Relating to the Consideration of House Report and An Accompanying Resolution
Floor Speech
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to ignore the feeling that this is one more example of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to distract from the real issues that concern Americans. We have an administration that can't stop the flood of illegal immigrants at our southern border, can't unlock the supply bottlenecks at our ports.
What are the Democrats doing about inflation?
What are the Democrats doing about the border issues?
What are the Democrats doing about supply chain issues?
And what are the Democrats doing about the worker shortage?
And I could go on. Instead, we are here going back and forth arguing if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation of questionable motives and purpose. No wonder the public thinks we can't do our job.
That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved before we can continue with this vote. The Supreme Court has found that the power rests with Congress for subpoenas if they serve a legitimate legislative purpose, and be ``related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.''
A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the leaders of the D.C. National Guard and Sergeant at Arms so that we can find out what gaps in communications and authorities that need to be filled and find solutions to ensure that this doesn't happen again. But have those been issued? No.
Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into President Trump and their political opponents that voted against the certification of the election in some States, something that they, themselves, did just 4 years ago.
What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for a legitimate legislative purpose? Much of the discussion in the Rules Committee centered around criminal action, not around legislation. These concerns would have been raised by Republicans if Speaker Pelosi had not rejected the minority leader's nominees. But instead, she hand- picked Members that would fit her and the Democrats' narrative.
It seems the story line has already been decided. We need to ensure that it is, as stated, intended to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to January 6. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this committee and its investigation outcome was predetermined when it tilted representation in favor of Democrats and, again, rejected the two Republican Members selected to serve on the Commission by the minority leader.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set here today as the majority, yet again, embarks on another investigation in search of a crime.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, the fact still remains that when the minority leader did try to participate in this Commission, the Speaker rejected the two nominees that the minority leader had offered.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional consideration of H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act, authored by Representative Ferguson.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, requiring banks and Federal credit unions to disclose personal details about their customers' accounts is an extreme invasion of privacy, and it would have terrible implications for community banks and credit unions in my district and across the country.
I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised about this egregious attempt on behalf of the Democrats. They clearly want as much government involvement as possible in every possible part of American citizens' lives. I may not be surprised anymore, but I continue to be disappointed that they refuse to listen to the American citizens who time and time again say they want Big Government out of their lives and their wallets.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Van Duyne).
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are singularly focused on the happenings only within the walls of Capitol Hill, the rest of us, working families, are struggling with the consequences of this failed administration, including rising inflation; pending unemployment; border threats; increased drugs and violence in our neighborhoods; and an out-of-control, power-hungry administration.
I cannot explain the chairman's and majority leader's absolute and unhealthy obsession with a former President, but I sincerely urge them to seek treatment so that they can focus on the insurmountable harms that are being caused by the current administration and how they are currently forcing them on all of the American people.
I rise in opposition to the previous question so that the House can immediately consider H.R. 5586, legislation critical to stopping the Democrats' unending attempts to control every aspect of American lives.
Now the left is in an unrelenting pursuit of tracking every penny you and your family personally earn and spend. If the price tag for their socialist policies weren't alarming enough, what is hidden inside the bill should truly horrify all Americans.
If you pay rent, if you buy groceries, or pay a mortgage, you are going to be subject to surveillance. From the lowest income earners on up, every American will be checked.
Thousands more IRS bureaucrats will be hired for their new surveillance program, with authority to monitor every transaction you make. Every account transaction would be traced and reported to the Federal Government, edging us closer and closer to a communist- controlled police state.
Republicans are unified in our fight against this new surveillance program. My friend and ranking member, Kevin Brady, led the charge to stop this early on, but not a single Democrat stood up for Americans' financial privacy.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. First, things are reported and monitored, and then they are controlled. We cannot let Democrats push us down this dangerous and slippery slope.
Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen to turn the committee into a vehicle to push their own narrative, and it is clearly more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize January 6 rather than conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into the security failures leading up to that day.
As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, where is the legitimate legislative purpose? The Members across the aisle have yet to address what kind of legitimate legislative purposes could, might, or even possibly come out of the commission investigation.
A lawful subpoena, according to the Supreme Court, needs to serve a legitimate legislative purpose. The majority leader used words like ``oversight,'' ``the American people need to understand,'' and ``hold perpetrators accountable.'' These statements do not qualify as a legitimate legislative purpose.
This is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to distract from the very real issues facing Americans every day. I look forward to getting back to the real work of solving the supply chain issues, reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to live their lives without government interference or surveillance.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source