounds DOJ v. House Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 142 S. Ct. 46 (2021); H.R. Rep. No. 116-266, at 7 (2019) 
(``[N]either the Constitution nor House rules requires that the full 
House vote to authorize an [impeachment] inquiry.'').
    \101\For example, in the 1980s, the full House did not vote to 
authorize the impeachment inquiries involving Judge Harry Claiborne, 
Judge Alcee Hastings, or Judge Walter Nixon. And in 2019, the Speaker 
of the House announced the beginning of a formal impeachment inquiry 
into President Trump more than a month before the full House voted to 
authorize it.
    \102\See In re Application of Comm. on Judiciary, 414 F. Supp. 3d 
at 168 (``Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution 
has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry.'').
    \103\See Sept. 27 Memo, supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, by adopting House Resolution 917, the full House 
has expressly affirmed that ``[t]he authority provided by 
clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives to the Chairs of the Committees . . . included, 
from the beginning of the existing House of Representatives 
impeachment inquiry . . . the authority to issue subpoenas on 
behalf of such Committees for the purpose of furthering the 
impeachment inquiry.''\104\ And the House has also ``ratifie[d] 
and affirm[ed] any subpoenas previously issued . . . by the 
Chairs of the Committees on Oversight and Accountability, Ways 
and Means, or the Judiciary as part of the impeachment 
inquiry,''\105\ which includes the subpoenas issued to Mr. 
Biden. Indeed, on June 12, 2023, and August 11, 2023, 
resolutions setting forth articles of impeachment against 
President Biden related to Mr. Biden's business activities were 
introduced and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
placing the issue squarely within the Committee's 
jurisdiction.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\H.R. Res. 917, 118th Cong. (2023).
    \105\Id.
    \106\See H.R. Res. 493, 118th Cong. (2023); H.R. Res. 652, 118th 
Cong. (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, Mr. Biden challenges the venue for this testimony, 
objecting to the subpoenas' compulsion for a nonpublic 
deposition and demanding to testify in public instead.\107\ As 
the Committees have informed Mr. Biden, however, it has been 
the consistent practice of Committees of the House of 
Representatives in recent Congresses--during both Republican 
and Democrat majorities--as well as these Committees during 
this inquiry to obtain testimony initially in a deposition 
setting.\108\ This practice, which includes alternating hour-
long segments of questioning by the majority and minority, 
allows committees to methodically and thoroughly examine a 
matter through direct and cross examination without the time 
constraints of a hearing imposed by House rules. These 
depositions result in a deeper understanding of the matter and 
more fulsome assessment of the relevant facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\Nov. 28 Letter, supra note 733; Lowell Dec. 6 Letter, supra 
note 80,; Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, supra 
note 311.
    \108\Dec. 1 Letter, supra note 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the Committees informed Mr. Biden, the Committees are 
willing to pursue public testimony at a future date; however, 
the Committee need not and will not accede to Mr. Biden's 
demand for special treatment with respect to how he provides 
testimony. To alleviate Mr. Biden's stated concerns about 
transparency with respect to his testimony, the Committees 
informed his attorney that the deposition would be videotaped 
and that the transcript would be released promptly following 
the deposition. Mr. Biden's attorney, however, did not 
acknowledge the Committee's concessions. In any event, it is up 
to the Committees to choose the investigative methods and tools 
that will best further their investigation; so long as those 
choices are lawful, Mr. Biden has no say in the matter.
    In no uncertain terms, Mr. Biden has no valid reason for 
failing to comply with the Committees' duly authorized 
subpoenas. Conversely, the Committees' need for Mr. Biden's 
testimony is well-established pursuant to Congress's 
constitutionally prescribed legislative and impeachment 
functions. By flagrantly defying the Committees' subpoenas, Mr. 
Biden has violated federal law.

D. Precedent Supports the Committees' Decision To Proceed With Holding 
                        Hunter Biden in Contempt

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that ``the power to 
investigate is inherent in the power to make laws because `[a] 
legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the 
absence of information respecting the conditions which the 
legislation is intended to affect or change.'''\109\ Further, 
``[w]here the legislative body does not itself possess the 
requisite information--which not infrequently is true--recourse 
must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught 
that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, 
and also that information which is volunteered is not always 
accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential 
to obtain what is needed.''\110\ Accordingly, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 
provides that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or 
be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of 
up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.\111\ Like 
the ``ordinary federal criminal statute,'' 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 
``requires a criminal intent--in this instance, a deliberate, 
intentional refusal to answer.''\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504 (citing McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 
U.S. 135, 175 (1927)).
    \110\Id. at 504-05 (citing McGrain, 273 U.S. at 175).
    \111\The prison term for this offense makes it a Class A 
misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3559(a)(6). By that classification, the 
penalty for contempt of Congress specified in 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192 
increased from $1,000 to $100,000. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3571(b)(5).
    \112\Quinn, 349 U.S. at 165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress has frequently held individuals in contempt for 
failing to comply with a duly issued subpoena. In the 116th and 
117th Congress, the Democrat-controlled House ``approved six 
criminal contempt of Congress citations''' for such 
misconduct.\113\ In fact, after congressional Democrats held 
White House officials Stephen Bannon and Peter Navarro in 
contempt of Congress, DOJ successfully pursued criminal charges 
against them.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\Todd Garvey, Cong. Rsch. Serv., LSB10974, Criminal Contempt of 
Congress: Frequently Asked Questions, at 3 (2023).
    \114\Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Just., Former White House Advisor 
Convicted of Contempt of Congress (Sept. 7, 2023); Press Release, U.S. 
Dep't of Just., Stephen K. Bannon Found Guilty by Jury of Two Counts of 
Contempt of Congress (July 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Biden has not asserted any claims of privilege, nor has 
he asserted any basis for immunity from answering questions. In 
correspondence with his attorney prior to the scheduled date of 
the deposition, the Committees addressed and rejected Mr. 
Biden's justifications for not complying with the terms of the 
subpoenas, as well as his demand for special treatment.\115\ 
The Committees specifically notified Mr. Biden, via his 
attorney, that his failure to appear for the deposition as 
required by the subpoenas would lead to the Committees 
initiating contempt of Congress proceedings.\116\ Mr. Biden's 
failure to appear for the deposition in the face of this clear 
advisement and warning by the Committees constitutes a willful 
failure to comply with the subpoena under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\Dec. 1 Letter, supra note 766; Committees Dec. 6 Letter, supra 
note 811.
    \116\Committees Dec. 6 Letter, supra note 811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    The Committees have accumulated significant evidence 
suggesting that President Biden knew of, participated in, and 
profited from foreign business interests engaged in by his son, 
about which the Committees intended to question Mr. Biden 
during his deposition.\117\ However, Mr. Biden brazenly defied 
the Committees' subpoenas, choosing to read a prepared 
statement outside of the Capitol instead of appearing for a 
deposition as required by the subpoenas.\118\ Mr. Biden's 
willful refusal to comply with the Committees' subpoenas 
constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the 
appropriate United States Attorney's Office for prosecution as 
prescribed by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\Biden Joint Deposition Notice, supra note 299.
    \118\See Hunter Biden Statement on Subpoena and Investigation, 
supra note 311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Committee Consideration

    On January 10, 2024, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the report favorably reported to the House with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute by a recorded vote of 
23 to 14, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee states that the following recorded votes occurred 
during the Committee's consideration of the Report:
          1. Vote on Motion to Adjourn offered by Mr. 
        Swalwell--failed 12 ayes to 15 nays.
          2. Vote on Motion to Table [appealing the ruling of 
        the Chair in respect to the germaneness of Amendment #1 
        to the Report ANS offered by Mr. Schiff]--passed 18 
        ayes to 13 nays.
          3. Vote on Amendment #2 to the Report ANS offered by 
        Ms. Jackson Lee--failed 8 ayes to 15 nays.
          4. Vote on Amendment #3 to the Report ANS offered by 
        Ms. Dean--failed 9 ayes to 16 nays.
          5. Vote on Amendment #4 to the Report ANS offered by 
        Mr. Nadler--failed 9 ayes to 18 nays.
          6. Vote on Amendment #6 to the Report ANS offered by 
        Mr. Ivey--failed 11 ayes to 20 nays.
          7. Vote on Amendment #8 to the Ivey Amendment #7 to 
        the Report ANS offered by Mr. Gaetz--failed 18 ayes to 
        18 nays.
          8. Vote on Amendment #7 to the Report ANS offered by 
        Mr. Ivey--failed 14 ayes to 23 nays.
          9. Vote on favorably reporting the Report, as 
        amended--passed 23 ayes to 14 nays.
        
        
                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are 
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    The Committee finds the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, and the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to be 
inapplicable to this Report. Accordingly, the Committee did not 
request or receive a cost estimate from the Congressional 
Budget Office and makes no findings as to the budgetary impacts 
of this Report or costs incurred to carry out the Report.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of this Report establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House rule XIII, this Report is to enforce the Committee's 
authority to subpoena and obtain testimony related to 
determining whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach 
President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. and the sufficiency of 
federal ethics and financial disclosure laws.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, this Report 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses 
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.

                             Minority Views

    Since the start of the 118th Congress, House Judiciary 
Chairman Jordan and House Oversight Chairman Comer have devoted 
significant resources to continuing congressional Republicans' 
multi-year probe into President Biden's family. The Chairmen 
have received what Chairman Comer has referred to as 
``mountains of evidence,''\1\ including from the Biden-Harris 
Administration, banks, and private citizens, which all show no 
wrongdoing by President Biden.\2\ Instead, it has shown that, 
as Vice President, Joe Biden led a bipartisan, international 
coalition to help Ukraine fight corruption; as a private 
citizen, he received substantial income from book royalties and 
speaking engagements and helped his brother and son with short-
term loans; and as President, he retained a U.S. Attorney 
appointed by former President Trump and hand-picked by former 
Attorney General Barr with full authority to investigate and 
prosecute his son. Notwithstanding the facts, Chairman Jordan 
has continuously distorted and cherry-picked facts to falsely 
assert that ``the Biden crime family,'' including the 
President, has been implicated in financial misconduct, and to 
falsely claim his investigation is being obstructed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Joe Biden's House of Horrors! Benny's Halloween Spooky Special 
with Chairman James Comer, The Benny Show (Oct. 31, 2023) (online at 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOH1CHaxvlY&t=2s).
    \2\See Memorandum from Minority Staff to Interested Parties, Fact 
Sheet: Mountain of Evidence Shows No Wrongdoing by President Biden, 
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Dec. 1, 2023) (online 
at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
20231201%20Oversight%20Democrats%20Staff%20Memo%20
on%20Impeachment%20Inquiry.pdf).
    \3\See, e.g., Biden Continues to Lie to Americans About What He 
Knew About the Crimes His Family was Committing: Rep. James Comer, Fox 
Business (Dec. 7, 2023) (online at www.foxbusiness.com/video/
6342522748112).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After insisting that the committees required the testimony 
of Hunter Biden to further its fruitless investigation, Hunter 
Biden accepted Republicans' invitation to answer questions, 
merely asking to do so in public, where his words could not be 
taken out of context and cherry-picked like so many other 
witnesses throughout the course of the investigation. Despite 
this simple request, Chairman Jordan and Chairman Comer have 
refused to take yes for an answer and have pushed forward with 
this contempt resolution instead.

I. Hunter Biden Accepted Republicans' Invitation To Answer Questions in 
Public at a Committee Hearing--Chairman Jordan Refused To Take Yes for 
                               an Answer

    House Republican have had ample opportunity to obtain 
testimony and information from Hunter Biden in this matter but 
have repeatedly refused these opportunities.
    Notably, on February 8, 2023, House Oversight Chairman 
Comer transmitted a letter to Hunter Biden seeking ``documents 
and communications related to our investigation of President 
Biden's involvement in your financial conduct.''\4\ In 
particular, Chairman Comer sought a wide variety of Hunter 
Biden's personal records spanning over a decade, including 
personal financial statements and communications with his 
family.\5\ The next day, Hunter Biden's attorney responded to 
Chairman Comer's requests with an offer ``to sit with you and 
your staff, including the ranking member and his staff, to see 
whether Hunter Biden has information that may inform some 
legitimate legislative purpose and be helpful to the 
Committee.''\6\ Chairman Comer did not respond to this offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Letter from Chairman James Comer, House Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability, to Robert Hunter Biden (Feb. 8, 2023) (online at 
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 2023/02/2023-02-08-
Letter-R.H.-Biden.pdf).
    \5\Id.
    \6\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman James Comer, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
(Feb. 9, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2023.02.09%20Letter%20
to%20Rep.%20Comer%20re%20Your%20February%208%2C%202023%20Request%20for%2
0Docu
ments.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 12, 2023, nearly seven months later, Chairman 
Comer appeared on Newsmax to discuss his investigation of 
President Biden, stating ``we requested bank records from 
Hunter Biden and Jim Biden early on, and obviously we never got 
a response back.''\7\ He further explained:

    \7\Newsmax (@Newsmax), X (Sept. 13, 2023) (online at https://
twitter.com/newsmax/status/
1701928094003511311?s=46&t=a0UGYR3ho6S39dDafp8SGg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Hunter Biden is more than welcome to come in front of 
        the Committee. If he wants to clear his good name--if 
        he wants to come and say, you know, these weren't 20 
        shell companies, they actually did something--he's 
        invited today. We will drop everything.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Id.

On September 13, 2023, Hunter Biden's attorney responded to 
Chairman Comer's statements, noting ``On February 9, we wrote 
back to you . . . You never responded to that offer.''\9\ 
Nonetheless, Hunter Biden's attorney reiterated his offer to 
sit with Chairman Comer and his staff, explaining that he and 
his team ``remain available to have the discussion.''\10\ 
Chairman Comer again ignored this offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman James Comer, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
(Sept. 13, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/ 
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2023.09.13%20Letter%20to%20 
Rep.%20Comer%20re%20September%2013%2C%202023%20 
Statement%20on%20Newsmax%E2%80%99s%20Wak e%20Up%20America.pdf); see 
also James Comer Is Lying About His Requests for Hunter Biden's Bank 
Records, The New Republic (Sept. 14, 2023) (online at https://
newrepublic.com/post/175558/james-comer-hunter-biden- bank-records-
meeting-legal-team).
    \10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2023, Chairman Comer appeared on The Benny Show 
and extended another offer to Hunter Biden and other 
individuals to testify at a Committee hearing:

          We're, we're in the downhill phase of this 
        investigation now because we have so many documents 
        and, and we can bring these people in for depositions 
        or committee hearings, whichever they choose, and we 
        can ask these questions with evidence.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Joe Biden's House of Horrors! Benny's Halloween Spooky Special 
with Chairman James Comer, The Benny Show (Oct. 31, 2023) (online at 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOH1CHaxvlY&t=2s) (emphasis added).

    On November 8, 2023, the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability and the Committee on the Judiciary issued 
identical subpoenas to Hunter Biden compelling his appearance 
at a deposition on December 13, 2023.\12\ In a letter 
accompanying the subpoenas, Chairmen Comer and Jordan wrote 
``Given your client's willingness to address this investigation 
publicly up to this point, we would expect him to be willing to 
testify before Congress.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Subpoena from Chairman James Comer, House Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability, to Robert Hunter Biden (Nov. 8, 2023) 
(online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2023/11/
Subpoena-Robert-Hunter-Biden.pdf).
    \13\Letter from Chairman James Comer, House Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, House Judiciary Committee, 
to Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden, (Nov. 8, 2023) 
(online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 2023/11/
Letter-to-HB-Abbe-Lowell-11.8.23-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In response to these subpoenas, Hunter Biden's attorney 
transmitted a letter on November 28, 2023, to Chairmen Comer 
and Jordan indicating that Hunter Biden would agree to testify 
at a public hearing before the Oversight and Accountability 
Committee on December 13, 2023, or a date of their 
choosing.\14\ The letter from Hunter Biden's attorney 
emphasized the importance of a public proceeding that ``would 
prevent selective leaks, manipulated transcripts, doctored 
exhibits, or one-sided press statements,'' especially in light 
of Chairman Comer's repeated use of ``closed-door sessions to 
manipulate, even distort the facts and misinform the 
public.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel to Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman James Comer, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
(Nov. 28, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/HunterBiden.231128.Res
ponse%20to%20Comer%20re%20Impeachment%20Inquiry%20-
%20Subpoena%20110823.pdf).
    \15\Id.; see, also e.g., Oversight Committee Democrats 
(@OversightDems), X (Nov. 29, 2023) (online at https://twitter.com/
oversightdems/status/1730011731986927930?s=42&t=GDbkgrVUTqiw
1AI5jGgYww) (Chairman Comer selectively releasing one page of a bank 
record to falsely accuse President Biden of bribery while hiding three 
other pages in the same document contradicting his claims); Rep. Jamie 
Raskin (@RepRaskin), X (Dec. 4, 2023) (online at https://twitter.com/
RepRaskin/status/1731777276730036702?s=20) (Chairman Comer 
misrepresenting records to claim then-private citizen-Joe Biden 
received payments from foreign companies when the records simply show 
that payments were monthly payments for a truck Joe Biden had purchased 
for Hunter Biden).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Independent fact-checkers have also concluded that Chairman 
Comer has distorted witnesses' testimony in closed-door 
interviews. In particular, when Chairman Comer released the 
transcript of the interview of Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's 
former business partner--one of only two transcripts he has 
released out of more than 18 interviews conducted by the 
Oversight Committee this Congress--his false statements about 
Mr. Archer's testimony were suddenly plain for all to see.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\FactCheck.Org, Republicans Oversell Archer's Testimony About 
Hunter and Joe Biden (Aug. 14, 2023) (online at www.factcheck.org/2023/
08/republicans-oversell-archers-testimony-about-hunter-and-joe-biden/); 
Politifact, Transcript of Devon Archer testimony doesn't back key 
claims about Joe and Hunter Biden (Aug. 4, 2023) (online at 
www.politifact.com/article/2023/aug/04/transcript-of-devon-archer-
testimony-doesnt-back-k/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 1, 2023, Chairmen Comer and Jordan rejected 
Hunter Biden's offer to testify publicly at a hearing, 
insisting that he appear for a closed-door deposition on 
December 13, 2023, instead.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Letter from Chairman James Comer, House Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability, to Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden 
(Dec. 1, 2023) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2023/12/Response-to-A.-Lowell-1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a December 6, 2023 letter, Hunter Biden's attorney again 
reiterated Hunter Biden's willingness to appear before the 
Committee at a public hearing on December 13, or other date in 
December, ``to answer any question pertinent and relevant to 
the subject matter stated in your November 8, 2023, 
letter.''\18\ As with prior correspondence, Hunter Biden's 
attorney expressed concern that Chairman Comer has ``use[d] 
closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and 
misinform the American public--a hearing would ensure 
transparency and truth in these proceedings.''\19\ That same 
day, Chairmen Comer and Jordan explained in response ``If Mr. 
Biden does not appear for his deposition on December 13, 2023, 
the Committees will initiate contempt of Congress 
proceedings.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Letter from Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel to Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman James Comer, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
(Dec. 6, 2023) (online at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
HunterBiden.231206.Response%20to%20Comer%20re%20Subpoena%20follow-
up%20120623.pdf).
    \19\Id.
    \20\Letter from Chairman James Comer, House Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability, and Chairman Jim Jordan, House Judiciary Committee, 
to Abbe D. Lowell, Counsel for Robert Hunter Biden (Dec. 6, 2023) 
(online at https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/
Response-to-A.-Lowell-12.6.23.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 13, 2023, Chairmen Comer and Jordan proceeded 
with the planned deposition of Hunter Biden, behind closed-
doors and unavailable to the press.\21\ Hunter Biden did not 
appear for the closed-door deposition on that day but held a 
press conference on Capitol Hill to again express his 
willingness to testify in a public setting.\22\ On January 5, 
2024, Chairman Jordan officially noticed a markup for January 
10, 2024, to consider a resolution recommending that the House 
of Representatives find Robert Hunter Biden in contempt of 
Congress for failing to appear at the scheduled deposition.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Although the subpoena to Hunter Biden and the notice for the 
deposition showed the deposition would take place in Room 2157 of the 
Rayburn House Office Building, Republicans held the deposition in Room 
2154.
    \22\Hunter Biden, Defying Deposition Subpoena, Again Offers Public 
Testimony, New York Times (Dec. 13, 2023) (online at www.nytimes.com/
2023/12/13/us/politics/hunter-biden-
impeachment-testimony.html).
    \23\Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Press Release: Comer 
Announces Markup of Resolution to Hold Hunter Biden in Contempt of 
Congress (Jan. 5, 2024) (online at https://oversight.house.gov/release/
comer-announces-markup-of-resolution-to-hold-hunter-biden-in-contempt-
of-congress/); see also Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
Press Release: Ranking Member Raskin's Statement on Committee 
Republicans Contempt Vote (Jan. 5, 2024) (online at https://
oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-raskin-
s-statement-on-committee-republicans-contempt-vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During that markup, Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD) proposed yet one 
more route to obtaining Mr. Biden's testimony. Specifically, he 
introduced an amendment which would have permitted Hunter Biden 
to avoid being held in contempt if he agreed to testify at a 
public hearing on the topics outlined in the Committees' 
subpoenas within 30 days of passage of a contempt Resolution. 
As Rep. Ivey explained:

          ``[T]his is not somebody stonewalling and refusing to 
        come under any circumstances. This is not somebody 
        who's asserted a privilege that's been rejected but 
        still refusing to come. This is not somebody who hasn't 
        produced any documents. You've got somebody here who's 
        put an offer on the table to come and testify publicly.
          So the question in a court would be in absence of the 
        negotiations and reasonable discussions that 
        Congressman Cline mentioned earlier and some of you 
        other members have mentioned as well, what's the record 
        we would be sending forward at this point and would a 
        judge look at this and say--or a court of appeals and 
        say, yeah, you know, the House Judiciary Committee 
        really made the effort to negotiate through this with 
        Hunter Biden. He offered to publicly testify. They 
        didn't take him up on it even though they said that he 
        could do it at one point. I mean, why would we want 
        that set of facts to go forward and put the risk of--
        you know, if we had the courts rule against us it 
        actually undermines subpoena authority for this 
        committee and this--and this chamber.
          So if we can move forward with a reasonable--let's 
        give them 14 days, whatever number you all want to 
        pick, but some additional time after the resolution 
        goes which increases our chances of actually getting 
        the information that you all are saying you want as 
        opposed to just moving forward with a resolution that's 
        just strictly contempt--criminal contempt.''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Markup of Report Recommending that the House of Representatives 
Cite Robert Hunter Biden For Contempt of Congress (Jan. 10, 2024).

    As Rep. Ivey and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Nadler 
(D-NY) explained during debate on this amendment, a public 
hearing with Hunter Biden could take the form of a deposition, 
including with alternating extended rounds of questioning for 
the majority and the minority, in order to alleviate Committee 
Republicans' concerns about the limitations on questioning 
imposed by the five minute rule. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) 
indicated that he was amenable to the proposal but introduced a 
second degree amendment which would shorten the time period to 
fourteen days. Four Committee Republicans ultimately joined 
with Democrats in support of this amendment, which ultimately 
failed by a vote of 18-18. Chairman Jordan did not support the 
amendment.
    Finally, on January 12, 2024, Hunter Biden's attorney again 
wrote to Chairman Jordan and Chairman Comer.\25\ He explained 
that while his client believed the original subpoenas were 
legally invalid because they were issued prior to the House of 
Representatives expressly authorizing an impeachment inquiry, 
``If you issue a new proper subpoena, now that there is a duly 
authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a 
hearing or deposition.''\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Letter from Abbe Lowell, Counsel to Robert Hunter Biden, to 
Chairman Jim Jordan, House Judiciary Committee, and Chairman James 
Comer, House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Jan. 12, 2024).
    \26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's decision to move forward with this contempt 
resolution despite having multiple pathways to obtaining 
voluntary testimony from Hunter Biden shows that Chairman 
Jordan is not truly interested in obtaining information from 
Hunter Biden but instead is using the contempt process as a 
political stunt to punish a potential witness. This is an 
invalid use of Congress's oversight authority and creates a 
dangerous precedent for the future.

 II. Republicans Have Produced No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President 
  Biden and Are Using This Sham Impeachment Inquiry To Return Donald 
                        Trump to the White House

    Since launching their investigation at the beginning of the 
118th Congress, congressional Republicans have received dozens 
of hours of testimony from government officials and former 
Hunter Biden business partners, and have obtained troves of 
documents in response to their requests. This includes, more 
than 37,000 pages of bank records, including personal bank 
accounts of Biden family members and other private citizens, 
produced by nine different banks.\27\ This comes on top of the 
documents collected by Senators Johnson (R-WI) and Grassley (R-
IA) as part of their 2020 investigation into Hunter Biden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\See Memorandum from Minority Staff to Interested Parties, Fact 
Sheet: Mountain of Evidence Shows No Wrongdoing by President Biden, 
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (Dec. 1, 2023) (online 
at https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/
20231201%20Oversight%20Democrats%20Staff%20Memo%20
on%20Impeachment%20Inquiry.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Biden-Harris Administration has also cooperated 
extensively with congressional Republicans' probe.\28\ For 
example, the Treasury Department has produced more than 2,000 
pages of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has produced more 
than 62,000 pages of Vice President Biden's records--on top of 
more than 20,000 pages it has already made publicly available, 
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided access 
to and multiple briefings regarding a Form FD-1023 tipsheet, 
which contained sensitive information about a confidential 
human source.\29\ Numerous federal officials have also been 
made available to congressional Republicans for hours of 
questioning, including four current senior special agents at 
the FBI and IRS, the U.S. Attorneys for the District of 
Columbia and the Central District of California, and the 
general counsel of NARA. Republicans have also received 
unprecedented testimony from David Weiss, the Special Counsel 
in charge of the ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden.\30\ 
In addition, the White House expressed its willingness to 
engage in the accommodations process regarding the Committee's 
efforts to subpoena former White House Counsel Dana Remus in a 
letter to Chairmen Comer and Jordan on December 6, 2023. 
Following the transmission of this letter, Republicans on the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability and Committee on the 
Judiciary allowed nearly a month to elapse before engaging in a 
conversation with the White House. Compelling the testimony of 
a former White House Counsel raises legitimate and significant 
legal and constitutional concerns. All of this evidence has 
shown no wrongdoing by President Biden, let alone a high crime 
or misdemeanor warranting impeachment.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Id.
    \29\Id.
    \30\Id.
    \31\See, e.g., Editorial: No Evidence for Biden Impeachment 
Inquiry? No problem. The House GOP Doesn't Seem to Care, L.A. Times 
(Dec. 7, 2023) (online at www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-12-07/
editorial-biden-impeachment-inquiry-house-vote).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As has long been clear, however, this entire impeachment 
drive is driven not by evidence, but by former President 
Trump's petty personal politics and his demands for political 
retribution, in an effort to return him to the White House. As 
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) recently explained, Republicans want to 
give Donald Trump ``a little bit of ammo to fire back'' on the 
campaign trail and allow him to point to the fact that Joe 
Biden has also been impeached.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Are House Republicans Getting Closer to Impeaching Joe Biden? 
GOP Leaders Eye Significant Escalation, USA Today (Dec. 4, 2023) 
(online at www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/04/republican-
impeach-joe-biden-vote/71803686007/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before the 118th Congress even started, Chairman Jordan 
promised that Republican-led investigations would ``frame up 
the 2024 race, when I hope and I think President Trump is going 
to run.''\33\ For his part, eight months before the start of 
the Congress Chairman Comer was already assuring Fox News 
viewers that impeaching President Biden was ``on the 
table.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Sean Hannity, Rep. Jim Jordan & Others at CPAC Conference in 
Texas (Aug. 4, 2022) (online at www.cspan.org/video/?522151-109/
conservative-political-action-conference-rep-jim-
jordan).
    \34\Mornings with Maria Bartiromo, Fox News (May 1, 2022) (online 
at www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/05/01/oversight_committee_ 
rep_james_comer_republican_accusations_against_hunter_ 
biden_merit_invesitgation.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 21, 2021, for example, one day after President 
Biden was sworn into office, 15 days after the failed 
insurrection on January 6, and before a single document had 
been produced to congressional Republicans, Rep. Marjorie 
Taylor Greene (R-GA) introduced articles of impeachment against 
President Biden.\35\ Indeed, Donald Trump has made his orders 
clear to Republicans, publicly declaring in August, ``Either 
IMPEACH THE BUM, or fade into OBLIVION. THEY DID IT TO 
US!''\36\ These statements mirror Mr. Trump's earlier pledge to 
supporters that: ``I am your warrior, I am your justice. And 
for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your 
retribution.''\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\H. Res. 57, Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United 
States, for Abuse of Power by Enabling Bribery and Other High Crimes 
and Misdemeanors (117th) (online at www.congress.gov/bill/117th-
congress/house-resolution/57).
    \36\Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Aug. 27, 
2023) (online at https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/
110963746628215974).
    \37\Trump's Dark `I Am Your Retribution' Pledge--and how GOP 
Enabled it, Washington Post (Mar. 6, 2023) (online at 
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/06/trumps-dark-i-am-your-
retribution-pledge-how-gop-enabled-it/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Judiciary Chairman Jordan has made it clear that his 
ultimate goal is to get Donald Trump back in the White House. 
He said of Donald Trump in an RNC speech in August 2020, ``I'm 
busting my tail to get him get re-elected.''\38\ At a rally in 
Ohio in June 2021, Chairman Jordan said: ``It's so important we 
stay engaged and help President Trump get back in the White 
House,'' and, ``We all want him to run in 2024 and be president 
again.''\39\ ``In August 2022, at a CPAC event, he made it 
clear he would use the House of Representatives to help the 
Trump campaign, saying of Donald Trump: ``If we get the 
majority . . . that will help frame up the 2024 race . . . and 
we need to make sure he wins.''\40\ Despite no evidence of 
wrongdoing by President Biden, he has claimed that the case for 
impeachment against Joe Biden is ``pretty compelling,''\41\ 
stirring conspiracy theories about President Biden to help 
Donald Trump's reelection bid for 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\NBC News Coverage of RNC speech (Aug. 24, 2020) (online at 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nViKwHBKMo4&t=176s).
    \39\Representative Jordan Rally in Wellington, Ohio, C-SPAN (June 
26, 2021) (online at https://www.c-span.org/video/?512874-3/mike-carey-
representative-jordan-max-miller-trump-
rally-ohio).
    \40\CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTION CONFERENCE, REP. JIM JORDAN, C-
SPAN (Aug. 5, 2022) (online at https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5039416/
user-clip-jordan-trump-win).
    \41\Rep. Jim Jordan: GOP has `compelling' case against Joe Biden, 
NewsNation (Dec. 12, 2023) (online at https://www.newsnationnow.com/
cuomo-show/jim-jordan-biden-impeachment-house-
inquiry-vote/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For his part, Speaker Johnson has reportedly described 
impeaching President Biden as a ``political imperative,'' 
explaining that ``people are getting anxious and they're 
getting restless and they just want somebody to be 
impeached.''\42\ In November, Speaker Johnson visited former 
President Trump at his Mar-a-Lago Club. Not only did the 
Speaker ``wholehearted[ly]'' endorse Mr. Trump, he explicitly 
provided he was ``all in for President Trump and I expect he 
will be our nominee--we have to make Biden a one-term 
president.''\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Mike Johnson Points to a Biden impeachment, Even If the Facts 
Do Not, Washington Post (Oct. 27, 2023) (online at https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/10/27/mike-johnson-points-biden-
impeachment-even-if-facts-dont/).
    \43\House Speaker Mike Johnson Endorses Donald Trump for President, 
CNN (Nov. 14, 2023) (online at www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/mike-
johnson-donald-trump-endorsement-president/index).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    III. The Majority's Inquiry Ignores Evidence of Real Corruption

    The Majority's Report asserts that ``The testimony sought 
by the subpoenas is also relevant to ongoing efforts to craft 
legislative reforms to federal ethics and financial disclosure 
laws. The Committees seek to craft legislative solutions that 
provide transparency when the President's or Vice President's 
family members engage in lucrative financial transactions.''
    If the Majority were truly concerned with transparency 
around the business dealings of presidential family members, 
they would have supported a proposed amendment by Rep. 
Madeleine Dean (D-PA) providing for an investigation into the 
business dealings of former President Trump's son-in-law, Jared 
Kushner. That amendment--which did not garner any Majority 
votes--provided:
    ``The Committee also intends to investigate former 
President Trump's son-in-law and former Senior Advisor, Jared 
Kushner. In particular, the Committee must understand Jared 
Kushner's receipt of $2 billion from the Saudi Arabian 
government for his private equity firm just six months after 
leaving the White House. As these relationships were fostered 
during his tenure as a public official with a top security 
clearance while he worked for his father-in-law, former 
President Trump on issues relating to the Middle East, it is 
imperative for the Committee to investigate his actions and 
role. In particular, the Committee must understand if Jared 
Kushner leveraged his relationship with his father-in-law to 
secure large payments from foreign governments. Doing so would 
allow the Committee to shape effective and targeted legislative 
solutions that would expose and thus hopefully deter attempts 
at influence-peddling by similarly situated family members, 
including activities that could jeopardize national security.''
    Likewise, the Majority would have supported a proposed 
amendment from Ranking Member Nadler (D-NY) noting the lack of 
transparency around former President Trump's business dealings 
while he was serving as president. That amendment garnered no 
Majority votes. It provided:
    ``[P]roperties owned by Donald Trump and controlled by his 
family during his presidency received $5.5 million from the 
Chinese government and its state-controlled entities while he 
was in office. Recently on the campaign trail, Donald Trump has 
repeatedly complimented China and its leader, Xi Jinping, 
repeatedly calling him ``an exceptionally brilliant 
individual.\44\ This calls into question whether Trump is 
suddenly supporting Xi and China because they have paid his 
companies millions of dollars. This is exactly the type of 
financial conflict of interest our legislation would seek to 
prevent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\``Donald Trump: China's Xi is a `brilliant man' and `top of the 
line' smart,'' FOX News, Apr. 11, 2023, https://www.foxnews.com/video/
6324651091112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Altogether, President Trump's businesses received at least 
$7.8 million in foreign payments from at least 20 countries 
during his presidency, with the largest sums coming from China 
and Saudi Arabia. In the past, Donald Trump has himself 
connected positive relationships with authoritarian nations 
with their financial backing of his properties. At a 2015 
campaign rally, then candidate Trump told the crowd, `Saudi 
Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments 
from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million. . . . Am I 
supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.'\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\``Trump's businesses got at least $7.8 million in foreign 
payments while he was president, House Democrats say,'' CBS News, Jan. 
4, 2024, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-foreign-payments-
emoluments-clause-house-democrats/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Comments like these from Donald Trump further demonstrate 
why even just the appearance of financial impropriety is so 
concerning to Congressional committees. Corruption of public 
officials erodes the health of a democracy. When a President 
says his feelings toward another nation can be influenced by 
financial remuneration, he implies that he is willing to put 
his own personal success over that of the United States.''

  IV. House Republicans Are Broadcasting Their Sole Agenda for 2024: 
     Continuing Their Sham Impeachment Inquiry Into President Biden

    Since taking the majority in the House of Representatives 
in January 2023, Republicans have failed to pass any meaningful 
legislation or act on imperatives for the American people. Last 
year, the House was paralyzed by its inability to select a new 
Speaker for 21 days, grinding legislative business to a halt. 
Later that year, House Republicans brought the entire federal 
government to the precipice of a government shutdown and have 
still failed to enact full-year funding for Fiscal Year 2024, 
which began on October 1, 2023. Republicans, themselves, have 
acknowledged their unwillingness and inability to legislate. 
For example, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) stated:

          One thing. I want my Republican colleagues to give me 
        one thing--one--that I can go campaign on and say we 
        did. Anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to 
        come down to the floor and come explain to me one 
        meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority 
        has done besides, ``Well, I guess it's not as bad as 
        the Democrats.''\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Chip Roy Gets Heated Over Spending Strategy: `We're Pissing it 
All Away,' The Hill (Nov. 15, 2023) (online at https://thehill.com/
homenews/house/4311429-chip-roy-gets-heated-over-spending-strategy-
were-pissing-it-all-away/).

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) recently echoed this sentiment, stating: 
``How do [Republicans] campaign on the trust of the American 
people? . . . We have nothing to go out there and campaign on, 
Chris. It's embarrassing.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Arizona GOP Lawmaker Says Republicans Have `Nothing to Campaign 
On,' The Hill (Jan. 4, 2024) (online at https://thehill.com/homenews/
house/4390281-arizona-gop-lawmaker-
republicans-have-nothing-to-campaign-on/).

    Instead, Republicans are almost exclusively focused on 
their baseless impeachment inquiry. House Republicans' 
investigation has purportedly been aimed at ``investigating 
foreign nationals'' attempts to target and coerce high-ranking 
U.S. officials' family members by providing money or other 
benefits in exchange for certain actions.''\48\ However, not 
only has it failed to reveal any evidence of any wrongdoing by 
President Biden, to the extent that the Judiciary Committee has 
been investigating the Department of Justice's handling of the 
Hunter Biden criminal matter, the evidence has shown that the 
Department has handled this investigation apolitically and in 
accordance with all relevant statutes, guidelines, and 
policies--the same statutes, guidelines and policies that apply 
to all criminal matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\E.g., Letter from Chairman James Comer, Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability, to Matthew Schwartz, Counsel to Devon Archer (June 
12, 2023) (online at https://
oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Letter-to-Archer-
061223.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With government funding deadlines rapidly approaching,\49\ 
Ukraine requiring urgent assistance,\50\ and Israel requesting 
additional resources\51\--among a host of other topics 
requiring congressional action--Republicans are broadcasting 
that legislating is secondary to their political agenda of 
impeaching President Biden and weaponizing Congress in service 
of Donald Trump's demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\US House, Senate Aim for Bipartisan Talks on 2024 Spending--
Lawmakers, Reuters (Dec. 5, 2023) (online at www.reuters.com/world/us/
us-house-senate-aim-bipartisan-talks-2024-
spending-lawmakers-2023-12-05/).
    \50\Zelenskyy to Address US Senators by Video as White House Pushes 
Congress to Support Aid for Ukraine, Associated Press (Dec. 5, 2023) 
(online at https://apnews.com/article/biden-ukraine-congress-military-
assistance-economy-557cbced7f7c1242ea08c52dadefc33b).
    \51\State Department Circumvents Congress, Approves $106 Million 
Sale of Tank Ammo to Israel, CBS News (Dec. 9, 2023) (online at 
www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-approves-tank-ammo-sale-to-
israel-bypasses-congress/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             V. Conclusion

    House Republicans have wasted precious time and taxpayer 
resources ignoring the needs of the American people while 
pursuing a baseless investigation into President Biden and his 
family that has turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on the part 
of the President. Despite repeated assurances from Hunter Biden 
and his attorneys that he would willingly provide public 
testimony as part of this groundless fishing expedition--making 
this contempt resolution unnecessary--Chairmen Comer and Jordan 
have repeatedly rejected these offers and refuse to take yes 
for an answer.
    Accordingly, I dissent, and I urge all my colleagues to 
join me in opposition.
                                            Jerrold Nadler,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                                  [all]