[Pages H6877-H6889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DIRECTING CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO CONTINUE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO
WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF JOSEPH BIDEN,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up H. Res. 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 918

Resolved, That the Committees on Oversight and
Accountability, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary are
directed to continue their ongoing investigations as part of
the House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient
grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise
its Constitutional power to impeach Joseph Biden, President
of the United States of America, including as set forth in
the memorandum issued by the Chairs of the Committees on
Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, and Judiciary
of the House of Representatives, entitled ``Impeachment
Inquiry'', dated September 27, 2023.

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

For the purpose of continuing the investigation described
in the first section of this resolution, the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability is authorized to conduct
proceedings pursuant to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability may designate an open hearing or hearings
pursuant to this section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the
chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any
hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability shall be permitted to question witnesses for
equal specified periods of longer than five minutes, as
determined by the chair. The time available for each period
of questioning under this paragraph shall be equal for the
chair and the ranking minority member. The chair may confer
recognition for multiple periods of such questioning, but
each period of questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the
aggregate. Only the chair and ranking minority member, or an
employee of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability if
yielded to by the chair or ranking minority member, may
question witnesses during such periods of questioning. At the
conclusion of questioning pursuant to this paragraph, the
committee shall proceed with questioning under the five-
minute rule pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness
requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the
chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony
relevant to the investigation described in the first section
of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for
the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any
such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written
justification of the relevance of the testimony of each
requested witness to the investigation described in the first
section of this resolution.
(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability is authorized, with the
concurrence of the chair of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability, to require, as deemed necessary to the
investigation--
(i) by subpoena or otherwise--
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a
proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to
subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the
right to refer to the committee for decision the question
whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair
shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision,
subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting
under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be
signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by
any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in
electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by
the Committee on Oversight and Accountability in furtherance
of the investigation described in the first section of this
resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and
other sensitive information.
(6) The Committee on Oversight and Accountability may issue
a report setting forth its findings and any recommendations
and appending any information and materials the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability may deem appropriate with
respect to the investigation described in the first section
of this resolution. The chair may transmit such report and
appendices, along with any supplemental, minority,
additional, or dissenting views filed pursuant to clause 2(l)
of rule XI, to the Committee on the Judiciary and make such
report publicly available in electronic form, with
appropriate redactions to protect classified and other
sensitive information. Any report prepared under this
paragraph may be prepared in consultation with the chairs of
the Committees on Ways and Means and on the Judiciary.

SEC. 3. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS
AND MEANS.

For the purpose of continuing the investigation described
in the first section of this resolution, the Committee on
Ways and Means is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant
to this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Committee on Ways and Means may
designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this
section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the
chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any
hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means
shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified
periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the
chair. The time available for each period of questioning
under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the
ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for
multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of
questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate.
Only the chair and ranking minority member, or an employee of
the Committee on Ways and Means if yielded to by the chair or
ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such
periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning
pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with
questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause
2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness
requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the
chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony
relevant to the investigation described in the first section
of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for
the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any
such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written
justification of the relevance of the testimony of each
requested witness to the investigation described in the first
section of this resolution.
(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of
the Committee on Ways and Means, to require, as deemed
necessary to the investigation--
(i) by subpoena or otherwise--
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a
proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to
subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the
right to refer to the committee for decision the question
whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair
shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision,
subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting
under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be
signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by
any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in
electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by
the Committee on Ways and Means in furtherance of the
investigation described in the first section of this
resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and
other sensitive information.
(6) The Committee on Ways and Means may issue a report
setting forth its findings and any recommendations and
appending any information and materials the Committee on Ways
and Means may deem appropriate with respect to the
investigation described in the first section of this
resolution.

[[Page H6878]]

The chair may transmit such report and appendices, along with
any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views
filed pursuant to clause 2(l) of rule XI, to the Committee on
the Judiciary and make such report publicly available in
electronic form, with appropriate redactions to protect
classified and other sensitive information. Any report
prepared under this paragraph may be prepared in consultation
with the chairs of the Committees on Oversight and
Accountability and on the Judiciary.

SEC. 4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY.

For the purpose of continuing the investigation described
in the first section of this resolution, the Committee on the
Judiciary is authorized to conduct proceedings pursuant to
this resolution as follows:
(1) The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary may
designate an open hearing or hearings pursuant to this
section.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(j)(2) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, upon recognition by the
chair for such purpose under this paragraph during any
hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1), the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary
shall be permitted to question witnesses for equal specified
periods of longer than five minutes, as determined by the
chair. The time available for each period of questioning
under this paragraph shall be equal for the chair and the
ranking minority member. The chair may confer recognition for
multiple periods of such questioning, but each period of
questioning shall not exceed 90 minutes in the aggregate.
Only the chair and ranking minority member, or an employee of
the Committee on the Judiciary if yielded to by the chair or
ranking minority member, may question witnesses during such
periods of questioning. At the conclusion of questioning
pursuant to this paragraph, the committee shall proceed with
questioning under the five-minute rule pursuant to clause
2(j)(2)(A) of rule XI.
(3) To allow for full evaluation of minority witness
requests, the ranking minority member may submit to the
chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony
relevant to the investigation described in the first section
of this resolution within 72 hours after notice is given for
the first hearing designated pursuant to paragraph (1). Any
such request shall be accompanied by a detailed written
justification of the relevance of the testimony of each
requested witness to the investigation described in the first
section of this resolution.
(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of
the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed
necessary to the investigation--
(i) by subpoena or otherwise--
(I) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition); and
(II) the production of books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(B) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a
proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to
subparagraph (A), the ranking minority member shall have the
right to refer to the committee for decision the question
whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair
shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision,
subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting
under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(C) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be
signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by
any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(5) The chair is authorized to make publicly available in
electronic form the transcripts of depositions conducted by
the Committee on the Judiciary in furtherance of the
investigation described in the first section of this
resolution, with appropriate redactions for classified and
other sensitive information.

SEC. 5. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY PROCEDURES IN THE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY.

(a) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to conduct
proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry described in
the first section of this resolution pursuant to the
procedures submitted for printing in the Congressional Record
by the chair of the Committee on Rules, including such
procedures as to allow for the participation of the President
and his counsel.
(b) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to
promulgate additional procedures as it deems necessary for
the fair and efficient conduct of committee hearings held
pursuant to this resolution, provided that the additional
procedures are not inconsistent with the procedures
referenced in subsection (a), the Rules of the Committee, and
the Rules of the House.
(c)(1) The ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary is authorized, with the concurrence of the chair of
the Committee on the Judiciary, to require, as deemed
necessary to the investigation--
(A) by subpoena or otherwise--
(i) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition); and
(ii) the production of books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents; and
(B) by interrogatory, the furnishing of information.
(2) In the case that the chair declines to concur in a
proposed action of the ranking minority member pursuant to
paragraph (1), the ranking minority member shall have the
right to refer to the committee for decision the question
whether such authority shall be so exercised and the chair
shall convene the committee promptly to render that decision,
subject to the notice procedures for a committee meeting
under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of rule XI.
(3) Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be
signed by the ranking minority member, and may be served by
any person designated by the ranking minority member.
(d) The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to report
to the House of Representatives resolutions, articles of
impeachment, or other recommendations.

SEC. 6. ADOPTION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 917.

House Resolution 917 is hereby adopted.

{time} 1230

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

General Leave

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H. Res. 918.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for myself, for the
institution, and most of all for the American people. My duty today is
one I do not relish. I am sure that every other Member of this
institution feels the same way.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported out a measure under
our original jurisdiction. H. Res. 918 formalizes an inquiry into
whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to
exercise its constitutional power to impeach the President of the
United States.
Three months ago, at the direction of then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy,
three committees--those of Oversight and Accountability, Ways and
Means, and the Judiciary--began this impeachment inquiry.
Over the succeeding months, the committees have done their work and
have done it well. The inquiry is now at an inflection point. The three
committees are nearing the end of their investigations. The White House
has chosen this moment to stonewall and resist the legitimate
investigative powers of the House.
Mr. Speaker, while I do not believe the House must hold a vote on the
floor to initiate an impeachment inquiry, doing so may be said to be
best practice.
We are taking up today's resolution that will formalize the
impeachment inquiry that has already begun. This will ensure not only
that the inquiry has the full authority of the House but also that the
House can enforce its subpoenas and ensure that the Biden
administration can no longer refuse to cooperate with the
investigation.
I will briefly describe the procedures for this inquiry. The
resolution tasks three committees--Oversight and Accountability, Ways
and Means, and the Judiciary--with continuing their current inquiries.
It establishes procedures for conducting hearings and calling and
questioning witnesses. It grants the minority equal time to question
witnesses and the right to request their own witnesses.
At the conclusion of their proceedings, it provides for the
Committees on Oversight and Accountability and Ways and Means to
transmit their findings and supporting documents to the Committee on
the Judiciary, which is the committee that traditionally considers
impeachment matters. It gives the President the right to participate in
the proceedings before the Committee on the Judiciary.
Finally, the resolution authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to
transmit to the House resolutions, Articles of Impeachment, or other
recommendations.
The procedures we are adopting today closely parallel those the
Democrats created in 2019. In fact, H. Res.

[[Page H6879]]

660 from the 116th Congress was our guide. After all, those procedures
are now a precedent of the House.
Mr. Speaker, impeachment, especially impeachment of a President, is a
starkly serious matter. It is something that no Member of the House
should want to do. The House has rights and obligations under the
Constitution. We are charged with providing the oversight of the
executive branch, and we are the sole institution in the country
granted the awesome power of impeachment. It is a power that must be
used selectively and wisely, and only after full deliberation.
With today's resolution, we are ensuring that the House will be able
to complete its inquiry. We will secure the evidence we need and
uncover the facts we need to make that full and fair determination.
Only at the end of the road can we make a decision on how to proceed.
I take no joy in today's resolution, but I know the House will do its
duty. We owe our committees, the institution, and the Constitution no
less.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the resolution, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here for one reason and one reason alone: Donald
Trump demanded that Republicans impeach, so they are going to impeach.
These Republicans don't work for you, the American people. They work
for Donald Trump. He says, ``Jump.'' They respond, ``How high?''

{time} 1245

This whole thing is an extreme political stunt. It has no
credibility, no legitimacy, and no integrity. It is a sideshow and a
distraction from the fact that Republicans have done nothing.
They have the wrong priorities. The American people think they are
failing miserably, and Republicans need a diversion. So they are
weaponizing and abusing impeachment--one of the most somber and serious
things that Congress can do--to attack President Joe Biden.
I get it. They are upset Donald Trump lost. Some of them still don't
believe he lost. Many of them are upset that his violent insurrection
did not succeed on January 6, and today they want to finish the job.
This is a continuation of their crusade to overturn the election.
They have spent a year dredging up every conspiracy you can imagine,
Mr. Speaker, against Joe Biden, and still their own investigation,
their own Members, their own witnesses, and their own internal
documents all say that President Joe Biden is a man of integrity who
follows the law. Every single one of their crazy claims has been
exhaustively debunked, and, yet, here we are.
The only thing they have uncovered is that Joe Biden is a good dad
and that he loves his family. His son Hunter lost his mom and sister in
a terrible car accident and lost his brother to cancer. He experienced
a lot of traumas, and, sadly, he got caught up with drugs. Republicans
are weaponizing this addiction and using it to attack President Biden,
a man of decency and integrity.
Frankly, it is one of, if not the most, despicable thing I have seen
in my whole career here in Congress.
Republicans talk about an open and transparent process. Give me a
break.
Yesterday, Rules Committee Republicans blocked Democrats from adding
the words ``open and transparent'' to this resolution. They voted
against requiring a single open hearing. They didn't even put our
amendment in the official committee report. I have never seen anything
like that. They are so afraid of openness and transparency that they
are literally trying to hide our amendments from the public record.
They don't want an open and transparent process. They are allergic to
transparency. They want no transparency, so they can go on FOX News,
distort the facts, and keep this whole ridiculous charade going. Their
whole investigation is built on lies. It is an extreme political stunt
designed to distract from how incompetent Republicans are and how
obsessed they are with Donald Trump, a twice impeached ex-President who
has been indicted more times than he has been elected. How pathetic.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), who is the chairman of the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 918. Joe
Biden has repeatedly lied to the American people about his family's
corrupt influence-peddling schemes. He told the American people he
never spoke to his son about his family's business dealings. He claimed
there was an absolute wall between his official government duties as
Vice President and his family. He said that his family never made money
from China.
All of these are blatant lies. Our investigation has revealed how Joe
Biden knew of, participated in, and benefited from his family cashing
in on the Biden name around the world.
Since January we have learned some of the following:
The Bidens created 20 shell companies, most of which were created
when Joe Biden was Vice President. The Bidens and their associates then
raked in over $24 million through these shell companies from China,
Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Romania between 2014 and 2019. At
least 10 members of the Biden family have benefited or participated in
these schemes.
The Bidens layered these payments through their bank accounts to hide
the sources of the money. The banks even flagged many of these
transactions in more than 150 suspicious activity reports to the
Treasury Department.
One bank investigator was so concerned about Hunter Biden's financial
transactions with a Chinese company that he wanted to reevaluate the
bank's relationship with him. He noted that his transactions served no
current business purpose. That is what I call a shell company.
According to Devon Archer, a Biden family associate, Joe Biden was
the brand of the business. The brand showed up.
Joe Biden spoke to his son's associates by speakerphone more than 20
times, dined with foreign oligarchs and a Burisma executive, and had
coffee with Hunter's Chinese associate all when he was Vice President.
Weeks after Joe Biden left the Vice Presidency, money from this
Chinese Communist Party-linked entity began to make its way to the bank
accounts of several Biden family members.
Based on one Biden associate's interview with the FBI, these payments
were sent to the Bidens as a thank you.
Ask any Justice Department public corruption investigator about the
importance of payments received after one leaves public office. It is a
hallmark of corruption.
We are now at a pivotal moment in our investigation. We will soon
depose and interview several members of the Biden family and their
associates about these influence-peddling schemes, but we are facing
obstruction from the White House. The White House is seeking to block
key testimony from current and former White House staff. It is also
withholding thousands of records from Joe Biden's time as Vice
President.
Joe Biden must be held accountable for his lies, corruption, and
obstruction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this necessary and
important resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would need a map to get out of the
rabbit hole Mr. Comer just took us down.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, if you want to know what an impeachable
offense looks like, here it is: When that man, the wannabe dictator,
told that angry, violent mob to attack this Capitol Building where we
all are right now to overturn a free and fair election. That is what a
smoking gun looks like.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin), who is the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the reason mysteries are called whodunits is
because they start with a crime, and then you have to try to figure out
who did it.
The Biden impeachment investigation isn't a whodunit, it is a what is
it.

[[Page H6880]]

It is like an Agatha Christie novel where the mystery is: What is the
crime?
That gets very tedious very fast. After 11 months of this, no one can
tell us what President Biden's crime was, much less where it happened,
when it happened, what the motive was, who the perpetrators were, or
who the victims were.
Maybe the funniest thing I have ever seen in Congress was yesterday
in the Rules Committee when Congressman Neguse kept asking Congressman
Reschenthaler what the crime was? Congressman Reschenthaler--who is not
on the Oversight and Reform Committee and is apparently just waking up
to the joke--kept saying that he didn't know what it was, but that is
why we need an impeachment investigation, to find out.
Congressman Neguse kept asking him: But what will the impeachment
investigation be looking for?
Finally, Congressman Reschenthaler said: A high crime or misdemeanor.
And Congressman Neguse said: Yes, but which one?
Now Congressman Neguse, of course, was involved in a real impeachment
investigation of a real Presidential offense: the incitement of a
violent political insurrection against this Congress, against the Vice
President of the United States, against the Constitution, and against
the election of 2020.
We did not need Sherlock Holmes and a magnifying glass to find the
Presidential crime with Donald Trump. It came right into this House and
smashed us in the face.
Now, it is true Chairman Comer has collected a mountain of evidence
over the last 11 months: tens of thousands of pages of documents and
dozens of hours of interviews with dozens of officials, but all of it
clearly shows that Joe Biden committed no crime. Even their own
witnesses, whom they called to the only public hearing they had, said
that there is not remotely enough evidence to justify impeachment.
Chairman Comer has bragged on FOX News about procuring 100 percent
compliance with his subpoenas, so forget about obstruction, which I
hear them muttering about today.
Mr. Speaker, I played a game with the little kids at our family
Thanksgiving. I asked them whether they had seen my henway. When they
said, What's a henway? I said, about 4 or 5 pounds. It is a dad joke,
and some of the bigger kids got it.
Nevertheless, when I asked the little kids, like 3 or 4 years of age,
if they had seen my henway, they said: What's a henway? I said 3 or 4
pounds. They started looking for it. When the other kids came along and
asked what they were doing, they said: We are looking for Uncle Jamie's
henway. Then for hours they were looking everywhere for my henway,
under the sofa and under the chairs, and it could go on for days like
that.
Mr. Speaker, we are all looking for the Republican Party's henway. It
just weighs 3 or 4 pounds, but it is costing us tens of millions of
dollars. So please forgive me for spoiling the party here, but I want
to say this to America: There is no henway. This stupid, blundering
investigation is keeping us from getting any real work done for the
people of America.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a story as old as the hills.
You have got a politician who does certain things. Those actions then
benefit his family financially. Then there is an effort to conceal it
and sweep it under the rug.
The best example is to go back to the Ukrainian energy company
Burisma.
There are four key facts about Hunter Biden's involvement with this
company and Joe Biden's involvement.
First, Hunter Biden gets put on the board of Burisma. Second, he is
not qualified to be on the board of Burisma. Don't take my word for it,
Mr. Speaker, he said it himself.
Third, he is asked by the executives of Burisma: Can you weigh in
with Washington, D.C., to help alleviate the pressure we are under?
Three days later the Vice President of the United States, now-
President Joe Biden, goes to Ukraine and conditions American tax
dollars for Ukraine on the firing of the prosecutor who was applying
the pressure to the company Hunter Biden was on the board of.
That is why we are going with an official impeachment inquiry vote
today. That is why this needs to be investigated.
There are two resolutions we are considering. They are H. Res. 918
and H. Res. 917, incorporated if we pass H. Res. 918.
There are three names mentioned in those two resolutions. One name,
of course, is Joe Biden, the President of the United States. However,
the other two names in H. Res. 917 are two Department of Justice tax
lawyers, Mark Daly and Jack Morgan. They are the two guys we want to
talk to that the Biden Justice Department says we are not going to let
you talk to.
With this vote we think we will get to talk to those individuals.
Here is why it is important: These two individuals initially said that
there should be felony tax charges for 2014 and 2015 in the Hunter
Biden investigation.
That is important because those are the years when the bulk of the
income from Burisma came to Hunter Biden. They initially said that
there should be felony tax charges for those years. Then they changed
their position. Eight months later they changed their position, and we
want to know why.
Why did you intentionally let the statute of limitations lapse for
those years?
My theory is that it is one thing to charge Hunter Biden on a gun
charge in Delaware, but it is another thing to charge him on Burisma
tax years because that gets you to Joe Biden and that gets you to the
White House. That is why we need this vote.
The impeachment power, as the chairman said, is the power that solely
resides in the House. When you have a majority of the House of
Representatives go on record, that then sends a message. We think we
will get timely participation from the witnesses we need to talk to,
and the documents Mr. Comer has been seeking.
Finally, I would say this about this changing story from the White
House and this changing story from the Justice Department. Today,
Hunter Biden did a press conference. He was supposed to be in a
deposition, but he did a press conference. At that press conference he
said: My father was not financially involved in the business.
That is an important qualifier. We haven't heard that. For 3 years we
haven't heard that. All we have heard is that Joe Biden had no
involvement. Now his son does a press conference when he is supposed to
be deposed, and he says that he wasn't financially involved.
What involvement was it?
We know there were phone calls, dinners, and meetings.
What involvement was it?
That is why we want to ask these questions with important witnesses,
and that is why this resolution is important.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I need to get a decoder ring.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of Rules
Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, every conspiracy theory we just
heard has been debunked, not true, and distorted from the facts because
this impeachment inquiry is political vengeance directed by a twice-
impeached, four times indicted President and carried out by extreme
MAGA Republicans.
Republicans rejected my amendment to require the committees to hold
at least one public hearing.
Why?
It is because 11 months and a mountain of evidence and documents
gathered so far prove that President Biden respected the rule of law
and fought corruption.
Republicans want to continue a secret investigation so they can
distort the facts.
For example, Republicans tried to create a scandal about the $4,140
Hunter paid to his dad in 2018.
What really happened?
Joe Biden paid his son's truck payments while Hunter struggled with
addiction. Hunter paid his dad back. A parent's love is never without
pain. A

[[Page H6881]]

parent doesn't stop loving a child struggling with addiction.
Americans will see in those truck payments some of their own attempts
to help their struggling kids.
Shame on my colleagues for politicizing a parent's pain. Americans
know what evidence of an impeachment looks like.
The Capitol Police who were battered and beaten as Trump tried to
overturn an election know what an impeachable offense feels like.
This puppet show is more of the same attack on our democracy that we
saw here.

{time} 1300

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Houchin), my very good friend and distinguished member of
the Rules Committee.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, today, on the very day Hunter Biden
ignored a subpoena from this body, we will vote to take the next
critical step in formalizing the House's impeachment inquiry into
President Biden.
For months, the White House and Hunter Biden have been stonewalling
our investigation trying to hide the truth, and this stonewalling is
what has caused us to be here today. Like Chairman Cole said yesterday,
it is deeply sad and not something any of us want to be doing on this
House floor, but it has become necessary.
Following today's floor vote on H. Res. 918, the committees on
Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, and Judiciary will have
greater legal position and subpoena power to fully investigate
allegations of influence peddling and wrongdoing by President Biden,
his family, and his associates.
The American people deserve transparency and accountability. They
deserve the truth, and that is exactly what they are going to get from
this Republican House.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I remind the gentlewoman that Hunter Biden was here today. He wants to
testify in public, but Republicans said no because they want to do it
behind closed doors so they can go on FOX News and cherry-pick facts
and figures and distort the truth.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans aren't interested in transparency in this
investigation, and apparently the Rules Committee isn't either. In our
markup yesterday, Democrats offered nine amendments. They were all
voted down by Republicans, but in the official Rules Committee report,
contrary to years of committee practice and tradition, the majority
left out descriptions of those amendments.
Instead of reading, for example, that Republicans defeated an
amendment to add ``open and transparent'' to investigative proceedings,
members of the public will only see that Republicans voted down
``amendment No. 4.''
Instead of defeating an amendment requiring committees to hold an
open hearing as part of the investigation, the Record will show that
the majority simply voted down ``amendment No. 5.''
Republicans are literally hiding Democratic amendments about
transparency. You cannot make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker, and this is
especially shocking to me because it is so out of line with the way
this committee has run historically under this chairman. I am deeply
disappointed, and I hope that this isn't an indication of how the
majority intends to operate in the future.
Further, to make sure that these amendments show up somewhere in this
historical Record, I am going to put the summaries in the Congressional
Record.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the summaries of our nine
amendments, which Republicans intentionally left out of the Rules
Committee report.

Democratic Amendments to H. Res. 918

1. Offered by Rep. McGovern--adds a preamble describing
President Joe Biden's career of honorable public service and
former President Trump's multiple impeachments and 91 pending
felony charges.
2. Offered by Rep. Leger Fernandez--Adds a preamble stating
that the months-long Republican-led investigation into
President Joe Biden has yielded no evidence of wrongdoing by
the President.
3. Offered by Rep. Scanlon--Adds a preamble describing the
tens of thousands of pages of records provided by the
Administration and dozens of hours of testimony heard as part
of the investigation.
4. Offered by Rep. Neguse--Adds ``Open and Transparent'' to
investigative proceedings by the committees on Oversight and
Accountability, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary.
5. Offered by Rep. Leger Fernandez--Requires the committees
on Oversight and Accountability, Ways and Means, and the
Judiciary to each hold at least one open hearing as part of
the investigation.
6. Offered by Rep. Scanlon--Provides that a chair or
ranking member cannot issue a subpoena in furtherance of the
impeachment inquiry if they did not comply with a House,
committee, or select committee subpoena.
7. Offered by Rep. McGovern--Strikes the provision deeming
H. Res. 917 as adopted.
8. Offered by Rep. McGovern--Amends H. Res. 917 to exclude
access to grand jury material related to a pending criminal
prosecution, a prosecution arising from the January 6 attack
on the Capitol, or a case in which former President Trump is
a defendant.
9. Offered by Rep. Neguse--Adds a preamble stating that by
December 11 in the first session of the 117th and 116th
Congresses, 71 and 78 bills had been enacted, respectively,
versus 22 in the 118th Congress; and stating that the House
spent 26 days electing two Speakers in 2023.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just for the Record, all these amendments are on the website of the
Rules Committee. It is not like they are mysteriously hidden someplace.
They are in plain view on the website of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Norman), my good friend and also a distinguished member of the
Rules Committee.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of this
impeachment inquiry. I hope all the public tuned into the Rules
Committee yesterday. My question: What are you scared of? What facts do
you not want to come out? That was so evident. You spent more time
quoting Donald Trump, January 6, anything but the facts about what
Hunter Biden and his family did.
The checks don't make themselves up that are written to this family.
LLC accounts don't make themselves up. These are facts. What more to
come out that you are hiding is so evident.
This resolution follows the bar set by Democrats during the
impeachment proceedings in 2019. We are playing by the same rules the
Democrats set. If Democrats thought this process was fair for President
Trump, they should think it is fair for President Biden.
The evidence against the Bidens I think will come out and finally
show what the trail is and the fact that there are consequences. You
cannot just say you are innocent and not have to prove it. I fully
support this inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Members should be advised that Joe Biden,
not Hunter Biden, is President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we all know why we are here today.
The majority has no accomplishments to speak of. Their own Members
have said so, and the rightwing is getting restless.
So since they can't legislate and run on anything positive, they have
decided to tear down President Biden instead. They have no evidence, of
course, to support this inquiry, but since this majority never lets
facts get in the way of a good set of FOX News talking points, here we
are.
Dozens of witnesses have sat for transcribed interviews. Every one of
those witnesses tells us the same thing: There was no political
interference in the Hunter Biden case. Nobody at the Department of
Justice ever blocked the special counsel from bringing charges.
Unfortunately, the American public does not have most of this story
because Chairman Jordan refuses to release the transcripts from our
interviews.
In fact, of the 85 interviews our committee has conducted so far, he
has released exactly one transcript. He knows if he releases any more
than that, his preferred narrative will crumble. The evidence simply
does not support these baseless charges. Why is the MAGA wing of the
Republican Party resorting to this political stunt? Two words: Donald
Trump.

[[Page H6882]]

The likely nominee of the Republican Party, who faces 91 criminal
charges in various courts, was also impeached not once, but twice, and
we had evidence. Whenever the former President is accused of
wrongdoing, his favorite move is to accuse his opponent of doing the
same.
For this to work, of course, he needs President Biden to be
impeached, too. Therefore, he asked his enablers in Congress to invent
an impeachment, even if there is not a shred of evidence to back it up.
Even if everything Chairman Comer said were true, which none of it is,
an impeachable offense committed by Vice President Biden would not be
under our Constitution grounds for impeaching President Biden.
This is political hackery, not serious work. We should be focused on
doing the work of the American people and not be distracted by
pernicious nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this ridiculous
resolution.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Roy), my good friend and distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, this is an impeachment inquiry, defined as an
act of asking for information--nothing more, nothing less.
The inquiry is to further investigate at least three things: One, the
extent to which Joe Biden as Vice President was involved with the flow
of millions of dollars from foreign companies and interests in China,
in Ukraine, into the Biden family, into numerous shell companies,
including Hunter and his involvement. Devon Archer testified the Vice
President was, in fact, at Hunter's business meetings and there are
numerous emails and other evidence indicating that the ``Big Guy'' or
``Dad'' was involved.
Two, the extent to which Joe Biden has lied about his involvement,
involvement that Hunter all but acknowledged today when avoiding his
deposition in a show press conference on the Capitol steps by carefully
saying his dad was not involved financially in his businesses.
Three, the extent to which Biden and his administration have
obstructed justice by preventing Jack Morgan and Mark Daly with the
Department of Justice from testifying to their involvement in DOJ and
IRS deciding to slow-walk 2014 and 2015 tax charges so the statute of
limitations would lapse.
This is made all the more interesting in light of Hunter Biden being
indicted just last week on nine counts of tax offenses for failing to
pay $1.4 million in back taxes after writing off hookers and sex clubs.
All of this was only brought to light because the judge called the
bluff of Weiss' sweetheart deal; second, by only providing 14 of 82,000
emails with pseudonyms of which 29,000 were tied to Biden's family
businesses; third, by limiting the scope of witness testimony from
Department of Justice witnesses over and over and over again.

This is an impeachment inquiry. That is all. What are my Democratic
colleagues afraid of if there is nothing to see there? Maybe that is
all the more reason for the inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in shock and frustration at our
Republican colleagues' do-nothing Congress. Seinfeld would have called
this the impeachment about nothing. They are leading the most
unproductive session since the Great Depression, and after
manufacturing crisis after crisis, weeks of trying to choose a Speaker,
and putting their record-breaking economic recovery, which is
nonexistent, under the spotlight, they think that formalizing a fishing
expedition will dress it up enough for the American people to believe
them.
This is not the work of the Ways and Means Committee. The greatness
of this committee has nothing to do with an impeachment proceeding, and
how the Ways and Means got involved in this baffles Republican and
Democratic members of the committee.
The truth is, it has been nearly a year and not a shred of evidence
has shown any wrongdoing or interference by Joe Biden.
Their recycled conspiracy theories continue to be debunked. They
continue to mistake Congress, a legislative body, for a law enforcement
body. In their only public hearing, their own witnesses conceded that
there isn't evidence to warrant moving forward.
The gentleman from South Carolina said we are trying to hide
something. I moved in the Ways and Means Committee to have the
whistleblowers' testimony done in full public for observation. They
turned it down.
Meanwhile, we are staring at another Republican government shutdown
at the beginning of tax filing season. Enough with this obsession with
one person, Joe Biden. The Ways and Means Democrats are concerned about
all members of the American family and for the taxpayer that is about
to be impeded because of the work that is being done on impeachment
instead of on tax reform.
This is where we find ourselves--nothing here, no evidence, no
wrongdoing after a year--a waste of time for the American people, a
waste of time for a Congress that should be addressing the real
problems of the American family.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and distinguished Chairman of
the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, President Biden has hidden from
the American people his knowledge of and role in his family's overseas
business dealings.
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, showing his knowledge and
involvement, President Biden still refuses to come clean. So far, two
key DOJ witnesses have failed to show for congressionally subpoenaed
depositions after DOJ directed them not to appear. Other witnesses have
refused to answer certain questions from investigators and the Biden
administration has refused to turn over many of the documents requested
by Congress, claiming this inquiry was not properly authorized.
Let there be no mistake: Today's vote asserts Congress' authority to
conduct an impeachment inquiry and gather all the evidence to proceed
with our investigation.
The American people deserve answers.
Here is what we know so far: The existence of multiple email aliases
suggest that Joe Biden was deliberately trying to conceal his
activities from the public, including one-on-one communications with a
key Hunter Biden business partner during his Vice Presidency.
We also learned that investigators were blocked from looking into
potential campaign finance crimes by the Biden campaign. Hunter Biden
had only known Kevin Morris, a Democrat donor, for 2 months before
Morris started settling his tax debts to the tune of about $2 million
and then spent about $3 million more to cover Hunter's lifestyle.
In the midst of the 2020 campaign, just weeks before Super Tuesday
primary elections that would decide the future of Joe Biden's
candidacy, Morris emailed Hunter Biden's business associates and there
was ``considerable risk personally and politically'' to not filing his
late taxes, but the only person who faced political risk was Joe Biden,
whose campaign the whistleblowers had reason to believe Morris was
speaking to.
As Members of Congress, we have to abide by campaign finance limits
and so must the President. Morris' millions in payments to cover Hunter
Biden's taxes and other financial obligations appeared to the
whistleblowers to be an illegal donation to the Biden campaign.
Unfortunately, they were blocked from investigating further. Time and
again, when investigators found a lead that pointed to Joe Biden, DOJ
stepped in and prevented them from pursuing it.

{time} 1315

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the evidence released
by the whistleblowers, the DOJ indicted Hunter Biden on nine tax
charges, including three felonies. Everything the whistleblowers told
us about the Hunter Biden tax case has been proven

[[Page H6883]]

right. I am convinced they are also right about the links to Joe Biden
they were prevented from following.
Mr. Speaker, Congress owes it to the American people to follow the
facts wherever they lead and pass this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from
Time magazine titled, `` `Absolutely Shocking': Impeachment Experts Say
Biden Inquiry May Be Weakest in U.S. History.''

[From TIME, Sept. 12, 2023]

`Absolutely Shocking': Impeachment Experts Say Biden Inquiry May Be
Weakest in U.S. History

(By Mini Racker)

Speaker Kevin McCarthy took the rare step on Tuesday of
announcing the launch of an impeachment inquiry into
President Joe Biden over his son Hunter's foreign business
dealings.
The House has voted to impeach just three Presidents:
Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, who was
impeached twice. But even the launch of an impeachment
inquiry against a President has only happened a handful of
times. Two impeachment experts tell TIME that there is less
evidence implicating Biden of wrongdoing than in any of those
previous inquiries.
``This is very disturbing for people who study past
impeachments, because impeachment is really a very extreme
measure,'' says constitutional scholar Philip Bobbitt, a
professor at Columbia Law School and expert on the history of
impeachment who co-authored an updated edition of Charles
Black's classic legal text, Impeachment: A Handbook, in 2018.
``I honestly don't know that there is any evidence tying the
president to corrupt activities when he was vice president or
now.''
Frank Bowman, professor emeritus at the University of
Missouri school of law and author of the book High Crimes and
Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump,
said that McCarthy's decision did not appear to be based on
the evidence House Republicans have gathered thus far.
``Biden's Republican pursuers have got exactly zero, zip,
bupkis, on any matter that might be impeachable,'' says
Bowman.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to impeach and
remove from office a president, vice president, or federal
civil officer for committing ``treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Historically, before the
House votes on impeachment itself--the misconduct charge
brought by a legislative body--it has usually launched an
impeachment inquiry, a formal mechanism that moves the
process along. However, an inquiry is not a legal requirement
for impeaching a president, and the rules around what
constitutes one are poorly defined.
According to Bowman, setting aside whether the five
previous presidents who faced impeachment proceedings ought
to have been impeached and convicted, there was at least some
evidence indicating that they committed misconduct. The
impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon, who
resigned before the House could formally impeach him, was
preceded by a special prosecutor investigation examining his
ties to the Watergate burglary, as well as a Senate Special
Committee inquiry into the break-in that stretched more than
a year and reporting by journalists suggesting that
responsibility for the incident and attempts to cover it up
stretched into the administration. Two decades later, nearly
a month before the House launched an impeachment inquiry into
President Bill Clinton, independent counsel Ken Starr
released a report outlining 11 possible grounds for
impeachment, including lying under oath and obstructing
justice.
``In every single case, there was very significant evidence
of presidential wrongdoing before the formal inquiry was
begun,'' Bowman says, ``The House, and House leadership, took
the responsibility of formally opening such an inquiry
extremely seriously. Nancy Pelosi, in the first impeachment,
resisted calls for impeachment of Trump for two years.''
McCarthy's inquiry, Bowman suggests, lacks that discipline.
``What they're doing here is absolutely shocking,'' says
Bowman, who added that House Republicans ``have no interest
at all in preserving the basic integrity of the process, or
indeed their own power as legislators in legitimate
opposition and tension with the executive branch.''
House Republicans have spent all year investigating Hunter
Biden in hopes of proving that Joe Biden profited off his
son's business dealings, particularly while Joe Biden was
Vice President. There has been no conclusive evidence
indicating Joe Biden did anything wrong.
McCarthy previously indicated that the full House would
hold a vote to open an impeachment inquiry into Biden. Such a
vote would need the support of nearly every Republican in the
narrowly-divided chamber. But nearly 20 House Republicans
have expressed resistance to voting for it, and a full House
vote could open them up to political liability.
The Speaker's decision to open the inquiry without a vote
has precedent; Pelosi did the same thing ahead of Trump's
first impeachment, holding a full House vote to formally
endorse the inquiry only weeks later. Trump's second
impeachment, following the January 6, 2021, attack on the
Capitol, was not preceded by any inquiry at all. Congress has
also voted to impeach federal judges without first opening
inquiries.
Back in 2019, when Democrats controlled the House, McCarthy
and his Republican allies slammed them for opening an
impeachment inquiry against Trump without a vote, suggesting
that doing so made the process illegitimate.
``The fact that, for a period of time between September 24
and October 31 of that year, the impeachment inquiry for
Trump was going on without a full House vote, became an
excuse for Republicans, first in the House, and then in the
Senate, to vote against impeachment for Mr. Trump,'' Bowman
says.
There are no clear standards for launching an impeachment
inquiry, nor are there specific signifiers differentiating it
from other kinds of investigations. Ultimately, the decision
to initiate one is usually left up to House leadership.
``To the extent they have a plausible end game here, other
than just to keep this in the news and to dirty up Biden
broadly speaking, presumably it will be to issue subpoenas
that that are sufficiently intrusive, either to Biden's
personal life or administration workings, that Biden will
resist, and then to try to impeach him for obstruction of
Congress,'' says Bowman.
There's some historical precedent for that theory; the
third article of impeachment ultimately issued against Nixon
centered on his refusal to comply with congressional
subpoenas brought as part of the impeachment inquiry into
him. Plus, McCarthy previously suggested that boosting
Congress' ability to subpoena Biden's financial documents was
a key motivation for the inquiry.
Both Bowman and Bobbitt suggested the current inquiry could
weaken the federal system of checks and balances by devaluing
the very concept of impeachment.
``This is supposed to be the most extreme sanction in
American politics, and if you reach for it every time you
think it'll help you in the polls, I fear it will become
degraded,'' Bobbitt says. ``It just becomes one more very
divisive, poisonous event in a Congress that is already
deeply divided and alienated.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, This article quotes Philip Bobbitt, a
constitutional scholar at Columbia Law saying impeachment ``is supposed
to be the most extreme sanction in American politics, and if you reach
for it every time you think it will help you in the polls, I fear it
will become degraded.''
Mr. Speaker, everything the gentleman just said has been debunked,
and it is just nuts.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, in 2019, Donald Trump attempted to extort
the President of Ukraine by withholding military aid unless Zelenskyy
agreed to announce a sham investigation of Joe Biden. The evidence of
Trump's impeachable offenses was overwhelming, and Trump was impeached.
In 2020, after losing the election, Trump incited a violent
insurrection against our own government. The evidence of that high
crime was witnessed by everyone in this Chamber. He was impeached
again.
In 2023, Donald Trump is once again seeking illicit help in his
campaign, this time by badgering Republicans to impeach Joe Biden. Even
with no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden, Republicans are all
too willing to do it.
There is a through line to all of this.
Donald Trump will violate the law and Constitution to gain power and
to keep it, and Republicans will enable him every step of the way no
matter how destructive the consequences to our institutions or to the
country.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my very good friend.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, short of declaring war, impeachment is
the most serious act that Congress can take. It must be confined to the
narrow grounds established by the Constitution and never used to settle
political differences.
However, the Democrats would have us simply turn a blind eye to
mounting evidence of a family influence-peddling scheme that implicates
the President. This we cannot do.
We owe it to the country to get to the bottom of these allegations,
and that requires the House to objectively invoke its full
investigatory powers, respect the due process rights of all involved,
and lay all of the facts before the American people.
Last session, the Democrats made a mockery of impeachment, and we
cannot allow them to become our teachers.

[[Page H6884]]

Shrill voices should be kept far from this inquiry lest they undermine
its legitimacy and credibility.
Congress has an obligation to approach serious accusations seriously.
With this vote, we do so.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman what is a
mockery: This is a mockery. We hear the same tired, old conspiracy
theories being recycled over and over again that have all been
debunked.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman)
to further debunk them.
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in staunch
opposition to this resolution.
The Republicans have already spent 12 months on this exact
investigation. They have obtained more than 100,000 pages of documents
and dozens and dozens of hours of witness testimony, but there is
simply not a shred of evidence proving any wrongdoing by President
Biden related to his son or otherwise.
Whatever complaints that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have about how the Department of Justice investigated a private
citizen, Hunter Biden, you should ask Donald Trump and Bill Barr, who
were in power at the time that this investigation was going on.
Since there is no evidence, now we are going to move the goalposts,
claiming an impeachment inquiry is necessary to gather more evidence,
but Chairman Comer himself said earlier this year that he had received
100 percent compliance from the administration, and they can only cite
two low-level career officials at the Department of Justice who have
not testified, even though their supervisors have.
Just this morning, Hunter Biden showed up to the Capitol ready to
provide evidence. The Republicans refused to take his testimony.
How can you sit there saying you need more evidence when you prevent
the central witness in the investigation from giving you evidence?
What are you afraid of?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Timmons), my good friend.
Mr. TIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, Americans have lost faith in the
impartiality of the Biden administration. We have ample evidence that
the DOJ, FBI, and IRS have refused to do their jobs. Americans deserve
to know the truth, and Congress has a duty to investigate.
The question is simple: What did President Biden know about his
family's criminal enterprises and when?
That is the question. That is why this inquiry is necessary.
We have already uncovered that the Biden family received $25 million
in payouts from foreign adversaries. Their scheme was simple: Foreign
client has a problem; client pays a Biden; Vice President Biden travels
to the foreign country; Vice President Biden leverages U.S. influence
to force favorable outcomes for the client; and the Biden family earns
their fee.
That is the scheme. The proof of concept was Burisma in 2014, and
they replicated it again and again. If President Biden was complicit,
then our national security is vulnerable. His administration keeps
stonewalling while the President repeatedly lies about his involvement.
As a member of the Oversight Committee, I believe the evidence we
have uncovered thus far demands further investigation. This vote is the
only logical next step. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this perverse,
illegitimate effort to do Donald Trump's political dirty work.
This resolution is nothing more than an extreme political stunt built
on absolutely zero evidence of wrongdoing. The one thing it does prove
is that Republicans are focused on the wrong priorities. This
resolution clearly has nothing to do with protecting the Constitution
from high crimes and misdemeanors.
How do we know? Because a year of investigation, piles of documents,
and a herd of the Republicans' own witnesses confirm there is zero
evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, the Republicans' wasteful witch hunt
just confirms that President Biden is a good and honorable man.
What this resolution really does is cover up a full year of do-
nothing Republican policies that ignored our families' needs and
neglected an array of global threats to democracy.
Worse, this resolution tries to obscure the corrupt and criminal acts
of the former President and want-to-be dictator Donald Trump.
This extreme political stunt is built upon the sick, twisted
extremism of House Republicans and totally unmasks their complete
absence of an agenda that helps the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), my good friend.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 918.
This year, House Republicans have conducted a methodical
investigation into the alleged actions of the Biden family, including
Joe Biden himself, in his family's foreign business dealings and
foreign-peddling schemes.
As a member of both the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, I
can say that our investigation has peeled back layer upon layer of
Biden family scandals and has exposed the safety nets designed to
insulate the Biden family and Joe Biden from impending accountability.
There is an old legal saying, Mr. Speaker, that if you don't have the
facts, you argue the law. If you don't have the law, you argue the
facts, and if you have neither, you pound the table.
What we are seeing from the other side today is that they want to
talk about Donald Trump and January 6. They want to talk about a
perceived lack of transparency, about how nothing is happening out in
the open.
Well, let me assure you that we have done this for months. We have
done more in 10 months than law enforcement agencies have done in 5
years.
Let's talk about the facts: $25 million has flowed to members of the
Biden family; 20 corporate entities and 9 members of the Biden family
have received these moneys; a $40,000 direct payment to Joe Biden
himself; a $200,000 direct payment to Joe Biden himself, allegedly
under a loan. We have WhatsApp messages, pseudonyms, fake email
addresses, and 22 meetings in which Joe Biden himself met with Hunter
Biden and his business associates.
We have been stonewalled. We have even seen this today, as Hunter
Biden paraded onto the Senate side and did not come to a lawfully
issued subpoena deposition in front of the House Oversight Committee.
Now is the time for an impeachment inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the distinguished Democratic whip.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the MAGA majority is putting
forward an impeachment inquiry even as their own leaders admit there is
no evidence of wrongdoing.
They have already reviewed tens of thousands of documents,
interviewed dozens of witnesses, and nothing.
Why?
This has never been about the truth. This is about avenging Donald
Trump. This is about undermining our democracy and influencing the 2024
election.
President Ford once said, ``Truth is the glue that holds government
together.''
Mr. Speaker, it is truth that allows this Chamber to function.
Abandoning truth in favor of political gamesmanship creates nothing but
chaos. That dysfunction isn't a byproduct of the majority's behavior,
it is the point.
They don't want the government to function. They have sought nothing
in service of the American people, nothing to lower costs, nothing to
create good-paying jobs, to grow the middle class, to make everyday
people feel more secure.
What has the majority delivered?
The kind of extremism that chooses rich tax cheats over working
people, that obstructs the ballot box and hikes the cost of healthcare,
that protects guns over kids, that bans abortion and criminalizes
doctors, that rewards polluters and corporate greed and tells everyday
Americans, you foot the bill.

[[Page H6885]]

This sham impeachment is below the dignity of the people's House. It
is an affront to the people who sent us here to work for them. What a
disgrace.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), my very good friend.
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Party is telling us that
they care about taxpayers, but the son of the President of the United
States is a tax cheat. He ignored Federal tax law on purpose. He
laundered money through 20 LLCs. He concealed millions of dollars of
overseas money, and the only reason he was able to accomplish these
feats of getting so much money into his companies is because the
President is his father. That is it.
If you are asking why we are looking for an impeachment inquiry, it
is because there were 170 suspicious activity reports at the Department
of the Treasury, which we went and looked through, and every one of
those reports said very clearly that there was evidence of money
laundering and potentially tax evasion. There were hours of
depositions. There is a web of LLCs with company names that have no
business interests whatsoever.
We have finally uncovered one example, Mr. Speaker, $5 million from a
foreign company going to a joint venture partly controlled by Hunter
Biden.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, the next day, $400,000 goes from Hunter
Biden to an account controlled by Jim and Sarah Biden. Sarah Biden
writes a check to herself, and then $40,000 is in a check to Joseph
Robinette Biden, the President of the United States. That is your
evidence. If you want to talk crime: bribery, co-conspirator to firearm
violations, and we can go on and on.
Vote for the resolution. Congress must investigate these crimes.

{time} 1330

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. A pattern is developing. If
you will notice, my Republican friends never talk about Joe Biden. It
is all Hunter Biden. They seem to be obsessed with him. I don't know.
They need to get some help.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Swalwell).
Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Speaker, this impeachment is a continuation of the
insurrection that came here on January 6.
This gang has never accepted Joe Biden as the President. The
architect of the idea that you could overturn the election is the
current Speaker of the House.
Donald Trump sent that violent mob here. It didn't work, so now we
are here where they are going to try to use this House to overturn the
election through this inquiry.
The problem is they have zero evidence. The only crime is that Joe
Biden blew out Donald Trump in the 2020 election. That is a problem
because this place is the largest law firm in D.C., with these lawyers
working on behalf of just one client, Donald Trump, at the expense of
everything else that matters.
I want to give James Comer some credit because after 50,000 pages
of depositions, secret hearings, and closed hearings, I think if we
give him enough time, he is going to prove that Hunter Biden is Joe
Biden's son.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
fake, fraudulent, and fictitious impeachment inquiry effort.
We are here today on the House floor wasting time and taxpayer
dollars on an illegitimate impeachment inquiry because Donald Trump,
the puppet master, has directed extreme MAGA Republicans to launch a
political hit job against President Joe Biden.
There is no evidence that President Biden has engaged in an
impeachable offense. There is no evidence that President Joe Biden has
engaged in wrongdoing. There is no evidence that President Biden has
broken the law.
We know that President Joe Biden is a good, honorable, and decent man
who dedicated his life to public service and to making a difference for
the American people.
The puppet master in chief, Donald Trump, has directed the sycophants
to target Joe Biden as part of an effort to undermine President Biden's
reelection.
That is the pattern. That is the process. It reveals that our extreme
MAGA Republican colleagues have done nothing--nothing whatsoever--when
it comes to making a difference in the lives of everyday Americans.
From the very beginning of this Congress, House Democrats have made
it clear that we are ready, willing, and able to find common ground
with our Republican colleagues in a bipartisan way on any issue.
This do-nothing Republican Congress has chosen to do nothing to solve
problems for hardworking American taxpayers--nothing on the economy,
nothing on inflation, nothing on affordability, nothing on gun safety,
nothing on trying to improve the quality of life of the American
people.
What we have seen from the very beginning of this do-nothing
Republican Congress is chaos, dysfunction, and extremism being
inflicted on the American people.
When it comes to this fraudulent impeachment inquiry, more than
100,000 pages of documents have been produced and reviewed. Not a
scintilla of evidence exists that President Biden has broken the law.
It is interesting to me. I wonder how my colleagues in New York and
California who were sent here to make life better for the American
people explain this vote, which is not designed to improve the lives of
the folks that we are privileged to serve but is a political hit job, a
political stunt, political gamesmanship.
The American people are tired of the partisanship, tired of the
brinksmanship, tired of this effort to score political points on a
partisan basis as opposed to actually making a difference.
House Democrats will continue to put people over politics. We will
continue to fight for lower costs, to grow the middle class, for safer
communities, for reproductive freedom, to defend democracy, and to
build an economy from the middle out and the bottom up as opposed to
the top down.
House Democrats remain committed to joining President Biden in
advancing the ball for the American people, for the middle class, for
low-income families, for working families, for all of those folks who
aspire to be a part of the middle class, for young people, for older
Americans, for our veterans.
We plan to continue to build upon the progress that we have made
under the leadership of President Biden on behalf of the American
people.
It is time for the extreme MAGA Republicans to join us or get out of
the way.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Robert Garcia).
Mr. ROBERT GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, this impeachment
inquiry is a political stunt with zero evidence.
We are here today not because of any wrongdoing by President Biden
but because Donald Trump wants revenge. Welcome to the Donald Trump
revenge show.
He is running a campaign promising to destroy democracy and the rule
of law and will soon be found guilty of serious crimes. The American
people reject this toxic and disgusting agenda.
That is why Trump's allies here in Congress are trying to rescue him.
They are throwing everything they can at President Biden, from
misleading leaks to outright fabrications and lies. They are even
trying to sell debunked Rudy Giuliani conspiracy theories.

Let's be clear: The White House has provided thousands of pages of
bank records, statements from personal bank accounts, and testimony
from the President's family, but none of this is enough for the extreme
MAGA GOP.
This is all to appease the con man and the criminal Donald Trump, but
make no mistake: The American people will see through this entire
impeachment sham.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6886]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Ranking Member for yielding
time.
Republicans have had the majority in this House for 11 months, and
what do they have to show for it? Nothing--no efforts to grow the
middle class, no efforts to lower costs, no efforts to build safer
communities; instead, an effort to default on our Nation's debt, two
attempts to shut down the government, vacating their own Speaker, and
now a baseless impeachment that they are pursuing for one reason and
one reason alone--because former President Trump ordered them to do so.
Ask them to articulate what crime they are investigating, and they
can't give you an answer. Ask them to identify any evidence of
wrongdoing by President Biden--crickets.
Mr. Speaker, the American people, I can assure you, are deeply
disappointed in the actions that House Republicans have taken for the
better part of the last year, and this action is no different.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this farce of a process.
Let's get back to doing the important work that the American people
expect us to do.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would
ensure every American has full access to essential reproductive
healthcare, including abortion care.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan) to discuss our proposal.
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Speaker, this entire charade is ridiculous.
Speaker Johnson is about to send Members of Congress home for the
rest of the year. Instead of lowering costs for families before the
holidays or protecting women's freedom to make their own health
decisions, House Republicans are taking orders from Donald Trump to
force through a partisan, political impeachment with no evidence, no
witnesses, and no wrongdoing on behalf of the President.
Meanwhile, as we speak, Kate Cox, a pregnant woman from Texas, is
being forced to flee her home as Republican leaders try to force her to
carry to term her baby, who was diagnosed with a terrible condition
that would result in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death soon after
birth.
We could have come to the floor today to pass legislation like the
Women's Health Protection Act to protect women like Kate Cox and to
prevent that kind of physical harm and trauma from being inflicted on
women living under Republican abortion bans, but House Republicans
choose impeachment. The American people won't forget.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\3/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 6\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Oklahoma have any
other speakers?
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I do.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, extreme MAGA Republicans in the House are
on a Donald Trump-directed fishing expedition. In fact, they have been
on a fishing expedition for months with embarrassing results--nothing--
no bites, no evidence for anything that justifies impeachment.
There are no fish to catch in this Republican swamp, and good luck to
all these Republicans who have to go home and justify a sham
impeachment to their districts while telling them that we haven't
passed the budget, haven't reauthorized the farm bill, haven't done a
single thing that helps Americans live their lives. Instead, we are
wasting time on bogus censure resolutions and bogus impeachment
inquiries.
We have 1\1/2\ legislative business days left in the year. We should
be passing bills to help working families, but that is not what we do
under extreme Republicans' control. Vote ``no'' on this new fishing
expedition.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are saying the quiet part out
loud.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a
Rolling Stone article from today titled: ``GOP Rep. Explains
Impeachment Push: `Donald J. Trump 2024, Baby!'''

[From RollingStone, Dec. 13, 2023]

GOP Rep. Explains Impeachment Push: `Donald J. Trump 2024, Baby!'

(By Nikki McCann Ramirez)

House Republicans will vote Wednesday on whether to
formalize their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.
The party has struggled to gin up a legitimate rationale for
moving forward with the inquiry, which has yet to produce any
credible evidence of wrongdoing, but one Republican is saying
the quiet part out loud.
When Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) was asked Tuesday on Capitol
Hill what he's hoping to gain from an impeachment inquiry,
Nehls responded: ``All I can say is: Donald J. Trump 2024,
baby!''
Video of the encounter was obtained exclusively by Rolling
Stone. When reached for additional comment on Wednesday,
Nehls said in a statement to Rolling Stone that Republicans
``will follow the rule of law and go where the facts lead
us.''
Nehls is one of Trump's most ardent supporters in Congress,
and even floated the former president as a potential House
Speaker after Republicans booted Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
from the role in October. His comments are essentially an
admission of what has long been obvious to many, which is
that the GOP's fraught effort to dig up dirt on President
Biden and his family is nothing more than a ham-fisted
political stunt meant to hurt the president's reelection
chances and place Trump back in the White House.
Republicans for months have been trotting out flimsy bits
of evidence they say point to Biden's corruption. They've
produced nothing substantial, however, nor have they been
able to articulate exactly which high crimes and misdemeanors
the president may have committed. Hunter Biden, the
president's son whom Republicans believe worked with his
father on illegal financial dealings, bashed the
investigations while defying a GOP subpoena for closed-door
testimony on Wednesday.
``I'm here today to make sure the House committee's
illegitimate investigations of my family do not proceed on
distortions, manipulated evidence, and lies,'' he told
reporters outside the Capitol. ``For six years MAGA
Republicans including members of the House committees who are
in a closed-door session right now, have imputed my
character, invaded my privacy, attacked my wife, my children,
my family, and my friends. They've ridiculed my struggle with
addiction, they've belittled my recovery, and they have tried
to dehumanize me, all to embarrass and damage my father.''
Meanwhile, Trump is embroiled in a sea of criminal and
civil legal trouble. Cases in Washington, D.C., and Georgia
relate directly to his effort to undermine the results of the
2020 election and his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the
Capitol. He's also been indicted in New York over a hush-
money scandal ahead of the 2016 election, and by the Justice
Department in Florida over his handling of classified
material after leaving the White House. A civil trial in New
York, where Trump has already been found liable for using
fraudulent financial statements for his business, is expected
to wrap up this week.
Trump is also the clear frontrunner for the Republican 2024
nomination, and a showdown with Biden in the general election
now seems inevitable. Republicans have tied themselves to
Trump's erratic trajectory, and an impeachment inquiry in an
election year is just the kind of circus they need to compete
with the vortex of trials, depositions, and court appearances
swirling around their all-but-official nominee.
The circus will continue with the vote on Wednesday to
formalize their impeachment inquiry, the push to hold Hunter
Biden in contempt of Congress over his defiance of their
subpoena, and a new round of Fox News appearances to try to
legitimize the party's never-ending fishing expedition.
Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-La.) won't be going
on one of the network's most popular anytime soon. He said on
Tuesday that he's boycotting Fox & Friends because one of its
hosts keeps asking him questions he can't answer about what
actual evidence the GOP has on Biden.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also avoided giving
specifics in an op-ed announcing the vote to formalize the
inquiry on Tuesday, writing--sincerely, absurdly--that

[[Page H6887]]

``impeachment is among the most solemn constitutional
authorities the U.S. Congress holds, particularly when it
comes to a president.''
If that's the public line Johnson wants House Republicans
to use, he'd better get them some additional media training.
At the very least, he should make sure they don't offer up
the real reason for the inquiry as easily as Nehls did on
Tuesday.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my very good friend and
the sponsor of the resolution.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, here is what we know.
We know that President Biden's transition team ran interference for
Hunter Biden and obstructed law enforcement's attempts to interview the
President's son.
We know that somebody in the FBI decided not to investigate bribery
allegations against Hunter Biden and Joe Biden provided by a
confidential informant. That source is so important and the FBI has
deemed him so credible that they oppose the release of the report and
only agreed to a review in a classified setting.
We know that IRS investigators were not allowed to follow leads that
had the potential to implicate President Biden in Hunter Biden's
alleged financial crimes.
We know that recommendations for prosecution of Hunter Biden were
denied or delayed until the statute of limitations had run.
We know that a plea deal was offered to Hunter Biden by the DOJ that
offered him global immunity for crimes outside the scope of the charged
conduct and that that plea deal only fell apart after whistleblowers
came forward to Congress.
Set aside for a minute the $24 million, the 20-plus shell companies,
the payments to President Biden, and the changing narrative from this
White House every time a new bad fact comes to light. Set that aside.

{time} 1345

These instances alone should concern all Americans because it appears
that people in the highest echelons of our government were running
interference for the President's son.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have an innocent
explanation for every single incident. The problem is, it is very
difficult to see an innocent explanation for all of the incidents.
The FBI, the DOJ, the IRS, and the President's political operation
have all frustrated attempts to investigate the Bidens.
Obstruction is a crime, and it is no less of a crime if it is being
used within the highest powers of government to perpetrate that
coercion.
Take all of the politics out of this, there is no investigator in any
jurisdiction in the world that would not continue this investigation
with these facts.
The purpose of the impeachment inquiry is for the House to authorize
impeachment and strengthen its ability to compel testimony and document
production in response to Congressional subpoenas. This will allow the
House to continue its investigation into whether President Biden
changed U.S. policy due to payments received by the Biden family
members from hostile foreign powers; or whether he knowingly allowed
foreign powers to believe that the payments were being made and to
employ the Biden family members would result in access and the ability
to alter U.S. policy; or whether the President and the President's
administration were using government agencies to obstruct
investigations into Hunter and Joe Biden.
This inquiry is warranted. It would put the House of Representatives
in the best legal position possible to uncover the facts, and the
American people deserve nothing less.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, this inquiry has nothing to do with Joe Biden. It is
about the Republican Party and how radicalized and extreme they have
become. They are allergic to truth and transparency.
Republicans say this is not about a preordained outcome. It is. They
are going to try to impeach President Biden despite the fact that there
is no evidence against him at all.
Trump sent a violent MAGA mob here to the Capitol to reverse the
election results and certify that he won, even though he lost.
What they couldn't do on January 6 they want to do with this extreme
political stunt. They have contempt for our democracy. They want to
finish the job.
Republicans say this is all about process, about how the House will
proceed. It is not. The truth is this process has already proceeded for
10 months. They have been investigating all year, obtaining tens of
thousands of documents and hours and hours of witness testimony. All of
it says there is no wrongdoing by President Biden.
Republicans say the White House is stonewalling their inquiry. Again,
that is not true. The White House has provided over 35,000 pages of
financial records, dozens of hours of testimony and interviews. Hunter
Biden is here to testify today, and Republicans won't let him because
they want to do it in secret so they can cherry-pick and distort his
testimony.
This whole inquiry has nothing to do with the integrity of President
Biden and everything to do with the lack of integrity in the Republican
Party.
No amount of evidence could convince Republicans that Joe Biden did
nothing wrong because they aren't looking for the truth. They are
looking for revenge.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say directly to the American people, that
the Republican Party works for Donald Trump; not for you, for Trump.
That is why they are pursuing this extreme political stunt. That is
why they are doing everything in secret. They want to hide the truth
from you because they know their whole impeachment inquiry is a sham,
and it will evaporate into thin air when people realize what a pathetic
joke it is.
This shameful process has no credibility. It has no legitimacy and no
integrity.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their
comments to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close, and I urge all my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today, heard a lot about Donald
Trump. We have had ad infinitum insults to the majority. We have had
pejorative language. We have had pounding on the table.
Why? Simply because we want to empower three committees in Congress
to do what the White House asked us to do; that is, to have a formal
vote on the floor before they fully cooperate. That is all we are
doing.
If my friends are so confident--again, as one of my colleagues
mentioned from the Rules Committee--what are you worried about? It is
an investigation. It is open.
We hardly talked about what the resolution is about, which is how we
are going to proceed.
How are we going to proceed? Almost exactly as my friends proceeded
in 2019. Their playbook, their play, their approach. There is nothing
unfair that we are asking to be done.
Since September, the House has been engaged in an impeachment
inquiry, examining whether sufficient grounds exist for the House to
exercise its constitutional power to impeach the President of the
United States.
Today's resolution simply formalizes that inquiry and grants the
House full authority to enforce its subpoenas--subpoenas that have been
denied as recently as today.
My friends have some pretty experienced lawyers on their side. Most
of them will tell you it is better to have a deposition before you have
a hearing, let alone a trial.
All we are trying to do is get the needed people who have been
blocked or refused to cooperate to come in and testify under oath
before Congress.

The resolution follows closely, again, as I said, the procedures
established in 2019. It empowers the three committees to continue their
existing inquiries. At the end of the inquiry, it provides for the
Committee on the Judiciary, the traditional impeachment committee, to
report to the House resolutions, Articles of Impeachment, or other
recommendations.

[[Page H6888]]

It is deeply unfortunate that we are here, Mr. Speaker, but today's
resolution will ensure that the House can fulfill its obligations under
the Constitution. So it is with respect for the Constitution, for this
institution, and for this great Nation that we proceed. That is all we
are trying to do today. We had very little discussion of that, but we
ought to entertain that.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everybody of a few facts.
We have millions of dollars from foreign entities that have flowed
towards shell companies that we didn't even know existed until the
investigations uncovered them. We have whistleblowers, public servants
of long standing that have come in and told us their efforts to
investigate either Hunter Biden or the wider schemes that have been
obstructed.
We have lots of things to be concerned about. Our committees need to
be empowered with the tools that are required to pursue the truth and
then come back and tell us what they found and have a recommendation as
to how we should proceed. That is all today is about.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to yet
another shameful effort to erode the founding principles of our
democracy.
This resolution is a pitiful attempt to continue the politicization
of our government's ability to function once those who are duly elected
to serve seek to govern.
Impeachment is not a punishment, sought to be inflicted when one
branch of government merely disagrees with or dislikes what a
coordinate branch has done.
It is a serious remedy designed to prevent abuses of power and is
designed to ensure that ours remains a government of, by, and for the
people.
This is about the duty of the President of the United States--you do
not impeach people because you disagree with their approach to their
service to the country or to the provisions on their policy. We do not
impeach people on that basis.
No, this resolution does not provide any meaningful or sincere effort
to protect the American people.
Rather, this resolution sets forth nothing more than a partisan
fishing expedition and should be rebuked as such.
Impeachment is serious, yet here we are engaged in a baseless
political stunt to impeach our current President.
The U.S. Constitution governs the order of our nation, and it
dictates the work of the Congress.
Article I details the powers of the House and the exercising of these
powers as they relate to the coordinate, coequal branches of
government, codified in Articles II and Articles III: three equal
branches of government coexisting and cohesively working to provide
oversight to the respective actions of the Congress, the Executive and
Judiciary.
Specifically, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 indicates that the
``House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of
impeachment.'' Article II states that the ``The President . . . shall
be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Article II also
requires that the ``President take care that the laws are faithfully
executed.''
That language is stark and clear--and throughout our history it has
been used in varying periods where the assessment was that the law has
been breached.
Sometimes Congresses are concerned that the weight and view of the
American people should be considered. Sometimes they are moved by the
urgency of the matter.
This has worked, with challenges of course, since 1789, yet the
outright abuse of our constitution to use impeachment as a political
tool is an abomination of our congressional duties.
As constitutional scholars have long laid out the historical
guardrails and mandates upon which must heed, I would like to point to
a few salient remarks from the September 28, 2023, Committee on
Oversight and Accountability hearing entitled ``The Basis for the
Impeachment Inquiry of President Joseph R. Biden'' as reminders for us
all here today.
In the testimony of Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished
Professor of Jurisprudence, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, he highlighted the clear warning from Alexander Hamilton in the
Federalist Papers, and what he foresaw in the dangers of trivializing
impeachment through petty partisanship.
As quoted in Alexander Hamilton, No. 65, the Federalist Papers
(1961), he states that impeachment may ``agitate the passions of the
whole community , and to divide it into parties more or less friendly
or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with
pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities,
partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and
in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the
decision will be regulated more by the relative strength of the
parties, than by the demonstrations of innocence or guilt.''
As Professor Gerhardt noted, ``in other words, an impeachment
proceeding, including the initiation of an impeachment inquiry, must
rise above petty partisanship in order to ensure its legitimacy.
And as aptly stated in the testimony of Johnathon Turley, Shapiro
Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University School
of Law, in highlighting the carefully crafted powers vested in the
House of Representatives pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5. is that:
``The Framers debated and crafted this standard and process to avoid
an `anything goes' mentality. That was the reason our Framers opposed
the `maladministration' standards as too malleable and indeterminate.
While we continue to have passionate and good-faith debates over the
meaning of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard, it is not
intended to give the House carte blanche for any impulsive impeachment
theory.''
Nearly fifty years ago, my predecessor Barbara Jordan of Texas's 18th
Congressional District, declared, in the first presidential impeachment
inquiry in more than a century, that:
``My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.
I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution,
the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.'' She noted
``those are impeachable `who behave amiss or betray their public
trust'' (quoting from the North Carolina ratification convention).
In this vein, we should not be here today in efforts to betray and
diminish our Constitution and rule of law.
The unsubstantiated accusations, that the President of the United
States has abused his powers and that his conduct is in dereliction of
his duties as President, flatly outrageous.
When the Framers of our Constitution designed our government, they
bifurcated power between the federal and state governments, and divided
among the branches.
They vested in Congress the capacity to make the laws, and in the
Executive the power to faithfully execute those laws.
Because the House enjoyed a natural superiority, as most
representative of the passions of the populace, the Framers vested in
the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and made the
Senate the judges.
Yet, entirely unlike the incredulous and now confirmed illegality of
President Trump's behavior while in office, President Biden has
certainly not earned the same stain of impeachment from the House of
Representatives and his conduct absolutely does not merit conviction
and removal from office by the Senate.
When the Founders inserted the Impeachment Clause in Article I,
Section 2, Clause 5, they did so to preserve our democracy, protect the
American people, and to prevent the abuses and excesses of the Chief
Executive.
The Constitution has served our nation well for over two hundred
years.
Yes, in order to keep faith with the Framers and with our future, we
must preserve, protect and defend that Constitution and all its
provisions.
This impeachment resolution, however, is not one that is within the
national interest but a disgrace to our government and its entrusted
duties.
My Republican colleagues are sadly focused on the wrong priorities.
The American people want us to focus on helping their families, not
attacking the President and his family.
This so-called ``impeachment inquiry'' is just an extreme political
stunt.
President Biden is a good and honorable man who has spent his life
serving the American people.
Extreme House Republicans are pushing these lies to try to smear him
for political purposes.
They have been investigating President Biden all year--obtaining tens
of thousands of pages of documents and dozens of hours of witness
testimony--but have found no evidence of wrongdoing by the President.
In fact, over and over again, Republicans' own witnesses and
documents have embarrassed them by debunking their ridiculous
allegations.
They now want to waste time on the House floor voting on this extreme
stunt, instead of focusing on advancing important priorities like
Ukraine aid or doing their job to avoid a government shutdown in a few
weeks.
No vote will make this baseless fishing expedition legitimate.
They have proven all year just how illegitimate this impeachment
stunt is.
All a vote would do is put every Republican who supports it on record
pushing an extreme agenda.

[[Page H6889]]

This is not what Congress should be focused on.
Democrats and President Biden will stay focused on putting people
over politics.
As such, I ask my colleagues to vote no on this shameful resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 918 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine
whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a
health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 8. C1ause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 12.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________