Protecting Our Democracy Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the bill the majority has titled the Protecting Our Democracy Act does nothing to protect anything but the swamp.
Right now, the American people are trying to prepare for the holidays with the highest inflation rate in 30 years. They are struggling to keep their gas tanks full, put food on the table, and heat their homes. They are worried about rising crime in their communities. They are concerned their children have suffered while their classrooms were closed but the borders are wide open to illegal immigrants and deadly drugs.
Democrats are ignoring these real issues facing Americans today. Instead, Democrats want to talk about former President Trump, even though a Democrat has occupied the White House for nearly a year. This is not what the American people want for Christmas.
The Democrats' playbook is about as predictable as a Hallmark Christmas special. We have all seen this movie.
The bill before us today is based on political fiction, and it is the latest attempt to resurrect Democrats' sham investigations of the past.
This bill unconstitutionally disrupts the separation of powers among the branches of government by diminishing the executive branch and ignoring the judicial branch.
For example, the legislation interferes with the President's pardon power, a power completely vested with the President. But this bill gives Congress access to sensitive White House deliberations and communications about pardons. What legislative purpose does that serve?
Congress has no authority to evaluate the President's pardon power. This bill also overrides the judicial branch by attaching partisan definitions to constitutional language that the Supreme Court has already spoken to. It would change the definition of an emolument to fit failed Democrat legal theories and indulge certain Members' false conspiracy theories--Members like, I don't know, Madam Speaker, Adam Schiff.
Rewriting this technical constitutional term would keep any businessperson who has conducted business outside the U.S. from running for President. That would mean no Hunter Biden at the top of the ticket in 2024.
Democrats appear to think the skill set for running a business would not be helpful to the Federal Government. Maybe that is why Democrats' only solution to any problem is to throw American taxpayer dollars at it and not to engage in serious government reform efforts.
Democrats only want career politicians--or even better, career bureaucrats--to be able to serve as elected officials. Similarly, Democrats are determined to make the Federal Government run as inefficiently as possible by allowing incompetent or dishonest Federal employees to keep their jobs.
The so-called whistleblower protections in the bill are so expansive that if a Federal employee, even a bad or ineffective one, claims they are a whistleblower, they are almost immune from scrutiny.
The Committee on Oversight and Reform has great respect for whistleblowers. We need them to conduct true oversight. They serve an essential role in evaluating waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government. But sometimes Federal employees attempt to claim they are whistleblowers to shield themselves from scrutiny for poor performance. We should not make it impossible to vet whistleblowers' claims and their work.
Further, the policy in the Democrats' bill to entrench inspectors general is another policy that reduces the efficiency of the Federal Government and another example of the legislative branch intruding on the operations of the executive branch.
Madam Speaker, it is Christmastime. Instead of fixing the many problems created by President Biden, like the supply chain, energy, border, and economic crises, Democrats have decided to take up a sham bill and deliver a lump of coal to the American people.
Instead of spending time on Democrats' favorite obsession, President Trump, we should instead take on the issues facing Americans today.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I was hoping the chairman of the Intelligence Committee was going to present the evidence of Russian collusion during his time, but apparently not.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), the ranking member of the House Administration Committee.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky, for yielding. The bill we are debating here today, the so-called Protecting Our Democracy Act, is another attempt by the outgoing majority to relitigate many of the Democrats' sham investigations. Many of the bill's provisions are unnecessary and recycled attempts to take away individual States' sovereignty. If we were really here to talk about protecting our democracy, then we would focus on the importance of voter rolls list maintenance to ensure only eligible citizens are able to vote in Federal elections.
Congress passed the bipartisan National Voter Registration Act in 1993. That is almost 30 years ago. This law requires States to conduct regular list maintenance to ensure their voter rolls are kept up to date. This simple, commonsense requirement is incredibly important for voter confidence in our entire election process and its outcomes.
However, the Biden DOJ refuses to enforce it. Instead, Progressives focus on defunding the police and embracing lawlessness, keeping our economy and Capitol shut down while ignoring the science, labeling concerned parents as extremist threats, and weaponizing the DOJ to go after them, and pursuing reckless, unnecessary spending that is driving the inflation every single American feels in their pocketbook.
If Democrats were really focused on protecting our democracy, the Biden Justice Department would investigate States like California where the number of registered voters far exceeds the number of adults in the State. Senator Alex Padilla, a newly appointed Senator from the State of California, knew about the problem and refused to address it when he was Secretary of State in California during the last election cycle.
Republicans care about election integrity because our constitutional republic means nothing if our citizens don't have faith in our elections.
When everyday Americans hear more and more reports of individuals on active voter rolls who have moved to another State, died, or are noncitizens, it frustrates them because it calls into question whether their valid vote actually counts. One eligible person, one whole non- diluted vote.
It is so frustrating because the fix is so simple, but Democrats refuse time and time again to address this problem. It is common sense and has been Federal law for decades that only eligible Americans should be on our voter rolls.
Republicans want every eligible voter who wants to vote to exercise that right. Democrats dilute your vote, but Republicans restore it.
I am here today to talk about protecting our democracy, and I think the only way to do that is to make sure Americans know our elections have integrity.
So today, I am calling on the radical Biden Justice Department to do the right thing and enforce Federal law across the board. Stop investigating parents that want to be involved in their children's education. Stop supporting efforts to defund our men and women in blue resulting in the lawlessness that we see ravaging our great country.
Focus on what really matters. Protect our democracy, protect our vote, and ensure States like California conduct voter roll list maintenance so that voters know only eligible American citizens are able to vote.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Department of Justice IG detailing the DOJ's official policy not to enforce Federal voter list maintenance requirements. [From the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, March 2013] A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division
V. Enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)
In this section we review the Voting Section's history of enforcing the National Voter Registration Act, the so-called motor-voter law. Enacted in 1993, the NVRA has. two primary purposes: to increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in federal elections and to protect the integrity of the electoral process. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg(b). Critics have alleged that CRT leadership during the prior administration favored enforcement of the list-maintenance (electoral integrity) provisions because those provisions purportedly are more strongly supported by Republicans and remove more potential Democratic voters from the rolls. Conversely, critics of the current CRT leadership allege that it has neglected the electoral integrity provisions of the NVRA in favor of enforcing the voter access provisions, because these provisions purportedly are supported by Democratic constituencies and lead to the registration of more voters who are likely to support Democrats. Without opining on the underlying political assumptions, we examine both of these allegations in this section. A. Data Regarding Enforcement Trends in NVRA Cases
Figure 3. 7 below displays the number of NVRA enforcement actions initiated by the Voting Section on an annual basis since January 1995, when the statute became effective in most states. Figure 3. 7 is broken down by actions that enforced the statute's list-maintenance provision (Section 8(a)(4)), actions that enforced the voter registration provisions (Sections 5, 6, 7, and the improper purging paragraphs of Section 8), and actions that brought both types of claims.
The most noteworthy trend in the Department's enforcement of the NVRA relates to the statute's voter list-maintenance provision, Section 8(a)(4). In the 17 years since the statute became effective, the Department has asserted list- maintenance claims on 7 occasions, 6 of which occurred in a 3-year span between 2004 and 2007. According to Hans von Spakovsky, CRT leadership initiated an effort to enforce Section 8's list-maintenance provision in late 2004. Von Spakovsky told the OIG that he recommended to Division leadership exploring those cases because he believed that the Department had never conducted a systematic review of states' list-maintenance compliance in the 10 years since the NVRA became effective. This effort ultimately resulted in the filing of a complaint alleging list-maintenance claims in 2005 and 2006. According to witnesses involved in the four other matters involving list-maintenance claims brought between 2004 and 2007, those claims arose when the Section obtained evidence suggesting a failure to comply with the list-maintenance provision during the course of ongoing investigations into other voting-related matters. B. Enforcement of the NVRA during 2001-2008
We received allegations that the only NVRA cases that Division leadership wanted to pursue during this period were Section 8(a)(4) list-maintenance claims, at the expense of cases to protect or increase voter registration under other provisions of the NVRA. Critics further alleged that the Division's leadership was particularly focused on bringing such list-purging cases in political swing states and large Democratic jurisdictions. The Division's leadership denied any such focus and identified several cases approved by Division leadership to controvert the suggestion that NVRA enforcement decisions were driven by a partisan agenda. We examined the entire range of NVRA cases pursued during January 2001 to January 2009 in order to address this issue.
From January 2001 through January 2009, the Department was involved in 12 NVRA enforcement matters, summarized in Table 3.2.
As reflected in Table 3.2, the Voting Section began filing list-maintenance cases in 2004. As noted above, von Spakovsky confirmed that Division leadership initiated an effort in 2004 to enforce Section 8's list-maintenance provision on a systemic basis. Von Spakovsky told the OIG that he recommended exploring those cases because he believed the Department had never conducted a systematic review of states' list-maintenance compliance in the 10 years since the NVRA's enactment.
Division leadership directed the Voting Section to conduct the research effort, to review the census data and voter registration data for all 50 states to determine which states had more people registered to vote than the voting-age population, as reflected in the census data. Based on the results of this research, the Section sent letters to 12 states, stating that the Section's review of relevant data indicated that the state may not be complying with Section 8's list-maintenance provision and requesting information on their efforts to remove ineligible voters from their registration lists.
Von Spakovsky told the OIG that some of the targeted states responded to the Department's letter, explained why there was a discrepancy in the data, and established that they were complying with the NVRA's list-maintenance requirements. He also stated that a number of states failed to show that they were in compliance with Section 8(a)(4) and that the Section proceeded toward enforcement actions against those non- compliant states.
Division leadership approved the filing of two complaints as a result of this enforcement initiative. In November 2005, the Section filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri alleging both improper purging and failure-to-purge violations. In June 2006, the Section filed a complaint against Indiana alleging that the state failed to conduct list purging as required by Section 8(a)(4). The Indiana case was resolved by a settlement agreement, but the Missouri case continued until early 2009, when the Division voluntarily dismissed the case.
In 2006 and 2007, Division leadership approved three additional complaints containing Section 8(a)(4) list- maintenance claims, against the States of Maine and New Jersey and the City of Philadelphia. According to the Voting Section attorney supervising those efforts, these complaints did not arise out of the enforcement initiative described above. Instead, the complaints were brought as a result of investigations under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that uncovered evidence of both HAVA and NVRA violations. The Section ultimately settled the lawsuits with Maine, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. In each settlement agreement, the jurisdiction agreed to implement specific steps to satisfy its list-maintenance obligations.
In August 2007, Voting Section Chief John Tanner initiated a program to enforce Section 7 of the NVRA, requiring states to provide voter registration opportunities in public assistance and disability offices. Section attorneys reviewed federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) data to identify states that were not meeting Section 7's requirements and discovered 18 states that reported registering 0 voters in offices providing public assistance over the previous 2-year period. Following further investigation, the Section entered into settlement agreements with Arizona and Illinois to resolve Section 7 violations.
In 2007 and 2008, Voting Section teams reviewed EAC data and census information to identify states that might not be in compliance with the NVRA'sSection 8(a)(4) list-maintenance requirements. The teams identified states in which a significant percentage of the counties or electoral jurisdictions had more registered voters than voting-age population. The teams recommended to Division leadership that the Voting Section initiate investigations into the states that failed to meet the relevant criterion. The states that were the subject of these recommendations included some states that historically have consistently favored one party in presidential elections as well as political ``swing states.'' The 2007 recommendation was approved and the Section later issued requests for information to the relevant states. Ultimately, however, no further enforcement action was taken arising out of this effort. The investigations that were proposed in late November 2008 were never approved by either the outgoing or the incoming administrations. C. Enforcement of the NVRA during 2009-2012 1. Division Leadership Declines To Act on Voting Section Proposal for Section 8 Investigation
In February 2009, shortly after the new administration took office, the Voting Section submitted a memorandum to Division leadership requesting approval to initiate investigations into the list-maintenance procedures of a State (``State E''). According to the State E memorandum, voter-registration data indicated that roughly 22 percent of State E's counties had more registered voters than either the voting-age population or the citizen voting-age population. The memorandum stated that the Section had been alerted to State E's potential list-maintenance failures in connection with an unrelated Section 5 investigation. We were told that the Section never received a response from Division leadership to the proposal memorandum. 2. Drafting of NVRA Guidance
In the spring of 2009, a few months after the inauguration of the new administration, the Department commenced an effort to draft public guidance concerning the requirements of NVRA Section 7. Samuel Hirsch, who joined the Department in March 2009 as a Deputy Associate Attorney General and led the NVRA guidance effort, described the project as rewriting the NVRA in plain terms and posting it on the CRT website to assist those running state governmental offices in complying with the NVRA's requirements. Hirsch told the OIG the original scope of the NVRA guidance project was limited to Section 7 because the administration believed that Section 7 had been somewhat ignored by state government officials. According to Hirsch, there was a sense in the administration that NVRA Section 8 and other provisions were working fairly well, but that Section 7 ``was slipping through the cracks.''
DAAG Julie Fernandes and AAG Thomas Perez became involved in the NVRA guidance project after they joined the Department in July and October 2009, respectively. According to Fernandes, she expressed concern to Hirsch that the project was limited to Section 7 and proposed broadening the guidance to include other NVRA provisions, such as Sections 5 and 8. Perez also told the OIG that in early 2010 he instructed that the guidance include a discussion of all NVRA provisions, including the list-maintenance provisions. Hirsch told the OIG that he did not oppose expanding the guidance to include Section 8, but stated that he may have been opposed to holding up the release of the Section 7 guidance while preparing the Section 8 segment. The Division ultimately posted guidance concerning NVRA Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 on its website in June 2010. 3. Comments by DAAG Julie Fernandes Regarding NVRA Enforcement at a November 2009 Section Meeting
DAAG Julie Fernandes told the OIG that she urged Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates to hold section-wide meetings shortly after she joined the Department in July 2009. As a result, the Voting Section held several brown-bag lunches. In addition to the September meeting at which Section 2 enforcement was discussed as outlined above, another session devoted to NVRA matters was held on November 10, 2009.
At some point during the November meeting, the discussion turned to the enforcement of the NVRA's voter list- maintenance provision in Section 8. Witnesses who recalled Fernandes's statements uniformly remembered that she said something to the effect that she was more interested in pursuing cases under NVRA Section 7 than Section 8 because Section 8 does not expand voter access. Witnesses' recollections of the context of Fernandes's statements, her precise wording, and the meaning of her comments, however, varied widely.
Thirteen witnesses told the OIG that Fernandes stated that she ``did not care about'' or ``was not interested'' in pursuing Section 8 cases, or similar formulations. For instance, Chris Herren, who was later promoted by current Division leadership to Section Chief, told the OIG that Fernandes made a controversial and ``very provocative'' statement at this brown bag lunch. In particular, Herren stated that Fernandes stated something to the effect of ``[Section 8] does nothing to help voters. We have no interest in that.'' Herren told the OIG that he winced when he heard Fernandes's response because he believed it would raise a controversy. Two other Section attorneys took handwritten notes at the meeting, both of which quoted Fernandes saying that she did not ``care'' about Section 8.
Ten attorneys who attended the meeting told the OIG that they interpreted Fernandes's comments to be a clear directive that Division leadership would not approve Section 8 list- maintenance cases in the future. One Section attorney told the OIG that he understood Fernandes's statements to mean that proposing a Section 8 case would be futile and that he believed proposing Section 8 could be detrimental for the attorneys.
Seven Voting Section attorneys told the OIG, however, that they did not believe Fernandes said that the Division would not enforce Section 8 of the NVRA. Among these were three Deputy Chiefs who told the OIG that they believed Fernandes meant that Section 7 cases would be prioritized over Section 8 matters, but that they did not construe her statement to mean that Section 8 cases would not be approved. Those attorneys who were generally identified as being more conservative tended to recall that Fernandes took the more extreme position, while those generally identified as being more liberal tended to recall her statements as being more limited.
Fernandes told the OIG that she did not recall exactly what she said at the November brown bag lunch regarding enforcement of Section 8 of the NVRA. She said that she and the Section staff discussed the NVRA and what their approach, goals, and strategy should be. She said that she talked about how Division leadership is interested in creating equal opportunity for minority voters. Fernandes further told the OIG that she talked about wanting the Section to focus on voter access, which would involve NVRA Sections 5, 7, and 8, all of which are in the vein of ensuring that jurisdictions have a fair and accessible process for all voters. She stated that she recalled being asked about Section 8 and that her response included something to the effect that Division leadership's focus is on the provisions of the NVRA pertaining to voter access.
With respect to the comments attributed to her that she did not care about enforcing Section 8, Fernandes told the OIG that she did not think she said the words ``don't care'' about enforcing Section 8 because that is not her position. Fernandes denied saying that she or Division leadership had no interest in pursuing Section 8 cases. Fernandes said that she believed her comment about not caring was in the context of how to determine what jurisdictions they should target for enforcement, given that she believed there is widespread noncompliance with the NVRA.
Fernandes noted that the list-maintenance provision of Section 8 requires jurisdictions to employ reasonable, non- discriminatory measures to ensure that people who are eligible can vote and those who are ineligible cannot. Therefore, Fernandes stated, she does not care whether a jurisdiction's voter list is big, but rather whether it has a list-maintenance program that does not work. She explained that the fact that a jurisdiction's voter list is too big means that the Section may want to inquire about the jurisdiction's list-maintenance program, but that alone would not justify bringing a lawsuit.
Roughly one year later, in September 2010, allegations concerning Fernandes's comments at the brown bag lunch regarding NVRA enforcement surfaced in news media. Fernandes and other Division leadership personnel assisted other Department officials in preparing talking points to address the allegations and Fernandes stated in one of the relevant e-mails: ``If we are o.k. with having priorities, we should say that we have a priority on the enforcement of the NVRA, with a focus on the parts of the statute that require states to provide voter registration opportunities in a variety of settings.'' 4. Approval of List-Maintenance Investigations
In September 2009, the Section submitted a memorandum to DAAG Fernandes requesting authority to initiate formal investigations into the list-maintenance procedures of eight states. The recommendation was based on the Section's review of an EAC report that contained voting-related data from each of the 50 states covering the period from November 2006 to November 2008. A Deputy Section Chief supervised a team of Section attorneys that reviewed the EAC report for anomalous entries, particularly states that reported that throughout the 2-year period they did not remove any voters from their rolls due to death or that they had not issued any voter- removal notices related to citizens who were believed to have moved out of the state. The team identified eight states that met one of those criteria, four of which reported removing zero ineligible voters from their rolls over the 2-year period for any reason, including death, change of address, disqualifying criminal conviction, or mental incapacity.
The team presented the relevant data in its memorandum to DAAG Fernandes and stated that the information suggested that the eight states in question were not fulfilling their list- maintenance obligations under Section 8. As a result, the team recommended initiating formal investigations of the states in question and directing inquiries to relevant state officials.
Fernandes told the OIG that, after receiving the proposal for the Section 8 investigations, she told Section Chief Coates that he needed to ``hold off' because she was not ready to decide whether this was the proper approach for NVRA enforcement. Fernandes told the OIG that she believed the Section's NVRA work when she became DAAG in July 2009 was disorganized and that its process for evaluating NVRA matters was ``random, unstrategic, [and] not very well thought-out.'' She said that Division leadership and Voting Section management were therefore engaged in a process of identifying what their NVRA enforcement strategy should be by reviewing where the Section had focused its enforcement efforts in the past, determining which areas had been neglected, and developing an analytical model to bring NVRA cases.
According to Fernandes, she and Division leadership believed that the NVRA enforcement efforts from January 2001 through January 2009 had focused on Section 8's list- maintenance cases, largely to the exclusion of the voter- registration provisions in Section 7, which she believed had been underenforced and neglected. While we found no evidence that she examined any data to support this belief, it was consistent with what we found to be the prevailing belief about the prior administration's efforts in this area. Fernandes stated further that she believed the way to ``rectify this imbalance was to determine what Section 7 efforts were in process, whether they were being performed correctly, and whether the Section should expand its Section 7 enforcement further. Fernandes stated that her supervisors were pressuring her to move forward on Section 7 enforcement and that she received a clear message that they viewed enforcing Section 7 as a higher priority than Section 8. She told the OIG that she believed she had to ``scratch the Section 7 itch before turning to Section 8 matters and that her supervisors would have criticized her if she had approved Section 8 efforts first. She also noted that there was significant criticism of the Department from civil rights groups that their Section 7 enforcement efforts had been inadequate, saying they had gotten--and continued to get-- ``beat up all the time by [their] lefty friends not doing enough on Section 7.''
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. This is a report from the DOJ's IG. It takes this many pages to tell the American voter that they are not going to enforce Federal law in ensuring that States actually provide and exercise the required voter list maintenance. This is an affront to election integrity in our great country, and it needs to end today.
Let's protect our democracy, and let's work together to make that happen.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I include in the Record a letter of support for the Protecting Our Democracy Act listing over 150 organizations supporting this important legislation. We have widespread support across this Nation. October 6, 2021. Over 150 Organizations Send Joint Letter Urging Congress To Pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act
Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations, on behalf of the millions of Americans our groups collectively represent, write to urge you to support and pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act.
For decades, congressional authority has been undermined by the executive branch, diminishing the ability of Congress to fulfill its constitutional duties, to protect the rule of law, and to hold all presidents accountable for overreaches and abuses of power. The last time Congress passed significant reform to protect our democracy from abuses of executive power was after the Watergate scandal. The time has come for new guardrails to reassert Congress' role as a coequal branch of government.
Today, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers have an interest in restoring the checks and balances entrusted to them in our Constitution. The Protecting Our Democracy Act would do just that by restoring the powers the Founders vested in the legislative branch to serve as a check on the executive without infringing upon the president's constitutional powers.
Among other reforms, this historic bill would:
Strengthen Congress's ability to oversee the executive branch by fortifying congressional subpoena power by providing expedited consideration of subpoena enforcement by courts, so the executive branch cannot run out the clock on congressional oversight;
Ensure inspectors general are qualified and empowered to hold federal agencies accountable without fear of reprisal by requiring the president to have ``good cause'' for removing an inspector general and enhancing reporting requirements when there is a vacancy;
Ensure whistleblowers can continue shining light on corruption and abuses of power that betray the public trust by enhancing protections against retaliation, providing legal defenses for whistleblowers against civil and criminal liability, and allowing whistleblowers to have their day in court;
Reinforce Congress's constitutional powers over spending and the power of the purse by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to make public basic information about the management of federal funds, and reporting to Congress to ensure those funds are spent in accordance with the law;
Prevent political interference with the U.S. Department of Justice by putting a permanent, statutory requirement in place that will ensure transparency and accountability related to their communications with the White House;
Strengthen the Hatch Act to protect federal agencies from being used for political purposes and ensure senior political appointees are held accountable under the law the same way other federal employees are.
Prevent abuse of the president's pardon power by increasing transparency of the pardon process, prohibiting self-pardons by the president, and clarifying that pardons are ``official acts'' for the purposes of federal bribery statute;
Provide for enforcement of the domestic and foreign Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, to prevent a president from profiting from payments by foreign or domestic governments; and
Secure our elections from foreign interference, by ensuring political campaigns are informed of the laws banning foreign interference and are prepared to comply and report any attempts of foreign interference.
In this perilous moment for our republic, we believe it should be a top priority for this Congress to repair our democracy, including ensuring that no future president is permitted to abuse the power of their office.
If enacted, the Protecting Our Democracy Act would protect against future presidential abuses of power, restore the integrity of our democratic institutions, and ensure transparency from the chief executive.
Given the urgency of this crisis and for these reasons, we call on you to swiftly pass this critical legislation. Sincerely,
20/20 Vision, Academics Stand Against Poverty, Accountability Lab, Affiliation of Christian Engineers, American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Oversight, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Animals Are Sentient Beings, Inc., Arab American Institute (AAI), Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Labor alliance, AFL-CIO, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Beyond Pesticides, Blacks in Law Enforcement of America, Blue Wave Postcard Movement, Brave New Films, Brennan Center for Justice.
Campaign Legal Center, Center for American Progress, Center for Common Ground, Center for International Environmental Law, Center for International Policy, Center for Media and Democracy, Center for Progressive Reform, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Clean Elections Texas, Coalition of Labor Union Women, AFL-CIO, Columbia Legal Services, Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Community Research, Community Science Institute, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Corruption kills, Council for a Livable World, CovertAction Magazine.
Demand Progress, DemCast USA, Democracy 21, Democracy Fund Voice, Democracy Matters, Demos, Disaster Accountability Project, Eco-Justice Collaborative, End Citizens United//Let America Vote Action Fund, Equal Justice Society, Equal Rights Advocates, Essential Information, Faith in Public Life, Fix Democracy First, Fix the Court, Food & Water Watch, Franciscan Action Network, Free Speech Coalition, Inc., Free Speech For People.
Geos Institute, Global Integrity, Government Accountability Project, Government Information Watch, Green Delaware, Greenpeace USA, Hanford Challenge, Heart of America NW, Hip Hop Caucus, Human Environmental and Leadership Prevalent Center (HELP Center), Indivisible, Information Trust, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown Law, International Association of Whistleblowers, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Iowa Institute for Public Accountability, Keep Our Republic, Kentucky Environmental Foundation, Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), League of Women Voters of the United States, Mainers for Accountable Leadership, Michiganders for Fair and Transparent Elections, Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, MoneyOutVA, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, MoveOn, Muslim American Law Enforcement Association (MALEA), National Center for Health Research, National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, National Education Association, National Employment Law Project, National Organization for Women, National Security Counselors, National Voter Corps, National Whistleblower Center/Whistleblower Network News, National Workrights Institute, Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.
New American Leaders Action Fund, New Moral Majority, Niskanen Center, No More Guantanamos, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Open The Government, Our Bodies Ourselves, Pax Christi USA, People For the American Way, People's Parity Project, PRESS4WORD2020, Professional Managers Association, Project Blueprint, Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Protect All Children's Environment, Protect Democracy, Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Public Justice Center.
Republicans for the Rule of Law, Rock the Vote, RootsAction.org, S.T.O.P.--The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Secure Elections Network, Senior Executives Association, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, Sierra Club, SocioEnergetics Foundation, Sojourners, Stand Up America, Stand Up Republic, Strategies for Justice, BWMP LLC, Sustainable Energy & Economy Network, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, The Digital Democracy Project, The Ecotopian Society, The National Air Disaster Foundation, The National Vote, The Press Freedom Defense Fund of First Look Institute.
The Rutherford Institute, The Shalom Center, The Signals Network, The Workers Circle, Transparency International--U.S. Office, Truckers Justice Center, Tully Center for Free Speech, Un-PAC, Union of Concerned Scientists, Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice, UNITED SIKHS, Voices for Progress, Vote Vets, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), WESPAC Foundation, Inc., Whistleblowers of America, Win Without War, Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), Women's International League for Peace and Freedom US, Workplace Fairness, Worksafe, X-Lab.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support.
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding me time.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 5314, Protecting Our Democracy Act.
Democracy generates the notion and the idea that people will get and be engaged, involved, heard, and have their wishes met.
I agree with my colleague from Illinois when he said voters all over the country vote for us and they send us here. They vote for our colleagues in the Senate and send them there. We make laws. Then they expect those laws to be adhered to. No one is above them. No President.
And we are not obsessed with the former President, but we are obsessed with the idea and the hope that we will never have another administration like that one. And that is what this legislation is designed to do.
Madam Speaker, I urge support of this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is disappointing that my friend from Virginia would spew disinformation about what States are doing. Every State is making it easier to vote but harder to cheat, and he knows that.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership.
Madam Speaker, it is not about President Trump but it is about his behavior. But it is overall about the sanctity of democracy and the recognition that behaviors result in the final destination that challenges the very core of democracy. January 6, 2021, when Members duly sworn to take an oath to defend this Nation and to uphold the Constitution were cowering on the floor.
I stand with enormous support for the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Why? Because the Nation needs it and the world is watching. I stand to avoid the abuse of the pardon powers that existed clearly in the last administration. Need I give a long list of examples? Generals and best friends; or then enforcement of the foreign and domestic emolument clauses; the horrors of a hotel where many went to pay money into the coffers of a President of the United States or enforcement of Congressional subpoenas, the very authority that can protect democracy, reasserting Congressional power of the purse when dollars were manipulated and friends got a lot of dollars.
So I am believing that this is imperative, security from political interference injustice. I might think a noose hanging in the front to insist that Vice President Pence be arrested or hung might be an interference. I do want to acknowledge the amendment that I offered, very quickly.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Natural Resources and Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of the United States.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, our democracy is precious and it must be protected. The last administration did test and attack it. We know we must take action against tyranny. Tyranny battered our doors on January 6, and on this floor today, we are going to fight back and strengthen our democracy. This act restores accountability, ensures no one--no one, not even, and more importantly, never the President--is above the law.
Foreign governments are interfering in our elections. The last President welcomed and clamored for interference in his bid for reelection. This bill in contrast protects whistleblowers, it roots out corruption, it prevents Presidential abuses of power to keep our system of checks and balances sound.
These principles are not partisan, they are simply American. There is nothing more American than voting for a bill to protect our democracy and the future of our Nation.
Madam Speaker, I stand and I ask all my colleagues to stand with our Constitution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky for yielding.
Madam Speaker, our most basic duty of the Federal Government should be protecting the right for our citizens to vote, but we are not doing everything we can to protect that. A disturbing trend across the country is that more and more States and localities are allowing noncitizens to vote. Furthermore, many States are conducting elections that rely on wildly outdated voter lists, many of which include these noncitizens.
In some States, such as California, the voter rolls are so outdated that they have more registered voters than people who reside in the State. This creates a potential for our citizens' votes to be diluted. LA County had over 1.5 million ineligible people on their voter rolls. A suit filed by a nonpartisan watch dog alleged that LA County had 112 percent of its adult citizens registered to vote.
Under pressure, California and LA County finally agreed to clean up their voter rolls in 2019. Unfortunately, when then-California Secretary of State Alex Padilla appeared before my committee in 2020, he could not confirm that many of those ineligible people had actually been removed from California's unmaintained voter rolls. I do not have a lot of faith that California is doing everything it can to protect the integrity of our elections.
And then there is New York City, which just decided to allow nearly a million noncitizens to vote in city elections. New York can make its own bad decisions, but it is our job to ensure that we protect Federal elections. Common sense will tell you that combining noncitizens and eligible American voters on the same voter rolls is ripe for abuse.
I will also use a final example from my home State of Illinois. In Illinois, noncitizens cannot vote, and if they do, they face major legal consequences and could be deported. But in 2016, Illinois' automatic voter registration program mistakenly registered to vote more than 500 noncitizens who had done the right thing by checking the box stating that they are not citizens on their driver's license application. However, several of these noncitizens voted in the 2018 and 2019 elections.
This does nothing to bolster voter confidence in our elections; in fact, it does the opposite.
Not only does this undermine the integrity of our elections, the mistake by Illinois could have had dire consequences for these individuals, and it could be prevented if States were being forced to maintain accurate voter rolls. Whether intentional or not, we know this is happening. It is undermining the integrity of our elections.
This amendment would simply ensure those who are noncitizens who do not have the right to vote in Federal elections are removed from States' voter rolls. As someone who has attended many citizenship ceremonies as a Member of Congress, it is unthinkable that we have States undermining what it means to be a citizen of this great country.
My office has helped many immigrants go through the legal process to become American citizens, and there is nothing better than seeing them raise their right hand and swear to support and defend our Constitution; to swear to bear arms in defense of this Nation; to swear allegiance to this great country.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, there is nothing better than to think that their vote, something they worked hard to get, the right to vote on something that they worked hard to get the right to do is being undermined. That is unthinkable.
Let's pass this amendment to ensure only citizens are voting in our elections and prevent States from putting noncitizens at risk of intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law and illegally voting in our elections.
We will offer this solution as a motion to recommit. If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Oversight and Reform to consider an amendment to ensure States remove noncitizens from their voter rolls as part of a regular comprehensive list maintenance program.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding.
I was just sitting on the floor and it occurred to me, as I listened to the debate, that the point just has to be made that the majority is so obsessed with Donald Trump that they will run roughshod over the Constitution to continue to try to persecute him.
Do they not see that they twice-impeached him and the court of impeachment twice acquitted him?
Do they defer to the decision of our constitutional process in terms of what was just characterized that the President did? Or do they stubbornly override that and continue to pursue him endlessly, despite what our processes and constitutional provisions require and provide for?
What about the provision requiring Presidents, who the Constitution specifies the qualifications for office, that they be required to submit private tax returns in order to pursue that office? Perhaps, if you'd like it, if it is a tradition to do so, for you to impose it by law means you disregard the Constitution of the United States.
To what end will you go? To what end will you go to prevail?
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), the distinguished vice chair of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the distinguished chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, wow, I heard Donald Trump's name mentioned at least a dozen times by my colleagues across the aisle. I am sincerely glad that the Democrats spent so much time investigating the President for wrongdoing. I am glad that they issued subpoenas investigating the President for wrongdoing. I am very happy that, in all the investigations conducted by the Intelligence Committee and Oversight and Reform Committee, they did not find one ounce of wrongdoing committed by President Trump.
I am also happy that they investigated President Trump's children. I think that is fair game. I can promise the American people that very soon there will be that type of oversight for the Biden administration and the President's son, Hunter, who is in the news almost on a daily basis for things that just don't add up. They just don't look good. That oversight is coming. The American people can count on that.
Madam Speaker, after nearly a year in power, it is time for Democrats to actually start governing and abandon their obsession with Donald Trump.
H.R. 5314 is full of bad policy that diminishes the power of the executive branch and entrenches Washington bureaucrats making law based on false conspiracy theories of the bill's sponsor.
The bill has not proceeded through regular order and is a Frankenstein's monster stitched together from various committees' jurisdictions, while other whole portions have never undergone committee review at all.
There has been no attempt to seriously vet these substantial changes, minimal cooperation with the minority, and no apparent path for the bill in the Senate.
In other words, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5314 is a messaging bill to bolster the fundraising efforts of Democrat Members in preparation for the 2022 midterms. The Democratic Party should try governing instead.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and oppose this reckless legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my very good friend and colleague, Mr. Comer, that President Trump is no longer President. This bill is not about President Trump. If anyone, it is about President Biden and our future Presidents and having more oversight, accountability, and transparency.
Now, addressed in this bill are past abuses that have occurred. This is not about the past; it is about the future. It is about the future of our democracy and the strength of our democracy.
Democrats are not standing alone. The reforms in this bill have broad support from over 150 outstanding groups, including the Brennan Center for Justice, the Project On Government Oversight, and many others. I have included that list in the Record.
Madam Speaker, the Protecting Our Democracy Act is a historic package of prodemocracy reforms to create or strengthen guardrails and prevent the abuse of executive power. Many of the provisions in our bill have broad bipartisan support and have literally been authored by Republicans.
You yourself at the Rules Committee said that the President should release his taxes. You said that.
These are issues that both sides of the aisle should be supporting. It is time for Congress to restore our authorities as a coequal branch of power.
Madam Speaker, this is about the future, the strengthening of our democracy, and I urge strong support from all of my colleagues. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in strengthening democracy and urge them to vote with Republicans for this very important reform bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendments en bloc.
This protecting the swamp act is full of bad policy and disregards regular order. H.R. 5314 is designed purely for Democrats to talk about all of their failed conspiracy theories about the former President. In fact, this bill looks more like a fundraising campaign than an effort to provide legislative solutions.
My Democratic colleagues should be working with Republicans to address and solve the problems President Biden and his administration have created for the American people, not pushing through hyperpartisan legislation.
While this en bloc package of amendments has several legitimate, good ideas, there are too many that make this bad bill worse. While commonsense proposals such as strengthening minority rights for Oversight and Reform Committee members, Freedom of Information Act reform, and an inspector general for the Office of Management and Budget are perfectly reasonable solutions for the House to consider, most of the amendments in this bloc make a very bad bill much worse.
Overall, these amendments entrench and slow down the Federal bureaucracy, intrude on the executive branch's powers, and strip a duly elected President of the ability to effectively manage the executive branch.
I am not sure if Democrats' distrust of the executive branch is because of their hatred for the former President or their lack of faith in the current President. Either way, Republicans should not support attempts to degrade the Office of the President.
The few good amendments in this bloc proposed by Republicans are simply drowned out by bad policy. If Democrats were serious about engaging with Republicans, then they should have worked with us through the normal legislative process during which we could have effectively vetted these measures in the committees of jurisdiction.
Americans are struggling with the highest inflation in 30 years, worried about the safety of their communities, and eager to get their children back to school. The majority is flatly ignoring the American people to instead talk about former President Trump. These amendments offered by Democrats in this package only move this bill further away from addressing the immediate concerns of Americans.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of California (Mr. Correa), who is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Management, and Accountability.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who is the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, they say this bill is not about President Trump, but every speaker mentioned President Trump multiple times.
Scott Franklin).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Scanlon), the distinguished vice chair of the Committee on House Administration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendments en bloc.
In this package is my amendment, the IG Stability Act, which clearly shows where we should be able to come together and pass bipartisan inspector general reforms.
Inspectors general play a critical role in rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal Government. They help Congress, and especially the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, in conducting oversight of executive branch offices and Federal agencies.
Yet, just like in every profession, occasionally there have been either poor performers or those who have acted outside their mandates. With respect to poor performers, we had, in my opinion, a very poor performing Election Assistance Commission IG, and she resigned after we started calling for her to do her job. In those situations, the President should have the flexibility to remove an inspector general.
The Democrats' proposal would dramatically limit the President's authority to remove an inspector general for dereliction of duty or undermining the policies of a duly elected President.
My amendment mirrors bipartisan language in the Senate which requires a detailed rationale to be provided to Congress prior to the removal of an IG. This ensures Congress has adequate oversight of the removal of an IG without preventing a President from removing an IG who is undermining them.
Further, my amendment would help remedy the ongoing concern about IG vacancies, which has been a recurring problem in Republican and Democrat administrations. My amendment requires the President to notify Congress if they fail to fill a vacancy and provide a written explanation with a target date for nomination.
This amendment ensures that the IG community is adequately staffed to conduct nonpartisan oversight over Federal agencies.
This provision has already passed the House this year as part of the bipartisan Inspector General Protection Act, H.R. 23. Yet, the Democrats are now putting this commonsense, bipartisan amendment in an en bloc designed to fail. Why? They are not interested in real reform; they are just interested in messaging, messaging campaigns for the 2022 midterm elections, which by all accounts aren't looking very bright for my friends across the aisle.
This amendment and Mr. Burgess' amendment should be accepted, not shoved aside.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, again, they say it is not about Donald Trump, but every speaker on that side of the aisle spent a significant percentage of their time talking about Donald Trump.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York.
The underlying bill is about the future, the future of our democracy. It is about strengthening our democracy. These amendments would gut the underlying bill, the Protecting Our Democracy Act.
I support the bill, because it includes reforms, such as curbing the abuse of the pardon power, increasing penalties for political appointees who violate the Hatch Act, strengthening whistleblower protections and IG protections, and it would require the President and Vice President to reveal their taxes, among other reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this package of amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I must say that the GAO plays an important role in the legislative branch, but with matters of national security, we must ensure protocols are followed to prevent unauthorized disclosures of national security information. With this amendment, it is unclear whether those protocols are being met, creating a potential national security risk.
Further, the House Intelligence Committee already has the authority to task GAO, when necessary and appropriate, to conduct reviews of the intelligence community and to ensure GAO receives appropriate information from the intelligence community. The House Intelligence Committee has done this several times in the past, making this amendment moot.
Again, this is why we needed to go through regular order on the various bills stitched together in the underlying bill. The committees need to have an opportunity to vet bills, including amendments such as these, before they come to the floor of the House. That is how we ensure good bills are passed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, every time Chairman Schiff rises to speak on a bill about intelligence and security and holding the President accountable, I get excited, hoping that we are going to hear about that evidence of collusion and all the other investigations that were conducted in this House over the past year.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. I think everyone is aware of every bit of information that you all have tried to peddle over the past 4 years.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. I think we see every day. Facebook just announced that Russia was trying to do a Facebook campaign in Ukraine, if I remember reading that correctly.
Mr. Schiff, would you yield to a question from me?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Would you yield to a question?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. I think it is great. Are you aware of President Biden's son Hunter's art dealings?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Are you aware of the President's son's dealings in Congo with the cobalt mine? Are you aware of the dealings in Ukraine?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. I think that everyone has seen all the information, again, that you all have peddled. I am curious if you would like to take a wager on which President's child, which President's son, at the end of the day, once we have the gavel, will be the greatest security risk to our Nation, Hunter Biden or--
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. I reclaim my time. They spent a lot of time, a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of tax dollars on trying to peddle a lot of wrongdoing in the previous administration.
This bill is all about the previous administration. Every speaker on their side of the aisle has mentioned Donald Trump's name numerous times, every speaker. It is time for the majority party to focus on governing and get over their obsession with Donald Trump.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source