Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, today, we will consider the creation of a new subcommittee here in the House that Republicans call the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. I call it the McCarthy committee, and I am not talking about Kevin. I am talking about Joe.

Mr. Speaker, this committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the MAGA extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party and now want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense.

Let's start with the subcommittee's mandate, which is recklessly broad. Speaker McCarthy is essentially handing Mr. Jordan the power to target anyone and anything he doesn't like, anything and anyone he deems unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical.

Who decides what is unconstitutional, illegal, or unethical? Mr. Jordan does.

Why don't we just be blunt here? Republicans claim to care about law enforcement, but this new committee is about attacking law enforcement. It is about going after people. It is about destroying people's careers and lives. It is about undermining the Department of Justice, defunding the police, and settling scores on behalf of the twice-impeached and disgraced former occupant of the Oval Office.

The MAGA extremist fringe of the Republican Party will use this committee to push QAnon conspiracy theories and lies from Truth Social. They are going to use it to gin up fake investigations into nonexistent scandals. I think we need to just start calling this the tinfoil hat committee.

Speaker McCarthy even changed the language at the last minute to provide unprecedented authority for the subcommittee to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations.

Let me repeat: The Republican Party, the party that claims to care about law and order, has created a committee not just to defund the police based on their wacky conspiracy theories, but to actually try to shut down ongoing investigations, including into domestic terrorists, phony electors, insurrectionists, people who are on trial for sedition because they tried to overthrow the government, and even disgraced former President Donald Trump.

This is outrageous. We are a country of laws, but this committee seeks to undermine the law, undermine the police, and make a complete mockery of the investigative and oversight powers of the House.

As seen on this week's Sunday shows, some sitting Republicans being investigated right now by the FBI and the Department of Justice want to serve on this committee.

I mean, what? I mean, come on. Give me a break. I know my Republican friends have some ethically challenged members who asked for pardons from the former President, but this is beyond the pale. This is unconscionable. This is a conflict of interest.

First, they gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. Now, they give Members of Congress the ability to investigate and to try to shut down criminal investigations that they are subjects in. One set of rules for the American people, another set of rules for Republican Members of Congress. It is incredibly offensive.

On their first real week in the majority, this is what my Republican friends are pushing through? Not a bill to fight inflation. Not a bill to raise wages for people. A bill for Republican Members of Congress to shut down investigations into their own wrongdoings. What is wrong with these people?

On top of all of that, this subcommittee expects to use the power of the subpoena to advance their delusional QAnon conspiracy theories and harass Federal law enforcement agents.

I would say it is almost comical if it wasn't so disturbing that Speaker McCarthy and Mr. Jordan refused to comply with bipartisan subpoenas issued by the January 6th Committee. So I guess for them, it is do as I say, not as I do.

In my mind, it speaks volumes that House Republicans are choosing to prioritize this kind of dangerous partisan garbage instead of actually trying to help everyday Americans.

Whatever happened to Republicans' commitment to America? They promised to tackle inflation, end the opioid crisis, reduce the national debt, and more. None of those issues are addressed in their first 12 bills.

In fact, the very first bill they passed last night doesn't reduce the deficit, it adds $114 billion to the deficit by making it easier for billionaires to cheat on their taxes.

This is where we are week 2 of the 118th Congress, and we are creating a witch-hunt committee where Republicans plan to air their grievances and further incite crazy fringe conspiracy theories from the internet at the taxpayers' expense.

Senator Joseph McCarthy would be very proud of what Republicans are doing today. Putting their own personal power and partisan politics over the needs of the American people. Just like Senator McCarthy looking for imaginary communists, they are going to find QAnon conspiracies everywhere they look because that is what they want to find.

Just like the McCarthy committee, this will become another shameful, disgraceful moment for the Congress of the United States.

This has nothing to do with the rule of law, nothing to do with proper oversight of government. It is simply about revenge. It is about disrupting and destroying rather than collaborating and creating. It is about putting politics over people instead of putting people over politics to build a better future for America.

This subcommittee is an awful idea, and I urge my colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, to vote ``no'' on this monstrosity that will further empower the extremists at the expense of the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled: ``January 6 panel names six House GOP lawmakers who asked for pardons.'' [From The Hill, June 23, 2022] Jan. 6 Panel Names Six House GOP Lawmakers Who Asked for Pardons (By Mychael Schnell and Emily Brooks)

The Jan. 6 committee investigating the attack on the Capitol revealed Thursday that at least a half-dozen Republican lawmakers asked for presidential pardons for their role in voting to overturn election results in certain states on Jan. 6, 2021, according to testimony from former Trump aides.

Testimony from Trump aides named Reps. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) Mo Brooks (Ala.) Louie Gohmert (Texas), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and Scott Perry (PA.) as seeking pardons.

An aide also said that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) contacted the White House Counsel's office seeking a pardon.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a member of the panel who played an elevated role in Thursday's proceedings, presented an email from Brooks, dated Jan. 11, 2021, in which the congressman asked for presidential pardons for himself, Gaetz, and lawmakers who objected to the Electoral College vote for Arizona and Pennsylvania.

``President Trump asked me to send you this letter. This letter is also pursuant to a request from Matt Gaetz,'' the email reads.

``As such, I recommend that President give general (all purpose) pardons to the following groups of people:,'' the email adds. ``Every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral vote submission of Arizona and Pennsylvania.''

A spokesman for Brooks forwarded a full copy of the email, which included a concern that Democrats would ``abuse America's judicial system by targeting numerous Republicans with sham charges.''

``The email request says it all. There was a concern Democrats would abuse the judicial system by prosecuting and jailing Republicans who acted pursuant to their Constitutional or statutory duties under 3 USC 15,'' Brooks said in a statement. ``Fortunately, with time passage, more rational forces took over and no one was persecuted for performing their lawful duties, which means a pardon was unnecessary after all.''

The panel also showed a video of former special assistant to the president Cassidy Hutchinson, saying Gaetz and Brooks ``both advocated for there to be a blanket pardon'' for members of Congress involved with a meeting that took place on Dec. 21, 2020, presumably the huddle at the White House that focused on overturning the 2020 presidential election.

She also said Gaetz and Brooks advocated for a blanket pardon for ``a handful of other members that weren't at the Dec. 21 meeting.'' Those were meant to be ``preemptive pardons,'' she noted.

Additionally, Hutchinson said ``Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon, and he was doing so since early December,'' but said she did not know why.

Gaetz reached out to Hutchinson asking for a meeting with Meadows ``about receiving a presidential pardon,'' according to her closed-door testimony presented at Thursday's hearing.

Hutchinson said Biggs, Gohmert and Perry also asked for pardons, but did not reveal more details.

And she said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a fierce defender of Trump, ``talked about congressional pardons, but he never asked me for one,'' noting that he was largely inquiring about whether or not the White House was going to grant the lawmaker pardons.

Brooks, Biggs, Perry and Jordan were all issued subpoenas by the select committee in May.

Perry previously denied that he asked for a pardon, and stood by that in light of new testimony.

``I stand by my statement that I never sought a Presidential pardon for myself or other Members of Congress. At no time did I speak with Miss Hutchinson, a White House scheduler, nor any White House staff about a pardon for myself or any other Member of Congress--this never happened,'' Perry said in a statement.

A spokesman for Perry previously denied that he asked for a pardon, calling it ``laughable, ludicrous, and a thoroughly soulless lie.''

In a statement Thursday night, Gohmert said he requested pardons for U.S. service members and military contractors-- not himself.

He called the claim that he requested a pardon for himself ``malicious, despicable and unfit for a U.S. Congressional hearing.''

``I requested pardons for brave U.S. service members and military contractors who were railroaded by the justice system due to superiors playing politics, as well as a civilian leader who was also wronged by a despicable injustice,'' Gohmert said. ``These requests were all far prior to, and completely unrelated to January 6.''

Biggs also objected to the committee's assertion that he sought a parton, writing in a statement Thursday night that Hutchinson ``is mistaken.''

He said the testimony of Hutchinson discussing the pardons was ``deceptively edited to make it appear as if I personally asked for her a presidential pardon.''

Greene, Hutchinson said, did not contact her directly, but she said she had heard that Greene contacted the White House Counsel's office for a pardon.

Greene pushed back on the testimony in a tweet, but did not directly deny asking for a pardon.

``Saying `I heard' means you don't know,'' Greene said. ``Spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the January 6th Witch Hunt Committee is all about.''

Eric Herschmann, a former Trump White House attorney, was also asked by the Jan. 6 committee in a deposition if Gaetz was seeking a pardon.

``Believe so,'' Herschmann said in a video presented at the hearing. ``The general tone was, `we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things.''

Herschmann said that Gaetz's pardon request was ``for any and all things,'' and that Gaetz had mentioned former President Richard Nixon's pardon. Herschmann said that Nixon's pardon was not that broad.

Trump adviser John McEntee also testified that Gaetz told him he asked Meadows for a pardon.

A spokesman for Gaetz responded to testimony about the pardon request by pointing to a tweet from Gaetz calling the committee a ``political sideshow.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there were at least six House Members who sought pardons from President Trump following the January 6 insurrection, and many of them would like to be on this committee, we are told.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a CNN article titled: ``There are clear distinctions between Trump and Biden's two cases.'' [From CNN Politics, Jan. 10, 2023]

There Are Clear Distinctions Between Trump and Biden's Two Cases (By Stephen Collinson)

Republicans seized on revelations that several classified documents from Joe Biden's time as vice president were found in his former private office to create cover for former President Donald Trump's hoarding of secret records.

The disclosures Monday about the material found last fall spun up an immediate political storm at a time when Trump is in increasing legal peril. The new GOP House majority is meanwhile rushing to undermine investigations against him and unleashing a wave of counter investigations against the current president.

But there are clear distinctions between the two cases.

The new controversy so far appears to be on a smaller scale than the more than 100 classified documents--some bearing the highest designations of government secrecy--taken from Trump's resort at Mar-a-Lago after a court-approved search by FBI agents. And Biden appears to be cooperating with the National Archives and the Justice Department in a way that Trump failed to do and unlike the former president he is not being investigated for possible obstruction of justice.

But Trump, who brands attempts to make him face accountability for his conduct in office and afterward as political victimization, sought to capitalize on Biden's discomfort over the documents in a post on his Truth Social network.

``When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House? These documents were definitely not declassified,'' he wrote.

New House Oversight Chairman James Comer told CNN: ``This is (a) further concern that there is a two-tiered justice system.''

New House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also moved quickly to respond to the discovery of the documents in an office used by Biden after he left the vice presidency.

``Oh, really? They just now found them after all these years,'' he told CNN. ``What has he said about the other president having classified documents?''

Attorney General Merrick Garland has asked the US attorney in Chicago to review the material, some of which bore the marking ``sensitive compartmentalized information''--showing that it came from intelligence sources. Questions Biden must face

Fairness and respect for the law dictate that Biden should answer many of the same questions that Trump is facing, regarding whether he was entitled to the records, why they were not previously turned over, whether they were securely stored and how they ended up in his office in the first place.

Critics will also wonder why Biden didn't immediately disclose the discovery of less than a dozen documents last fall to the public, given the huge sensitivity of the Justice Department probe of Trump on a similar question. And the president will be sure to face accusations of hypocrisy given his sharp criticisms that Trump did not take the proper steps to secure classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Still, even if there are adequate answers to these issues, any distinctions in the severity of the Biden and Trump documents will be obliterated in the political torrent that is already stirring and with conservative media likely to draw false equivalencies between the two cases.

The report offers an immediate opening for Trump as he seeks to dodge culpability for his behavior and claims he's a victim of persecution to thwart his 2024 campaign. The former president is a master at turning one incident into an entire campaign narrative--as he did with former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's emails in 2016.

And the report will give the new Republican House majority fresh material as it unleashes a multi-front investigative assault against the White House. And while there so far appear to be clear differences in the magnitude of the cases, the report--first carried by CBS--about Biden will inevitably raise political pressure on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's retention of classified material.

Smith is also now reaching even deeper into the ex- president's inner circle by subpoenaing his former lawyer Rudy Giuliani as part of a federal grand jury probe looking at Trump's fund raising, among other issues related to the 2020 election. Garland's dilemma

The Biden document disclosures will also deepen the already intense political headache facing Garland as he contemplates an eventual decision on whether to charge Trump, whose status as an ex-president and an active 2024 candidate carries huge political implications.

Garland insists that investigations will go where the evidence and the law demands as he seeks to stress the independence of the Justice Department--which was perpetually in question when Trump was president. But now, inevitably and however the Biden vice presidential documents issue is resolved, a decision to charge Trump over the classified documents case but not to take the same action against Biden would incite political uproar among conservatives who would be sure to allege double standards.

The former president's legal team issued a temperate response to the Biden report that sought to broaden openings that could shield their client. One lawyer said that the Biden story was ``indicative of a larger problem with trying to keep track of classified information in the offices of the President and the VP. There is an over classification problem, and at the end of an Administration, things get packed up and moved and it's hard to keep track.''

The lawyer also warned that if Trump were to be charged, his representatives would demand all communications between the National Archives and Biden's team on the matter. The Biden discovery

Biden's attorneys found the documents in a locked closet in a private office in Washington the future president used as a visiting professor with the University of Pennsylvania. The White House Counsel's office notified the National Archives and officials at the agency took control of the documents the morning after they were found. Biden wasn't aware the documents were in the office until his personal lawyers reported their existence and remains in the dark of the content of the material, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Federal office holders are required by law to relinquish official documents and classified documents when their government service ends.

Unlike in Trump's case, Biden doesn't appear to have tried to assert ownership of the files, to obstruct their handover or make outlandish claims that he had previously declassified them based on an undisclosed private thought.

Trump is being investigated by Smith to see whether he infringed the Espionage Act by keeping classified material and for the possible obstruction of justice.

Republicans muster for investigative assault on White House

The Biden documents case will intensify the showdown already emerging between the new Republican House majority and the White House.

For two years, Trump has been rocked by blow-after-blow from congressional and criminal probes over his conduct during and after his presidency that have nudged him ever closer to accountability.

But help is on the way.

The new Republican majority in the House is ready to unleash a vast investigative machine apparently designed to discredit and distract from Trump's alleged transgressions and to wound Biden's nascent reelection race.

Such an offensive was always coming, given the extent to which the deeply conservative House GOP remains in thrall to the ex-president. But the intensity, scope and financial muscle of the investigations was bolstered by the concessions offered by McCarthy as he caved to right-wing hardliners in order to win his speakership last week. And it represents a fast-expanding challenge for the White House, which has already spent months preparing its defense.

A new House rules package passed on Monday for instance will set up probes into alleged political bias in agencies like the FBI and the Justice Department and what Republicans see as political weaponization of such agencies.

The move cements the GOP's sharp turn away from the FBI, once seen as one of the most conservative agencies in the US government following Trump's repeated claims he was illegally targeted by investigations and his failure to enlist the bureau as a weapon to advance his political grievances.

Rigorous scrutiny and oversight are inevitable and desirable as part of the constitutional duty of Congress and responsibility to ensure accountability with taxpayer money. And in the first two years of the Biden administration, there are multiple questions that merit further investigation and over which the public deserves more clarity.

This includes the chaotic management of the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, the way that Covid-19 mitigation funds were spent or the administration's unwillingness at least until recently to consider the rising numbers of migrants crossing the southern border as a crisis. Proper oversight can avoid the repeat of errors and inform better policy in future.

But as always in Congress, there are questions over when genuine oversight stops and hyper-partisan politically motivated witch hunts begin, especially in the case of key Republicans who have a long record of crossing over the line.

Incoming House Judiciary Chairman Rep Jim Jordan, for instance, was a leading player in a previous investigation by a GOP House into the death of US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans who were killed by Islamic militants in Benghazi in 2012.

The two-year GOP-run House probe found a perfect storm of bureaucratic inertia, rapidly worsening security in Libya and inadequate resources led up to the killings. But Jordan was not satisfied when the final report did not bear out conservative attacks on the conduct of Hillary Clinton--who was Secretary of State at the time of the deaths.

The Ohio lawmaker released his own far more critical report, along with then Rep. Mike Pompeo, who later became Secretary of State himself. And at the time, McCarthy boasted that the investigation harmed Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, apparently revealing partisan motivations behind the probe.

As well as the building storm over classified documents, a key focus of the new GOP House majority will be to investigate the House Select Committee in the previous Democratic-run House that painted a damning picture of Trump's behavior following the 2020 election and before the Capitol insurrection.

The fact that many of the current members of the House voted to deny certification of Biden's election victory based on lies about electoral fraud Trump was using to try to steal power underscores why many observers are raising new questions about the partisan nature of Republican investigations.

But after the revelations about documents found in Biden's office, Republicans know a political gift when they see it.

Mr. Speaker, the difference is clear. Unlike in Trump's case, Biden doesn't appear to have tried to assert ownership of the files to obstruct their handover or make unhinged claims that he had previously declassified them through his thinking. Trump is being investigated to see whether he infringed the Espionage Act by keeping classified material and for the possible obstruction of justice.

I would just say to my colleague who spoke before, the American people also have expectations of elected officials, such as respecting the Constitution and respecting free and fair elections and not trying to overturn free and fair elections. Unfortunately, a majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle chose to ignore that.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make something crystal clear: The primary purpose of this special subcommittee is to interfere with the special counsel's ongoing investigation into a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.

This is a shocking abuse of power, but it is not just the usual efforts by Members on the other side of the aisle to, once again, do Donald Trump's dirty work. This time they are trying to protect themselves.

One of them, a Member from Pennsylvania, had his cell phone seized pursuant to a court order finding probable cause that he committed a crime. Yet, he has indicated that he wants to be on this subcommittee so that he can undermine a criminal investigation into himself.

My Republican counterparts can dress up the subcommittee with a menacing name, but let's call it what it really is: the Republican committee to obstruct justice.

The American people don't want that. They don't want yet another front of the Republican war on democracy and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' and urge everyone to do so.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Guardian titled: `` `It's going to be dirty': Republicans gear up for attack on Hunter Biden,'' and an article from Politico titled: ``It's not just Hunter Biden: Prepare for a 2023 packed with House GOP investigations.'' [From the Guardian, Jan. 8, 2023]

`It's Going To Be Dirty': Republicans Gear Up for Attack on Hunter Biden (By David Smith)

When Borat--alias British actor Sacha Baron Cohen--told risque jokes about Donald Trump and antisemitism at last month's Kennedy Center Honors in Washington, Joe Biden was not the only one laughing in a red velvet-lined balcony.

Sitting behind the US president was Hunter Biden wearing black tie and broad smile that mirrored those of his father.

The image captured the intimacy between the men but also the sometimes awkward status of Hunter as both private citizen and privileged son of a president. It is a dichotomy likely to come under a harsh public glare this year as congressional Republicans set about making Hunter a household name and staple of the news cycle.

``The right wing is licking its chops at the chance to go after him,'' said Joshua Kendall, author of First Dads: Parenting and Politics from George Washington to Barack Obama. ``The level of venom is going to be over the top and really, really dirty. The Republicans' rhetoric might get so heated that it detracts from some of the actual behaviour.''

Republicans have been waiting a long time for this moment. After regaining control of the House of Representatives in last November's midterm elections, they used their first press conference to promise to investigate the Biden administration and, in particular, the president's allegedly errant son.

Hunter has long faced questions about whether he traded on his father's political career for profit, including efforts to strike deals in China and reported references in his emails to the ``big guy''.

Hunter joined the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma in 2014, around the time that Joe Biden, then vice- president, was helping conduct Barack Obama's foreign policy with Ukraine. Hunter earned more than $50,000 a month over a five-year period.

Senate Republicans claim that his appointment may have posed a conflict of interest. Last year more than 30 of them called for a prosecutor to be given special counsel authority to carry out an investigation into alleged ``tax fraud, money laundering, and foreign-lobbying violations''. But they have not produced evidence that it influenced US policy or that Joe Biden engaged in wrongdoing.

House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter. Having gained the majority, they now have the power to issue congressional subpoenas to foreign entities that did business with him.

Richard Painter, who was chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W Bush administration, believes that Joe Biden should have recused himself from matters relating to Ukraine. ``The Ukrainian gas company wanted to curry favour with Joe Biden so they put his son on the board,'' he said.

``It's pretty clear what's going on there but the missing link the Republicans are looking for--but I don't think they're going to find--is any kind of a quid pro quo, Joe Biden for the Ukrainian gas company. Still, it would have been better if Joe Biden had said: `Look, my son is going to be on this board, maybe the secretary of state or somebody else could handle Ukraine,' and he'd step aside.''

Hunter's taxes and foreign business work are already under federal investigation with a grand jury in Delaware hearing testimony in recent months. There are no indications that this involves the president, who insists that he has never spoken to Hunter about his foreign business arrangements.

Republicans are pulling at another strand. Ethics experts have accused Hunter of cashing in on his father's name as he pursues a career as an artist. He is represented by the Georges Berges Gallery in New York, which reportedly struck an agreement with the White House to set the prices of the art and not reveal who bid on or bought it.

Berges said in an lnstagram post in November that Republicans on the House oversight committee had written to him with ``certain requests'' and subsequently got into a Twitter debate with Painter about money and influence in art. Berges wrote: ``If you're going to scrutinize a profession then scrutinize all of them and every position that children of Congress take in DC and elsewhere.''

Painter said in an interview: ``I don't think there's anything corrupt about the White House or anything corrupt about President Biden. But keeping the identities of the art buyers secret was a bad idea. It leads to suspicion that people are passing money under the table. It's hard to keep who buys the art secret in the close-knit world of Hunter Biden's friends or Hunter Biden himself so the secrecy was a bad idea.''

Fox News and other rightwing media may relish an opportunity to demonise the president's son ahead of an election in 2024. But Republicans are in danger of overreach. Trump's attempt to get Ukraine to examine Hunter's business dealings led to his first impeachment. His efforts to weaponise Hunter's troubles in the 2020 presidential election fizzled.

David Brock, a veteran political operative and president of Facts First USA, a new group set up to combat the congressional investigations, said: ``What we're going to see in the hearings is a recycling and a rehash of old discredited stories and conspiracy theories. They're doing it for political reasons. [Congressman] Jim Jordan is on the record saying that the investigations are all about 2024 and electing Donald Trump again. That's his own words, not mine.''

Hunter's 2021 memoir, Beautiful Things, generated sympathy in some quarters for a man who 50 years ago last month survived a car crash that killed his mother and sister and who has been honest about his struggle with alcoholism and drug abuse. Brock believes that a fresh Republican onslaught will backfire.

``Going after someone who has an addiction and has had mental health issues is sadistic politics and I don't think it will work with the American people,'' he added. ``There are so many people who have family members who've suffered in one way or another and will identify with Hunter; they won't identify with the attackers. The Hunter-hating narrative has been out there for three years. It hasn't really gained any traction outside of the far right and I don't think it will.''

Republicans could also lose credibility by focusing on Hunter and other retreads of the past instead of advancing a plan for domestic issues such as inflation, jobs and taxes.

Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist who served as a senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight committee from 2009 to 2013, said: ``For all the talk about Republicans saying they want to return to regular order, they want to have better stewardship over taxpayer dollars, they want to act more responsibly with legislative power, well, OK, but how does investigating Hunter Biden do anything to help the American people?'' ____ [From Politico, July 19, 2022] It's Not Just Hunter Biden: Prepare for a 2023 Packed with House GOP Investigations (By Jordain Carney)

House Republicans are planning to bombard Joe Biden's administration with investigations next year, from Hunter Biden to the border to the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

As the GOP prepares for a likely takeover of the chamber next year, committee chairs-in-waiting have laid out a lengthy list of oversight goals that goes beyond Biden's White House--including Democrats' formation of the Jan. 6 select committee. But the party's highest-profile targets are those with the potential to politically bruise the president ahead of 2024: his son's business dealings, Afghanistan, the origins of the coronavirus, inflation causes and the U.S.- Mexico border.

Months before the midterms, Republican lawmakers are already working behind the scenes to divvy up which committee gets which piece of the investigative action next year. That includes talks with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and other conference leaders, plus member-on-member discussions.

``I've been really impressed with leadership--both from [Rep.] Jim [Jordan], from [Rep.] Jamie Comer, from Kevin's office--in already starting to talk about that,'' said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.).

Republicans view executive-branch oversight as a significant piece of their 2023 agenda, driven in part by the reality that divided government would leave no path for most of their legislative priorities. Investigations also give the House GOP high-profile chances to lob subpoenas and tough questions at Biden officials heading into 2024, when it hopes to take the Senate and White House too.

Republicans still need to nail down the timelines and other specifics for each investigation, but they've already taken initial steps such as document preservation requests. Those have already hit the Jan. 6 panel, administration officials involved in the Afghanistan withdrawal and Twitter over its legally challenged sale to Elon Musk, among other recipients.

After four years in the House minority, Republicans have a backlogged wish list of topics to dig into. Their real challenge, GOP lawmakers predict, won't be finding areas to investigate but rather winnowing down their focus.

``It's not something where we're having to drum up, 'OK, what are we going to do?' It's more of a limiting factor of, we only have 50 weeks a year,'' said Rep. Michael Cloud (R- Texas).

Much of the investigative churn will spin out of the Oversight Committee, a legislative octopus with jurisdictional tentacles that can reach into several parts of the administration.

Jamie Comer, the Kentucky Republican who is expected to lead the panel should Republicans take the majority, said that he was trying to lay the groundwork now so that he and his members could start right away in January.

Republicans on the committee plan to hold high-profile probes into Hunter Biden's dealings with overseas clients, but they also want to hone in on eliminating wasteful government spending in an effort to align the panel with the GOP's broader agenda. They're also expected to probe the infant formula shortage and the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates formula.

``We're going to spend a lot of time in the first three, four months having investigation hearings and then we're going to be very active in the subcommittee process, focused on substantive waste, fraud and abuse type issues. . . . I'm going to bring the Oversight Committee back to what its original intent was,'' Comer said in a brief interview.

Comer said he's already having conversations with the expected chairs of other committees to avoid duplicating investigative work, adding that his panel is ``so broad, sometimes you ruffle feathers with other chairs.''

The U.S.-Mexico border, for example, is expected to be a hot point for several committees.

Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican and House Freedom Caucus founding member who is line to chair the Judiciary Committee, immediately pointed to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and the border as a focus for his panel in 2023.

``We certainly need to dig into more of the terrible way Mayorkas has run--I think intentionally--the way he has the Department of Homeland Security,'' Jordan said.

Jordan pointed to two potential areas he wanted to probe: border enforcement and the creation of a DHS ``disinformation'' board, which the department subsequently paused after a flood of GOP criticism. Jordan has also been communicating with Senate Republicans who are brainstorming their own investigative plans if they are able to flip the upper chamber this fall.

Republicans are still sorting out how they will probe the Jan. 6 panel and Capitol security, an area of particular interest within the conference. Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, the current top Republican on the House Administration Committee, had pledged to use his panel as an investigative springboard into the select committee next year but recently lost his primary to Rep. Mary Miller (R-111.).

And some conservatives in the conference are pushing for investigations into debunked 2020 election fraud claims, underscoring how embedded former President Donald Trump's baseless claims to that end have become within the party.

Beyond the headline-grabbing probes, Republicans are prepping more bread-and-butter oversight hearings that will give nearly every committee a pathway to dive into government agencies.

``Oversight is going to be significant. And we'll have significant oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau],'' said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who hopes to chair the Financial Services Committee.

And while Republicans' legislative dreams would have to clear a high bar--given Biden's ability to veto anything for the next two years--they see their oversight goals dovetailing with their legislative agenda, giving them another lane to pressure Biden and congressional Democrats. Investigations have a longer political half-life, spanning weeks and months beyond a one-time floor vote.

Armstrong pointed to a border security and immigration reform bill, a decades-long legislative white whale, as a springboard for Republicans holding oversight hearings on related areas like fentanyl--potentially building pressure on Democrats heading into 2024.

``If you can't get to 60 in the Senate, you can make it a real issue . . . going into the next election,'' he said.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, Mr. Jordan will use this subcommittee to go after people MAGA extremists see as their opponents. All the MAGA Republicans seem to want to do is create a forum for settling scores and pushing conspiracy theories. They are not interested in governing.

They want to go on FOX. They want to investigate Hunter Biden's laptop. They want to try to steal elections. They want to shut down the government if they don't get their way.

We are at a very dangerous moment in this country, and it is one of the reasons why many of us were so stunned that the new Speaker gave away so much of his authority to a group of extremists in the Republican Conference who have spent their entire careers trying to blow this place up.

The bottom line is this committee is basically an assurance that we are going to see these very partisan, political, MAGA-driven investigations go forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, here is a curious thing. The legislation that creates this select committee, we were first given this on January 2. Then, it changed on January 6, and we didn't get that until 10 p.m. on January 6, after 13 Speaker votes.

What changed in this legislation--and this is really curious--is they expanded the select committee's authority to investigate ongoing criminal investigations--think about that--in an unprecedented way.

I don't know how many votes that got, but clearly, it was important enough because we went through 13 Speaker votes before we got to this.

The reason why this is included, and I am sad to say this, is because we have Members in this Chamber who themselves may be subjects of investigation. There are ongoing investigations against the former President. So, this was added.

Why was this added? To try to frustrate those investigations.

When we talk about corruption, when we talk about undermining the rule of law, let's understand what just occurred here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I remember after 9/11 when we all worked together to ensure the protection of the American people through the Patriot Act and dealing with the FISA courts, we worked together because truth is important.

I just want to simply be on the floor today to speak about truth. I work with school boards across my district. I know that there is not one school board that does not welcome a parent to hear their voices because obviously they are partners in the education of our precious children.

In September 2021, the National School Board Association sent Mr. Biden a letter pointing to a trend of violence and threats against school officials. It included a brief reference to Mr. Smith's arrest incident and a long list of examples with a footnote to a news account that mentioned the arrest in passing but without details, like his daughter's assault.

The point is that this came about because there were threats against school board members.

So can we have truth here?

That is what I rise to bring to the attention of this body as relates to this committee and this select committee.

Is there going to be truth finding? Is this going to be a committee that is going to collect information or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States and give the most right-wing Members who may have an ax to grind the ability to participate or is it going to be fair?

Is it going to be a gross misuse of power with dangerous implications, unintended consequences, and potentially expose general operations of our national security infrastructure, which will put American lives at risk?

Let me be very clear. Russia is one of our most dangerous adversaries. We are in the middle of a national quagmire, and to undermine that through investigations of the FBI and Central Intelligence is going to be extremely dangerous.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations, including those investigating that day that some declared was just a bunch of tourists on January 6, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I have worked with Mr. Roy.

But is this a question of truth?

That is the issue that we stand here discussing today.

In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some people should be because they don't agree with the force of law being applied to their activities is contrary to the very fabric of fairness, justice, and equality that America was founded on.

Let me, as an aside, indicate that we know what has been in the headlines--10 documents found in a locked closet that Mr. Biden may have had. Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker, the process of the law is proceeding. The call was made. The documents were surrendered, if you will. The process goes forward under the laws of this land. No one denied it. No one rejected it. No one did not in any way come to say anything other than: Follow the law. On the other hand, in Mar-a-Lago no law was found.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider the truth and vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 12, a dangerous resolution whose passage would Establish a Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government or, more accurately, a subcommittee that would threaten our nations safety, security, and freedom.

MAGA Republicans love to hide behind the idea that they are pushing an agenda that would help the American people, but let's see this for what it truly is, a blatant assault on our democracy, our law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community, and an attempt to shield the twice-impeached former president from ongoing investigations being conducted by the Department of Justice.

The establishment of this subcommittee would give Republicans the ability to investigate any agency that ``can collect information or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States'' and gives the most right-wing members of the Republican party access to confidential documents solely intended for the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

This gross misuse of power will have dangerous implications and unintended consequences and could potentially expose general operations of our national security infrastructure which will put American lives at risk.

The passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations including those investigating the extremist insurrectionists who lead the brutal attack on this institution two years ago.

In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some people should be, because they don't agree with the force of the law being applied to their activities, is contrary to the very fabric of fairness, justice and equality that America was founded on.

This is a blatant attempt by House GOP members to stifle the federal government's investigatory powers, claiming that conservatives are being prosecuted and silenced.

The new Select Subcommittee comes as federal agencies such as the Department of Justice are investigating the GOP and its allies in multiple criminal investigations.

Members of the Republican party have been on press tours announcing this new subcommittee and have laid out their agenda, but how would this subcommittee help the American people in any way?

For a party that claims to be pro-law enforcement, the Republican party is now getting ready to undermine the hard work of our law enforcement and surveillance agencies.

Mr. Speaker what really is the intent here? I can tell you what I think it is. It is a back door effort to handcuff the current administration in their normal and usual course of operations?

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and a completely irresponsible Resolution that will put the lives of Americans at risk and is a political stunt to further advance their dangerous conspiracy theories.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times titled: ``Republicans Preparing Broad Inquiry Into F.B.I. and Security Agencies.'' [From the New York Times, Jan. 8, 2023]

House Republicans Preparing Broad Inquiry Into F.B.I. and Security Agencies (By Charlie Savage and Luke Broadwater)

Newly empowered House Republicans are preparing a wide- ranging investigation into law enforcement and national security agencies, raising the prospect of politically charged fights with the Eiden administration over access to sensitive information like highly classified intelligence and the details of continuing criminal inquiries by the Justice Department.

The House plans to vote this week on a resolution to create a special Judiciary subcommittee on what it calls the ``weaponization of the federal government,'' a topic that Republicans have signaled could include reviewing investigations into former President Donald J. Trump.

The panel would be overseen by Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, who is also poised to become the Judiciary Committee's chairman. It remains to be seen who else Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who made numerous concessions to a far-right faction of his party to win the speakership, will put on it.

In a Fox News interview on Friday evening, Representative Chip Roy of Texas, a lead negotiator for hard-right lawmakers who pushed Mr. McCarthy's team for concessions, portrayed the panel as part of the agreement they struck for their support. He said Mr. McCarthy had committed to giving the subcommittee at least as much funding and staffing as the House special committee in the last Congress that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

``So we got more resources, more specificity, more power to go after this recalcitrant Eiden administration,'' Mr. Roy said. ``That's really important.''

A spokesman for Mr. Jordan did not reply to a request for comment, but both he and Mr. McCarthy have spoken for months about their desire for such an investigation and pledged to voters during the 2022 campaign to carry one out.

``We will hold the swamp accountable, from the withdrawal of Afghanistan, to the origins of Covid and to the weaponization of the F.B.I.,'' Mr. McCarthy said in his first remarks as speaker early Saturday. ``Let me be very clear: We will use the power of the purse and the power of the subpoena to get the job done.''

The text of the resolution establishing the subcommittee would give the panel essentially open-ended jurisdiction to scrutinize any issue related to civil liberties or to examine how any agency of the federal government has collected, analyzed and used information about Americans including ``ongoing criminal investigations.''

The Justice Department has traditionally resisted making information about open criminal investigations available to Congress, suggesting that legal and political fights over subpoenas and executive privilege are most likely looming.

Republicans are promoting Mr. Jordan's panel as a new ``Church Committee,'' referring to a 1970s investigation by Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, that uncovered decades of intelligence and civil liberties abuses by presidents of both parties.

But in an environment in which Mr. Trump has been the subject of multiple criminal investigations for years-- including continuing inquiries into his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results and his hoarding of sensitive documents--Democrats predicted the new investigative subcommittee was likely to adopt a more partisan edge.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the Church Committee had been ``a serious and bipartisan attempt to reform the conduct of the intelligence community, based on hard and verifiable evidence.'' By contrast, he said that ``this new thing, fueled by conspiracy theories and slated to be run by the most extreme members of the MAGA caucus,'' was likely to be more similar to the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee of the mid-20th century.

Mr. Jordan is a staunch ally of Mr. Trump. Late last year, as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee when his party was still in the minority, he oversaw a 1,000-page staff report that claimed that the F.B.I. had ``spied on President Trump's campaign and ridiculed conservative Americans'' and that the ``rot within the F.B.I. festers in and proceeds from Washington.''

The resolution appears to give him authority to subpoena the Justice Department for information about the special counsel inquiry into Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, along with other politically charged matters like an open tax investigation into President Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

The text of the resolution would also grant Mr. Jordan's panel the power to receive the same highly classified information that intelligence agencies make available to their oversight committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Intelligence Committee members have access to some of the most sensitive secrets in the government, including information about covert actions, which are not shared with other lawmakers. Traditionally, House leaders tend to place on the intelligence panel members of their party they think are especially trustworthy not to disclose classified information.

While Mr. Jordan's investigative unit will be housed within the Judiciary Committee, its 13 members--eight of whom would be Republicans--will not be limited to lawmakers on that panel.

It is not clear, for example, whether Republican leaders would select hard-right members, such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who was stripped of her committee assignments in 2021 for making a series of violent and conspiratorial social media posts before she was elected. Mr. McCarthy has already promised her a spot on the House Oversight Committee, and she broke with other far-right members to support his speakership bid from the first ballot, as did Mr. Jordan.

Such a situation could result in lawmakers trying to scrutinize a Justice Department investigation as that inquiry potentially examines some of those same lawmakers' conduct concerning the events of Jan. 6.

In an interview on ABC's ``This Week'' on Sunday, Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, rejected a suggestion that he should pledge not to serve on Mr. Jordan's subcommittee because it may scrutinize the Jan. 6 investigation and as a witness in that inquiry, he had a conflict of interest. Mr. Perry, who played an important role in Mr. Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, had his cellphone seized by the F.B.I.

``Why should I be limited--why should anybody be limited just because someone has made an accusation?'' Mr. Perry said, adding: ``I get accused of all kinds of things every single day, as does every member that serves in the public eye. But that doesn't stop you from doing your job. It is our duty and it is my duty.''

Some Republicans also seem to see the panel as an opportunity to raise culture-war issues and promote conspiracy theories. In his interview with Fox, Mr. Roy described the subcommittee's mission as going ``after the weaponization of the government, the F.B.I., the intel agencies, D.H.S., all of them that have been, you know, labeling Scott Smith a domestic terrorist.''

In fact, no agency labeled Mr. Smith a domestic terrorist. Mr. Smith, whose daughter was sexually assaulted in a high school bathroom in Virginia, was arrested after he lunged at someone at a school board meeting during a tense and chaotic debate over bathroom policy for transgender students. He was convicted of disorderly conduct.

In September 2021, the National School Boards Association sent Mr. Biden a letter pointing to a trend of violence and threats against school officials. It included a brief reference to Mr. Smith's arrest incident amid a long list of examples, with a footnote to a news account of the meeting that mentioned the arrest in passing but without details like his daughter's assault. The letter also said acts of violence and threats against school officials could be classified as ``equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes,'' and asked for federal help.

A few days later, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland issued a memorandum directing U.S. attorneys and the F.B.I. to convene meetings across the country with local officials to discuss ``strategies for addressing threats'' against school officials and teachers. His memo did not call anyone a domestic terrorist, and it specifically distinguished spirited debate, which it stressed was constitutionally protected, from acts of violence and threats.

But voices on the right have made Mr. Smith a cause celebre, falsely telling their viewers and readers that the Biden-era Justice Department and the F.B.I. consider parents who disagree with liberal school board policies to be domestic terrorists.

The subcommittee investigation proposed by Mr. Jordan is just one of a number of inquiries House Republicans plan to approve this week.

Included in a separate rules package scheduled to come up for a vote on Monday is a wide-ranging inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic, including the origins of the virus, so- called gain-of-function research, the production of vaccines and the conduct of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Mr. Biden's former chief medical adviser, whom Republicans have pledged to haul before them for questioning.

Republicans are also planning to form a special committee to investigate the Chinese government's ``economic, technological and security progress, and its competition with the United States.''

Both the China investigation and the investigation into law enforcement are scheduled for a vote on Tuesday.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to that that there are oversight committees that are equipped and ready to look into all the issues that the gentleman just raised, and into all the conspiracy theories that they want to raise. But they went ahead and created this additional committee, and there is a reason for it.

This new committee they are creating has the authority to basically investigate ongoing criminal investigations. It is unprecedented.

In any event, I would remind the gentleman, you have oversight committees. You are in charge now; you can do whatever you want to do.

But there is a reason for this committee and there is a reason why after 13 roll call votes for Speakership they added an additional line giving this committee the authority to look into ongoing investigations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just got up and made all kinds of assertions that things were just said that weren't said. I don't know what the hell he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I will, again, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against the creation of that committee because this is unprecedented. This is a witch hunt. This is a committee designed basically to protect those who, quite frankly, are under investigation right now.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make this clear for my colleague. A change was made in this legislation, and it was not just to allow the committee to investigate ongoing criminal investigations which is quite nefarious in and of itself.

Originally it was only supposed to be able to have investigative authority over the Department of Justice, DHS, and the FBI; the CIA and the IRS were added. This was all done after 13 Speaker votes at 10 o'clock at night clearly in an attempt to win more votes.

The people who are asking for these changes are the same people who want to investigate the people who are investigating them.

This is really, really unprecedented. I don't know what the hell is going on here, but this isn't right. This isn't openness, and this isn't transparency.

My friends talk about corruption. This is corruption. This is unacceptable. The American people ought to know it, and reasonable colleagues on the Republican side ought to say no to this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would say what the gentleman just said is terrible, but this committee has absolutely nothing to do with that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say in response to the gentleman who said that he hopes that we populate this select committee with serious Democrats that he populate the committee with Republicans who did not ask for a pardon and who did not have their phones seized by the FBI.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled: ``Perry won't agree to stay off new House committee investigating January 6 probes.'' [From The Hill, Jan. 8, 2023] Perry Won't Agree To Stay Off New House Committee Investigating Jan. 6 Probes (By Julia Mueller)

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) on Sunday wouldn't pledge to stay off the possible new House committee that would investigate probes into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol despite being a subject of a Department of Justice (DOJ) inquiry into the matter.

``Why should I be limited--why should anybody be limited-- just because someone has made an accusation? Everybody in America is innocent until proven guilty,'' Perry said on ABC's ``This Week.''

Host George Stephanopoulos pressed Perry, asking, ``Doesn't that pose a conflict to you, since you're also part of the investigation?''

``So, should everybody in Congress that disagrees with somebody be barred from doing the oversight and investigative powers that Congress has? That's our charge. And again, that's appropriate for every single member, regardless of what accusations are made. I get accused of things every single day, as does every member that serves in the public eye,'' Perry countered.

Newly elected Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has indicated the Republican majority just sworn in plans to review the work of the House select committee that last year probed Jan. 6 and look into the federal investigations.

DOJ investigations seized Perry's phone in connection with the rioting, and obtained email exchanges between Perry and former Trump attorney John Eastman, among others.

Perry also introduced former President Trump to Jeffrey Clark, whom Trump considered appointing as attorney general in order to propagate his claims of election fraud during the 2020 presidential contest.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to roll up our sleeves and get to work. They want us to make progress and deliver results that help them in their day-to-day lives.

They don't need Congress to bend and break to the will of MAGA extremists, and they definitely don't need us to push crazy conspiracy theories and go on witch hunts to settle political scores.

My friends in their rules package gutted the Office of Congressional Ethics, and here they are with this new subcommittee which threatens our safety, our security, and our freedom.

It is an unprecedented attack on our Nation's law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues who spoke before about the intelligence oversight, we have an entire Select Committee on Intelligence that has oversight responsibilities on those matters. I am sorry the gentleman who spoke doesn't have confidence in whom the Republicans are going to propose as chair.

This committee is deranged. It is a bad idea, and it will go down in history as one of the worst committees that a Congress has ever put forward. It will be in the same category as the Joseph McCarthy Committee on Un-American Activities or the Benghazi Committee which now Speaker McCarthy admitted was an attempt to try to take down Secretary Clinton.

But here is the deal, and here is what it is all about: There are six on the other side of the aisle who asked for a pardon from President Trump. They did his dirty work, but Trump left them hanging. He did not give them a pardon. So now they are effectively trying to pardon themselves with the creation of this select committee.

This is unconscionable. It is so blatant. Again, the changes that were made to give them the ability to pardon themselves were done after the 13th Speaker vote in the dead of night to try to win their votes over.

This is not the way this Congress should run. This is not the way Republicans or Democrats, or any majority should behave. People should be ashamed of themselves that this is in the rules package and that this is what my friends are pushing right now.

We are better than this. We should not be going down this road. My friends said that they want to combat inflation and that they want to make the lives of the American people better. Let's focus on those things. Let's focus on areas that actually improve the lives of the American people. This is a colossal waste of time. But even worse, it is to me the epitome of what corruption is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source